Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port?

On Aug 7, 7:26 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm just wondering if the HDMI port and the colors are worth it. I
> have an HDTV that does 720p and 1080i. I currently use HDMI cables for
> my FIOS boxes and my HD-DVD player. I don't know that I've seen any
> difference from when I was using component cables.

It doesn't have anything to do with color, it has to do with
resolution.

Most televisions don't support 1080p over component cables. If you
have a 1080p television you should be using HDMI or VGA to get the
full resolution.

If you aren't running 1080p then it probably doesn't matter if you
have HDMI or not.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:26:33 -0700, The alMIGHTY N
<natlee75 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>, in an obviously impaired state, wrote:

>I ask because Microsoft took the time to point out that the $399 Halo
>3 Xbox 360 has an HDMI port. I was actually considering purchasing
>this thing if I could pawn off my Premium console to my best friend or
>cousin, both of whom were interested in the system but not enough to
>pay $400 or even $350 for one.
>
>I'm just wondering if the HDMI port and the colors are worth it. I
>have an HDTV that does 720p and 1080i. I currently use HDMI cables for
>my FIOS boxes and my HD-DVD player. I don't know that I've seen any
>difference from when I was using component cables.
>
>Just curious what others thought...

The X-Box 360 will do 720p and 1080i using component cables. If your
TV will not do 1080p via HDMI, then you'll gain nothing.
--
Ray Sirois
SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS
http://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6080
telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6023
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On Aug 7, 10:26 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm just wondering if the HDMI port and the colors are worth it. I
> have an HDTV that does 720p and 1080i. I currently use HDMI cables for
> my FIOS boxes and my HD-DVD player. I don't know that I've seen any
> difference from when I was using component cables.

If your TV only does 1080i and 720p, it probably won't make a
difference. The HDMI port lets you output 1080p though, for those
whose HDTV's support it. It also simplifies the cable clutter, as it
carries both audio and video. It could also make a difference in the
future if you are an HD-DVD fan (since there is a security feature
that lets movie studios require that you either output through HDMI or
downgrade your HD output to 480p).

If I were buying an Xbox today, I would definitely get one with HDMI.
But I'm not rushing out to throw away my old premium just yet (since
my TV, like yours, is 720p).

-Eric
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On Aug 7, 11:11 pm, Jordan <lu... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 7:26 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm just wondering if the HDMI port and the colors are worth it. I
> > have an HDTV that does 720p and 1080i. I currently use HDMI cables for
> > my FIOS boxes and my HD-DVD player. I don't know that I've seen any
> > difference from when I was using component cables.
>
> It doesn't have anything to do with color, it has to do with
> resolution.

LOL - I was talking about the Spartan green and gold colors the
console itself would sport.

> Most televisions don't support 1080p over component cables. If you
> have a 1080p television you should be using HDMI or VGA to get the
> full resolution.
>
> If you aren't running 1080p then it probably doesn't matter if you
> have HDMI or not.

Cool. I don't have a 1080p television (maybe sometime next year). I
had read about lack of support for 1080p over component but since that
didn't apply to me I didn't even consider it.

Otherwise, the signals should be pretty similar coming through both
HDMI and component, no?
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On 2007-08-08 11:46:38 -0600, The alMIGHTY N <natlee75.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> said:

> On Aug 7, 11:11 pm, Jordan <lu....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 7:26 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm just wondering if the HDMI port and the colors are worth it. I
>>> have an HDTV that does 720p and 1080i. I currently use HDMI cables for
>>> my FIOS boxes and my HD-DVD player. I don't know that I've seen any
>>> difference from when I was using component cables.
>>
>> It doesn't have anything to do with color, it has to do with
>> resolution.
>
> LOL - I was talking about the Spartan green and gold colors the
> console itself would sport.
>
>> Most televisions don't support 1080p over component cables. If you
>> have a 1080p television you should be using HDMI or VGA to get the
>> full resolution.
>>
>> If you aren't running 1080p then it probably doesn't matter if you
>> have HDMI or not.
>
> Cool. I don't have a 1080p television (maybe sometime next year). I
> had read about lack of support for 1080p over component but since that
> didn't apply to me I didn't even consider it.
>
> Otherwise, the signals should be pretty similar coming through both
> HDMI and component, no?

