Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is a HDMI signal from your dvd player better than component or RGB?

This is topic Is a HDMI signal from your dvd player better than component or RGB? in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000408

Posted by Jerry Axelsson (Member # 3175) on 06-02-2005, 01:49 PM:

I am currently thinking of buying a video projector to my dvd player. The thing is that my dvd player (Sony DVP NS-900V) is a few years old. It does have component and RGB signal out, not a progressive signal though. The other day I tested a few projectors and in the $4000 dollar range. A found myself liking a new Sony LCD projector. The model Sony VPL-HS50.

The seller insisted that a HDMI signal was a must here to get the full performance of the projector.

Any of you guys or girls out there which have any experience with a HDMI signal in comparison to a component or RGB?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-02-2005, 04:32 PM:

I don't have any experience with video projectors, but for a DVD player, component is just fine. Any DVD player that has an HDMI output will upscale the 480p signal o 1080i or 720p. Upscaling isn't true HD and really doesn't do much, if anything, to make the picture look better. Just get a good DVD player with component and progressive scan. Then go back and kick the salesman in the balls. He just wants to sell you and HDMI cable. I think an HDMI cable still costs several hundred dollars, even though it's JUST A CABLE and the signal that goes through it is digital, thus it does not matter if it has great shielding or whatnot. The signal is either there or it is not. They should be no more than $20, max.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-02-2005, 05:18 PM:

Take a look at this DVD player.
It scales to various resolutions, the image quality is excellent, and what's best, it does not have the HDCP feature, a copy protection which requires a handshake between the player and the playback device. This prevents you from playing content on any playback device without HDCP. All other DVD players capable of outputting 720p and higher that I looked into had HDCP.
We use this player when we play alternatice content from DVD on our digital projectors. It is also used in many studio and postproduction facilities.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-02-2005, 05:41 PM:

That's DVI, not HDMI. He'd need a cable AND a converter.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-02-2005, 06:05 PM:

Looks like that Sony projector has DVI input as well as HDMI.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-02-2005, 06:15 PM:

I know, but a DVI to HDMI adapter is inexpensive (less than $40), and the D2 player can do all the rest. The video signal stays in the digital domain. Also, other upscaling DVD players with DVI will not be useable with adapters because of HDCP.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-02-2005, 07:27 PM:

The "high-end" reviews I've read have claimed that component video is inferior to DVI/HDMI. Seems like that would apply to a DVD player as well as other sources. Digital is always better. Analog is the devil's spawn.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-02-2005, 07:46 PM:

Yes indeed. I hate the fact that I myself am analog. Oh well. Anyway for 480p video component is just fine. I don't know why upscaling DVD players don't send out the HD signal via the component outputs. Component could easily do HD (and I've seen it and it looks freakin' great). I guess somebody is MORE LIKELY to pirate HD video than 480p video which is easily distributable over the internet, far moreso than HD. I hope everyone at the MPAA catches on fire for no logical reason all at once.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-02-2005, 09:48 PM:

The only advantage I can see in using HDMI cables is they can carry both audio and video data. But the "5C" HDCP thing kinda sucks ass.

It's been awhile since I have checked out specifications on items like DVD players (particularly DVD-A/SACD capable units). Is it turning into a real trend to include HDMI output on DVD players? If so, are there any DVD-A/SACD players using HDMI to output high resolution surround audio?

That's been the deal breaker for me to buy any DVD-A/SACD type player. I want to be able to send a digital signal to a receiver to allow the receiver to decode the MLP or DSD bitstream. Firewire could handle the bandwidth, but only a few extremely expensive models incorporated IEEE-1394 outputs for such audio.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-02-2005, 10:39 PM:

I hope it is turning into a trend, whether the quality really is better or only imaginary. The more devices that support the protocol, the cheaper those freakin' cables will become.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 06-03-2005, 02:47 AM:

