DVI versus component video

[jconde]

I am about to purchase a Samsung HLN467w DLP TV. This unit has both DVI and Component video inputs. While I am familiar with Component Video, I am less so with DVI. I have only found two DVD players with DVI out. The super pricey Denon DVD-5900 and Samsung's DVD-HD931. Can somebody please tell me if the DVI input is way superior to Component video? I would also like some feedback on universal DVD players with DVI outputs.

Thanks.

 

[docferdie]

The short answer is DVI is way superior.

The disclaimer is not all devices with DVI out are created equally. The gold standard in my mind would be a PC with a radeon graphics card and DVI out. Nothing beats that in terms of sharpness and color. The samsung DLP has a native resolution of 1280x720 so for programs natively encoded in this resolution such as Alias and ESPN-HD sports, the DVI connection would give the set the exact same data that the broadcaster is streaming (provided you have a good signal) and do a one step digital to analog conversion for viewing.
It gets a lot messier when you deal with non-native resolutions such as 720x480 or 1920x1080i. If your DVD player comes with a crappy video scaler then it doesn't matter if you hook up with DVI you're still going to get a lousy picture. For any resolution other than 1280x720 you will get digital to digital conversion in the unit then the signal gets passed through the DVI for digital to analog conversion in the TV.
Component inputs on the otherhand are handled as follows. There is a digital to analog conversion to output either 480p for DVD or 1080i/720p for HDTV in the set top box or DVD player this then undergoes an analog to digital conversion in the SAMSUNG DLP TV after image processing it then undergoes digital to analog conversion for viewing. This TV actually comes with a fairly decent image processing engine called DNIE but it still can't beat a native 1280x720p signal connected through DVI or a well scaled picture connected through DVI. As you can see with analog connections there are several intermediate steps done before the picture is displayed.
An analogy would be a cd player hooked up via the SPDIF input on the receiver as opposed to the left and right RCA inputs.

By the way for the price of the DENON 5900 you could actually get a pretty awesome home theater PC and have some left to buya DENON 2200 for SACD and DVD audio

 

[jconde]

The short answer is DVI is way superior.

By the way for the price of the DENON 5900 you could actually get a pretty awesome home theater PC and have some left to buya DENON 2200 for SACD and DVD audio

Forgive my ignorance, but what are you suggesting here? I am willing to try alternatives.

 

[Unregistered]

try http://www.datapro.net/dvi.html

 

[annunaki]

Docferdie,

I have a question. If DVI is a straight digital signal path into the television, and he is using a DLP (digital light processing) television, why would any of the signal, if it is a digital signal, need to go through a digital to analogue converter? A DLP set requires the video information to be in the digital domain in order to process and then project it from what I understand? I could see the need for an analogue to digital converter, but not a digital to analogue converter. I could also see the need for digital to analogue conversion in an analogue type set such as a crt, but in a digital display technology like DLP or LCOS why would it be necessary? Please explain.

 

[docferdie]

any device that claims to be "digital" has some form of digital to analog conversion otherwise it would be physically impossible to see or hear the digital content. Unless you're jacked into the matrix where the digital to analog conversion is done in your brain.

 

[Unregistered]

any device that claims to be "digital" has some form of digital to analog conversion otherwise it would be physically impossible to see or hear the digital content. Unless you're jacked into the matrix where the digital to analog conversion is done in your brain.

Still confused?
What he means is that Video is analog and therefore must be in an analog format to actually be displayed.

DVI out from a DVD player to DVI in of a tv: The signal is transferred digitally and is then converted to analog for display. If the format of the digital signal is not compatible with the TV (ie different resolution) it will first be scaled by the TV (this is what he meant by digital->digital conversion), then converted to analog and displayed.

Component out to component in: Component is analog. It will be sent analog to the TV, which will digitize it, do whatever it needs to such as scaling, apply noise reduction algorithms,etc , then convert back to analog for display.

 

[mike_p]

Digital Displays

Use DVI with digital displays.. ie displays that control each indivdual pixel via some kind of state mechanism.. be it either an LCD, plasma or DLP.. the DVI signal contains information on how these pixels are supposed to present themselves.. hence, in theory, no DA conversion.

I on the other hand have a 32" Sony tube that has a DVI input. I have both the Samsung HD-931 upsampling DVD player and a Denon 2200.. guess what looks better! The 2200.. but I'd be willing to bet on a large DLP/LCD/plasma the 931 would look better. I like the colors better on my 2200 also and the sound is far superior.

