Is HDMI really any better?

[Johnny Canuck]

The salesman in town here said 720p is better than 1080i any day as "upconverters" are imitation and not worth the money.

Sorry if this is a newbie question...maybe someone can direct me to some links to explain.

Also DVI and what the diff is?

I thought my Denon 3805 receiver had HDMI but it does not. Do receivers usually have that? Is it advantageous to go through the receiver?

Does Denon Link work like HDMI?

thanks very much...excuse my ignorance.

 

[Audioholics]

The bandwidth of both is about identical, meaning that he prefers "Skippy" peanut butter over "Jif" - there's no real difference. Where you WILL see a difference is when you try to send the best possible output to a display via an HDMI- or DVI-enabled DVD player. In this case, one mode may perform significantly better than another. Each display has its "favorite" that it does a better job scaling to its native resolution.

Receivers are just now starting to handle HDMI, so don't be surprised that your Denon doesn't have it. Eventually, all mid-fi and higher receivers will have it.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I am of the opinion that upconverters should be looked at first before saying they are better or not. Deinterlacing is a fairly complex process that may be better handled by an external scaler instead of inside your plasma/lcd/etc. Quite often, the extra expense for a upconverting DVD player is just that - extra expense, not more quality.

DVI & HDMI both carry identical digital video. There are cables that convert from HDMI to DVI and vice-versa. HDMI has the ability to carry audio as well as video, but if you don't have a HDMI receiver then you likely will just use the video portion of the HDMI cable.

Denon Link, as far as I know, is simply another digital audio format. With newer Denon DVD players, you should be able to carry DVD, DVD-A, SACD, and CD audio all over the single Denon Link connection. No video, just digital full surround audio.

 

[bbakken82]

I sell upconverting dvd players and high definition tv's for a living and in my experience it is not necessarily the upconverting of the dvd player that significantly improves the picture but the hdmi or dvi cable itself. Other dvd players that are only capable of a 480p output dont have the hdmi connection. They use a component video connection which is an analog cable. Your dvd player is digital and your tv is digital so for a signal to be sent through a component video cable the signal has to be converted and converted again when it reaches your tv and needless to say, the conversions dont do much for picture quality. An hdmi or dvi cable is digital and needs no conversion. In the end the differences are seen by the human eye as more vibrant colors and less digital artifacting.

 

[RLA]

HDMI and or DVI are not necessarily better than component connection
#1 it depends on the display device being used
#2 HDMI and DVI can have other problems associated with the connection
I am in the process of a direct A/B comparison of the two with three different monitors

The DVI connection is always sharper but in allot of cases mosquito noise, ringing,grain and moire are introduced into the picture I have verified this with Three different monitors and two up converting DVD players at 480p,720p and 1080i

 

[BMXTRIX]

RLA... Is it possible to pull the data off the DVD at the original DVD resolution and frame rate and send it digitally instead of over component or having to use the (often) cheap scaler inside the upconverting DVD player to take the signal to 720p/1080i?

You probably will post all that info anyway, but I was curious.

 

[bbakken82]

I dont think the upconverting dvd players do much for you as far as better picture quality. I noticed on all of the tvs that I have hooked up an upconverting dvd player to with an hdmi connection have a green tint to the black or darker areas. Why is this?

 

[RLA]

Hi
I don’t know of any standard DVD players that will let you set there frame rates at 24fps if that is what you are asking? There are several processors
And HTPC's that will allow you to do this with software like power strip but I would think it would flicker like crazy.

I have experimented with 48Hz and Infocus has there 7205 and 7210 that will automatically resample at 48Hz in film mode. For other fixed pixel display devices that are native 1280x720 and higher I have had good luck with 72Hz some at 60Hz like the NEC LT150 and with my old NEC XGLC135 CRT 48.3 was magic Now look what you did I just remembered I have my Radeon based HTPC stored away in the closet I am going to have to pull that sucker out and play with it this week end I had totally forgot about it Yet another excuse not to mow the lawn

 

[BMXTRIX]

I get the concept of flicker... But then again I don't.

