F18A MK2

[Wildstar]

 

Clearly there are some gray areas with HDMI, whether it be the connector or the signals. The only way to clarify is to talk to the HDMI people.

 

I meant USB-C + VGA - is this workable?

 

I have talked to the HDMI people. The only patents that covers physical connectors is the design patents and they don't matter because we don't manufacture the connector. The manufacturer of the connectors pays the royalties on the connector to the design patent holder of the HDMI types of connector. You can technically send just about anything down a connector. USB-C to VGA.... maybe. However, how is the video being transmitted from the connector to the VGA converter. I'm studying the options but it's a PITA because all the same players generally set things to $5,000+ fee in some form or another because if you aren't in business to make enough money to pay that amount, you're kind of seen as a laughing stock in Sillycon valley.

 

It would be interested nonetheless.

 

I don't think they (HDMI) are that interested in suing micro-scopic hobbyist businesses. It isn't the best investment of their lawyers' time. They are looking to defend their IP against those individuals or businesses who are selling at a volume where they can reasonably afford to pay for the licensing. I'm just wanting them to put something in some writing of a sort that will at least calm our nerves. The idea of driving VGA out the micro-HDMI type connector is doable. It won't be to HDMI specifications and warning notices would need to be used. Alternatively, we find another kind of connector with 15-20 pins or so that is that small that isn't normally used in video displays and we make our own cables out to the back of the case and from that point the interface conversion to whatever.

 

At the end of the day, who the hell is going to f--- with us the most. Displayport is via VESA (so you can use the USB-C connector. VESA is a non-profit so the expense of the VESA membership is, however, tax deductable expense so you might lower your taxes during tax season.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Wildstar

[Omega-TI]

How about an end-run?

 

First I'll state for the record that I don't know how much this would add to cost to a finished product, or if it's truly feasible, but I'm thinking WHY would the F18A MKII even need a HDMI connector in the first place? Would it be possible to just replace the output stage with a WiFi transmitter that could just stream the data to a Chromecast device already plugged into a TV or monitors HDMI connector? Personally, I'd be happy with one less cable coming out of the TI. -- Just an idea.

[MrPix]

If I may be so bold?

The entire purpose of this item is to have a modern implementation of a vintage video IC, with a modern digital output format while remaining economical.

HDMI licensing sucks. Big connectors on the PCB suck.

A few posts back, someone showed mini HDMI connectors on flex PCBs to use FPC connectors which take up minimal space on the PCB.

One elegant solution with a side spin would be to slightly alter the FPGA code to implement DVI instead of HDMI, and design or source a flex PCB FPC DVI connector. This would a) solve the problem, b) fit your technical requirements AND product goals, and C) (this is the big one) you could order thousands of the flex PCBs and offer this as a solution to those caught in the same trap as you.

For extra points, you could make it compatible with DVI to HDMI converters.

You'd solve your problem, and the same problem for lots of others, you'd make a little money from a much-needed side product that solves this problem for everyone who follows in your footsteps, and you'd have a nice little high volume low margin earner.

IMHO.

Edited July 23, 2018 by MrPix

[muramasa]

I'm trying to remember why this part was ruled out.

https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/MegaChips%20PDFs/STDP2600_DS.pdf

 

It seems like it could be a good solution. Generate DVI and SPDIF into the STDP2600 and get Display port out the other side. Then leave it to the user to use a converter to VGA, HDMI, DVI, etc.

[MrPix]

I'm trying to remember why this part was ruled out.

https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/MegaChips%20PDFs/STDP2600_DS.pdf

 

It seems like it could be a good solution. Generate DVI and SPDIF into the STDP2600 and get Display port out the other side. Then leave it to the user to use a converter to VGA, HDMI, DVI, etc.

 

 

It is a $7.12 part (qty: 100).

 

While it does allow the removal of some HDMI protection, it increases base cost by at least $6. That said.....

 

Yeah, it;s interesting.

 

Question: how do you get the digital signals off the board and to the exterior of the case?

[JB]

How about an end-run?

 

First I'll state for the record that I don't know how much this would add to cost to a finished product, or if it's truly feasible, but I'm thinking WHY would the F18A MKII even need a HDMI connector in the first place? Would it be possible to just replace the output stage with a WiFi transmitter that could just stream the data to a Chromecast device already plugged into a TV or monitors HDMI connector? Personally, I'd be happy with one less cable coming out of the TI. -- Just an idea.

That's an interesting idea, certainly.