Anyone wanna buy my 931?

All this talk about non-native resolutions is moot.. we're talking 480, 720 and 1080 here.. and HTPCs can't even touch the performance of a moderatly priced DVD player (layer changes etc).

mike p

 

[ThA tRiXtA]

HTPCs can't even touch the performance of a moderatly priced DVD player (layer changes etc).

mike p

I beg to differ here sir.

With the faster speeds, access times and performance sensitive nature of a DVD rom that are in use with todays computers, layer changes are LESS noticeable or disruptive than with any consumer DVD player.

 

[docferdie]

First. The pixel appearance is analog.
Second. I also have a Denon 2200 and it can't touch the image quality of a radeon 9800 pro with DVI output.
Third. I can watch a high definition program of my hardrive which blows away any image that a denon 5900 can produce out of the water.
Fourth. The sony TV is not a fixed pixel display so DVI for that is not a major advantage. The same way that most CRT displays have a VGA input and not DVI.
Fifth. The poor image quality people perceive from the 931 is likely related to an inferior scaling mechanism. I mean a 931 costs the same as a radeon 9800 so I really don't have high expectations for it since that cost includes the dvd player, the scaler, the connections, etc...

 

[mike_p]

With the faster speeds, access times and performance sensitive nature of a DVD rom that are in use with todays computers, layer changes are LESS noticeable or disruptive than with any consumer DVD player.

what software are you using to play DVDs on your PC? I've heard that it really isn't a hardware thing, but a software thing.. maybe things have evolved since I last looked into HTPCs.

 

[av_phile]

Docferdie,

I have a question. If DVI is a straight digital signal path into the television, and he is using a DLP (digital light processing) television, why would any of the signal, if it is a digital signal, need to go through a digital to analogue converter? A DLP set requires the video information to be in the digital domain in order to process and then project it from what I understand? I could see the need for an analogue to digital converter, but not a digital to analogue converter. I could also see the need for digital to analogue conversion in an analogue type set such as a crt, but in a digital display technology like DLP or LCOS why would it be necessary? Please explain.

I share your confusion here. Using DVI interface between a DVD player and say, a plasma or LCD display or DLP is straighforward digital throughout for video. No conversion. That's also my understanding. Unless wrong.

 

[mike_p]

Second. I also have a Denon 2200 and it can't touch the image quality of a radeon 9800 pro with DVI output.
Third. I can watch a high definition program of my hardrive which blows away any image that a denon 5900 can produce out of the water.
Fourth. The sony TV is not a fixed pixel display so DVI for that is not a major advantage. The same way that most CRT displays have a VGA input and not DVI.

your second point: I never claimed component is superior to DVI, actually I claimed on bigger digital displays DVI is the way to go.. what kind of TV do you have?

your third point: of course it'll blow away a 480p picture.. I used to have HD cable, and the 1080i picture was stunning. DVD could not touch it, not even close.

fourth point: well said, that was the point I was trying to make.. when to use DVI and when not to... "fixed pixel display", totally agree

So.. what has the better 480 picture, the 2200 or your Radeon 9800 (on your TV, widescreen of course and deinterlaced.. with proper black and white levels).. btw I have a 9600 hooked up to a Sony 17" LCD /w DVI.. and it is amazingly good looking.

 

[docferdie]

I have the HLN507W and with DNIE off every analog source whether it be high def cable, DVD2200 or xbox, just looks blurry. DNIE on cleans things up a lot but areas of the picture look overly sharp. For fast moving scenes, action flicks I don't mind watching on the 2200 but for 480p movies that have a lot of picture detail I prefer the HTPC/9800. Actually with the Denon 2200 and DNIE on I probably would have been very happy if I had no idea what the HTPC image looked like.
A lot of the upcoming set top boxes for HDTV have an ATI part under the hood so to me that is an indication of how good a video scaler the radeon line has.
On the DVD player front I actually just saw an ad on bensbargains.net for a samsung 941 for 250. If you can get this at a local retailer then there's no reason not to try it as it is now also a universal SACD and DVD audio player. It has DCDi so it has the same deinterlacer/scaler that the Sammy DLP TV has. It has HDMI for its digital connection with a HDMI to DVI adapter included. This is definitely a good alternative for people who liked the Pioneer DV563a as for about 80 dollars more you get to check out the image quality of a digital connection.