If a LCD/DLP/Plasma maintains 24 frames per second (24hz) and leaves each frame up for 1/24th of a second, that should produce a cleaner image than a 72hz image where the frame is redrawn 72 times a second - hence leaving the screen blank 72 times a second. I would think that would cause flicker.

If film was shot at 30 or 60 or 90 frames per second then I would think that the corresponding refresh rate of the screen matching the native frame rate of the film would produce the most accurate image possible.

At 72hz you end up redrawing the exact same frame 3 times, instead of just leaving it up on the screen 3 times as long. Now, unless the original 24 frames per second film is actually being interpreted out with motion to show 72 different frames per second, which (I believe) would be totally in objection to the original film, then it is just creating 48 extra redraws that are not necessary.

But, this gets into details I really don't know a lot about which is why I am asking and trying to explain my thoughts on it which may be totally wrong.

I do know that one of the primary formats that BD & HD-DVD is going to support is 1080p/24 which indicates to me that 24hz refresh is really something that monitors should be striving to reproduce accurately.

 

[RLA]

Here is avery good explaination of why 24fps needs to be redrawn to at least
48
http://www.futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/fps.html

On the other hand sitting here thinking about it at 24fps at 1080i the image would be very dim and with color sampled at 8 bits how would 24 be better than 48?

I would think that at 1920x1080p it would be differnet but I know of only
a couple monitors that can do that one being the Sony Qualia at $33k
can some one please donate one to me so I can test this

 

[Vancouver]

kinda on topic kinda not. Is it not true that if you use an external scaler/deinterlacer, and feed it a 480i via component that you are better off going to the display with a digital connection like DVI or HDMI?

The reason I ask is becuase in order to deinterlace an interlaced signal the external processor must digitize (or transcode) the image anyway to digital. Then re-transode to analog to go to the monitor via analog cable, it actually gets brought back to digital inside the monitor again before it is finally displayed. Wouldnt it cut back on all the transcoding to simply go out via DVI or HDMI from the scaler and in that example alone would increase picture quality?

 

[BMXTRIX]

Here is avery good explaination of why 24fps needs to be redrawn to at least
48
http://www.futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/fps.html

On the other hand sitting here thinking about it at 24fps at 1080i the image would be very dim and with color sampled at 8 bits how would 24 be better than 48?

I would think that at 1920x1080p it would be differnet but I know of only
a couple monitors that can do that one being the Sony Qualia at $33k
can some one please donate one to me so I can test this

I thought that was an excellent article showing exactly why 24hz is perfect for movies. Let me explain beginning with their quote:

"Film in the cinema does flicker at 50Hz (Europe) or 48Hz (US) because the image is blanked while the film is moved and the current frame is replaced with the next frame. Each frame is shown twice or it would flicker at 25Hz and 24Hz respectively. See a book covering the technical aspects of film projectors."

Now, for film, you have a constantly moving movie reel in the theater. The speed doesn't increase or decrease, so to deal with the shutter, they show the same frame twice, and end up showing 24 different frames twice, totalling 48 frames to deal with the black between frames that would be forced to exist in a slower moving 24hz cinema.

Dimming is a property of CRT, but newer digital technologies that aren't forced to 59.94hz or to use scan lines including plasma, lcd, dlp, and lcos can follow new rules, and potentially better rules.

A film shot at a true 24fps would be put on Blu-Ray at 24fps. The newer, digital display would know it is 24fps and is not forced to go black between frames the way a movie projector does. It doesn't lose brightness because it isn't drawing scan lines, it is lighting pixels - all at once. The only time the image would change would be when 1/24th of a second passes and a new image is presented.

This now allows for more video processing and color depth to exist within a single frame on the disc and for the display device to make use of the extra information. The reference to 1080p/24, as I think you know but I'm just saying again, provides a 1920x1080 progessive image, at exactly 24 frames per second. I don't think color depth is 8 bits... cripes, I didn't bookmark the site that had the exact resolution spec., but I believe it can handle 1080i/60 and 1080p/30 or /24 with full HD color depth... whatever that is.

