Talk:List of video connectors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Commodore 64[edit]

While the C64 (and other Commodore computers) can do video in components similar to S-video, it uses separate RCA plugs for this and not the 4 pin mini-DIN connector. (2007-09-03

I have concentrated on the electrical aspect of things. A C64 -> S-Video adapter cable shouldn't be that hard to accomplish. And for many other applications it's mechanicaly compatible aswell. Electron9 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I noted this in the table, but put a "citation needed" tag, since this seems weird. This should be documented somewhere... -- Beland (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

VGA: Max resolution[edit]

What is the basis for the max resolution column? For example, in the table VGA has a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024 @ 60. There are plenty of resolutions higher than that available via the VGA interface. Wikipedia XP 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The maximum resolution possible constrained by the cable, signaling scheme, etc.. Electron9 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Electron9 did not address the critique. There is no max resolution for a VGA connector. There is no basis for the stated max. Simply Google for 21" CRT monitors. Many of them do 2560x1600 over VGA. Higher is available if the Monitor and Video card supports it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The information cited under this section is false and deceptive. VGA has no such limit. It is not based in any fact. The cited reference is to a 404 page. a typical 21" CRT available +10 years ago. Resolution is 2048x1536 @80Hz. This is much more than 'theory' in the broken citation referenced in this section and millions of these type monitors were actually made from many different vendors. There were even higher end ones that did 4k+ rez and used a standard VGA card.. Virtually any VGA card made in the last ten years can support this resolution, unless deliberately crippled for price point protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, none of these high resolutions are actually 'VGA': that was a specific standard which I can't even remember. The higher resolutions were called 'super VGA' when they first came out, and then 'VGA' when the actual 'VGA' moniters were no longer for sale. (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto that VGA needs some real cleanup. "2048 × 1536 @ 85" might benefit from having "2560x1440 @ 59" added to it, which I'm running now. But it's hard to google a quotable reference saying that there is no theoretical max (stuff like SuperUser is easy to find, but not really useful as a source). All that said, the reference entry that's literally a footnote needs to be removed. Currently, reference 5 is, "2560 × 1600 @ 60 Hz in theory, although few existing WQXGA device offers analog inputs (certain Barco projectors do)". /sigh Rufwork (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

an answer:

I can tell you that: i have an old hardware / assembler guide "Bible" right next to me.

1) VGA didn't sense monitor type you could damage hardware if you connected wrong

2) VGA had BIOS that stored a standard. A standard is something you NEVER EVER deviate from so that all followign products knowing the standard NEVER FAIL.

3) bios chips were an expense at the time and the one chosen for VGA had so many bits to store information about capabilities: the chip simply was too small to store "1024x768". SVGA extended: but SVGA is a broken standard they never finished, while XGA most didnt have the money to get into.

  • ) your wrong in that your not seeing if it did that it wouldn't be VGA: but your right in that VGA cards and VGA capable monitors could often do "more than that", more than SVGA or VESA or what else: but you needed special drivers for that, which never worked for long, a couple years at most, before becoming incompatible with upgrades.
  • ) now for compatibility. if i used a modern Apple macbook with an old 1975 or later Computer Terminal (ascii text support) using the mac's serial adapter and simply copying text to the serial port: it would STILL WORK! Infact the macbook can drive vt101 terminals and others if one had the desire. obviously the reason is that "plain text" (over a serial/baud negotiated line) is always compatible on both sides!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Composite Video through mini-DIN connector?[edit]

I've got a vehicle backup camera that I believe is shot. It's connector looks like a min-DIN 4-pin connector that is missing a pin. Did any manufacturer(s) run composite video through a mini-DIN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainone (talkcontribs) 21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mini-DIN article has a pretty good list and pin layout charts for that. It's now referenced in this article. -- Beland (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo request[edit]

It would be nifty to be able to identify monitor ports found "in the wild" using photos and icons in this article. -- Beland (talk)

Done, thanks to User:Abisys on the Italian Wikipedia, and some hunting around. -- Beland (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


I think that the original IBM VGA and the VESA VGA (1995) are two different interface. The video channels are the same, but VESA introduced DDC and eliminate monitor-ID permitting PnP. What do you think about?

Abisys (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a clarification to the description. -- Beland (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

yes and ?XGA had a new connector (another pin or two, and better wiring) which allowed greater bandwith and possibly audio for X Windows - X Windows on some systems used to include audio - which was in Solaris X11 but "removed" from X11R6

Image improvement possibilities[edit]

  • A cropped image for D-terminal, such as [1], might be an improvement. -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DisplayPort could use a good physical photo in place of the pin diagram. -- Beland (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Were any UDI connectors ever manufactured? -- Beland (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can Someone Add the Old Style Composite Video Connectors?[edit] Dcsutherland (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

DVI Connection[edit]

DVI DMS-59 is a connection not listed. I'd add it myself, but I am more likely to break the page. Link is: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


The 13W3 dates back to at least 1989, on Macintoshes. Possibly earlier on other platforms —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion under VGA: Max resolution applies to 13W3 as well. A Sony GDM-FW900 would happily do 2304x1440@75Hz, over 13W3. 13W3 was pretty much SVGA with coax for the color signals. (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Horizontal resolution for analogue TV[edit]

Where is this "728" pixels coming from? --Zilog Jones (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


