DVI, HDMI, Composite , What do you all think?
|
Bronze Member Username: XgrizzlyxPost Number: 39 Registered: Jul-04 | Ok it's been a good year of thoughts and reviews i've seen on various threads on various boards at this site. So it's still all up in the air which gives the better image. DVI hookup is supposed to be true digital hook up HDMI adds digital sound to the transfer then there is composite hook up with progressive scan Is there any real difference in pitcure? I've yet to witness it!!! My thoughts. What is a key feature of DVI/HDMI?---> "uncompressed digital video with HDCP copy protection." So is the picture better or consumers being brained washed to think that in order to prevent duplicated DVD movies? HEHE another silly question i've researched tv's that have HDMI inputs but no kind of digital sound outputs. I think only the sony's have digital audio out. So what is the point of that? IS the point of HDMI to have digital audio and video and would you not lose digital audio if u use the analog audio outputs in the back of these tv's if you hook your tv up to a receiver? If you hook your dvd player so that the video singal goes to your tv and the audio to a receiver via coaxial or optical what is the point of HDMI hook ups on a dvd player or a tv? It whould seem to me that a dvi hook from dvd player to tv would be best for video and optical or coaxle for audio to a receiver. Another thought. If HDMI is the future why are any of the new equipment coming out have any kind of analog or composite hook up. Take them right of the receivers and dvd players to lower cost. Maybe one set for video games. They should make a version of there products with out this  ..... Another thought what would the best hook be HDMI from dvd player to receiver and from reciever to tv be DVI hmmmmmmmmmm makes since to me. What are your thoughts. and IS there any real difference between progressive scan composite video vs hdmi/dvi video in picture quality??????? |
|
Anonymous | To some videophiles, they claim a better picture thru dvi/hdmi. While in theory this may be true I cannot see a difference using component cables. (Progressive scan will not work thru composite). However, to future proof your display, make sure it has dvi(with hdcp) or hdmi in case they start to down rez hi def thru component cables. New displays with an integrated tuner should have at least a digital optical out. Why many displays have hdmi input and no digital output is a good question. I don't see the point either. Hopefully, the very knowledgeable members on this board can answer that. |
|
Bronze Member Username: XgrizzlyxPost Number: 41 Registered: Jul-04 | lol opps about the composite, i meant component :p |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 236 Registered: Feb-04 | Griz: The market will eventually settle on a "one wire does it all" format--and due to its extremely high bandwidth HDMI could be the one. I understand your question about sending digital audio into a TV display. There's no reason to do that under normal (home theater) circumstances, but the audio would be there should anyone desire to use the TV's internal speakers, thus eliminating a couple of analog patch cords. The real value of both DVI and HDMI video is that it eliminates digital to analog conversion in a video source (DVD, cable box, sat receiver) and then having the TV do the opposite analog to digital conversion. This is exactly what happens with component lines. These conversions represent a signal loss possibility. Think about HDMI's incredible bandwidth: for audio, up to 192kHz/24 bits on up to 8 channels!, and as you say, DVI does not carry audio. For video up to 165 MHz (adequate for HDTV), and it has a very fast transfer rate, up tp 5GB per second, more than double the rate required by a 1080(P) HDTV signal. That said, it looks like the next generation blue-laser HD players (be it Blu-Ray or HD-DVD) will be using HDMI as their principal A/V signal output. One wire into a compatible receiver/processor, then one more into the TV.....and you're done. Last, and I could be wrong about this, comparing DVI and HDMI cables, it certainly looks like the HDMI cable is simpler and probably cheaper to make. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VindslPost Number: 82 Registered: Jul-04 | My personal feeling is 'we' should forget about DVI/HDMI. In theory, these connections should work great, but they don't and won't because of HDCP. End of story! No reason to rehash this again. I could point you to dozens of threads discussing this, and they're all the same. The only reason the manufacturers are pushing HDMI is because the connectors are smaller... Yawn... ZZZZzzzz... "The real value of both DVI and HDMI video is that it eliminates digital to analog conversion in a video source (DVD, cable box, sat receiver) and then having the TV do the opposite analog to digital conversion. This is exactly what happens with component lines. These conversions represent a signal loss possibility." Yes and no... I agree with the first part, but you have to remember - the signal has to be converted to analog somewhere. That begs the question, "What will do a better job; a $69 DVD player or a $3500 HDTV?" I will pick a component connection (almost) every time. An exception would be high-end camcorders, which tend to have better DAC's than TV sets, regardless of price. In that case, s-video would be the way to go. Anyway, do yourself a favor and forget DVI/HDMI. Component is going to look better 99 times out of 100. The reason you don't see a difference is because you're trying to convince yourself DVI looks better, and it doesn't. It looks worse... |
|
