Benefits(?) of HDMI vs Component in the high-def consoles

[Deusp]

You cannot categorically say that HDMI has better video quality than component. Those who insist on this either a) have equipment and tested this such it makes the statement true for them or b) just assume digital > analog.

Why can't you? Assuming the digital version is offering the same or better resolution, digital is always going to be better than analog due to the lack of signal degradation. This is the case between HDMI and component. And I definitely like to see a test claiming otherwise. You can find a test claiming they are the same, but I doubt you'll ever find a serious test claiming a superior component.

And there a future considerations to worry about, namely the ICT flag, HDMI 1.3, and potential for future higher resolutions.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Assuming the digital version is offering the same or better resolution, digital is always going to be better than analog due to the lack of signal degradation.

WRONG. It depends entirely on the implentation in that specific TV set.

Seems to me you're speaking based on theory, and with very little realworld experience. HDMI is not all roses.

 

[infinity4]

i really wonder if people are able to distinguish between digital and analog when you connect 2 360s to 1080p tellys, one with hdmi and other with vga, whilst the person does not know which is hdmi and which is vga.

 

[Sis]

Why can't you? Assuming the digital version is offering the same or better resolution, digital is always going to be better than analog due to the lack of signal degradation. This is the case between HDMI and component. And I definitely like to see a test claiming otherwise. You can find a test claiming they are the same, but I doubt you'll ever find a serious test claiming a superior component.

And there a future considerations to worry about, namely the ICT flag, HDMI 1.3, and potential for future higher resolutions.

I agree that in terms of artificial reasons, HDMI might be preferred (such as the ICT flag). In terms of signal degradation, I don't believe that's a factor in most cases. And which one is better is highly dependant on your equipment. You also didn't mention compatibility issues with HDMI that some users experience; certainly this doesn't happen with component cables.

This link here summed has an article that sums it up nicely:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html

 

[TheChefO]

i really wonder if people are able to distinguish between digital and analog when you connect 2 360s to 1080p tellys, one with hdmi and other with vga, whilst the person does not know which is hdmi and which is vga.

People can run this test now (cable box etc) and see the difference and unless there are other issues at play (one lighter or more saturated or color shift than the other ... or one doesn't work *cough*) I doubt any one here could on a regular sized tv (less than 120") and at typical viewing distance.

Unless they watch tv with binoculars.

 

[Sis]

Agreed, which is why people complained about the lack of HDMI on the 360 over a year ago.

And hopefully I never said, "HDMI is not needed." I just disagree with those who said that component is bad or that the Xbox 360 didn't embrace high def because it lacked HDMI out (I'm looking at you Michael Pachter).

 

[infinity4]

component or vga aren't bad enough to be rejected by people IMHO

 

[Deusp]

WRONG. It depends entirely on the implentation in that specific TV set.

Seems to me you're speaking based on theory, and with very little realworld experience. HDMI is not all roses.

Show me a TV does do HDMI worse that component then.

 

[TheChefO]

And hopefully I never said, "HDMI is not needed." I just disagree with those who said that component is bad or that the Xbox 360 didn't embrace high def because it lacked HDMI out (I'm looking at you Micheal Practer).

...and the guy from Factor5 too.

 

[Sis]

Show me a TV does do HDMI worse that component then.

My Toshiba DLP does, for certain sources (I have yet to find a source that looks good better over HDMI than component, I should say).

 

[infinity4]

Show me a TV does do HDMI worse that component then.

HDMI:

componet:

i have actually queried the guy who took these pictures, he did say he did calibration or something like that, something like default settings i can't say in english

hope this helps

IMO component looks better

 

[mrcorbo]

Seeing "future proof" and HDMI always gets a giggle out of me. Are you aware how many revisions this "standard" has been through since inception? Now as one of the early adapters to the format, how do you think they feel about their "future proof" device?

Each revision is a superset of the previous one. Equipment with support for earlier revisions will still work, it will just be limited to the functionality enabled by that revision. No worse off here than someone using a component/S/PDIF connected device.

This "standard" is a joke and Component is just as capable in resolution for HDTV's. The biggest reason for this "superior, future proofed standard" being introduced is copy protection.

On a technical level DVI support was fine and optical could carry any amount of audio data and quality they wanted to put through it. Fact is these formats were too "open" for their liking.

This is just wrong. HDMI1.2+ has a very strong advantage in its ability to pass high-resolution multichannel PCM. Of lesser importance is the fact that instead of a digital>analog>digital path for the video signal you maintain a digital signal throughout. Does this present a noticable difference? That is debateable, which lessens this as an advantage. Most times you see a set of images showing a dramatic difference the person making the demonstration didn't bother to re-calibrate the display after switching connections. The rest are likely showing a flaw in the display device's handling of analog signals. But it is still preferable to stay digital, given the option. The single-cable connection is also a big win for anyone who has spent any time trying to set up or modify a complex HT system. I have had to make some RubeGoldberg-ian connections sometimes to get desired functionality out of some systems. HDMI is a breath of fresh air.

