Petition iMac 27 inch (mid-2010) 1080p EDID Limitation for Xbox360/PS3 and Kanex XD

Discussion in 'iMac' started by bluemonkeyguy, Jan 24, 2011.

  1. bluemonkeyguy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    #1
    Facts:

    :apple: iMac 27" (mid-2010) has an EDID (data structure embedded in the display that says what resolutions it supports for input and output)
    :apple: EDID supports all types of outputs of mini-displayport(native 1440p to 480p)
    :apple: EDID supports two types of inputs of mini-displayport(1440p!!! and 720p)
    :apple: Kanex XD supports 1080p conversion and output
    :apple: EDID doesn't support 1080p mini-displayport input
    :apple: By the way: 720p < 1080p < 1440p(native res on 27")

    ......... what ...the ...FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!:eek::mad::eek:

    Keep in mind that 1440p is 200% more resolution and 400% more pixels than 720p. The way I see it is that Apple engineers can hopefully and simply just update the firmware of the EDID so that it will be able to support 1080p. Come on Apple, you're telling me you can support 1440p, double the resolution of 720p, but can't support a resolution in between, that's unfair. Plus some false advertising on the new 27" ACD because on the tech specs it says that it supports 1080p but actually doesn't. All I we want is to enjoy our investments in 1080p. But we can't until our voices are heard by Apple and there engineers. So all of you proud 27" owners and other willing volunteers, let's petition this issue to Steve himself, so that this issue can get resolved. Hoorah

    I heard his email is: sjobs@apple.com ;)



    Also, I am aware of the Atlona solution:rolleyes: but I am asking for a direct 1080p connection, okay, thanks.
     
  2. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #2
    Scaling 1080p to a 1440p display would probably look worse than 720p anyway, as it doesn't divide perfectly evenly, so 720 is a better bet. Plus, unless you're sitting very close, the difference between 720p and 1080p is minimal on a 27" screen.
     
  3. dh2005 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    #3
    Jobs isn't well. Don't bother him personally. Assuming he even mans that e-mail address himself, which I seriously doubt.

    I agree with the petition in principle, though. It's a tossy restriction.
     
  4. bluemonkeyguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    #4
    Uhhmmmm?

    Why would you scale 1080p to 1440p when you can just plug in 1080p and expect 1080p. And NO!!, the quality wouldn't decrease, it would be better than 720p but not optimal for a 1440p screen, but better still. About dividing:

    2560/1440 = 16/9 = 1.777777778
    1920/1080 = 16/9 = 1.777777778
    1280/720 = 16/9 = 1.777777778

    :confused:......I'm not going to question your amazing math skills, but please next time please conduct a nano-ounce of research before posting what I like to call a "nothing" comment.
     
  5. bluemonkeyguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    #5
    I've heard that he has a team that analyze and answer all of the submission emails. But I acclaim your call on his health and privacy. :)
     
  6. coolspot18 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    #6
    Because 1440 / 2 = 720 - Therefore the monitor would merely use 2 pixels for every 1 pixel.

    However, 1440 / 1080 = 1.3 pixels ...
     
  7. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #7
    The aspect ratio would be identical, but since 720p divides exactly into 1440p (1 pixel for every 4, something akin to the difference in resolutions between the original iPhone and the iPhone 4), it would at least look decent. However, being a computer monitor, if it isn't at its native resolution or a resolution that scales perfectly to it without decimals, it will look like poop. So in fact, it wasn't a "nothing comment"

    Thank you.
     
  8. dh2005, Jan 28, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2011

    dh2005 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    #8
    I do all of my gaming at 1080p, playing at a distance of circa two feet, and I think it looks great. Blu-ray video looks nice, too.

    Of course, 1440p looks better... but to describe it as "poop", with respect, is incorrect. Unless you, personally, open your bowels and poop at 1440p. In which case, consult a physician.



    EDIT: Opinions differ on this, sure. But there's no reason to argue against the option, is there? Unless one were of the, 'Apple don't want it, so I don't want it' school of thought. If you can call that 'thought'.
     
  9. hcho3 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    #9
    Leave Mr. Job alone. He is sick and all you want is little firmware update for your iMac? Jesus. Send it to apple, but not the man who is so sick that he had to leave his company without saying when he will return. You are so selfish.
     
  10. leftywamumonkey macrumors 6502a

    leftywamumonkey

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #10
    Higher ranked workers generally check the E-mails and Steve Jobs probably does from time to time. I do agree that, the idea of emailing a sick person with a problem is self centered.
     
  11. Joshknightmare macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #11
    Wait?

    Obviously 1.3 pixels for every pixel wont look to good. So i've made a choice, wait a few years until the graphic cards can support 3840 x 2160 res on a 40" screen. :p
     
  12. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    #12
    Wonder if it is anything like the issue with the Dell 3007 30" screens where if you didn't have a Dual Link DVI connection then the 2560x1600 res dropped to 1280x800.

