DVI (computer) to HDMI MHL (monitor) - a few pre-sales questions

My wife's monitor has finally stopped working (looks as if it's the
backlight) so we're looking for a replacement.

Her PC's graphics card only has DVI outputs (no VGA, no HDMI). Modern
monitors usually have HDMI and DP inputs. I don't really want to get into
the realms of replacing the graphics card with a more modern HDMI-capable
one, on the grounds of "if it works, leave it alone".

It is possible to get a DVI-HDMI cable, which I presume involves no loss of
quality because it's digital all the way, whether on the pins of DVI or the
pins of HDMI connector. Is this the case?

Some monitors describe their HDMI ports as HDMI MHL. Is MHL a superset of
HDMI - is it backward-compatible with any HDMI output (eg from a DVI-HDMI
cable)? The monitor that we're thinking of claims to support HDMI 1.4 (MHL
2.0).

NY wrote:
My wife's monitor has finally stopped working (looks as if it's the backlight) so we're
looking for a replacement.

Her PC's graphics card only has DVI outputs (no VGA, no HDMI). Modern monitors usually
have HDMI and DP inputs. I don't really want to get into the realms of replacing the
graphics card with a more modern HDMI-capable one, on the grounds of "if it works, leave
it alone".

It is possible to get a DVI-HDMI cable, which I presume involves no loss of quality
because it's digital all the way, whether on the pins of DVI or the pins of HDMI
connector. Is this the case?

Some monitors describe their HDMI ports as HDMI MHL. Is MHL a superset of HDMI - is it
backward-compatible with any HDMI output (eg from a DVI-HDMI cable)? The monitor that
we're thinking of claims to support HDMI 1.4 (MHL 2.0).

Instead of going through all that conversion trouble why not just get monitor with
a DVI input?
Walmart, Microcenter, Frys all list 10-20 monitors with DVI inputs.
Those monitors may have additional inputs but you don't have to use those inputs.
MHL, Mobile HiDef Link is for you phone tablet to feed the monitor

NY wrote:
My wife's monitor has finally stopped working (looks as if it's the
backlight) so we're looking for a replacement.

Her PC's graphics card only has DVI outputs (no VGA, no HDMI). Modern
monitors usually have HDMI and DP inputs. I don't really want to get
into the realms of replacing the graphics card with a more modern
HDMI-capable one, on the grounds of "if it works, leave it alone".

It is possible to get a DVI-HDMI cable, which I presume involves no loss
of quality because it's digital all the way, whether on the pins of DVI
or the pins of HDMI connector. Is this the case?

Some monitors describe their HDMI ports as HDMI MHL. Is MHL a superset
of HDMI - is it backward-compatible with any HDMI output (eg from a
DVI-HDMI cable)? The monitor that we're thinking of claims to support
HDMI 1.4 (MHL 2.0).

If the video card is DVI-I, it carries both VGA signals
and DVI-D signals.

You can select just the VGA signals, using a DVI-I to VGA adapter.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16812200911

The pinout is here. The "cross" part of the connector is where
the VGA signals are carried. Some equipment has the DVI-I pattern
just so "any cable will work" and there isn't actually VGA on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

VGA was deprecated in Jan 2018. Video cards no longer carry it.
DVI connectors now are DVI-D only on the video card end, no
cross, and this may upset the usage of older DVI-I cables as
extension cords.

*******

You can do DVI to HDMI and that takes "one lane" of the
two lanes on the connector. I guess they call that single
link and dual link.

The DVI Wikipedia article will tell you that a single
DVI lane carries 1920x1200 @ 60FPS max. To do Apple 30"
Cinema display resolutions like maybe 2560x1600 requires
both lanes on the DVI connector to be present and working.
Not all video cards have both lanes, again, even though
the visible pinout suggests the connector has two lanes.

For your conversion requirement, this doesn't matter, as
DVI to HDMI is done "purely passively". Only half the digital
part of the connector is used, and the HDMI would have
the 1920x1200 limitation. If you, for some reason, had a
144Hz monitor, the max resolution would be further
reduced, in the ratio of 60/144.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16812423080

To carry 1920x1200 @ 60FPS, requires a cable clock of around
165MHz. Each differential data signal for R,G,B runs at 1650Mb/sec
or ten times the clock signal rate.