They're entirely different. Component is strictly analog. HDMI is
pure digital -- sorta like VGA vs. DVI output for a video card.

HDMI can also carry audio signals, where component does not. HDMI also
supports the "HDCP" copy protection system, which nobody uses anyway.

So, when everything is said & done, here's the differences:

HDMI -- one fairly thin cable, for audio & video. Less mess, pretty
easy to hook up.
Component -- three cables (joined together). Audio is seperate, and
can be optical or coaxial digital, or plain 'ol analog audio. In other
words: lots of cables, can be messy, confusing to hook up.

Don't let the '1080p' craze get to you. The only difference between
1080p and 1080i is if you have a Cathode-Ray-Tube based TV. There are
a lot of ignorant fanboys that spew a lot of false 'facts' about
interlaced vs. progressive on a TV. They may try to convince you
there's more than that, but don't believe it - there is no difference
unless you have a CRT HDTV -- and even then, it's not one you'll notice.

A plasma, DLP, or LCD tv simply combines the two parts of an interlaced
signal together in a frame buffer, then displays it. So the difference
between 1080i and 1080p on one of those TV's is zero.

But, having a TV that does both 1080p, 1080i, HDMI, and component, I'll
give you my impressions:
* Quality: Nothing substantial. I get full 1080p from both, with full
framerates. Picture looks great on both. But high definition video
doesn't look any different in 1080p vs 1080i. (nor should it be
possible to look different)
* Sound: I don't have a receiver that can do the higher-bitrates that
HDMI can carry vs. optical digital. However, since home theatre
equipment has higher audio bitrates than movie theatres use (for Dolby
Digital, at least), there's just not much to be gained by pushing more
data.

In fact, on both HD DVD and Blu-ray, the audio signal is quite a bit
higher quality than you get in a movie theatre. In a theatre, the
bitrate for dolby is 320 kbps -- compared with 448 kbps of a DVD, or
3000 kbps for HD DVD. DTS (in theatres) runs around 1500 kbps. So
when you can get a better sound signal from home audio equipment than a
theatre can give... the extra audio capacity of HDMI means little.

Basically the "big" thing with HDMI:
* Newer technology (which some think means 'better')
* one cable for both audio & video - it's convenient, clean, and easy
to hook up.
* more expensive cables (but you can have a longer cable from your
device to your TV)
* HDCP copy protection -- which nobody uses anyway.
* Sony spent a lot of money to say that HDMI is "better", and that the
PS3 is better than the 360 because it has HDMI. And there are a lot of
people who will blindly buy Sony simply because "it's a Sony"
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On Aug 7, 10:26 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I ask because Microsoft took the time to point out that the $399 Halo
> 3 Xbox 360 has an HDMI port. I was actually considering purchasing
> this thing if I could pawn off my Premium console to my best friend or
> cousin, both of whom were interested in the system but not enough to
> pay $400 or even $350 for one.
>
> I'm just wondering if the HDMI port and the colors are worth it. I
> have an HDTV that does 720p and 1080i. I currently use HDMI cables for
> my FIOS boxes and my HD-DVD player. I don't know that I've seen any
> difference from when I was using component cables.
>
> Just curious what others thought...

Microsoft's recent announcement that all new Xbox 360s (formerly known
as Xbox 360 Premiums) will now have HDMI ports makes it a lot more
difficult for me to justify purchasing a Halo 3 Limited Edition Xbox
360 since now the only benefit for the extra $50 is different colors
and a play-and-charge kit, which costs $20 separately.

I don't know that a green and gold console is worth $30. It could look
sweet having that Spartan-colored Xbox 360 with the upcoming Todd
McFarlane designed wireless controllers... or it could look chintzy. :-
\

The question still remains whether it's worth it for me to sell off my
current system to my cousin or best friend and use the money to
purchase a new system, Halo 3 colored or not.

I have not yet experienced any of the hardware issues plaguing some
people and it seems that the HDMI port probably won't do much for me
for the time being because of the televisions I have right now.