    You couldn't do 1920x1200 at all on the 3007, needed to wait for the 3008 that came with a better scaler to do intermediate resolutions.
     
  13. PatriotInvasion macrumors 65816

    PatriotInvasion

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #13
    Guys...the primary issue is that the iMac is not really designed to be an HDTV. It's a luxury desktop all-in-one computer. The MiniDisplayPort input is there so that you will buy Apple's 27" Cinema Display as a second monitor...that's it. They didn't design it to accommodate the PS3, XBox 360 or Blu-Ray players. If they intended for those devices to be hooked up to the iMac there would be an HDMI IN port like on Sony all-in-one desktops.

    You'll just have to accept the limitations until Apple decides to enter the HDTV business...
     
  14. bluemonkeyguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    #14
    How can I put this, it's like buying an AA-12 (automatic shotgun) and finding that it only does automatic, not semi-auto. You would expect it, by default, to do semi but it doesn't. That's the best analogy I can think of right now.:p
     
  15. Meyvn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    #15
    Not really a decent one at all.

    The fact is, the 27" iMac is designed to serve as a secondary display for Mac notebooks; to boot, it's a fairly obscure, not-thoroughly-advertised option. It's not designed to take HDMI; you actually had to buy a device to convert your HDMI signal to MDP. In almost every respect, the iMac was not designed for the purpose you're trying to use it for. Until very recently, it was pretty rare for computers to take video-IN at all without some kind of special add-on capture card.

    If it bears any resemblance to a shotgun, it would be like buying a 12-gauge that's got a unique, esoteric feature where it can actually put the shot back INTO the shell, then being upset that particular feature of it doesn't support 20-gauge ammunition.

    If you want a 1080p display for a PS3, buy a TV, or an HDMI monitor with built-in speakers.
     
  16. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #16
    Lol, everybody in this world is self centered, even people who donate alot of money. They do that because it makes them feel good, which is self centered.
     
  17. bluemonkeyguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    #17
    Your analogy doesn't make sense, 20ga doesn't work with 12ga.

    anyways by default you should be able to play 1080 on 1440.
    Let me say it generally:

    The iMac can do: XXXX quality or XX quality, why not XXX;) quality.

    For the above posters about the 1.3 pixel ratio, we all know that it doesn't divide perfectly, but that's where the software aspect of the display comes in and fixes it by assigning where the pixels go. I'm not a display genius but a YouTube video at 1080p is better than 720p. remember this is all in full-screen and it still somehow works, right. why not for minidisplayport input?

    Why spend another $600-$900 for a 1080p tv when i paid $2500+ for an iMac that HAS the ability to do the same?
     
  18. iMacN00b macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #18
    For those of us with the XD, is there any unofficial way to flasy the EDID to accept 1080p?

    It is such a shame, as a 1080p image looks pretty good on the 27" but 720p is just too pixelated for desktop gaming. :(
     
  19. bluemonkeyguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    #19
    Man how I wish there is a EDID flash. Have a XD too for 360, and the 720p limitation is the only thing holding me back from a PS3.
     
  20. haveaniceday91 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    #20
    Can anyone say how ps3 in 720p looks on a 27 imac? Aren't most games 720p anyway? I'm slightly torn between getting a 27 or a 21 and a 32 1080p tv to play games and mirror high def content. If the difference isn't that much I'd rather keep it simple with the 27 and have the extra processing power and graphics for pc/dolphin gaming.

    Either way it looks like I'm getting a refurb 2010 model once the 2011's come out. I'll prob be able to get a sweet deal on a quad i5 which should be more than enough for what I want to do. Thunderbolt and sandybridge don't appeal to me very much but 1080p support would make it very tempting. Waiting sucks.
     
  21. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
  22. colmaclean macrumors 68000

    colmaclean

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Berlin
    #22
    More chance of Playstation supporting 1440p out than Apple supporting HDMI in.
     
  23. rdmoore macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    #23
    In case anyone still cares...

    27" iMac makes a fine bedroom HDTV. Right now i am able to get Full HD by using the Firewire port on my cable box and using some software pieces from the Firewire SDK + VLC. VLC gives me a 1920x1080 window which i show in full screen mode. Don't let some confuse you about bandwidth of firewire, they obviously don't know the difference between bits and bytes Works and looks great. Even passes 5.1 Dolby. VLC does the scaling to my satisfaction. The problem is, the firewire port does not have the cable box screen-overs so no On Demand, or Guide for that matter.

    If you people just want 1080 to fill your screen and have firewire out of your box. (they have to give it to you if you don't) Use the tools Apple gives you in the SDK. Not rocket science. If you want On Demand capability, like me, then we need EDID mod. for 1080.
     

Share This Page