HDMI/DVI not all it's cracked up to be?

[darien87]

Hey all,

I just purchaed a Panasonic DVDS77 progressive scan DVD player on the advice of someone on this forum. I originally had it hooked up using Monster component video cables. However this player has HDMI output, so I wanted to use the best possible output source for my Mitsubishi projection HDTV. Unfortunately, the TV only has 1 DVI input. So I bought a HDMI-to-DVI cable from a local radio shack, (on sale for $35) and hooked it up. I have to say that I didn't really see any noticeable difference. Perhaps things looked a TINY bit smoother from the DVI cable, but not so much that it was even worth the bother of redoing my connections.

Am I just crazy? Or does it have to do with the Radio Shack cable I bought? It seems like cables are pretty much cables to me, and no way am I spending $100 on a Monster DVI cable. Is there some degradation that is happening in the HDMI-to-DVI conversion?

I also noticed that there was a HUGE difference in picture quality when switching from interlace to progerssive scan on the DVD player. This really surprised me. I thought that the basic difference between interlace and progressive scan was just that objects would look smoother when they move across the screen. The pictures are basically the same aren't they?

Thanks for the help.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hey all,

I just purchaed a Panasonic DVDS77 progressive scan DVD player on the advice of someone on this forum. I originally had it hooked up using Monster component video cables. However this player has HDMI output, so I wanted to use the best possible output source for my Mitsubishi projection HDTV. Unfortunately, the TV only has 1 DVI input. So I bought a HDMI-to-DVI cable from a local radio shack, (on sale for $35) and hooked it up. I have to say that I didn't really see any noticeable difference. Perhaps things looked a TINY bit smoother from the DVI cable, but not so much that it was even worth the bother of redoing my connections.

Am I just crazy? Or does it have to do with the Radio Shack cable I bought? It seems like cables are pretty much cables to me, and no way am I spending $100 on a Monster DVI cable. Is there some degradation that is happening in the HDMI-to-DVI conversion?

I also noticed that there was a HUGE difference in picture quality when switching from interlace to progerssive scan on the DVD player. This really surprised me. I thought that the basic difference between interlace and progressive scan was just that objects would look smoother when they move across the screen. The pictures are basically the same aren't they?

Thanks for the help.

It is not the RS cable. What kind of TV is that Mits, LCD projector or CRT> If it is CRT, I doubt it will make a difference as it has to convert the digital video to an analog signal and scanning. If it is an LCD type projector, or Plasma, a digital signal is unchanged and is directly on the projector.

Interlaced and progressive will send the same picture but one is composed of two field to make a frame, the other(progressive) is one field, twice per frame so it is smoother and better.
Is your TV calibrated properly or just out of the box?

 

[Hi Ho]

Is there some degradation that is happening in the HDMI-to-DVI conversion?

There is no conversion. HDMI and DVI are the same thing. The only difference is that HDMI has a different connector and has the ability to carry audio.

 

[darien87]

It is not the RS cable. What kind of TV is that Mits, LCD projector or CRT> If it is CRT, I doubt it will make a difference as it has to convert the digital video to an analog signal and scanning. If it is an LCD type projector, or Plasma, a digital signal is unchanged and is directly on the projector.

Interlaced and progressive will send the same picture but one is composed of two field to make a frame, the other(progressive) is one field, twice per frame so it is smoother and better.
Is your TV calibrated properly or just out of the box?

Thanks for the response. My Mitsubishi is a rear-projection unit, (got a great deal on it since it was the last one they had). I wanted to go DLP, but couldn't talk the wife into spending 2 grand on a TV. I think the model number is WS-48613. As far as it being calibrated, about all I've done is set the red-blue convergence to where it looks good to me. But sometimes I still see a "halo" around certain very light or very dark objects. It just sucks because the TV doesn't let you set the convergence on every area of the screen, only about half of them.

