Today's crazy scoop or internet hoax: 360 on-board HDMI?

The un-importance of HDMI for the 360

HDMI has 0 benefits for actual games on the 360. I don't know of any HDTV that has HDMI inputs but no Component inputs so I'm not too sure about this outcry for HDMI especially when majority of the sets in circulation only have one HDMI input to being with.

I have 2 HD sets. Each only has one 1 HDMI input. In order to upconvert the DVD player needs the HDMI port so there is a direct benefit to using HDMI with this device. The Comcast STB also has HDMI but does not benefit from it. Component offers the same quality(better for SD channels actually). X360 would not benefit from HDMI so component is fine. So out of 3 devices, only one benefits.

I use HDMI on things that'll actually benefit from it. Not many people want to buy HDMI switches or multi-HDMI input receivers for 0 benefit. HDMI for the xbox 360 is not a make or break deal by any means. HDMI for the 360 is more of a preference of using one cable instead 5 bundled together as is the case with Component. Would I have liked to have option, sure! I'm a consumer, give me everything at once! but is it anything critical? Nope.
 
I have had my DVD connected to the HDMI port of my TV for months now and personally think the connection is as overrated at component is under rated. The biggest problem with HDMI is the connect is unstable, IE it easily comes away from the TV ot DVD player resulting in a loss of picture. The cable does not lock into place when pluged in as there no lock as such, so just the weight of the cable can pull it out of the socket, further if you have a decent AV system even the vibrations from heavy bass sections can unsettle the cable giving a jitetry picture. Go to any AV site and you will always see complaints along this line. Further the difference between the picture quality between component and HDMI is marginal to say the least, in fact I'd be suprised if anyone could tell the difference without knowing.
 
RobertR1 said:
HDMI has 0 benefits for actual games on the 360. I don't know of any HDTV that has HDMI inputs but no Component inputs so I'm not too sure about this outcry for HDMI especially when majority of the sets in circulation only have one HDMI input to being with.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're not quite right there. The benefit would be greater freedom and convenience for the user.

A person might have a TV set with one component and one HDMI/DVI input, and one extra device such as a stand-alone DVD player or HD cable/satellite decoder that offers component out only, and not DVI.

Component offers the same quality(better for SD channels actually).
Click to expand...
Erm, component is never better (technically, or otherwise) than HDMI/DVI, regardless of resolution.
 
Guden Oden said:
Erm, component is never better (technically, or otherwise) than HDMI/DVI, regardless of resolution.
Click to expand...

The Motorola STB's used by Comcast beg to differ. The SD picutre using HDMI is horrible. Component is bareable but S-Video is the optimal. So for ideal PQ you go Component/HDMI for HD channels and S Video for SD channels. Optimal on paper does not always apply in practise.
 
DemoCoder said:
I think the whole reason it has been made an issue is that not having a launch SKU with HDMI has pissed off a few people with HDMI displays, because of a) the false belief that there would be a future HDMI "cable/dongle" and b) the MS "HD era" marketing. I mean, claiming you have the first console designed for the HD era, but not having any way to provide a future HDMI-add on I think bothers some people.

There were so many early adopter people who falsely held out hope for an HDMI dongle, I think those people now feel betrayed because they have to buy a whole new XB360 to get HDMI.
Click to expand...
Thats not really much to do with the point I was making - i.e. the notion that the inclusion, or not, of HDMI is linked to other things. However, I don't really think this is much about early adoption either - I know I would probably prefer a newer generation box with an HDMI, CPU shrink, smaller case, lower noise, etc., but I don't feel burned by not having it and may even pony up at some point in the future for such a unit; much like initial PS2 owners want/bought future revisions, or DS owners want/bought DS lite, etc.
 
Other than convenience, the general benefit to HDMI will be a completely digital transfer from source to display for LCD and Plasma, reducing the number of conversions between.
 
RobertR1 said:
The Motorola STB's used by Comcast beg to differ.
Click to expand...
You can't take one particular (flawed) implementation and argue it is representative as a general case. HDMI is clearly superior to component from virtually every regard, especially when dealing with digital source to digital receiver transmissions.
 
Dave Baumann said:
Other than convenience, the general benefit to HDMI will be a completely digital transfer from source to display for LCD and Plasma, reducing the number of conversions between.
Click to expand...

But for games, that's all moot since scaling will enter the picture most of the time. Most artifacts from analog "conversions" will be insignificant to artifacts from scaling.
 
Guden Oden said:
You can't take one particular (flawed) implementation and argue it is representative as a general case. HDMI is clearly superior to component from virtually every regard, especially when dealing with digital source to digital receiver transmissions.
Click to expand...

Well, you did say 'never'... ;)

Shogmaster said:
But for games, that's all moot since scaling will enter the picture most of the time. Most artifacts from analog "conversions" will be insignificant to artifacts from scaling.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, but those with 720p native sets would benefit from Dave's point. I beleive at this point that resolution is probably the most popular among larger screens (over 42").
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of the features in consoles aren't "needed for games" but might still be very important and desired features.
- Being able to switch on/off the console with the remote; totally unneeded for games, but a nice, convenient feature to have (though personally I couldn't care less)
- Optical digital audio out. It'd be good if it had coaxial digital audio out too, in case all your optical inputs in your AV receiver are occupied, but fortunately there are usually more optical ports than coaxials on the receivers.
- Low noise. Not really needed for bareback gaming experience, but adds much to the convenience.
- Music and video playback from HDD. Apart from custom playlists inside games a feature that's got little to do with the games, but a nice feature that adds to the value a lot.
- HDMI. Good if you have a display with say one component, one s-video, one composite, one DVI and one HDMI inputs. For me HDMI is something I'll need as my planned display will have aforementioned connectivity. The component will be occupied by my PVR and HDMI by the PS3, I wouldn't want to use the inferior s-video and composite with my 90" screen, and my AV receiver only has composite and s-video switching.
 
expletive said:
Maybe, maybe not, but those with 720p native sets would benefit from Dave's point. I beleive at this point that resolution is probably the most popular among larger screens (over 42").
Click to expand...