As far as DVI being too open for the content providers; DVI supports the same copy protection as HDMI (HDCP). In fact I believe it was carried over *from* DVI when it was "tweaked" to become HDMI. You do know that HDMI and DVI are essentially they same technology? HDMI mainly just adds the ability to carry audio, a smaller profile connector and (as Dave alluded to in his post) the ability to carry higher resolution signals without having to use a dual-link connection. All things that make it more sutable as a CE connection than DVI which was designed around the types of connections required by PCs.

As for S/PDIF being just as good as HDMI's audio support; Can S/PDIF pass 7.1 channel 24bit/96kHz audio? And if you think running 8 analog RCA cables is a resonable workaround than I'm afraid I can't agree.

HDMI is a very good thing for the consumer. HDCP not so much, but that is a completely seperate issue.

 

[Deusp]

I agree that in terms of artificial reasons, HDMI might be preferred (such as the ICT flag). In terms of signal degradation, I don't believe that's a factor in most cases. And which one is better is highly dependant on your equipment. You also didn't mention compatibility issues with HDMI that some users experience; certainly this doesn't happen with component cables.

This link here summed has an article that sums it up nicely:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html

That's a somewhat disingenuous article. Not that the points being brought up are wrong, it's that they are not the same problems we're talking about. Yes, component tends to fail "gracefully" meaning that it only begins to degrade and in many case very little, whereas when HDMI fails, it's a total disaster.

However, that's the point of HDMI and all digital connections altogether. It's either zero degradation or nothing, and assuming there's nothing wrong with the cable, then all is good and HDMI is effectively always better than component.

 

[Todd33]

WRONG. It depends entirely on the implentation in that specific TV set.

Seems to me you're speaking based on theory, and with very little realworld experience. HDMI is not all roses.

Going from source to display has little to do with the TV. Analog is susceptible to interference, noise, signal drop, etc.

I don't think component/VGA can do 1:1 pixel mapping, so in theory (if your display supports 1:1), it should be more clear, no over or underscan. No pixel bleeding, etc.

Whether this holds up in a blind test is the question.

http://pixelmapping.wikispaces.com/Pixel+mapping+explained

 

[Tap In]

My Toshiba DLP does, for certain sources (I have yet to find a source that looks good better over HDMI than component, I should say).

yep me too

this "HDMI has better image quality than component", is nonsense.

the answer is it depends.

 

[Deusp]

HDMI:

componet:

i have actually queried the guy who took these pictures, he did say he did calibration or something like that, something like default settings i can't say in english

hope this helps

IMO component looks better

I was referring to a serious test, where you show exactly the same picture and do a non-stylistic comparison where you try to best find difference between image quality. Simply saying that one looks better than the other when its just calibration is meaningless.

 

[mrcorbo]

HDMI:

componet:

i have actually queried the guy who took these pictures, he did say he did calibration or something like that, something like default settings i can't say in english

hope this helps

IMO component looks better

If he says he properly calibrated the displays between switching connections he was either mistaken or he lied. The differences between those two images could be pretty easily eliminated with an adjustment of the contrast/black level setting.

 

[Deusp]

My Toshiba DLP does, for certain sources (I have yet to find a source that looks good better over HDMI than component, I should say).

Are these calibration differences, stylistic differences, or are you really saying the HDMI is transfering data worse than the component? There's no helping you if the source itself sucks and that shows on HDMI more clearly than component. Also, the HDMI version could be the intended look, with the component the one that you prefer.

 

[Sis]

That's a somewhat disingenuous article. Not that the points being brought up are wrong, it's that they are not the same problems we're talking about. Yes, component tends to fail "gracefully" meaning that it only begins to degrade and in many case very little, whereas when HDMI fails, it's a total disaster.

However, that's the point of HDMI and all digital connections altogether. It's either zero degradation or nothing, and assuming there's nothing wrong with the cable, then all is good and HDMI is effectively always better than component.

I'm not sure why you think the point of the article is about signal degradation. It seems to be about how video quality-wise they should be the same, therefore what impacts the final output will be factors based on equipment.

I'm definitely open to being proven wrong in this regard, even though it's counter to what I've read and experienced, so if anyone has links that they've read proving otherwise, I'd be happy to read them...

 

[Sis]

Are these calibration differences, stylistic differences, or are you really saying the HDMI is transfering data worse than the component? There's no helping you if the source itself sucks and that shows on HDMI more clearly than component. Also, the HDMI version could be the intended look, with the component the one that you prefer.

I believe the issue was that the Toshiba was converting the HDMI signal into analog in order to run through the video processing logic before being reconverted to digital for output into DLP, but it's been a couple years since I've even looked into it, so I may be misremembering.

Anyway, I'm not sure why component wouldn't be showing me the "full monty" in this regards. Are you suggesting there is so much interference that the signal is being softened? Or that analog intrinsically softens the image?