The DVD player that is linked to in this thread (the Bravo D2) is a good player, but old. They are coming out with the D3 this summer and it will be a HDMI player instead of DVI and also is SUPPOSED to be able to play true HD. From what I'm told it will play the WMV-HD discs that came with movies like T2 Extreme edition. It would play at a true 1080i, not sure if HDMI is required for that or not. Most of the other upconverting DVD players are mostly gimmick. They show a very marginal improvement on fixed pixel displays. A high quality player using component output can blow away most of these cheap ass upconverting players. My 2 cents.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-03-2005, 06:52 AM:

Thanks for that info. That is going to be interesting. Since the manufacturer is not far from where we are, maybe I can borrow a unit for a field test. There is nothing more effective to check image quality than to blow it up all over the big screen. Which we did with a lot of alternative content. BTW, there was no visible difference whether we hooked up the units with component or DVI. But maybe the "high-end reviewers" can see a difference.

Do you have a link with info about the D3? I didn't see anything on the manufacturer website.

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 06-03-2005, 07:14 AM:

when your dealing with DVD (480p), component is fine and I doubt you will notice a difference with DVI or HDMI. When dealing with HD signals on larger TVs or Projector (say more than 43in.) you will notice a difference using DVI/HDMI. HDMI, in theory, is cool b/c it handles digital video/sound, but most TVs and Receivers don't handle the sound yet. I've also heard that Firewire may replace HDMI anyways because it can handle Digital Video/Sound in both directions at the same time.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-03-2005, 07:36 AM:

We showed true 720p content both via components and DVI on a 35 ft screen with our Barco DP50, and I blind-tested several sets of highly trained eyes, they couldn't tell the difference. Probably the same thing as with Dolby and DTS, an emormous gaping difference - except for in a blind test situation.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-03-2005, 11:35 AM:

DVI seems like an ill-conceived "standard" for home theater use from the get-go. Not having the video and sound carried over the same interface can be a major nuisance.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-03-2005, 12:10 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I hope it is turning into a trend, whether the quality really is better or only imaginary. The more devices that support the protocol, the cheaper those freakin' cables will become.

Joe, at the momeent there's a special price on 3 metre cables of the highher quality type whichh makes them cheaper than the budget ones at: dvigear Other lengths are still expensive however.

On there website these people have various documents, including one entitled: HDCP - For Better or for Worse?; you can find it
here

According to these people the implementation of HDCP is mandatory with HDMI, but optional with DVI-D.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-03-2005, 04:29 PM:

As always, there is more here than meets the eye.

As to DVI(HDMI) versus component analog...you are not going to see the difference all of the way up to 1080, in terms of picture quality and presumming that you are within standards of each.

Analog degrades over the length of the cable in both overall level and HF response...as such, as the cable gets longer, the levels will be off and the image will become more smeared.

Digital signals work great...until they dont. With standard cable, DVI (HDMI) tops out at 3-meters. That length and shorter is going to be in the cheap price range. Above that, the bandwidth of signal puts a strain on inferior cables. It is one of its problems. With DVI the connector is issue due to its size. I like HD-SDI (broadcast) since it is a single coax cable that can go about 300-feet (if both the transmitter and receiver truely meet HDSDI standards, ANSI/SMPTE 292), repeated if necessary to increase range, can carry audio and requires relatively inexpensive cable. But it is broadcast and normally is terminated in BNC connectors (nice since they don't fall out like RCA type phono connectors).

The problem with component for the home is that it requires three equally lengthed cables that the end-user (read idiot) to plug everything in correctly with the "Y" terminal using the GREEN connector/cable. HDMI offers a single cable/connector solution without the user (read idiot) to lock/unlock anything in place.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 06-03-2005, 07:03 PM:

At this point, my Pioneer Elite DVD player has a better looking 480p (component out) picture than ANY other DVI, HDMI or so called "upconverting" DVD player that I have seen. The way you connect your player to your monitor isnt quite as important as the scaler/processor in your unit.

As far as the Bravo D3 goes, it is behind schedule. It was supposed to be out last year, so I emailed the company and asked "WASSUP?". The unit was a ways away from production, so they didnt have a photo or any up-to-date stats on it. You can ask them to put you on the mailing list for when the unit is about to be released. It had a suggested retail price of $399 last year, but considering technology and price drops, I'd expect a release price of around $299.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2005, 04:51 AM:

quote: David Stambaugh
DVI seems like an ill-conceived "standard" for home theater use from the get-go. Not having the video and sound carried over the same interface can be a major nuisance.

