This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
DisplayPort article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I suggest to mark HDCP and DPCP as anti-feature Uis9936 ( talk) 12:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, do we really need this many of them? Monitor manuals don't contain this much information about supported display modes. They tell you what DisplayPort or HDMI version you need to be using to run at max resolution and color depth, which is where anybody who needs it will find this information.
To make matters worse, why the heck is there an HDR table that's really just a 10bpc table? Windows is happy to run HDR games and play back HDR10 movies at 8 (dithered), 10, or 12 bits (technically I think both of those are still dithered from internal 16-bit float representations too, but it isn't visible), so it really has nothing to do with supported resolutions. Normally you wouldn't have a displayport compatible display that was limited to 8-bit color, but I suppose a DP->HDMI adapter and a target display that only supports HDMI 2.0 combined with not wanting the desktop to look like garbage due to chroma subsampling might be a reason. HDR10 is foggy about how the content is actually played back. Lots of PC based players can tone-map it to SDR and avoid the need for a display with explicit support entirely.
Then there's the whole deal with at least 3 of the tables duplicating or providing needlessly similar information; we've got:
Refresh frequency limites for common resolutions: plenty of refresh rates nothing in existence supports, but whatever.
Refresh frequency limits for standard video: either we're talking about video or we're talking about monitor resolutions; if it's video there are too many listed and if it's resolutions it's missing about 20 more, plus there's a table of limits directly above that makes this redundant information... The non-"standard" video resolutions here are wide HD mode, 2560x1440, 4k (practically never encoded at 8-bit except by non-video oriented cameras and many phones), 5k (not standard at all, a couple of apple displays used it?), and 8k (not used very often in practice).
Refresh frequency limits for HDR video: explicitly starts talking about HDR10, which is a broadcast / video standard, and if we assume that's what it's meant to cover the entire table is incorrect because HDR10 video is also 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampled, or else it's the Dolby Vision variation and is 12-bit 4:2:2 subsampled... both of those have the same frequency limits in practice.
To top all that nonsense off we get arbitrary lists of supported resolutions and refresh rates in no less than 3 other different sections, as though someone had a severe OCD fit and had to calculate at least 5 variations for every resolution and wash their hands 20 times or they couldn't leave their house.
I wouldn't even mention this but I just tried to look up something about DP 2.1 really quick on mobile and couldn't even find a summary / history of versions section like there is towards the start of most other computer interconnect type pages on wikipedia. Then the tables mess wrecked the ability to scroll correctly without a stylus, I noticed the total lack of useful information being conveyed, attempted to will myself to die, failed, and decided to come point this stuff out.
I'm not fixing it because I'm actually kind of terrified of whatever mind decided to calculate all of this stuff and what kind of spree removing any of it might send them on. A Shortfall Of Gravitas ( talk) 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I just stumbled on this in the article. The article states:
HDMI can accept longer maximum cable length than DisplayPort (30 meters vs 15 meters).
While this seems fine at first glance, the comparison is inaccurate or "not fair". If we assume that with "maximum cable length" we are talking about the specifications of each, we have the following:
Now the question is should this point be removed entirely or clarified to include this disparity? Mihawk90 ( talk) 11:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
How can we calculate, what max. Resolution on (for example) 10bit, 4:4:4 on 8k is possible with DP 2.1 and DSC ? So what maximum compression Ratio can DSC deliver actually?
How far down is it "visually lossless" ? I mean, the more compression, the more visual loss. So would 8K 240Hz be possible with DP2.1 and DSC (10 Bit 4:4:4)? 2A02:1210:8CF9:D100:D9A5:FB86:AC84:9418 ( talk) 15:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
In the table on the right there under “Electrical” are some voltages and currents specified with unclear meaning. DisplayPort doesn’t use 3.3 V for its signals. It uses differential signaling where the exact voltages aren’t specified, but the voltages (both the common mode bias and the differential voltage) should always stay way below 3.3 V. The DisplayPort connector has one supply pin though to power e. g. a DP to HDMI adapter. This pin supplies up to 0.5 A at 3.3 V. So this entry in the table could be renamed e. g. to supply voltage to make it correct. Additionally it is unclear to me, what the “Max. voltage” and “Max. current” entries mean. The latter could mean the supply current of the aforementioned pin, but then this should probably be stated explicitly. I don’t know of any voltage value that should reach 16 V, so this entry makes no sense to me. It should either be clarified or removed if there is no such voltage.