Some FX5200 AGP cards, couldn't actually do DVI over 135MHz.
The resolution selections when you fit a DVI-D to HDMI
connector, would consequently be lower, like maybe a
max of 1440x900 or something. Again, taking the ratio
of 135/165 to adjust the total pixels with respect to 1920x1200,
would give an exact max res choice. Eventually, NVidia managed
to get proper I/O pad drivers on the GPU to make
a 165MHz (proper) original HDMI signal. Today, HDMI
runs at 330MHz or higher (I'm not keeping track :-) ).
You need astronomical cable clock and data rates
to do 5K or 8K monitors.

*******

The year 2018 and 2019 should be a banner year
for "converters".

There is really no reason for the industry to deprecate
DVI, but I could see that happening. Connector choices
can be influenced by licensing fees paid by the manufacturer,
but for video cards, I could never be sure that was an
actual influence or not. The video card I just got,
has more DisplayPort than HDMI ports, and maybe that's
a hint. It might be marginally easier for me to get
DisplayPort to VGA here. I'm using one right now.
HDMI to VGA active converters are also available,
but maybe not as many model choices.

Summary: Replace monitor
Try DVI to HDMI adapter (screwed to video card faceplate)
If no-worky, replace video card.
If no-worky, replace computer!

And that scenario is always possible if the machine
has an AGP slot and no good PCI Express slots to
put a video card. Drivers would still be available
for Windows 7, but only for Windows 7 x64. NVidia
has stopped making x32 drivers for newer video
cards. AMD might have done the same, not sure.

You can do USB3 to HDMI or USB3 to DP, but then
you won't be able to see the BIOS screen, and
that's not a solution. Older computers don't
have USB3 jacks, and USB3 PCI cards are not
fast enough to run video effortlessly that way.

In general, it's either "the machine is modern enough"
or "the machine is too old" to salvage. In past
years, it was a bit easier to retrofit stuff
and be confident the drivers were there and
so on. For example, if someone said "pick me
a video card for my WinXP machine", I really
wouldn't know where to start (Ebay?).

A monitor which has one of each connector (as if
it was designed for the Smithsonian) costs around $400.
You can use the Newegg selector and try and specify
one of each connector type, then see what the
cheapest monitor that has "everything" would cost.
There will be some "dirt cheap" TN panel monitors
for sale in January, like for $100, but for
connectors, you get "whatever they'll give you"
in 2019. Could be DVI-D. Could be HDMI. What you
want for a monitor, is one with an IPS panel
(better viewing angle = "178/178"). TN needs
to be "tilted" to see it properly. My laptop is TN
(twisted nematic).

"cheep" but still a screen :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twiste...c_field_effect

The other types are IPS and some lesser known ones like PV or VA.
Surprisingly, the cost of IPS now, isn't all that much more
than TN, whereas years ago the ratio in price might have
been 3x or 4x when they were single sourced. It seems
the patent monkeys found a way around this stuff. There
is an art to dodging patents - alternate explanation is
that the licensing fee is less than it used to be. In
any case, with some careful shopping, you could be
taking home an "IPS variant".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_panel

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
NY wrote:
My wife's monitor has finally stopped working (looks as if it's the
backlight) so we're looking for a replacement.

I take it you've decided against trying to replace the backlight (or
just removing it and using some other source: I've never understood why
LCD panel displays don't have that option - I saw it once, on a Sony
camera [Mavica?]).
[]
VGA was deprecated in Jan 2018. Video cards no longer carry it.

Why. For a large number of cases, it's fine! I suppose the same reason
EIDE and "parallel port" were replaced by SATA and USB - too many pins
and connectors in the cable.

I'd expect to still find plenty of second-hand VGA monitors, though. (No
good for OP as no VGA.)
[]
The year 2018 and 2019 should be a banner year
for "converters".