What is the advantage of having the audio included with the video if your TV does not have a built-in digital tuner and thus an optical output? You'll still have to route the HDMI to the TV and a separate audio cable to the receiver.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-04-2005, 12:31 PM:

I think the goal with HDMI is to provide home theater customers a way to hook everything up with far fewer cables. I would be all for that.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2005, 06:11 PM:

The only way to do that is to come out with an HDMI switch box, and those cost a couple million right now.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-04-2005, 11:34 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Is it turning into a real trend to include HDMI output on DVD players? If so, are there any DVD-A/SACD players using HDMI to output high resolution surround audio?

According to the faq at the High Definition Multimedia Interface Consortium, the HDMI 1.1 specification was developed to accomodate the DVD Audio format, but thus far HDMI has not adopted SACD. To quote the faq: "The HDMI Founders do not comment on future revisions of the spec, however there is no technical reason why HDMI could not support SACD."

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 06-06-2005, 03:27 AM:

I find that hard to beleive. Its near impossible to find a HDMI receiver yet. Who would want to play their audio through their TV?? There are plenty of TV's with HDMI inputs (obviously meant for video) but where is the HDMI inputs for the receivers? I don't know about you, but I'm not about to drop $2000-$3000 on a receiver. HDMIT has been around for a little while now..and TV's have done well to catch up, where is the receiver support? If HDMI was originally meant for DVD-Audio, perhaps some where along the way, developers changed their mind since DVD-A and SACD are still somewhat at way?? It doesn't make any sense to me as to why HDMI inputs aren't as common on new receivers as they are on new TV's.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 06-06-2005, 12:04 PM:

DVDs ARE NTSC. You can try to make them 480P (look out for motion artifacts, because those two fields are ment to be shown at different times (at least with stuff that was shot on video)), you can try up converting them to 720P or 1080I, but DVDs are still NTSC. You can't just make up what isn't there in the first place. Your HDTV should be able to upconvert the output of your DVD player, so why put the money into having the same ability in your DVD player as well?

I'm with you Steve. Why do we keep coming up with new standards, when we already have a BETTER standard. SMPTE 292 blowes away HDMI, and DVI.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 06-06-2005, 12:40 PM:

How can your HDTV upconvert a DVD?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-06-2005, 12:58 PM:

DVDs can actually store 24fps and 30fps in a progressive format and display it that way. When hooked to a regular NTSC TV, the DVD player adds the necessary pulldown (in probably most of the movies you own). There are no motion artifacts watching a 24fps movie in progressive scan unless the DVD player and/or the TV (moreso the DVD player) just really suck. Every once in a blue moon I will see a single frame of combing at a scene change on a less-than-professionally authored DVD. I shoot all my stuff in 24p (24p is a policy and MANDATORY where I work, except when it's not), and there is never ever any combing or motion artifacts when played back in progressive scan at 24p. And yes, the DVD actually stores the content as 24p. The files are smaller as a result compared to a 60i sequence of the exact same length at the same compression settings.

Frank,
Fixed pixel displays (LCD, Plasma, DLP, etc) MUST scale the DVD video and everything else up to its native resolution, which is usually 720p (or worse, 768p or some other oddball non-conforming standard).

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 06-07-2005, 06:38 PM:

I am using an HDMI link between the DVD player and projector. My experience is that on average to poor quality DVDs, you cannot notice any difference as when using a component link. On very good resolution DVDs, you can notice a very slight improvement to the picture quality. I am using a longer cable (5 metres).

I would however say that the connectors are totally inadequate for the weight of the cable. A slight movement of the cable connector at either end, breaks the connection. A larger connector with screw or clip supports would have been an improvement. When using the shorter cable which is lighter, the problem is reduced.

I am surprised that the development of a new standard could have been accompanied by such poor research and development of the connectors. I am using cable cable supports to take the weight of the cable off the connectors.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-07-2005, 09:31 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
You can't just make up what isn't there in the first place.

Sure you can! Sony calls it "Digital Reality Creation". [Eek!]