My Personal Ideas


I'm not seeing what any of what you're saying has to do with what the guy wants, which is to use the screen as a monitor. Unless you have something which natively puts out video over USB then anything over a USB3 port is not using it as a monitor, it needs HDMI/DVI/VGA/component or some other proper video-in to qualify as a monitor.
 
The last time we looked HDMI->LCD converter chips for such a function don't exist in a portable form, I think they pull 400mah/hour.


The chip alone would flatten the battery pretty quick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not seeing what any of what you're saying has to do with what the guy wants, which is to use the screen as a monitor. Unless you have something which natively puts out video over USB then anything over a USB3 port is not using it as a monitor, it needs HDMI/DVI/VGA/component or some other proper video-in to qualify as a monitor.

There are cheap USB picture frames that can act as a "2nd monitor".


http://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-Multi-Monitor-External-Adapter/dp/B002FJQXXC


The host computer sends a USB data stream to that box, then it converts it using hardware/software to a signal on a monitor.


The Pandora can read a USB data stream. Interpreting that stream and turning it into an on-screen image is a software application, not hardware.


In -theory- a software application could be developed that sets the USB port into 'monitor' mode much like we have a 'mass data storage' mode that points to a partition now. It would read the USB data stream and convert it in software to an image on the screen.


For the 'use as a 2nd monitor' application, the 'hardware' needs would, in theory, be a USB cable.


The more complicated 'capture from HDMI through USB' and 'output to HDMI via USB' would need a converter dongle.
 
You're really not getting this. Unless a display takes common video output sources DIRECTLY it's not a monitor. Outputting video over USB is not common except for stuff like webcams. Consumer devices that are meant to be hooked up to monitors don't tend to have USB video outputs. If you need to buy extra hardware to do this it doesn't count.


piisiki isn't asking if you'll be able to hook up a USB video device to Pandora, surely he also understands that's not something you need to make a hardware request for. He's asking for support for normal monitor hardware interfaces, like HDMI.


And I'd really hate to use a USB picture frame as a monitor, given their awful refresh rates and response time. There's a reason they're sold as picture frames.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're really not getting this. Unless a display takes common video output sources DIRECTLY it's not a monitor. Outputting video over USB is not common except for stuff like webcams. Consumer devices that are meant to be hooked up to monitors don't tend to have USB video outputs. If you need to buy extra hardware to do this it doesn't count.

You're behind the times. There are now monitors that use the USB port as SOURCE. They've been out for a few years.


http://www.amazon.com/Lilliput-Um-70-Monitor-non-touch-Screen/dp/B000AYHY7I


So - USB is a more common video cable than you're allowing for.


Also - IF you're going to be 'hooking up' general consumer devices (10 year old VHS player for example), then you should EXPECT to need to use some form of adapter/dongle box - and not complain about 'portability'.

piisiki isn't asking if you'll be able to hook up a USB video device to Pandora, surely he also understands that's not something you need to make a hardware request for. He's asking for support for normal monitor hardware interfaces, like HDMI.
You CAN get video out through the USB host port on a primary computer and INTO the port on a Pandora. You will need the proper -software- to read the signal.


His EXACT quote was:

Hear this: Why not to be able to use the screen as a monitor? I don't know if it is possible but I have allways wanted a feature like that in a lot of devices.
It detailed nothing about 10 year old VHS systems or 'video output sources' but as a 'monitor' which implies for a 'computer' which, unless it's 13+ years old will have a USB port. Not that I'd want to use a monitor over a USB 1.0 line regularly - it might work nicely for command line server software installs. Just walk up, plug two USB cables into the server and into the host/guest ports on the Pandora. Serve the data install from the OTG and read the video output from the server over the host port. That would actually be kind of nifty. Of course you could just remote into the server - but that isn't the question here.

And I'd really hate to use a USB picture frame as a monitor, given their awful refresh rates and response time. There's a reason they're sold as picture frames.
You're going to draw that conclusion based on what?


All we're talking about is using a similar video over USB protocol as those use. The Pandora 2, with USB 3.0 AND a bitchin' video chipset should do the task very nicely - from a hardware basis.


Look around - they do a lot more than just static pictures now.


One of these 'USB picture frames' might be pretty darn cool plugged into a Pandora host to use as a BIG monitor for the tiny device.


http://www.amazon.com/AOC-E1649FWU-USB-Powered-Portable-Monitor/dp/B005SEZR0G/ref=pd_cp_pc_0


Note: it would need more than the 500mA that the current USB port on the Pandora should push.
 
You're behind the times. There are now monitors that use the USB port as SOURCE. They've been out for a few years.
http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/B000AYHY7I


So - USB is a more common video cable than you're allowing for.

Nope, still not getting it. What besides from computers, webcams, and cameras output USB video? What console outputs USB video? What bluray player outputs USB video?


So you could use Pandora with USB3 to output video from a computer.. great.. you could do this a number of other ways too.. still pretty sure this is NOT what the guy is asking for!