 

But with F18A2 already a very crowded board, it'd be pretty hard to implement. It requires a not-insignificant amount of additional processing power be added to handle video encoding and TCP/IP/802.11 protocol details, to say nothing of the space taken by the wifi module and antenna.

It also probably requires you to remove some RF shielding so the radio waves can escape, rendering your prized 99 in violation of FCC regulations(the horror!).

 

Also, it would require everyone that wants to use it to buy a matching receiver, which is contrary to the goal of making it directly usable to the most people(the goal that started the whole "HDMI licensing" brouhaha in the first place). I feel that Chromecast is likely as much of an inconvenient rarity as VGA.

[Wildstar]

That's an interesting idea, certainly.

 

But with F18A2 already a very crowded board, it'd be pretty hard to implement. It requires a not-insignificant amount of additional processing power be added to handle video encoding and TCP/IP/802.11 protocol details, to say nothing of the space taken by the wifi module and antenna.

It also probably requires you to remove some RF shielding so the radio waves can escape, rendering your prized 99 in violation of FCC regulations(the horror!).

 

Also, it would require everyone that wants to use it to buy a matching receiver, which is contrary to the goal of making it directly usable to the most people(the goal that started the whole "HDMI licensing" brouhaha in the first place). I feel that Chromecast is likely as much of an inconvenient rarity as VGA.

 

There maybe many thing involved but the RF Shielding would be the least of our concerns. If it is possible, we can use u.fl to transport the video data to the wireless module and the wireless module can sit just outside the shielding. We would have to drive the video/audio digital data over the coax RF and then we have to de-coax it at some point. Optionally, an alternative to u.FL is the AMC (Amphenol Micro Coaxial) or AMMC (Amphenol Micro-Miniature Coaxial) connector series which is 100% compatible with U.FL but sidesteaps some licensing b.s. or whatever.

 

NOTE: while these coax are RF, they aren't over the air until you link to an antenna. It is a very compact way to move data in high speed so I can see how it can be beneficial in small footprint applications and then snake it out of the case to a module. The problem ultimately is we will have to bring the format to something useful by a monitor. It is why I haven't been looking at this.

 

Other things being thought:

An option involving Maxim9275/9279 GMSL SERDES Serializer and the deserializer sister chip on the converter module. It would be a less convenient method but might be a work around. At a point, you need the video deserialized and in a format usable to whatever but the coax could be an AMMC type connector and be VERY VERY small footprint. Ideally, we have a simple solution and this is a layer of complexity. There are applications where this would be quite compelling but I don't know that would be the case here.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Wildstar

[+OLD CS1]

Feature creep.

[Casey]

I will say that as a potential customer of the F18A MK2, the less extra I have to buy, or the less “things” I have to do, the better. I am not much up for tearing apart my 99/4A for wireless transmitters, or buying an extra device to go between it and my monitor. I know the goal here is to mix audio in with the video signal like HDMI allows (I’m not skilled enough at making that work in any event) but DisplayPort would be just fine. I can always still use the audio signal out of the composite port and run it into the sound input on my monitor and have it work the way I want it to.

[Wildstar]

Feature creep.

 

Indeed. Hence why I am more inclined to use HDMI or Displayport (such as over USB-C).

[Wildstar]

I will say that as a potential customer of the F18A MK2, the less extra I have to buy, or the less “things” I have to do, the better. I am not much up for tearing apart my 99/4A for wireless transmitters, or buying an extra device to go between it and my monitor. I know the goal here is to mix audio in with the video signal like HDMI allows (I’m not skilled enough at making that work in any event) but DisplayPort would be just fine. I can always still use the audio signal out of the composite port and run it into the sound input on my monitor and have it work the way I want it to.

 

I'd prefer as simple a solution for this as possible. At least from my point of view.

[MrPix]

There's simple, and there's too simple. Having the final output connector on the board does two things: It means you have to pass the cable through the case somewhere, and it means an external heavy object will be directly connected to an IC socket inside the machine. This will cause stresses over time that will always be loosening the device from the socket.

For hardware reliability, it will always be most flexible and reliable to have a cable that can go to the case edge, and which can be customized for any particular case, since eg: the TI99/4A is not like other machines that use the IC. That's the minimal cost maximum reliability option.

[marc.hull]

No good deed goes unpunished Matt. It seems to me your getting hung up on the physical size of the board like your trying to be all things to everybody. Just do what it takes to get VGA out, make it and move on. This whole HDMI headache hardly seems worthwhile.

