[JasonQG]

I have a 12" PowerBook and an HDTV set with a VGA input that supports 1080i. I have been unsuccessfully attempting to hook up my PB to the TV. I downloaded the program SwitchRes, and was able to activate 1920x1080 output, but all I got on the TV was a garbled, purple image. Has anyone successfully done such a thing?

[kupan787]

Originally posted by JasonQG:
I have a 12" PowerBook and an HDTV set with a VGA input that supports 1080i. I have been unsuccessfully attempting to hook up my PB to the TV. I downloaded the program SwitchRes, and was able to activate 1920x1080 output, but all I got on the TV was a garbled, purple image. Has anyone successfully done such a thing?

Ya, my HDTV has a DVI port on it, so I was interested in perhaps hooking up my tower to it. Is that really possible to do, or could it some how damage things?

[Riemann Zeta]

A shot in the dark:

Your HDTV was designed to accept 1080i inputs, meaning 1080 lines of interlaced picture (540 lines per frame, alternating at 60 Hz). The computer outputs progressive scan at twice the frequency (1080 lines per frame, firing at 60 Hz, all TVs that do progressive scan are 30Hz iirc). Hence, the TV will not understand the computer unless the computer is outputing at 1080i, 60Hz.

[carnagex2000]

Just use your s-video (adapter) out that came with you 12" powerbook, your HDTV should have s-video inputs (my XBR Sony does)

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by carnagex2000:
Just use your s-video (adapter) out that came with you 12" powerbook, your HDTV should have s-video inputs (my XBR Sony does)

Problem with using the s-video is two-fold.

1) image quality

2) the s-video output (at least on my Ti) is only designed for standard computer resolutions (read SQUARE) and not very high at that (and definitely not progressive... always interlaced). This has a twofold downside in that the image quality is subpar (even moreso than s-video as opposed to digital), and if you have a 16:9 TV (like me) that output is stretched.

I've found that for watching DivX movies and such, 800x600 through the s-video and then using one of the scaling modes (zoom1) on my TV (Samsung 30" 16:9 HDTV) looks "OK", but it still looks like complete ass compared to my DVD player w/ component video (aside from the obvious difference in DivX/DVD video quality).

I'd love to find some sort of DVI->component adapter w/ resolution/sync rate auto-detection. I remember that ATI released such a device for certain RADEON all-in-wonder cards... and I know there are a couple of (VERY) expensive high-end commercial solutions available... anyone know of something that I (and other PB owners) could feasibly afford that might do this?

It'd be really kick ass if I could play a game like War3 in 1080i (or 720p) rez on my widescreen, or preview authored DVD's at reasonable quality before burning them to a DVD-R

[MaxPower2k3]

if your HDTV has a VGA port, then it's dedicated to computer use. no high-end (or even low-end) home theater equipment uses VGA, except to connect to computers. that said, i've also never seen a TV that supported higher than 1024x768 (or, at least, non-standard (i.e. widescreen)) resolutions through VGA, probably to remain compatible with more computers/video cards. try lowering the resolution to 1024x768 and see how that looks, or read the section in your TV's manual about the VGA port.

now, DVI is another story. DVI IS used in high-end home-theater equipment, as a way to provide a direct digital-digital connection between the video source and the HDTV. it produces a much better picture, since the data does not have to be converted to an analog signal before being passed through component cables and converted back to digital at the TV end. the DVI standard used in home theaters is basically the same as the one used by computers (it supports multiple resolutions, refresh rates, etc.) except for built in copy protection, to keep people from copying movies off of a DVI-equipped DVD player. Whether or not you can hook a computer up to the TV through DVI or not depends on the TV, and what resolutions it can accept. If you can set the computer to 1280x720, then it should work on the TV (contrary to the previous poster, progressive scan video is 60 frames a second, not 30).

[JasonQG]

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:
A shot in the dark:

Your HDTV was designed to accept 1080i inputs, meaning 1080 lines of interlaced picture (540 lines per frame, alternating at 60 Hz). The computer outputs progressive scan at twice the frequency (1080 lines per frame, firing at 60 Hz, all TVs that do progressive scan are 30Hz iirc). Hence, the TV will not understand the computer unless the computer is outputing at 1080i, 60Hz.