Another problem in this article is that at multiple places it talks about DP to HDMI adapters having to convert the signals from 3.3 V to 5 V. This is wrong as neither DisplayPort uses logic levels of 3.3 V (see above) nor does HDMI use 5 V logic levels. They both use differential signaling where the exact differential voltages aren’t specified, but are both way below 1 V. -- Lukas.fink1 ( talk) 21:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Over the years, it has been mentioned on numerous occasions, such as here and here, that large portions of this article read like a technical whitepaper or manual. There is a gratuitous use of unexplained jargon and terminology used throughout that only makes sense to an expert or specialist. The first section is "Versions", which goes right into describing features like color space, link layers, Adaptive Sync, etc., which are never explained. Readers with zero knowledge of what these things mean will see this as technical jargon and find it useless. There's plenty more of that scattered throughout the article.
Per
WP:TECHNICAL: "An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field...
"
As noted in WP:UPFRONT, we need to push the highly technical portions of the article to the bottom and lead with a high-level overview that's easy to understand. A while back, we had an Overview section that followed the lead, which attempted to describe the basics of DisplayPort technology that appealed to a general audience. At some point, this was abolished and partially merged into the lead unnecessarily (which actually violates WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). We need to consider reinstating that section to help ease readers into the article. Eventually, I'd like to weed out as much unnecessary technical jargon as possible, but for now, pushing that to the bottom will suffice. If anyone has any thoughts, please weigh in here. I'll give it some time before making any cleanup attempts, thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 03:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Glenwing, I see that you reverted my edit. The
YCbCr article describes YCbCr, Y′CbCr, or Y Pb/Cb Pr/Cr, also written as YCBCR or Y′CBCR
as a family of color spaces
. Is that description incorrect? Adding to the confusion is that the standards in the "colorspaces" section aren't strictly colorspaces.
ITU-R BT.709, for example, is a very broad specification for encoding and signal characteristics that happens to include a color-space definition, for example.
The reference describes the "colorspaces" in this table as "colorimetry specifications". Is that more accurate?
The table isn't too approachable, and I think that also should be fixed. Linking to other wiki articles that explain the concepts being enumerated in the table would be helpful. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 02:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
DisplayPort article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I suggest to mark HDCP and DPCP as anti-feature Uis9936 ( talk) 12:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, do we really need this many of them? Monitor manuals don't contain this much information about supported display modes. They tell you what DisplayPort or HDMI version you need to be using to run at max resolution and color depth, which is where anybody who needs it will find this information.
To make matters worse, why the heck is there an HDR table that's really just a 10bpc table? Windows is happy to run HDR games and play back HDR10 movies at 8 (dithered), 10, or 12 bits (technically I think both of those are still dithered from internal 16-bit float representations too, but it isn't visible), so it really has nothing to do with supported resolutions. Normally you wouldn't have a displayport compatible display that was limited to 8-bit color, but I suppose a DP->HDMI adapter and a target display that only supports HDMI 2.0 combined with not wanting the desktop to look like garbage due to chroma subsampling might be a reason. HDR10 is foggy about how the content is actually played back. Lots of PC based players can tone-map it to SDR and avoid the need for a display with explicit support entirely.
Then there's the whole deal with at least 3 of the tables duplicating or providing needlessly similar information; we've got:
Refresh frequency limites for common resolutions: plenty of refresh rates nothing in existence supports, but whatever.
Refresh frequency limits for standard video: either we're talking about video or we're talking about monitor resolutions; if it's video there are too many listed and if it's resolutions it's missing about 20 more, plus there's a table of limits directly above that makes this redundant information... The non-"standard" video resolutions here are wide HD mode, 2560x1440, 4k (practically never encoded at 8-bit except by non-video oriented cameras and many phones), 5k (not standard at all, a couple of apple displays used it?), and 8k (not used very often in practice).
Refresh frequency limits for HDR video: explicitly starts talking about HDR10, which is a broadcast / video standard, and if we assume that's what it's meant to cover the entire table is incorrect because HDR10 video is also 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampled, or else it's the Dolby Vision variation and is 12-bit 4:2:2 subsampled... both of those have the same frequency limits in practice.
To top all that nonsense off we get arbitrary lists of supported resolutions and refresh rates in no less than 3 other different sections, as though someone had a severe OCD fit and had to calculate at least 5 variations for every resolution and wash their hands 20 times or they couldn't leave their house.