[JB]

Feature creep.

Yup. I don't actually think wireless video is a good idea. Just thought an objective look at the idea was better than completely ignoring it.

 

Personally, I want VGA output, but understand all too well the argument against.

(I'd also like the option of original composite output after the upgrade, but really only for the sake of Parsec's rainbow lines in the terrain.)

Edited July 24, 2018 by JB

[+OLD CS1]

Personally, I want VGA output, but understand all too well the argument against.

(I'd also like the option of original composite output after the upgrade, but really only for the sake of Parsec's rainbow lines in the terrain.)

 

Just hang in there. I bet a bunch of the original F18As will go up for sale once the MK2 becomes available.

 

Maybe someone can build a "switcher" in which both the original 9918A and the F18A can sit and allow you to active one chip or the other. Otherwise second consoles are not difficult to come by.

[muramasa]

Question: how do you get the digital signals off the board and to the exterior of the case?

I would probably use a FFC connector at the end of the board and then make a board/bracket with the display port depending on what I'm trying to mount it on. Like mentioned by others having the connector on the board it self isn't ideal and would probably have to go to a bracket or plug on the outside of the case anyway. This could also leave the door open for someone to do that with an HDMI port as well if they wanted, and just add the voltage translator and use an HDMI connector leaving matthew180 in the clear.

It seems like the quickest way to get back on track.

 

[matthew180]

I lost track of the post with the question, but for the idea of VGA over some other connector, sure, that is totally possible. VGA is a fairly low-bandwidth signal and at the minimum requires six wires: R, G, B, H, V, and gnd. The RGB color is 0.0V to 0.7V so it would generally not hurt anything like an HDMI sink (monitor) if it was pulled into such a device. The H and V signals are "TTL" level, but in this case they would only be 0V to 3.3V, which is still the same-as or lower-than typical HDMI signals. Also, HDMI has the requirement that any line can be shorted to any other line and it must not cause hard to the source or sink.

 

But VGA does not solve the audio problem that is part of the MK2, and it requires yet another external converter. VGA will be a very last resort I think, and has many physical challenges with connectors and cables.

 

...

I'm just wanting them to put something in some writing of a sort that will at least calm our nerves.

...

 

*THIS*, exactly! If they would make a statement about hobbyists or micro-businesses doing extremely small volume, then we would be good to go. And it is not like we are not willing to pay royalties, we are (and even something like $3 or $4 per unit). It is the annual cost for the privilege of being in the club that is the killer. I don't even need a public statement, just a way for individuals to get a formal waiver or contract with them, acknowledging the product and the intent / promise that the volume will remain below a certain amount.

 

 

I'm trying to remember why this part was ruled out.

https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/MegaChips%20PDFs/STDP2600_DS.pdf

 

It seems like it could be a good solution. Generate DVI and SPDIF into the STDP2600 and get Display port out the other side. Then leave it to the user to use a converter to VGA, HDMI, DVI, etc.

 

1. The part is big, 8mm x 8mm with 81 balls on the package, plus all the support components.

2. No reference schematic, and the datasheet is very minimal. This stuff is hard enough, and trying to figure out the right was to use that IC is not trivial.

3. I still have to generate HDMI signals, which means I'm technically still in violation of the license.

4. The SPDIF is *output* only, so for audio I have to support HDMI (see #3).

5. Availability and cost.

6. This requires a DisplayPort connector which is larger than the HDMI Type-D connector, and coupled with the IC size would be very difficult to make it all fit. I would probably have to rework the entire board, again.

 

 

...

I know the goal here is to mix audio in with the video signal like HDMI allows (I’m not skilled enough at making that work in any event) but DisplayPort would be just fine.

...

 

Getting the audio into the MK2 requires one wire to be connected inside the host computer, and can probably be done with a small jumper wire with clips on the end (soldering the one wire would be better, but probably not strictly necessary). Also, DisplayPort is not an option without a different FPGA, which would require a redesign of the entire board.

 

 

No good deed goes unpunished Matt. It seems to me your getting hung up on the physical size of the board like your trying to be all things to everybody. Just do what it takes to get VGA out, make it and move on. This whole HDMI headache hardly seems worthwhile.

 

Maybe. The thought has certainly crossed my mind many times.

[Wildstar]

We got HDMI, lets just continue work so we have it working nonetheless. It is still "prototyping" phase.