Native 720p sets are now getting rare. The only ones are pretty much low end to mid range RP DLPs, some RP LCDs, and.... that's about it. Direct view LCDs are either 1366x768 or 1920x1080 these days, Plasmas are always fucked up resolutions like 1024x1024, and High end rear projection sets are 1920x1080.

If you want native 1280x720, your choice now is pretty much now lowe end/mid range RP DLPs and some RP LCDs, which suffers a bit from fuzzy output due to projection.
 
Dave Baumann said:
Other than convenience, the general benefit to HDMI will be a completely digital transfer from source to display for LCD and Plasma, reducing the number of conversions between.
Click to expand...

Seconded. And it's not just conversions, but also a matter of what liberties the components on the signal path take with the signal as it passes through. It seems to me that component video is subject to all manner of atrocities even if it's just supposed to be going from A to B without conversion.

So I try to avoid Component wherever possible, because frequently the signal gets mangled somewhere between being rendered and being displayed. There's no good reason this *needs* to happen - it actually seems deliberately enforced that the colour components are treated as lower resolution.

I hate that my PS2 only outputs progressive using component (on a good sized screen the chroma resolution is painfully obvious) and I'll be avoiding the non-HDMI PS3 for the same reason (assuming it doesn't do VGA - Sony in the past have seemed reluctant to offer that, but maybe they'll take notice of the 360 and offer it as an alternative).

The assertion in the (posted in another thread) E3 Q+A from Sony that the picture from component and HDMI was "comparable" is, IMO, wrong. Unless they're viewing a television that is either much better at component, or much worse at HDMI, than anything I've previously seen. I hope their point was only that the same resolutions were possible, rather than actually the same quality on both signals. It's not like they've got a good reputation regards image quality, but there's no need to compound that by making rediculous statements like that...

But it's got nothing to do with 1080p. Nor for that matter, any HD resolution - I can see the difference a mile away even on SD content. If anything, higher resolutions will hide the problems a bit better, as the pixels are small enough that minor bleeding will be less noticeable - but as an anally retentive home-cinema fanatic, I'm not standing for that nonesense in *my* living room :)
 
expletive said:
Well, you did say 'never'... ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah I did, and as I'm sure you understand, I assumed everybody would realize I wasn't speaking of cases where the DVI/HDMI-equipped product in question is gimped intentionally or through incompetence, but rather having the standard implemented according to specs. :p
 
Guden Oden said:
Yeah I did, and as I'm sure you understand, I assumed everybody would realize I wasn't speaking of cases where the DVI/HDMI-equipped product in question is gimped intentionally or through incompetence, but rather having the standard implemented according to specs. :p
Click to expand...

Absolutely, just some good natured riibbing. :)

I will say though that as far as DVD players go, I have been consistently surprised at how many units have a component output that is superior (at least in some regards) to its HDMI counterpart.

The "Secrets of Home Theater" website performs some rigorous benchmarking in regards to pixel cropping, properly mapping RGB levels to video levels, and Y/C delay (collectively labeled as 'core performance'). For whatever reason, the component outputs of these players can often provide the better solution. That said the spirit of your post is well taken and i'm sure a lot of it is inexperience with HDMI and its proper implementation.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
expletive said:
You would agree though that for gaming only, it adds very little right?
Click to expand...

For only gaming? Yes.

Then again, the point of the HD-DVD certainly isn't gaming, and I still don't believe the point of BR is gaming, either.
 
expletive said:
Absolutely, just some good natured riibbing. :)

I will say though that as far as DVD players go, I have been consistently surprised at how many units have a component output that is superior (at least in some regards) to its HDMI counterpart.

The "Secrets of Home Theater" website performs some rigorous benchmarking in regards to pixel cropping, properly mapping RGB levels to video levels, and Y/C delay (collectively labeled as 'core performance'). For whatever reason, the component outputs of these players can often provide the better solution. That said the spirit of your post is well taken and i'm sure a lot of it is inexperience with HDMI and its proper implementation.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi
Click to expand...


So if hdmi isn't better quality then what's the point????


;)
 
TheChefO said:
So if hdmi isn't better quality then what's the point????


;)
Click to expand...


Just to be clear, and to restate Guden's point...

When implemented correctly, HDMI is superior. The problem, up until this point, has been poor implementations of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guden Oden said:
You can't take one particular (flawed) implementation and argue it is representative as a general case. HDMI is clearly superior to component from virtually every regard, especially when dealing with digital source to digital receiver transmissions.
Click to expand...


While it might be one application it is one that effects millions of households. The Samsung Blu Ray player also seems to do a better job at component instead of HDMI depeding on your display, so theory and practise, yet again http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa123.html#comp Which HDMI are you a fan of? 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or the later ones that'll surely come down the line? HDMI is a pain in the ass and since it's hardware, you can't do much about it your current device has issues with it. HDMI isn't as rosy as CE's make it out to be.

HDMI is still a work in progress. One day it will be all it's cracked up to be but until till then it's hit or miss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top