I wouldn't even mention this but I just tried to look up something about DP 2.1 really quick on mobile and couldn't even find a summary / history of versions section like there is towards the start of most other computer interconnect type pages on wikipedia. Then the tables mess wrecked the ability to scroll correctly without a stylus, I noticed the total lack of useful information being conveyed, attempted to will myself to die, failed, and decided to come point this stuff out.
I'm not fixing it because I'm actually kind of terrified of whatever mind decided to calculate all of this stuff and what kind of spree removing any of it might send them on. A Shortfall Of Gravitas ( talk) 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I just stumbled on this in the article. The article states:
HDMI can accept longer maximum cable length than DisplayPort (30 meters vs 15 meters).
While this seems fine at first glance, the comparison is inaccurate or "not fair". If we assume that with "maximum cable length" we are talking about the specifications of each, we have the following:
Now the question is should this point be removed entirely or clarified to include this disparity? Mihawk90 ( talk) 11:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
How can we calculate, what max. Resolution on (for example) 10bit, 4:4:4 on 8k is possible with DP 2.1 and DSC ? So what maximum compression Ratio can DSC deliver actually?
How far down is it "visually lossless" ? I mean, the more compression, the more visual loss. So would 8K 240Hz be possible with DP2.1 and DSC (10 Bit 4:4:4)? 2A02:1210:8CF9:D100:D9A5:FB86:AC84:9418 ( talk) 15:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
In the table on the right there under “Electrical” are some voltages and currents specified with unclear meaning. DisplayPort doesn’t use 3.3 V for its signals. It uses differential signaling where the exact voltages aren’t specified, but the voltages (both the common mode bias and the differential voltage) should always stay way below 3.3 V. The DisplayPort connector has one supply pin though to power e. g. a DP to HDMI adapter. This pin supplies up to 0.5 A at 3.3 V. So this entry in the table could be renamed e. g. to supply voltage to make it correct. Additionally it is unclear to me, what the “Max. voltage” and “Max. current” entries mean. The latter could mean the supply current of the aforementioned pin, but then this should probably be stated explicitly. I don’t know of any voltage value that should reach 16 V, so this entry makes no sense to me. It should either be clarified or removed if there is no such voltage.
Another problem in this article is that at multiple places it talks about DP to HDMI adapters having to convert the signals from 3.3 V to 5 V. This is wrong as neither DisplayPort uses logic levels of 3.3 V (see above) nor does HDMI use 5 V logic levels. They both use differential signaling where the exact differential voltages aren’t specified, but are both way below 1 V. -- Lukas.fink1 ( talk) 21:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Over the years, it has been mentioned on numerous occasions, such as here and here, that large portions of this article read like a technical whitepaper or manual. There is a gratuitous use of unexplained jargon and terminology used throughout that only makes sense to an expert or specialist. The first section is "Versions", which goes right into describing features like color space, link layers, Adaptive Sync, etc., which are never explained. Readers with zero knowledge of what these things mean will see this as technical jargon and find it useless. There's plenty more of that scattered throughout the article.
Per
WP:TECHNICAL: "An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field...
"
As noted in WP:UPFRONT, we need to push the highly technical portions of the article to the bottom and lead with a high-level overview that's easy to understand. A while back, we had an Overview section that followed the lead, which attempted to describe the basics of DisplayPort technology that appealed to a general audience. At some point, this was abolished and partially merged into the lead unnecessarily (which actually violates WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). We need to consider reinstating that section to help ease readers into the article. Eventually, I'd like to weed out as much unnecessary technical jargon as possible, but for now, pushing that to the bottom will suffice. If anyone has any thoughts, please weigh in here. I'll give it some time before making any cleanup attempts, thanks. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 03:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Glenwing, I see that you reverted my edit. The
YCbCr article describes YCbCr, Y′CbCr, or Y Pb/Cb Pr/Cr, also written as YCBCR or Y′CBCR
as a family of color spaces
. Is that description incorrect? Adding to the confusion is that the standards in the "colorspaces" section aren't strictly colorspaces.
ITU-R BT.709, for example, is a very broad specification for encoding and signal characteristics that happens to include a color-space definition, for example.
The reference describes the "colorspaces" in this table as "colorimetry specifications". Is that more accurate?
The table isn't too approachable, and I think that also should be fixed. Linking to other wiki articles that explain the concepts being enumerated in the table would be helpful. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 02:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)