I guess at 72hz it would just repeat the frame and the plasma/lcd/dlp/lcos would not change its color, go black, or do anything but sit there for 3 frames in a row... But, really WTF does that give you? The device must fully process and think about each frame, even though they are identical. Then it ends up spitting out EXACTLY... 24 different frames a second without any difference compared to if it had received 24 to begin with... The display just had to process 3 times as much information coming to it.

That is my thought and the article, while excellent, and very accurate for CRT based devices & movie projectors, is not at all accurate for newer formats. Especially the newer formats that will be designed for Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.

Yes, would love a Qualia as well thank you.

 

[bbakken82]

RLA, that was an awesome article. I learned a lot. It mentioned the VESA standard for computer monitor refresh rate was something like 72-75hz. Does this mean most computer games are 36fps? One thing I wasnt sure of was progressive scan. Is the field rate or refresh rate different on progressive scan? Isnt the mits 82" lcos 1920x1080 also? I havent seen it but I want to.

 

[bbakken82]

Anybody have any ideas what could cause the green tint with an upconverting dvd player connected with hdmi? Im at a loss.

 

[RLA]

To my knowledge there are only a few projectors that can lock onto a 24Hz
Signal I have not verified this Sony Qualia $33k,JVCHD2K $30K Infocus 777
TI does not provide the software to the manufactures for anything below 48Hz with this in mind if the projector actually sync'd at 24Hz it would then up convert to 48Hz.

I mentioned CRT because to my knowledge that is the only projection source
That can do 24fps at realistic prices and I would think it would be a royal pain to get even a CRT to sync If you were able to get it to sync It would be so dim and flicker so much it would be un watch able I had my NEC XG135LC running at 48Hz for awhile in a totally dark room there was still flicker I changed back to 72Hz.

Don’t know if I am missing something here but at the current time we are at the mercy of TI for DLP projectors and while 24Hz seems like it would be the perfect solution I have not tested and mostlikely will not unless I get a donation

 

[Frankie]

Denon 3rd Link and HDMI

The salesman in town here said 720p is better than 1080i any day as "up converters” are imitation and not worth the money.

Sorry if this is a newbie question...maybe someone can direct me to some links to explain.

Also DVI and what the diff is?

I thought my Denon 3805 receiver had HDMI but it does not. Do receivers usually have that? Is it advantageous to go through the receiver?

Does Denon Link work like HDMI?

Thanks very much...excuse my ignorance.

Denon Link offers currently the latest newly third link (3rd) edition for pure digital to digital sound.

The 3rd Edition Link is used for music and can only be connected to a Denon DVD player with a RJ45 Denon 3rd link. Which will be found at the back of the 3805 (Which i would say is the best small budget Receiver around for less than £1000.00) marked 3rd Edition. The difference between a Denon 3rd Link and say Optical can ONLY be noticed when you play DVD-Audio 96kHz 24bit music. With a good set of speakers and good speaker cables you will be blown away by how good it will sound.

HDMI is the way forward if you have a projector or plasma screen, if you have a large screen and can go pure digital to digital then do so as the future will be towards this path.

At present component (RED-GREEN-BLUE) connection is more than good for what you need followed by Scart RGB as a second option.​

 

[hrtbeat2]

The DVI connection is always sharper but in allot of cases mosquito noise, ringing,grain and moire are introduced into the picture I have verified this with Three different monitors and two up converting DVD players at 480p,720p and 1080i[/QUOTE]

You talked about DVI cable causing more (grain) I think thats what the problem I'm having with my TV now? I see all the small boxes that look like grainey? I'm running A $120 DVI cable with gold tips I believe it's a THX. Couls a better DVI cable solve this? My DVD player is a samsung HD841 that upconverts and I run it on 1080i. Sorry to thread jack. Thanks Dan