TParnin Unregistered guest | Grizzly, While I agree with VinDSL that component looks just as good on a Sony LCD rear projection, HDMI looks better on a DLP or LCOS display. The reason is there is no conversion to analog on these sets. At my local electronics shop there was a big difference on the LCOS set using HDMI. However, I preferred the Sony next to it. I would recommend the new Sony KDF42WE655 LCD rear projection. I thought its overall picture was better than DLP and LCOS. And it has a digital cable and over the air tuner built in. It has both HDMI and component. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 238 Registered: Feb-04 | VinDSL: No, with digital TVs the signal does not have to be converted "somewhere." If you have a digital signal from the source, then the signal remains digital at the TV. It is true, however, digital audio must be converted to analog. Otherwise we would be hearing the audio equivalent of one fax machine talking to another. |
|
Ben Q Unregistered guest | (If you have a digital signal from the source, then the signal remains digital at the TV) Found this debate. To add an addendum, Vin is correct on crt and lcd rptv. The signal is converted to analog somewhere. I personally think this adds to the picture quality unlike DLP which is digital throughout but unnaturally sharp. I cannot speak on digital audio being converted to analog since I'm unclear as to how pulses of light are encoded as sound. Anyone have thoughts on this? |
|
rkr0923 Unregistered guest | I for one have found the component connection looks much better than the DVI on my PT50LC13. But I do have a question, my DVI cable has a row of pins, then a break, then another row of pins and then the bigger solid pin. I saw a DVI cable at WalMart ($29.00)with no break between the pins, is this a better cable? |
|
Bronze Member Username: VindslPost Number: 88 Registered: Jul-04 | Nice score! Philips PXT Performance 6-Foot DVI Cable for HDTV ($27.46) |
|
xvxvxvx Unregistered guest | "I saw a DVI cable at WalMart ($29.00)with no break between the pins, is this a better cable?" No what you are seeing is the analog pins. Not better just a slightly different type of DVI cable. These "extra" pins are used by some devices to transfer a low voltage power source to an otherwise unpowered device. Not normally used in tv displays. xvxvxvx |
|
New member Username: SanitationLODI, NJ UNITEDSTATES Post Number: 1 Registered: Oct-04 | HELP ME PLEASE IS ANYONE THERE |
|
David McCallum Unregistered guest | I just bought the new Sony 975 DVD/SACD player with an HDMI output. I hooked it to the Mitsubishi 52725 using the HDMI cable and the picture was great. The DVD player upgrades DVD video to 1081i. However, when I switched the hookup to component video, the upgrade seems to have disappeared and I have what appears to be normal DVD video. Does anyone have any ideas on why? |
|
xvxvxvx Unregistered guest | First of all a component connection is not HDMI compliant however your problem could be something as simple as changing the internal menu output resolution in your DVD player. xvxvxvx |
|
Bronze Member Username: ThrottlePost Number: 16 Registered: Sep-04 | I have the same problem with my LG dvd player. I use component video, but bought an HDMI to DVI cable (my tv has hdmi, my dvd player has DVI) But now i get no pciture at all, is my dvd player fried? please help this problem is bugging the s.hit out of me. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ThrottlePost Number: 16 Registered: Sep-04 | I have the same problem with my LG dvd player. I use component video, but bought an HDMI to DVI cable (my tv has hdmi, my dvd player has DVI) But now i get no pciture at all, is my dvd player fried? please help this problem is bugging the s.hit out of me. |
|
David McCallum Unregistered guest | Check to see if there is a switch on the player. Otherwise go into the menu and change the output to DVI. Make sure your cable is dvi to hdmi, not vice versa. If you are also using a Directv hd receiver, you can connect it and the dvd to the Gefen switch box and use them both without having to change cables. It works just fine. Also - the dvd player's ability to upgrade a picture from 480p to hd only works if you use the dvi or jdmi cable. It doesn't work with component video cables. |
|
New member Username: TbcassPost Number: 1 Registered: Dec-04 | Vindsl said "Yes and no... I agree with the first part, but you have to remember - the signal has to be converted to analog somewhere." This is not always true. Plasma and LCD TV's can have a pure digital path with a digital input. That said, can you really tell the difference? It depends on the quality of the digital to analog converters. |
|
New member Username: TbcassPost Number: 2 Registered: Dec-04 | TParnin said "While I agree with VinDSL that component looks just as good on a Sony LCD rear projection, HDMI looks better on a DLP or LCOS display. The reason is there is no conversion to analog on these sets. At my local electronics shop there was a big difference on the LCOS set using HDMI. However, I preferred the Sony next to it. I would recommend the new Sony KDF42WE655 LCD rear projection." The Sony rear projection LCD TV's use a pure digital path off the digital inputs. I own the Sony KDF50WE655. It's picture, IMHO, is equal to or better than any TV I've ever seen. |
|
UKMatt Unregistered guest | I have the Sony KDF50We655 50" LCD rptv and have tried to hook my HD Directv receiver (Samsung)to it using a DVI to HDMI cable but get no picture. When I wiggle the HDMI connnection at the back of the tv, I get a "snowy" picture. Is my HDMI input connection bad? |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics