HDMI or Component video?

[keithl1967]

Which is better to use for HD programming?

 

[mfabien]

Which provides you with the best results?

Normally, the digital cable provides a better image to a digital display because there are no D/A conversion.

Down the road, if ever the Broadcast Flag gets activated, the HDMI (via HDCP) will give you HD and, under a 30 day notice to the FCC, a broadcaster may have the Component connection downrez to 480i for a specific event.

 

[jcPanny]

Both are comparable

In most cases the video quality of component and HDMI is comparable. It is also much more difficult to build a quality copper HDMI cables that are long distances. The current crop of HDTVs, receivers, and set top boxes that support HDMI 1.1 are also prone to compatibility issues.

 

[mfabien]

In most cases the video quality of component and HDMI is comparable. It is also much more difficult to build a quality copper HDMI cables that are long distances. The current crop of HDTVs, receivers, and set top boxes that support HDMI 1.1 are also prone to compatibility issues.

that support HDMI 1.1

... meaning HDMI with HDCP version 1.1

I say this because some posts are starting to make people believe that the hardware connection, HDMI, comes in version 1.1, which is not the case.

 

[keithl1967]

The reason I ask is that the ONKYO receiver I recently purchased has component videos input and output, but not an HDMI. While I currently receive my HD signal over the air (and directly to the TV), and rely on the digital optical out (to the rceiver) for my audio, I am considering an HD DVR form Directv, which has component and HDMI. I gues what I'm getting at is that all but the over the air video (DVD, SAT Receiver, etc.) all run through either S-Video or Component video to the receiver, then to the TV...Withthe ned DVR, would I be better suited to runt he HDMI tot he TV, and continue to run the audio the way I do today from the tv via digital optical, or just use the component on the new DVR throguht he receiver for consistency sake?

 

[ironlung]

... meaning HDMI with HDCP version 1.1

I say this because some posts are starting to make people believe that the hardware connection, HDMI, comes in version 1.1, which is not the case.

I don't understand it this way. The physical plug is the same for HDMI 1.1 thru version whatever. The version releases have different information flowing over them not just related to content protection. 1.1 does not support hi res audio of the future(nor SACD) and although 1.1 spec claims to handle 1080p most recievers with HDMI do not.

 

[mfabien]

I don't understand it this way. The physical plug is the same for HDMI 1.1 thru version whatever. The version releases have different information flowing over them not just related to content protection. 1.1 does not support hi res audio of the future(nor SACD) and although 1.1 spec claims to handle 1080p most recievers with HDMI do not.

I stand corrected, there are versions to the physical HDMI connection:

HDMI Specification

When was the HDMI specification released?

The HDMI 1.0 specification was released in December 2002.

The HDMI 1.1 specification was released in May 2004.

The HDMI 1.2 specification was released in August of 2005.

The HDMI 1.2a specification was released in December of 2005.

 

[westcott]

To be on the safe side, go HDMI to avoid future copy protection issues (HDCP).

HDMI is also capable of higher bit depths. DVI and component connections are limited to 8 bit RGB, HDMI can do 12 bit RGb.

This can eliminate contouring artifacts on some types of digital displays, as well as, provide a more accurate and higher resolution signal.

Any good cable provider will gurantee runs up to 50 feet with HDMI.

 

[OldTimeAVBuff]

1080P Question

I am looking to upgrade over the next few months (TV and A/V Receiver). What is confusing as you look at the specs of new TV's and A/V Receivers is whether 1080P can only be transferred via HDMI or if it can be passed and accepted via component video. Any help is appreciated on answering this.

 

[pbarach1]

Which is better to use for HD programming?

I have tried it both ways, using the component and the HDMI outputs from my SA8300HD cable box into my Toshiba plasma TV (720p). I found that I needed to recalibrate the picture settings on the TV differently for HDMI versus component connection, using the Avia disc and a Denon 3910 DVD player. Once I did that and applied the optimum picture settings to each of the cable box's inputs, I noticed that the HDMI picture was much sharper than the component video. However, how much can someone generalize my results to their own setup? There are so many variables that might be different, such as the quality of the cables used, whether your HD source has a better D/A decoder on its component output than your TV, etc, etc.

 

[westcott]

To avoid long term connectivity issues, I would suggest you go with HDMI. All copy protection schemes will require an HDMI\DVI input with HDCP compliant devices.

It is also capable of higher bit depths and therefore, better video quality than component or DVI connections.