 

[docferdie]

I share your confusion here. Using DVI interface between a DVD player and say, a plasma or LCD display or DLP is straighforward digital throughout for video. No conversion. That's also my understanding. Unless wrong.

A digital signal can undergo many transformations before final analog conversion. A similar situation would be when you feed a receiver with SPDIF. Whether it be PCM or Dolby digital, the receiver will do a digital to digital transformation if you enable bass management in the receiver.
digital displays for the most part are fixed pixel displays in the case of the samsung dlp that resolution is 1280x720p. DVDs are for the most part 480i or p. It doesn't matter which connection you use, if you feed the TV a 480 signal its scaler has to kick in to convert the picture to the TVs 1280x720 before displaying the image.
the only time that you can bypass the scaler/processor is if you present the TV a digital signal with a resolution of 1280x720p. You can verify this by the fact that for the DVI connection on this TV you can not turn on the DNIE engine although you can still make some adjustments such as white and black level, etc.
From my own experience I think that the sammy DLPs built in image processor/scaler is pretty good. In fact for 1080i channels from my cable box I prefer to have the scaling done by the TV instead of by the cable box. In theory I should be setting my cable box to 720p and doing a digital to digital scaling in the box but this just shows that not all scalers are created equal. At least as far as the comcast cable box is concerned I get a better picture setting the box at 1080i and having the TV process the picture before display at 720p.

 

[av_phile]

A digital signal can undergo many transformations before final analog conversion. A similar situation would be when you feed a receiver with SPDIF. Whether it be PCM or Dolby digital, the receiver will do a digital to digital transformation if you enable bass management in the receiver.

True, like in the case of audio where the final output has to be analog to drive the speakers.

The digital processing circuit handles the digital signal and processes it in the digital domain, whether donwmixing it from 5.1 to stereo, downsampling it from 94/24 to 48/16, or upsampling it, the signal remains digital up to the very last moment when they have to be amplified to drive the speakers.

digital displays for the most part are fixed pixel displays in the case of the samsung dlp that resolution is 1280x720p. DVDs are for the most part 480i or p. It doesn't matter which connection you use, if you feed the TV a 480 signal its scaler has to kick in to convert the picture to the TVs 1280x720 before displaying the image.
the only time that you can bypass the scaler/processor is if you present the TV a digital signal with a resolution of 1280x720p. You can verify this by the fact that for the DVI connection on this TV you can not turn on the DNIE engine although you can still make some adjustments such as white and black level, etc.
From my own experience I think that the sammy DLPs built in image processor/scaler is pretty good. In fact for 1080i channels from my cable box I prefer to have the scaling done by the TV instead of by the cable box. In theory I should be setting my cable box to 720p and doing a digital to digital scaling in the box but this just shows that not all scalers are created equal. At least as far as the comcast cable box is concerned I get a better picture setting the box at 1080i and having the TV process the picture before display at 720p.

Here lies my confusion. USing DVI and a Digital display, I am informed there is no DA conversion along the way. The display uses pixels or gas bubbles (plasma) that require digital information to turn on or off. Not analog.

And yes, transformations do occur, so that some input resolutions may have to be scaled up or down to fit the display requirement. But they are all done in the digital domain. No conversions to analog and back. Unless ofcourse, the end display like a CRT requires analog. But I find it odd to use DVI at the start only to end up analog when displaying.

 

[docferdie]

A DLP set uses a colorwheel and mirrors as well as a magnifying lens to project onto the screen. These steps are all analog. This is one reason why Samsung DLP sets look better than RCA DLP sets. There are subtle differences in how they implement these steps in their sets. They can have the same DLP engine but they can have different projection bulbs, screen quality, alignment, etc.

 

[docferdie]

I am about to purchase a Samsung HLN467w DLP TV.

Good choice by the way as you'll have the all important shelf for the center channel.

 

[annunaki]

Thanks docferdie, I did not think of the "picture" as analogue. I would not call adjustments to the digital signal, digital to digital conversion, I would simply use the term digital processing or "the signal is being processed while in the digital domain." I understand how that portion is done.

 

[Unregistered]

Dvi Vs Component

I'm Still Confused. I Have A Sony Xbr 34 Hdtv Tube And I Have Hd Thru My Cable. I Do Not Know Which Cable To Use Dvi Or Component. The Colors In The Component Looks Brighter, But The Clarity Looks The Same. Should I Use The Dvi Or Component For Dh Cable And My Sony Tv?