It would certainly be nice to have 120Gb of space instead of 20Gb of
space (especially since I have a backlog of demos I want to try and
videos I want to see and got blocked last night during a download
spree). It would also certainly piss me off if I ran into some of the
data transfer problems some people have experienced.

Decisions, decisions...
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On Aug 8, 8:26 pm, Troy Telford <nospam> wrote:
> On 2007-08-08 11:46:38 -0600, The alMIGHTY N <natle....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 11:11 pm, Jordan <lu....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 7, 7:26 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I'm just wondering if the HDMI port and the colors are worth it. I
> >>> have an HDTV that does 720p and 1080i. I currently use HDMI cables for
> >>> my FIOS boxes and my HD-DVD player. I don't know that I've seen any
> >>> difference from when I was using component cables.
>
> >> It doesn't have anything to do with color, it has to do with
> >> resolution.
>
> > LOL - I was talking about the Spartan green and gold colors the
> > console itself would sport.
>
> >> Most televisions don't support 1080p over component cables. If you
> >> have a 1080p television you should be using HDMI or VGA to get the
> >> full resolution.
>
> >> If you aren't running 1080p then it probably doesn't matter if you
> >> have HDMI or not.
>
> > Cool. I don't have a 1080p television (maybe sometime next year). I
> > had read about lack of support for 1080p over component but since that
> > didn't apply to me I didn't even consider it.
>
> > Otherwise, the signals should be pretty similar coming through both
> > HDMI and component, no?
>
> They're entirely different. Component is strictly analog. HDMI is
> pure digital -- sorta like VGA vs. DVI output for a video card.
>
> HDMI can also carry audio signals, where component does not. HDMI also
> supports the "HDCP" copy protection system, which nobody uses anyway.
>
> So, when everything is said & done, here's the differences:
>
> HDMI -- one fairly thin cable, for audio & video. Less mess, pretty
> easy to hook up.
> Component -- three cables (joined together). Audio is seperate, and
> can be optical or coaxial digital, or plain 'ol analog audio. In other
> words: lots of cables, can be messy, confusing to hook up.
>
> Don't let the '1080p' craze get to you. The only difference between
> 1080p and 1080i is if you have a Cathode-Ray-Tube based TV. There are
> a lot of ignorant fanboys that spew a lot of false 'facts' about
> interlaced vs. progressive on a TV. They may try to convince you
> there's more than that, but don't believe it - there is no difference
> unless you have a CRT HDTV -- and even then, it's not one you'll notice.

You're not the first person on this newsgroup to tell me about p vs.
i... the only thing is that I first read about the differences between
progressive and interlace on the website http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/default.htm
and have not yet found anyone who could accurately debunk what this
guy (who is very highly regarded in the industry because of his
pedigree) is saying with actual facts. Perhaps what he's saying has
nothing to do with what you're saying, though?

What I'm wondering is how 1080p versus 1080i could be exactly the
same. In any 1/60th of a second interval, 1080i has half the lines
1080p does, right? Then, in the next 1/60th of a second interval,
1080i has the other half of the lines. However, during each of these
1/60th sec intervals, 1080p has 100% of the lines.

If these newer televisions combine the 50% lines from one 1/60th with
the 50% lines from the next 1/60th, doesn't that mean that for those
two adjacent intervals, the image will be exactly the same?

On the other hand, if it just takes 100% of the lines from any given
1/60th interval wouldn't that just make it 1080p?

Or is there some number of steps or aspects I'm missing of your
statement?


> A plasma, DLP, or LCD tv simply combines the two parts of an interlaced
> signal together in a frame buffer, then displays it. So the difference
> between 1080i and 1080p on one of those TV's is zero.
>
> But, having a TV that does both 1080p, 1080i, HDMI, and component, I'll
> give you my impressions:
> * Quality: Nothing substantial. I get full 1080p from both, with full
> framerates. Picture looks great on both. But high definition video
> doesn't look any different in 1080p vs 1080i. (nor should it be
> possible to look different)
> * Sound: I don't have a receiver that can do the higher-bitrates that
> HDMI can carry vs. optical digital. However, since home theatre
> equipment has higher audio bitrates than movie theatres use (for Dolby
> Digital, at least), there's just not much to be gained by pushing more
> data.