I have a Matrox dual monitor card here which uses an unusal connector, similar to the DMS-59 but with 60 pins - it appears to be called LFH-60. Anyone know more about this? 2fort5r (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This list has become way more popular than I thought ;)[edit]

Since I created this page on 20 August 2007. It has become way larger, detailed and not the least popular with ~350 visits each day. :-) Electron9 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a very useful list. There is a distinct need for it, too, because of all the confusing cable-types! From the 1950s through the 1980s, there were basically two cabling-types (in the consumer market of the USA anyways), the RCA cables and the antenna cables. After that, the explosion of the PC and the digital change-over in televisions has given us a ton of conflicting interconnect-generations. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to slow down[citation needed] any time soon, because just like nearly every AC adapter has a proprietary connector, and every cell-phone battery is a proprietary shape, the same market failure is pushing into semiconductors (every generation of CPU and RAM-type have incompatible sockets) and was already seen in data-connections. With luck, we might see this listing gradually shrink, with most of the entries of historical interest only, until there is a single major standard -- perhaps generic 100gbps wifi type "z" -- for video transmission, and maybe even a single standard -- bidirectional usb9 up to lengths of one kilometer I would hope -- for data&power interconnect. Well... I'll keep dreaming.
In the short run, maybe add a column that indicates pervasiveness, in terms of number of users, or number of devices, during a specified decade? That would help give historical context to the list, also help give an indication of present versus historical versus future notability. I've never heard of some of the stuff on the list... that doesn't automatically make it non-notable, but I'm suspicious that HDBaseT does not belong on this listing, to pick an example that jumped out at me... or maybe even in wikipedia at all, as yet. Products with that interconnect didn't start shipping until this year, and although Sony/Samsung/LG are pushing the tech, and it's based on an existing cabling-standard, I'm not sure that qualifies it as Notable[tm]. My own suggestion (below in separate section) about adding USB as a video-interconnect via the DisplayLink chipset has similar difficulties, but not as many (they had already shipped a couple million chips back in 2010 and products have been out for five years). (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


if anyone is interested in filling out the table and details: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDK SDK (talkcontribs) 15:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

YUV vs. YPbPr[edit]

It says that YPbPr is often called YUV. This isn't true, afaik. It's quite similar, and the concept is the same; one signal for luminance and two for chrominance as a vector in the color space. And the signals is partly interchangeable, but will result in some color difference.

According to: [2] (reference from YPbPr, the conversation matrix is quite similar, but not entirely. The difference is something like how to model the color space. As I recall, one defines the luminance signal as the sum of the power in each color, the other defines luminance as how bright a regular eye would see the color.

And those should not be confused with YCbCr, which is quite similar representation, but with another mapping matrix, but is a digital representation, and therefore not a connector. Even though many digital protocol actually uses YCbCr... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengi (talkcontribs) 12:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggest adding USB to this list as a video connector[edit]

There have been chips since 2007 from DisplayLink (not to be confused with DisplayPort which was also 'born' in 2007 by coincidence), which permit the connection of a display to your laptop solely via the USB port. Typical products that make use of this approach come in the form of an external converter-box, with a usb port on one end, and a more-traditional sort of video connector on the other end: there are usb-to-vga, usb-to-dvi, usb-to-displayport, and usb-to-hdmi boxes, that I know of at least. However, you can also buy monitors nowadays which have the DisplayLink chip internally, so effectively you hook the monitor right into the USB port on your PC, and start displaying video. (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Connector on an IBM LCD monitor.[edit]

Here's yet another video connector. I thought it was DFP so I bought a DVI to DFP adapter. Nope! It's similar to but wider than DFP. The monitor is a Type 4820 for a Point Of Sale system. Also note connector 4. It appears to be a modified RJ45. There's four large sliding contacts, two top, two bottom. I assume for the two USB ports to the left. In the back end of the socket is a 6 pin 0.1" header connector, no idea what that's for. Bizzybody (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Spade connector[edit]

Talk:Audio_and_video_connector#Missing_cable_type mentions that spade connectors were used for video on old TVs; I seem to remember this as well, though it might have only been for audio? Anyone have a good reference? -- Beland (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To Zack , the wiki deleter[edit]

Please read Computer terminal and computer history, as well as about X Terminals MUCH MORE THOROUGHLY before making comments like Computer Terminal is TTY only. Absolutely NOT.

There were hundreds of various models of mainframe/home Terminals, or "terms". Some did text, some text and graphics, some vector graphics as well (some only vector that did text, some overlayed both).

Computer Terminals are monitors with video cards hanging on the back of the glass tube (when those were still used), MOST commonly fed by Serial connection.

The difference: where is the video card? In the monitor, or in the "PC".

Also by your own rule: USB connecting monitors displaying only text cannot be listed under "connectors": because they are serial and displaying only text.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring this page?[edit]

How about we refactor this page? It's *really* useful to figure out what is what in video connectors, but there's some really old stuff in there that people are less and less likely to find. It may be useful to start with a simple comparison between popular cables. I'm thinking HDMI, DVI, VGA and Mini-DP, basically. Or, in other words, sort by commonality instead of underlying technology. Because right now, all new connectors end up in "Other" and that's weird. Maybe we could have a region-based popularity grouping? Say "worldwide common", "discontinued", then if necessary "common in Japan/Europe/Canada/whatever". It's certainly weird to see the old SCART connector listed in the same section as the Mini-DisplayPort connector. :p --TheAnarcat (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)