Yeah, so does anybody know if it's possible to do interlaced output on the PB? It seems like it should be, since they used to sell interlaced monitors. (Not that it matters to this conversation, but progressive scan is 60Hz, BTW)

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
if your HDTV has a VGA port, then it's dedicated to computer use. no high-end (or even low-end) home theater equipment uses VGA, except to connect to computers. that said, i've also never seen a TV that supported higher than 1024x768 (or, at least, non-standard (i.e. widescreen)) resolutions through VGA, probably to remain compatible with more computers/video cards. try lowering the resolution to 1024x768 and see how that looks, or read the section in your TV's manual about the VGA port.

Believe it or not, the VGA input is designed for 1080i. I don't know what they expect you to use it with, but that's what the manual says, and when I switch to that mode on the TV, it says "1080i" in the corner. 1024x768 doesn't work.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by JasonQG:
It seems like it should be, since they used to sell interlaced monitors.

they did? i haven't seen an interlaced computer monitor since, well, as far back as i can remember (though i guess i'm not old enough for my working knowledge to go back that far) but reading text (or pretty much anything else) off of an interlaced image for any period of time would kill your eyes.

[JasonQG]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
they did? i haven't seen an interlaced computer monitor since, well, as far back as i can remember (though i guess i'm not old enough for my working knowledge to go back that far) but reading text (or pretty much anything else) off of an interlaced image for any period of time would kill your eyes.

Well, it's been quite a few years since they did, but I remember it was still something you had to look out for back when I was shopping for my 486.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by JasonQG:
Well, it's been quite a few years since they did, but I remember it was still something you had to look out for back when I was shopping for my 486.

well, i could be wrong, but i don't think it's such a high priority for Apple to keep compatibility with 10 year old x86 computers

[JasonQG]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
well, i could be wrong, but i don't think it's such a high priority for Apple to keep compatibility with 10 year old x86 computers

Compatability has never been their strong suit, which annoys me. I'm not asking for them to be compatable with old monitors; I'm asking them to be compatible with HDTV. In the PC world, there are even component HDTV adapters available. I'm just asking for VGA compatability. Get with the times, Apple.

And besides, they should be compatible with old monitors. My monitor from my 486 still works. If I had gotten an interlaced one, I apparently wouldn't be able to use it for my extended desktop.

[MaxPower2k3]

i think the segment of mac users who want to connect their computer to their HDTV is so small it's not worth it for apple to cater to them, especially since the majority of HDTVs have VGA inputs that accept standard computer resolutions (yours is obviously an exception). as for the PC world, there are firewire boxes that accept Component input/output on the Mac side too, but they're expensive and aimed at the niche market of people who edit in high def, or just have to watch HD on their computer.

as for compatibility with old monitors, there has to be a point where technology becomes completely obsolete. you say Apple isn't good at compatibility, but i doubt that monitor would work with any modern PC video card either. if Macs (and PCs, for that matter) were truly backwards compatible, they would have to support software and hardware from every model ever made before it. do you know how much more time and development that would take, for something that would be used by barely anyone? sure, some people may have an old .5 GB hard drive laying around, or an old word processor they used to use, but with the technology now being so much more advanced than that, why would you WANT to use it? that monitor you're talking about probably has a maximum resolution of 640x480, if that, and probably not the thousands of colors OSX needs.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
contrary to the previous poster, progressive scan video is 60 frames a second, not 30

That depends on how you are defining it. If you are talking about actual video frames (different images), it is still 30. But each one of those is painted twice on the screen, hence you get 60 as the frequency rate.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by coolmacdude:
That depends on how you are defining it. If you are talking about actual video frames (different images), it is still 30. But each one of those is painted twice on the screen, hence you get 60 as the frequency rate.

not true. in HD video (or, in 720p, at least) there are 60 separate frames of video per second. i'm almost positive of this, and my dad works at a TV station so i'll ask him in a minute and see.

[MaxPower2k3]

just asked him, and i was right; true progressive HD video is 60 separate frames per second. Now, upconverted SD might be 30 frames repeated twice, but that's different.

[JasonQG]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
i think the segment of mac users who want to connect their computer to their HDTV is so small it's not worth it for apple to cater to them

It's something that will only grow more popular, though.

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
as for the PC world, there are firewire boxes that accept Component input/output on the Mac side too, but they're expensive and aimed at the niche market of people who edit in high def, or just have to watch HD on their computer.

I'm talking about low-cost adapters that ATI sells, and even includes with some of their cards. Maybe nVidia is the one to blame here, and the 15" PBs with the ATI cards can handle it.