 

[Vancouver]

Hey all,

I just purchaed a Panasonic DVDS77 progressive scan DVD player on the advice of someone on this forum. I originally had it hooked up using Monster component video cables. However this player has HDMI output, so I wanted to use the best possible output source for my Mitsubishi projection HDTV. Unfortunately, the TV only has 1 DVI input. So I bought a HDMI-to-DVI cable from a local radio shack, (on sale for $35) and hooked it up. I have to say that I didn't really see any noticeable difference. Perhaps things looked a TINY bit smoother from the DVI cable, but not so much that it was even worth the bother of redoing my connections.

Am I just crazy? Or does it have to do with the Radio Shack cable I bought? It seems like cables are pretty much cables to me, and no way am I spending $100 on a Monster DVI cable. Is there some degradation that is happening in the HDMI-to-DVI conversion?

I also noticed that there was a HUGE difference in picture quality when switching from interlace to progerssive scan on the DVD player. This really surprised me. I thought that the basic difference between interlace and progressive scan was just that objects would look smoother when they move across the screen. The pictures are basically the same aren't they?

Thanks for the help.

I have never seen DVI/HDMI look better then Component. The main reason DVi and HDMI are marketed to heavily is because of HDCP copy right protection.

 

[w.e-coyote]

Just for clarification; DVI does not have any copy-protection "features" but was intended initially just to provide a digital interface between the PC and the monitor. As such it was never meant to support "consumer" applications. HDMI is a superset of DVI and supports over and above DVI functionality; the various (HD) formats used in the CE domain (mainly wrt. aspect ratio's), Audio, A/V control functionality, and bless their little hearts, copy-protection in the form of HTCP.

The fact that there is very little difference between component and digital is not really strange since both will carry the same resolution of video.

What I do find interesting though is that there is a huge difference between progressive and interlace coming from the DVD. I would assume that is using the DVI cable? That I could understand since the DVD signal is passed "raw" to the TV light engine. If the interface is component though, I would be very surprised (and disappointed at Mitsubishi's capabilties in upconversion). Why not try, just for laughs, using component video out from the TV and then swtiching progressive scan on and off on the DVD player. Let us know if you can see a difference.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...I didn't really see any noticeable difference.

For a valid comparison to be made, compatibility must exist.

Have you calibrated your display using the DVE (or equivalent) disc for interlaced, progressive and DVI? If not, you cannot compare the picture quality from one with another.

Regards

 

[darien87]

What I do find interesting though is that there is a huge difference between progressive and interlace coming from the DVD. I would assume that is using the DVI cable? That I could understand since the DVD signal is passed "raw" to the TV light engine. If the interface is component though, I would be very surprised (and disappointed at Mitsubishi's capabilties in upconversion). Why not try, just for laughs, using component video out from the TV and then swtiching progressive scan on and off on the DVD player. Let us know if you can see a difference.

I believe when I made the comparison, I had the DVD player hooked up to the TV via component cables and the HDMI/DVI cable, and was switching back and forth between the two. The DVD player tells you to turn HDMI video off when using component cables and progressive scan. But I left HDMI video on and switched back and forth.


Buckle-meister: For a valid comparison to be made, compatibility must exist.

Have you calibrated your display using the DVE (or equivalent) disc for interlaced, progressive and DVI? If not, you cannot compare the picture quality from one with another.

Regards

Buckle-meister, I have no idea what you're talking about. So obviously I'm not as calibrated as you're saying I should be.

 

[w.e-coyote]

Darien87, I think what you were seeing is 480i versus 480p (?) on a progressive display. This is due to the fact that you were using HDMI. The signal from the DVD player is passed straight to the display "as is".

What you ought to compare is using the component connection. Then turn the progressive feature on and off. In the "off" position the TV should do the upconversion. In the "on" position the DVD player does. My personal expexctation would be that the "off" position will give you a better picture.

 

[Audioholics]

You have a CRT TV, so the difference between analogue (component) and digital (HDMI) will not be as apparent since the HDMI has to go through a DAC before being output to the screen.

As for progressive versus interlaced... Progressive is "all of the picture, all of the time", while interlaced is "half of the picture, all of the time".

30 full frames per second, beats 60 half-frames per second in my book. The key is finding a player or display that does it right. This is why we recommend users try both the interlaced and progressive outputs of the player to the display - to see which has the better deinterlacer (the player or the TV/display).