 

Anyway, have a look at: Carte Blanche & Carte Blanche II.

http://www.applelogic.org/CarteBlancheII.html

Edited July 24, 2018 by Wildstar

[Wildstar]

*THIS*, exactly! If they would make a statement about hobbyists or micro-businesses doing extremely small volume, then we would be good to go. And it is not like we are not willing to pay royalties, we are (and even something like $3 or $4 per unit). It is the annual cost for the privilege of being in the club that is the killer. I don't even need a public statement, just a way for individuals to get a formal waiver or contract with them, acknowledging the product and the intent / promise that the volume will remain below a certain amount.

 

Matthew,

 

I'm waiting a little bit before going to the next level and literally contacting all of the HDMI Founders myself and their executive board/CEO/CTO/etc.

 

Normally, they don't want to nag HDMI founders because of the coordinated effort to do it but then I'll be the NAG !!!!

Edited July 24, 2018 by Wildstar

[muramasa]

1. The part is big, 8mm x 8mm with 81 balls on the package, plus all the support components.

2. No reference schematic, and the datasheet is very minimal. This stuff is hard enough, and trying to figure out the right was to use that IC is not trivial.

3. I still have to generate HDMI signals, which means I'm technically still in violation of the license.

4. The SPDIF is *output* only, so for audio I have to support HDMI (see #3).

5. Availability and cost.

6. This requires a DisplayPort connector which is larger than the HDMI Type-D connector, and coupled with the IC size would be very difficult to make it all fit. I would probably have to rework the entire board, again.

Oh I misread that and thought the spdif was the input. That definitely throw that chip out. I have seen other Displayport transmitters but they are even bigger chips.

 

EDIT. Would it be possible to have a header for SPDIF on the MKII? That way we can still get audio and maybe still do VGA.

Edited July 24, 2018 by muramasa

[Wildstar]

Oh I misread that and thought the spdif was the input. That definitely throw that chip out. I have seen other Displayport transmitters but they are even bigger chips.

 

EDIT. Would it be possible to have a header for SPDIF on the MKII? That way we can still get audio and maybe still do VGA.

 

How many pins for audio?

 

Aside from ground and vcc there's just one pin needed for the S/PDIF out on a header.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Wildstar

[JB]

 

Just hang in there. I bet a bunch of the original F18As will go up for sale once the MK2 becomes available.

 

Maybe someone can build a "switcher" in which both the original 9918A and the F18A can sit and allow you to active one chip or the other. Otherwise second consoles are not difficult to come by.

I've got a couple spares on-hand.

 

My plan for a while has been to put an F18A in the lone gray one, and keep a black one on standby in a stock configuration.

I think the gray one looks more "futuristic", so it feels more right to me for it to be the upgraded version. It is also the one I played games on as a kid, so I MAY be biased in my preference.

[+9640News]

This may have been suggested in some fashion, but let me suggest a thought for a possible solution to the dilema with the patents.

 

OK, can you continue to use the same cable connector coming off the MK2, but change the signaling to support something other than HDMI without adding anything to the board as it exists?

 

Then, have the HDMI cable you would have been using feed into an external box that reroutes the signals and does whatever magic it needs to have to perhaps a VGA plug as the output of that box?

 

That way, you do not have to deal with messing up the size of the existing layout, your keeping the same small connector, you would still be using a ready made HDMI cable anyone can buy, but it is just for throughput, not for signaling. Then, converting the signals in this "other" format to something like VGA or something else readily available but not covered by a patent. That external "box" contains whatever else circuit wise and space wise you could not fit on your existing board.

 

I think everyone can agree resolving the HDMI issue has costs, so there is cost somewhere. Now, I have no idea if you can bring enough power out through the cable to drive that external box, or if whatever you need to do to modify the signal becomes cost prohibitive.

 

Just thinking out loud in case it triggers other thoughts, etc.

 

Beery

[Techrev]

He's not the manufacturer of the board. The company that fabricates and assembles the board is. They have to be hdmi certified, not him. I, also, verified this with hdmi.org. All he has to do is make sure he gets the board built by someone with an hdmi license. Shouldn't be a big deal. Plus, it's the manufacturer who hdmi.org would sue if there's a problem.

[Asmusr]

He's not the manufacturer of the board. The company that fabricates and assembles the board is. They have to be hdmi certified, not him. I, also, verified this with hdmi.org. All he has to do is make sure he gets the board built by someone with an hdmi license. Shouldn't be a big deal. Plus, it's the manufacturer who hdmi.org would sue if there's a problem.

 

Do you have examples of HDMI certified companies that would produce boards for small scale projects?