Also - IF you're going to be 'hooking up' general consumer devices (10 year old VHS player for example), then you should EXPECT to need to use some form of adapter/dongle box - and not complain about 'portability'.

Apparently not if you're the OP and are asking if the next Pandora can be a monitor.

It detailed nothing about 10 year old VHS systems or 'video output sources' but as a 'monitor' which implies for a 'computer' which, unless it's 13+ years old will have a USB port. Not that I'd want to use a monitor over a USB 1.0 line regularly - it might work nicely for command line server software installs. Just walk up, plug two USB cables into the server and into the host/guest ports on the Pandora. Serve the data install from the OTG and read the video output from the server over the host port. That would actually be kind of nifty. Of course you could just remote into the server - but that isn't the question here.

Well given that he asked for it as a feature for the device and not someone to write software for, and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't an idiot, it stands to reason that he did in fact want more than the ability to use video over USB.


But I guess at this point we'd may as well let him clarify it himself, if he ever decides to return to this thread.

You're going to draw that conclusion based on what?
All we're talking about is using a similar video over USB protocol as those use. The Pandora 2, with USB 3.0 AND a bitchin' video chipset should do the task very nicely - from a hardware basis.


Look around - they do a lot more than just static pictures now.


One of these 'USB picture frames' might be pretty darn cool plugged into a Pandora host to use as a BIG monitor for the tiny device.


http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_cp_pc_0


Note: it would need more than the 500mA that the current USB port on the Pandora should push.

Gee. Read the reviews.


"Not great for viewing video or images on."


"This item has VERY poor display quality. Purchased as a second larger screen for video viewing on a netbook, it will only display a static screen and locks up when attempting to play video, which was the intention of the purchase."


"The video processing over USB could not keep up and there were a lot of artifacts and jaggies on the screen but it was still playable."


"The response time is so, so, but that is to be expected from a USB monitor and it works well as a second monitor to use for menus, word processing, etc..."


Now connect the dots.


Sure, USB3 has enough bandwidth to do it decently, but that doesn't mean that every display will still be fast enough, even if it uses USB3.


Anyway. I was saying that DIGITAL PICTURE FRAMES (devices that are actually called that!) are not good as general purpose displays. Why would you call anything else that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we are going crazy about hdmi in. Do we agree that build quality and feel should get top priority for pandora 2?
 
I think we are going crazy about hdmi in. Do we agree that build quality and feel should get top priority for pandora 2?

Yes - I agree that build quality needs to be top notch.


I think that HDMI in OR out would be a waste of space as those tasks will be readily handled via adapters for a USB 3.0 port.


The inadequacy of current 'USB 2nd monitors' on the market based on older USB specs are used in my examples as a 'device that gets a monitor signal from a computer and displays it' which is my interpretation of the Original Poster's request. I feel that it should be possible, from a hardware perspective, to do the same function as a 'USB 2nd monitor' on the Pandora and future Pandora 2 via it's ability to act as a USB device. The original poster said nothing about consoles or other types of equipment, but that they wanted a 'monitor' which would be interpreted generically, but is normally used as reference to a 'computer monitor'.


To make the build quality top notch, I don't think we need to clutter it up with a whole pile of application specific ports, though, since we should have a highly flexible USB 3.0 host and a USB 3.0 device port. Those two ports, with appropriate adapters and software, should be able to handle nearly any plug based I/O task that we need for the device.


Since the USB 3.0 standard ratchets up the port to 900mA from 500mA, I don't think we would need a power brick for or a dedicated power jack on the device. I haven't used my 'power jack' plug on my device in nearly a year - I do all of my charging using old BlackBerry chargers (700mV max, USB OTG plug, folding fangs, compact) or via a USB - OTG cable from MonoPrice connected to the world's COOLEST travel power strip.


http://www.amazon.com/Macally-Portable-Power-Charger-Unistrip/dp/B005JZD2JC/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1342709912&sr=8-8&keywords=usb+2.0+hub+power


Since I got that Macally unit - I no longer carry -any- small device based power bricks when I travel (excl laptop brick). Just short USB cables and that one power strip. It literally saved me pounds in my carry on.


So - I'm putting forward the idea that the device only needs 4 exposed 'ports'.


1. USB 3.0 host port


2. USB 3.0 device port


3. One exposed memory storage slot.


4. One 4 pin audio jack compatible with in-line volume control headsets.


Yes, this means that the physical switches and dials exposed on the existing device would become comparatively sealed buttons and rocker buttons.
 
And power.


Outrageous power.

Mr_Burns_evil.gif
 
Ddddddddamn!!! That thing might be cool, but it weighs almost 30kg, which is back-breakingly heavy.
Yep. I've had two of them running in parallel under the hood of my ute for the last 6+ years. They've worked great for me, others I've heard have had issues with them.


You said you wanted a bigger battery - a type D31 is the biggest I could think off off the top of my head. I'm sure there are larger somewhere.
 
If we use one of these, we can save space on the PCB by dumping the charge controller chip and power supply jack :)


grid_x600.jpg
 
Back
Top