Okay, but I have a television that only does 720p and 1080i. As far as
I know, it doesn't have the technology to do what you say above with
interpolating 1080p from 1080i.

So I have to choose between 720p and 1080i and in this case I think
720p has to be the better choice, no? So in my particular situation,
is there any advantage to having HDMI over component?

> In fact, on both HD DVD and Blu-ray, the audio signal is quite a bit
> higher quality than you get in a movie theatre. In a theatre, the
> bitrate for dolby is 320 kbps -- compared with 448 kbps of a DVD, or
> 3000 kbps for HD DVD. DTS (in theatres) runs around 1500 kbps. So
> when you can get a better sound signal from home audio equipment than a
> theatre can give... the extra audio capacity of HDMI means little.
>
> Basically the "big" thing with HDMI:
> * Newer technology (which some think means 'better')
> * one cable for both audio & video - it's convenient, clean, and easy
> to hook up.
> * more expensive cables (but you can have a longer cable from your
> device to your TV)
> * HDCP copy protection -- which nobody uses anyway.
> * Sony spent a lot of money to say that HDMI is "better", and that the
> PS3 is better than the 360 because it has HDMI. And there are a lot of
> people who will blindly buy Sony simply because "it's a Sony"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On Aug 10, 8:45 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/default.htm
> and have not yet found anyone who could accurately debunk what this
> guy (who is very highly regarded in the industry because of his
> pedigree) is saying with actual facts.

His argument is that a progressive 720 image is superior to an
interlaced 1080 image. It goes out the window when comparing 720p to
1080p.

> What I'm wondering is how 1080p versus 1080i could be exactly the
> same. In any 1/60th of a second interval, 1080i has half the lines
> 1080p does, right? Then, in the next 1/60th of a second interval,
> 1080i has the other half of the lines. However, during each of these
> 1/60th sec intervals, 1080p has 100% of the lines.

I have to admit, I was a doubting Thomas myself. I had a 1080i set and
upgraded to 1080p not because of the resolution, but because I wanted
one of those snappy LED based DLP sets (my old set was simply a
projection unit.)

If you're talking about television shows, you're right, there's no
difference. Why? Because there is no HDTV signal that's 1080p. The
highest it goes currently is 1080i. Any quality difference to be had
would be a quality difference in the television.

Now when you're talking about 1080p media like HD-DVD or Blu-Ray I was
skeptical. On my 1080i set I really wasn't able to see much difference
between DVD and the HD formats. The picture was slightly clearer with
a little more detail but it wasn't a dramatic day and night difference
like there is between watching a show on a 480i SD tv station vs. a
1080i HD station.

Firing up the same movies in 1080p revealed a dramatic difference.
It's somewhat hard to describe, you really need to see it for
yourself. A still screen grab isn't going to show you the difference.

Here's a good example:

Fire up "The Matrix" on DVD (I'm asuming you have it, it's a common
choice.)
Go to the scene just after the kung-fu fight between Neo and Morpheus
where Neo is lying in his bunk talking to Morpheus.
In 480p Neo's sweater looks crisp and clean.
In 1080p you can count individual threads on the sweater. Not kidding.
In 1080i you can see the individual threads, HOWEVER, every time Neo
moves there's a weird shimmer effect because, even though the
resolution is nice and high, the pattern doesn't interlace very well.
It's distracting and makes it look worse than it would in a
progressive resolution.

Back in the olden days when someone would go on the Tonight Show or
David Letterman wearing a print jacket or a print tie the camera would
do the same thing. It can go from annoying to borderline nauseating
depending on how big the pattern is and how badly out of synch it is
with the interlace.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

And at the end of the day 1080 is still 1080 ...whether its interlaced
or progressive.
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On Aug 12, 3:16 am, KS... RemoveThis @webtv.net (Private Private) wrote:
> And at the end of the day 1080 is still 1080 ...whether its interlaced
> or progressive.

