JLC wrote:
> "theOne" <abuse RemoveThis @prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:f01we.462$4m3.37@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Eras wrote:
>>
>>>>"Eras" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Besides, I'm sure within the next couple of years there will be
>>>>>component/HDMI/DVI converter boxes sold cheaply. They are expensive
>>>
>>>now.
>>>
>>>Woah. For fun, googled for such an animal. Had read in the past that
>>>they
>>>were "not cheap", but assumed by "not cheap" meaning hundreds of dollars.
>>>More like there is no such (real-time) consumer converter -- there is
>>>only
>>>studio equipment in the thousands of dollars.
>>>
>>>Pretty much means that the only practical way XBox 360 will be seeing
>>>HDMI
>>>is with hardware specifically manufactured to take the video signal
>>>inside
>>>it (while still digital) and putting it out HDMI.
>>>
>>>Still don't see what is so "wrong" with just using component though.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>-E
>>>
>>>
>>
>>simplicity.....and truly digital connection (i.e. dvi wrapped in HDMI).
>
>
> Agreed. One thin cable compared to a three cable bundle saves a lot of space
> when you already have miles of cable in the back of your TV. JLC
>
>
this and component video is analog. Even still, not necessarily a loss
of quality. Just the same, I'd if I had the inputs on a TV or reciever,
I'd definitely wanna use 'em.
Here's a good snip from
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html
Isn't Digital Just Better?
It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is
better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while
analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and
information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it
tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is
no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video
signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum
runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog
cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed
assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free.
DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once
information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration
with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a
factor at distance.
So What Does Determine Image Quality?
Video doesn't just translate directly from source material to displays,
for a variety of reasons. Very few displays operate at the native
resolutions of common source material, so when you're viewing material
in 480p, 720p, or 1080i, there is, of necessity, some scaling going on.
Meanwhile, the signals representing colors have to be accurately
rendered, which is dependent on black level and "delta," the
relationship between signal level and actual as-rendered color level.
Original signal formats don't correspond well to display hardware; for
example, DVD recordings have 480 lines, but non-square pixels. What all
of this means is that there is signal processing to go on along the
signal chain.
The argument often made for the DVI or HDMI signal formats is the "pure
digital" argument--that by taking a digital recording, such as a DVD or
a digital satellite signal, and rendering it straight into digital form
as a DVI or HDMI signal, and then delivering that digital signal
straight to the display, there is a sort of a perfect
no-loss-and-no-alteration-of-information signal chain. If the display
itself is a native digital display (e.g. an LCD or Plasma display), the
argument goes, the signal never has to undergo digital-to-analog
conversion and therefore is less altered along the way.
That might be true, were it not for the fact that digital signals are
encoded in different ways and have to be converted, and that these
signals have to be scaled and processed to be displayed. Consequently,
there are always conversions going on, and these conversions aren't
always easy going. "Digital to digital" conversion is no more a
guarantee of signal quality than "digital to analog," and in practice
may be substantially worse. Whether it's better or worse will depend
upon the circuitry involved--and that is something which isn't usually
practical to figure out. As a general rule, with consumer equipment, one
simply doesn't know how signals are processed, and one doesn't know how
that processing varies by input. Analog and digital inputs must either
be scaled through separate circuits, or one must be converted to the
other to use the same scaler. How is that done? In general, you won't
find an answer to that anywhere in your instruction manual, and even if
you did, it'd be hard to judge which is the better scaler without
viewing the actual video output. It's fair to say, in general, that even
in very high-end consumer gear, the quality of circuits for signal
processing and scaling is quite variable.
Additionally, it's not uncommon to find that the display characteristics
of different inputs have been set up differently. Black level, for
example, may vary considerably from the digital to the analog inputs,
and depending on how sophisticated your setup options on your display
are, that may not be an easy thing to recalibrate.
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
