question re h-def

would there be a big difference between component h-def Vs hdmi h-def picture wise i mean ???.....many thanks pinky

 

Depends on your display more than anything.

If your display has a really naff analogue input but a superb hdmi input then obviously hdmi should be better, or vice versa.

 

HDTV in analogue requires the transmission of much higher frequencies, and that brings out the shortcomings of poor quality cables. HDMI is digital, and lower quality cable can be used without loss of signal quality.

 

many thanks...you have confirmed my answer to some friends who were having an argument re component/hdmi

 

HDMI was not designed to give the consumer a better picture, it was designed to get copy protection in there to keep the studios happy.

I agree with Nick as well, although I need an 8m cable from my system to the screen and if I had a projector I would need a 15m cable and 15m hdmi cables are not cheap.

 

If you use component connections then the quality of the D/A and A/D converters in the receiver and display will impact on picture quality, potentially adding quantisation noise and other issues. With an all digital HDMI signal path then these are bypassed.

HOWEVER - a high quality display connected via HD Component may look a lot better than a poor quality display with an HDMI link.

 

Yeah good point, if you are using cheap sh*tty equipment the hdmi may be better.

 

Steve has (as usual) hit the nail on the head.
Better quality displays will use 10-bit (instead) of 8-bit A/D and D/A converters (but are likely to cost more) .
HDMI wasn't just designed to add content protection ; it also adds digital audio capability along the same cable ; DVI (with or without HDCP) does not have a transmission means for audio (does not support audio packets) - this means another cable is needed for the audio side.
Both use the same electrical signals for the video (TMDS - Transmission Minimised Differential Signalling capable of 165 MegaPixels/second which equates to almost 5 Gbps).

Chris Muriel, Manchester

 

I know Chris, I was being a bit sarcastic towards HDMI or the bods behind it.

What I meant was I can't imagine them all sitting round a table saying "Hmmm, how can we get a better connection that is going to give the consumer the ultimate picture quality?"

It is like scart, what a terrible connection that was/is, convenient yes, but not exactly a superb connection.

They could have put SDI and digital audio in one connection for the ultimate in quality that is already available.

 

Ah , now your previous post makes sense ; my sarcasm detector wasn't on - I was in my typical analytical engineer mood

Yup - Hollywood, Micro$oft etc. didn't join committees like this for nothing ; I don't suppose they even hid their agenda.

Chris Muriel, Manchester.

 

If you mean HD-SDI - which is the HD version - then there are disadvantages to using this instead of HDMI or DVI as well as advantages. The biggest is that you'd lose the PC compatibility aspect. PCs increasingly come with DVI video outputs, that are compatible with HDMI inputs via a simple cable. Very few come with HD-SDI outputs - and most implementations of HD-SDI are YCrCb 4:2:2 only - which is not really suitable for PCs running 4:4:4 RGB.

That said HD-SDI is a robust standard that will go for many metres down a single coax cable, and carry embedded audio. However it is a more expensive standard to implement currently - though widespread adoption would remedy this.

However with no copy protection - can you imagine Hollywood studios allowing a world where you could take your HD satellite receiver or DVD player and plug it directly into an HD-Cam or HD-D5 VTR and make near-perfect recordings?

 

No, that was exactly my point.