But it's the i and the p that determines true quality, no? 720p is
better than 1080i but obviously worse than 1080p.
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

On Aug 12, 4:27 am, Jordan <lu... RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 8:45 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/default.htm
> > and have not yet found anyone who could accurately debunk what this
> > guy (who is very highly regarded in the industry because of his
> > pedigree) is saying with actual facts.
>
> His argument is that a progressive 720 image is superior to an
> interlaced 1080 image. It goes out the window when comparing 720p to
> 1080p.

Well, he's also arguing that you have to halve the number when the
signal is interlaced to be accurate... so 1080i is really just 540p as
far as the number of pixels delivered in any particular timeframe. But
that's besides the point.

> > What I'm wondering is how 1080p versus 1080i could be exactly the
> > same. In any 1/60th of a second interval, 1080i has half the lines
> > 1080p does, right? Then, in the next 1/60th of a second interval,
> > 1080i has the other half of the lines. However, during each of these
> > 1/60th sec intervals, 1080p has 100% of the lines.
>
> I have to admit, I was a doubting Thomas myself. I had a 1080i set and
> upgraded to 1080p not because of the resolution, but because I wanted
> one of those snappy LED based DLP sets (my old set was simply a
> projection unit.)

Oh, I'm not doubting that 1080p is awesome...

> If you're talking about television shows, you're right, there's no
> difference. Why? Because there is no HDTV signal that's 1080p. The
> highest it goes currently is 1080i. Any quality difference to be had
> would be a quality difference in the television.
>
> Now when you're talking about 1080p media like HD-DVD or Blu-Ray I was
> skeptical. On my 1080i set I really wasn't able to see much difference
> between DVD and the HD formats. The picture was slightly clearer with
> a little more detail but it wasn't a dramatic day and night difference
> like there is between watching a show on a 480i SD tv station vs. a
> 1080i HD station.
>
> Firing up the same movies in 1080p revealed a dramatic difference.
> It's somewhat hard to describe, you really need to see it for
> yourself. A still screen grab isn't going to show you the difference.
>
> Here's a good example:
>
> Fire up "The Matrix" on DVD (I'm asuming you have it, it's a common
> choice.)
> Go to the scene just after the kung-fu fight between Neo and Morpheus
> where Neo is lying in his bunk talking to Morpheus.
> In 480p Neo's sweater looks crisp and clean.
> In 1080p you can count individual threads on the sweater. Not kidding.
> In 1080i you can see the individual threads, HOWEVER, every time Neo
> moves there's a weird shimmer effect because, even though the
> resolution is nice and high, the pattern doesn't interlace very well.
> It's distracting and makes it look worse than it would in a
> progressive resolution.
>
> Back in the olden days when someone would go on the Tonight Show or
> David Letterman wearing a print jacket or a print tie the camera would
> do the same thing. It can go from annoying to borderline nauseating
> depending on how big the pattern is and how badly out of synch it is
> with the interlace.
>
> - Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

Jordan <lundj.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Most televisions don't support 1080p over component cables. If you
> have a 1080p television you should be using HDMI or VGA to get the
> full resolution.

While that's true, most of the stuff on the 360 doesn't support 1080p
natively anyways. Most games, for instance, only do 720p with a few at
1080i.

Downloaded games, movies and HD-DVD are about the only things on the 360
that natively support 1080p.

Whether it makes sense to upgrade, well, I agree with the previous poster
- it depends. Even if you TV does support 1080p only using HDMI, I doubt
you'll notice much of a difference on a smaller (40-ish" or smaller) TV.


--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port? 

Private Private <KSDJ1.TakeThisOut@webtv.net> wrote:
> And at the end of the day 1080 is still 1080 ...whether its interlaced
> or progressive.

So..you're saying they're equivelent, because they're not.

1080i only does 540 lines a second, compared to 720 lines a second for
720p or 1080 for 1080p.

The difference between 720p and 1080i isn't going to be that noticable on
smaller screens. Larger screens, however, will show a difference as
Jordan illustrated.

This is assuming your source material is actually 1080p - and outside of
HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, there's not much that's native 1080p.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
 >> Stay informed about: Is there any real advantage to having an HDMI port?