Benefits(?) of HDMI vs Component in the high-def consoles
- Thread starter -tkf-
- Start date
Yes, they are HD, and they are still making variations of these HD CRT's - just look on Samsungs website. The primary driver for them is that they are (or were, on introduction) particularly cheap, relative to other HD solutions.
Computers that don't have HDCP on their display adapter can still output over DVI to an HDMI input (via a convertor) and will display and operate just fine. They won't, of course, be able to playback HDCP protected content from the PC though.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Well, um...that's exactly my point. They don't benefit from a digital connection, but they often do have HDMI. Hence: can very well (if not likely) get a better picture from an quality analog connection.
And we can translate "nearly obsolete" to "already has a significant existing installed base". Again, my point.
We all agree that HDMI will be the defacto connection down the road. The question is the significance right now and in the near future.
Yes, you're right it is the biggest reason for the compatability problems. And it does suck that HDCP has been made necessary. I'm with you there. DRM has no benefit for the consumer.
But the problem isn't the standard itself. That is fine. It is some implementations of that standard that have problems. That is a rather important difference, IMO. These problems will (and have so far) become more and more rare over time. When the standard is implemented well it "just works" and is truly transparent to the user.
Even so, it's not proof that HDMI is going to look worse than component. You're still going to suffer from things like signal degradation, and the source has to have a good DAC too for component to look better than HDMI. The last point you made is kicker: it's clear right now that CRT TVs are no cheaper than LCD TVs for this market, so anyone ignorant enough to buy the CRT pretty much deserves what he or she gets. Most will opt for the LCD and almost certainly get an advantage with going digital.
The pointless comment would in this scenario more refer to the display (which has the HDMI connector) potentially not supporting HDCP which would severely limit the suitable applications for it. Console and PC gaming on a HT setup would actually be one of the remaining uses.
/OT I'm actually waiting on HDMI with full audio support on a high-end vid card before I do my next upgrade for this reason. I'm crossing my fingers that this is implemented in the R600 and not just the lower spec devices.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
I don't believe anyone hinted at claiming to have any such "proof".
What is being refuted is the notion that HDMI by definition is going to look better than component.
So, I bought a 36" 15:9 HDTV CRT about 2 years ago that included HDMI. Relative to panels at the time, Saved about $1000 and have a better picture than most panels. In fact, many would probably argue that the overall picture from a CRT is still better than most other technologies. (The primary disadvantage of CRTs is of course, is weight and size)
What do I "deserve?" I've been watching hi-def broadcasts for a couple years earlier than anyone who "waited" for panel tehcnology to mature and prices to drop.
I am perfectly satisified with my TV. Do you think I should ditch it, and buy a new panel display just so I can have a "fully digitial" data stream?
Sure...if I were buying a new TV today...the advances in display quality and lower panel prices would make a CRT much harder to justify. This doesn't change the fact that there's a significant HDTV installed base that has an analog display.
But it wasn't clear when I purchased my DVI HDTV (which has no built in tuner) three years ago. That is why ICT wont be turned on for movies for another three years (supposedly).
Of course that is what I get for early adopting, but if ppl like me didn't where would we be? I still feel that for playing videogames it doesn't make a difference. With a quality set of component cables there probably won't be a noticable difference on my 50" display.
For those luck SOB's that have projectors with screen that start at like 13' maybe HDMI is useful. But I would venture to say if you have a screen that large I bet resolutions higher than 1080p (single link hdmi is only good up to 1440p) is more useful. We will all be back at square one once those higher resolutions kick in. And the sad part is that the connector is physically different for dual link HDMI so you can't even salvage the cable like you could on the analog displays... oh well /rant.
Then for LCD or Plasma TVs it should be by definition be better. For older CRT TVs that have no use for HDMI it's potentially possible for component to look better, but no one knows. That's a pretty strong position if you ask me.
I'm pretty sure DLP TVs have finally beaten CRT TVs on picture quality, but I'm not certain.
That's true. Older HDTVs are screwed by newer ones to some extent. However, early adopters are a small group, and they tend to always get the latest and greatest anyways, even if they already have an HDTV. Not to be rude, but for the vast majority of people, HDMI is going to be better.
And that wasn't the discussion - the discussion was whether it is going to be a superior solution, period. Its not necessarily the case and there are scenarios where it may not be the case.
Personally, in my case, given that I have a nice, new 40" Samsung 10-bit panel I'll choose HDMI over component anytime, and I've got to make th decision of whether the cable box or upscaling DVD gets kicked off HDMI on to component when I get the Elite 360.
My comment was due to the fact that I'd not looked at recent prices. Current LCD prices in the UK are still higher than the price these were introduced at.
Get a HDMI switcher or a receiver.
http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...cs_id=1011002&p_id=2777&seq=1&format=2&style=
Ultimately I'll get an HDMI switching Amp/Receiver, but its not hugely high priority at the moment.
Then fine, there do exist scenarios where component could potentially be better than HDMI. However, all such scenarios are rare, and only cases where you made poor buy decisions or you were an early adopt. In the first case, you likely didn't know the different, nor would you care. In the second case, you would likely get a better HDTV soon to replace your old one.
So there you have it. It's possible, but not very likely. HDMI goes from always better to almost always better.
All things in UK seem to be more expensive. Not true here in the US though.
well I posted this just three days ago when we had this discussion in another thread but my Samsung 50" 720p HL-S5086w DLP looks ABSOLUTELY better over component than my HDMI in from my HD cable box (SA 8300 HD) into either of the 2 HDMI ports. Less digital noise and better saturation.
Conversely HDMI from the same box looked better on my 30" CRT HDTV than the component in.
...see there is your unequivocal anecdotal evidence.
Conversely HDMI from the same box looked better on my 30" CRT HDTV than the component in.
...see there is your unequivocal anecdotal evidence.
Errr, the pricing still scales relatively.
Section 5.4.4 of the HDMI 1.3 spec makes it clear that it does not actually use any error correction on the video stream itself.
HDMI only uses ECC on the audio and control packets, since corruption in those would seriously screw things up.
A few bit errors in the video stream would just result in some wrongly coloured pixels in one frame of the stream, so ECC is omitted.
If there ECC had actually been implemented on the video stream, then you'd get a "bad signal" error from your monitor if there were any errors detected, but since there's no actual way to detect errors in the video stream, what you get is sparkles.
Last edited by a moderator:
You continue to change the argument. What do you define as rare? What do you define as being an early adopter? What do you define as a poor buy decision?
Joe DeFuria
Legend
That's simply the way technology is. You're always going to be "screwed" by newer tech. "Screwed" in the sense that why you buy today depreciates in value.
That being said, I don't look at it as being screwed. I look at is as "I get to enjoy the benefits of HDTV now for the past few years."
So, I presume that logic goes for console adopters?
The ones who early adopted HDTVs (and less likely to take advantage or have HDMI) are also early adopters of consoles, yah?
Or if the early adopters always upgrade to get the latest and greatest (with apparently little worry about cost)...I presume then 360 ealy adopters will simply upgrade to the Elite? So what's the problem?
It's not a question of rudeness...it's a question of the value of HDMI for th majority of users for the forseeable future.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
I guess that just makes me, um, "super rare?"
I'm a relatively early adopter of HDTV. I happen to have 2 CRT HDTVs. (One with, and one without HDMI). I purchased both of them being fully informed of their specs and capabilities, btw.
They both funtion perfectly well and deliver a great picture. I have zero reason to replace either of them....and likely won't until they either break-down or we re-design our rooms and get new furniture.
There's too many other things to spend money on.
Similar threads