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
as for compatibility with old monitors, there has to be a point where technology becomes completely obsolete. you say Apple isn't good at compatibility, but i doubt that monitor would work with any modern PC video card either. if Macs (and PCs, for that matter) were truly backwards compatible, they would have to support software and hardware from every model ever made before it. do you know how much more time and development that would take, for something that would be used by barely anyone? sure, some people may have an old .5 GB hard drive laying around, or an old word processor they used to use, but with the technology now being so much more advanced than that, why would you WANT to use it? that monitor you're talking about probably has a maximum resolution of 640x480, if that, and probably not the thousands of colors OSX needs.

You know, you can still run DOS programs from 1981 on Windows, and I like that. I don't have a use for it, but it's nice to know it's there. Some people do have old, specialty DOS programs they need. About the monitor thing, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to support it. I'm not talking about ancient monochrome monitors. My monitor from the 486 era is 1024x768 and supports millions of colors. It will work with the Mac, but if it had been an interlaced model, it might not. Then again, it might. I don't have an interlaced monitor to test with, so this is all speculation.

In any case, I don't really want to argue about backwards compatability. All I want to do is get high-res output on my HDTV without having to move my PC or run long cables across the house.

[MaxPower2k3]

you're right, i didn't know about those ATI adapters.

out of curiosity, what model is your TV?

[JasonQG]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
out of curiosity, what model is your TV?

Philips 34PW9818

[MaxPower2k3]

i can't find anything in the manual or on the site about using the VGA port, besides that it's there, so i'm not sure. try setting your computer resolution to 1280x720, and since it uses progressive, that'll be 720p, and maybe you'll 'fool it' into thinking the computer is a set top box...

[JasonQG]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
i can't find anything in the manual or on the site about using the VGA port, besides that it's there, so i'm not sure. try setting your computer resolution to 1280x720, and since it uses progressive, that'll be 720p, and maybe you'll 'fool it' into thinking the computer is a set top box...

Unfortunately, this TV doesn't support 720P. The only mention of the VGA port is on page 10 of this manual:
http://www.consumer.philips.com/glob...818_us_man.pdf

[MaxPower2k3]

yeah, i looked in that PDF before. it mentions it, but doesn't really say anything other than 'plug in the computer here' so it's not much help. most TVs will accept 720p video sources and just upconvert (or downconvert, depending on your opinion) to 1080i, so maybe try setting the res to 1280x720 anyway. beyond that, though, i'm out of ideas

[n_lim]

I have often wondered about this as well. Unfortunately, I have the prior model to the one which JasonQG has, the Philips 34PW9817 and I don't think it supports a vga input even. I have moderately satisfied with running the s-video and using a zoom mode, but a digitally cleaner connection would be great. I think that this segment of users is definitely only bound to grow!

[superlarry]

Originally posted by JasonQG:
My monitor from the 486 era is 1024x768 and supports millions of colors. It will work with the Mac, but if it had been an interlaced model, it might not. Then again, it might. I don't have an interlaced monitor to test with, so this is all speculation.

I have one to test it with - it works in 640x480 and 800x600 at 56 and 60 Hz, but not at 1024x768, which will only run in interlaced mode on this monitor (an old IBM SVGA).

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
not true. in HD video (or, in 720p, at least) there are 60 separate frames of video per second. i'm almost positive of this, and my dad works at a TV station so i'll ask him in a minute and see.

You did not say "HD video" in your first post. You said "progressive scan." My def was correct for SD progressive scan. Yours was for HD progressive. Since I assumed you were referring to the VGA output, that is an SD source.

[JasonQG]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
yeah, i looked in that PDF before. it mentions it, but doesn't really say anything other than 'plug in the computer here' so it's not much help. most TVs will accept 720p video sources and just upconvert (or downconvert, depending on your opinion) to 1080i, so maybe try setting the res to 1280x720 anyway. beyond that, though, i'm out of ideas

The PB doesn't do 1280x720 or any resolution with 720 lines.

Originally posted by superlarry:
I have one to test it with - it works in 640x480 and 800x600 at 56 and 60 Hz, but not at 1024x768, which will only run in interlaced mode on this monitor (an old IBM SVGA).

That's not too promising.

I wonder if it's Apple or nVidia who's "at fault" here.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by coolmacdude:
You did not say "HD video" in your first post. You said "progressive scan." My def was correct for SD progressive scan. Yours was for HD progressive. Since I assumed you were referring to the VGA output, that is an SD source.

well, no, a VGA input can't really be defined as either, since it can carry almost any resolution. standard definition (in NTSC, at least) is 720x480 (or thereabouts) and interlaced. High Definition is either 1280x720 progressive or 1920x1080 interlaced (and, in a year or two, 1080p may become more common). I'm not really sure where 480p or 525i/p fall, maybe EDTV. The VGA standard does not define a particular 'source', it's just a method of carrying video. you COULD put 480i on it and it would be SD, or you could put 1080i on it and it would be HD.