(-:

[I have an SD video to VGA active adapter that has been on power for
quite a few years.]
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Mike Jackson |\ _,,,---,,_
and Squeak /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Shame there's no snooze button
[1998] |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'- on a cat who wants breakfast
zzz '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
NY wrote:
My wife's monitor has finally stopped working (looks as if it's the
backlight) so we're looking for a replacement.

I take it you've decided against trying to replace the backlight (or
just removing it and using some other source: I've never understood why
LCD panel displays don't have that option - I saw it once, on a Sony
camera [Mavica?]).
[]
VGA was deprecated in Jan 2018. Video cards no longer carry it.

Why. For a large number of cases, it's fine!

It's called the "Science of Deprecation", where
you take perfectly good stuff and you rubbish it.

Now, all the video card outputs are protected
by encryption. The VGA and Component Video have
been vanquished. The Jedi are beaten.

HDCP - one Ring to Rule Them All.

Actually, DisplayPort implements two protection standards,
when one isn't enough. HDCP and DPCP. Presumably this
covers some passive converter scenarios.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displayport

It's not really a surprise this happened.

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
NY wrote:
My wife's monitor has finally stopped working (looks as if it's the
backlight) so we're looking for a replacement.
I take it you've decided against trying to replace the backlight (or
just removing it and using some other source: I've never understood
why LCD panel displays don't have that option - I saw it once, on a
Sony camera [Mavica?]).
[]
VGA was deprecated in Jan 2018. Video cards no longer carry it.
Why. For a large number of cases, it's fine!

It's called the "Science of Deprecation", where
you take perfectly good stuff and you rubbish it.

I'm glad I'm not alone in such a view! I strongly deprecate people who
(mis)use the word deprecate in this manner. My favourite example being a
lot of HTML: I like the {CENTER} tag (apart from its spelling of
course!), which I've yet to encounter a browser that doesn't support
[along with various other similar constructs]; you "have to" use
something like {div align=center} now - which I don't see as having
_any_ advantage.

Now, all the video card outputs are protected
by encryption. The VGA and Component Video have
been vanquished. The Jedi are beaten.

I _suppose_ I can see _some_ justification specifically in the case of
copyright video material. Though as in many such cases, such a
justification is vastly over-(ab)used.
[]
It's not really a surprise this happened.

No )-:.

Paul
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm a self-made man, thereby demonstrating once again the perils of unskilled
labor..." - Harlan Ellison

On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 16:04:50 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I'm glad I'm not alone in such a view! I strongly deprecate people
who (mis)use the word deprecate in this manner. My favourite
example being a lot of HTML: I like the {CENTER} tag (apart from
its spelling of course!), which I've yet to encounter a browser
that doesn't support [along with various other similar
constructs]; you "have to" use something like {div align=center}
now - which I don't see as having _any_ advantage.

"center" was deprecated (HTML 4.something?) because there was a move
to separate content from layout (presentation), and delegate
presentation to CSS rather than HTML. Of course deprecated elements
continued to have a life of their own once incorporated in browsers.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...ecated-in-html

On 1/1/19 10:04 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[snip]

I'm glad I'm not alone in such a view! I strongly deprecate people who
(mis)use the word deprecate in this manner. My favourite example being a
lot of HTML: I like the {CENTER} tag (apart from its spelling of
course!), which I've yet to encounter a browser that doesn't support
[along with various other similar constructs]; you "have to" use
something like {div align=center} now - which I don't see as having
_any_ advantage.

I suppose there would be an advantage on a big site (with many pages
having centered content), when you decide to make the centered titles
all blue. Just one change to the CSS.

{CENTER} is still easier for simple pages.

There's also the {FONT} tag for specifying colors (and text sizes, but
this option is less versatile). These do seem to work on all browsers,
both modern and old (even MSIE 1.0).

Example: This text is FONT COLOR="#FF0000" SIZE="7"BIG and RED/FONT

Considering simple tags, there's the BGCOLOR attribute to the BODY tag,
sets background color.

I want people to continue to use these tags/attributes so browser makers
don't remove them.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

Forget about life after death, is there life before death?