VGA is just another type of RGB plug (which has R, G, B, Horizontal sync, and Vertical Sync, i think) which can use either one VGA cable, BNC connectors, or, sometimes, RCA connectors. This is as opposed to Component, which is Y, Pr, and Pb (despite the red, green, and blue plugs). Because of the true channel separation, (separate cables for each primary color) RGB (in whatever cable form) is the best-looking analog source, with component behind it.

[Shaddim]

Isn't 720p the same as 720 Non-Interlaced? If so, input 800x600, which would be 600p (1200i), which should downconvert to 1080i rather easily. Or send, 640x480, for 480p (progressive DVD std). I'd say that your PB's output is just running at too high of a frequency for your TV handle.

I found this refurbed at local RCA outlet store for $80.

http://www.rca.com/product/viewdetai...CI205,00.html?

I'm very pleased with the quality on my Hitachi 36" HDTV. It automatically converts 1024x760 and the picture is stunning.

[direktor]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
just asked him, and i was right; true progressive HD video is 60 separate frames per second. Now, upconverted SD might be 30 frames repeated twice, but that's different.

DTV video comes in the following flavors:

1080/60 interlaced, meaning that you see 60 HALF resolution frames per second.

1080/30 progressive. One sees 30 distinct images per second this way.

1080/24 progressive. Mainly an acquisition format, which is converted to others. Last Star Wars film was shot this way. Starting to move in on motion picture cameras former territory.

720/60 progressive. Lower resolution, but you get 60 FULL resolution frames per second.

720/30 progressive. I think you can guess what this means.

There are more, but these are the main formats usually described as HDTV.

[JasonQG]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Isn't 720p the same as 720 Non-Interlaced? If so, input 800x600, which would be 600p (1200i), which should downconvert to 1080i rather easily. Or send, 640x480, for 480p (progressive DVD std). I'd say that your PB's output is just running at too high of a frequency for your TV handle.

I've tried everything. The only thing it's even close to accpeting is 1920x1080. For that, I get a garbled image, which is probably because it expects interlaced. Every other resolution produces a blue screen. The TV doesn't appear to do any type of scalling, so unless there's some trick to get the PB to do interlaced output, it appears I'm out of luck.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I found this refurbed at local RCA outlet store for $80.

http://www.rca.com/product/viewdetai...CI205,00.html?

I can't tell if that would be able to convert my non-interlaced output to 1080i, and $80 is more than I want to spend on a gamble at this time.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by direktor:
DTV video comes in the following flavors:

1080/60 interlaced, meaning that you see 60 HALF resolution frames per second.

1080/30 progressive. One sees 30 distinct images per second this way.

1080/24 progressive. Mainly an acquisition format, which is converted to others. Last Star Wars film was shot this way. Starting to move in on motion picture cameras former territory.

720/60 progressive. Lower resolution, but you get 60 FULL resolution frames per second.

720/30 progressive. I think you can guess what this means.

There are more, but these are the main formats usually described as HDTV.

but the formats normally used by TVs are 1080i and 720p. i've never seen a TV that supported 1080p (30fps) or 720p at 30fps. 1080p at 24fps is used to keep compatible with film (which is also 24fps) and one TV on the market currently supports 1080p/60fps (a Toshiba LCoS display that runs about $8000 for the 50" model) and that just upconverts all sources to that resolution.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
well, no, a VGA input can't really be defined as either, since it can carry almost any resolution. standard definition (in NTSC, at least) is 720x480 (or thereabouts) and interlaced. High Definition is either 1280x720 progressive or 1920x1080 interlaced (and, in a year or two, 1080p may become more common). I'm not really sure where 480p or 525i/p fall, maybe EDTV. The VGA standard does not define a particular 'source', it's just a method of carrying video. you COULD put 480i on it and it would be SD, or you could put 1080i on it and it would be HD.

VGA is just another type of RGB plug (which has R, G, B, Horizontal sync, and Vertical Sync, i think) which can use either one VGA cable, BNC connectors, or, sometimes, RCA connectors. This is as opposed to Component, which is Y, Pr, and Pb (despite the red, green, and blue plugs). Because of the true channel separation, (separate cables for each primary color) RGB (in whatever cable form) is the best-looking analog source, with component behind it.

While that may be true, VGA output from a Powerbook graphics card (what the original poster was asking about) is always progressive. AFAIK there is no way to do interlaced output.