HDMI or Component

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I have a Panasonic TH50PX500U, Denon DVD3910, Denon AVR-3805, and a Time
Warner HD box. Everything but the Denon AV receiver has an HDMI interface,
so I am running all the video via component cables so I can do all the
switching through the receiver. 1080i broadcasts through the component I/O
look stunning, I can't imagine they could get better, but I'm curious if
HDMI would be an improvement. Using it would require more manual component
input switching since it would take the Denon AVR out of the loop. Also, to
run both the DVD and the cable box on HDMI I'd need to physically switch the
cableIs because there is only one HDM input on the TV. Is any of this worth
the hassle?

KK


--
Kevin Killebrew
Lakehills Consulting, LP
512-263-1825

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <V_oTe.240055$gL1.224502@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
"Kevin Killebrew" <kkillebrew@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> I have a Panasonic TH50PX500U, Denon DVD3910, Denon AVR-3805, and a
> Time Warner HD box. Everything but the Denon AV receiver has an HDMI
> interface, so I am running all the video via component cables so I
> can do all the switching through the receiver. 1080i broadcasts
> through the component I/O look stunning, I can't imagine they could
> get better, but I'm curious if HDMI would be an improvement.

I have a Denon receiver too, and have all my video routed through it,
using the component in and out jacks. I used to run my HD DirecTV
receiver directly with the HDMI cable.

Although I did not A/B the outputs and am going strictly by memory, I
couldn't tell any difference.

Theoretically, HDMI should give a better picture because it avoids the
digital to analog to digital conversion, but I can't see it.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Kevin Killebrew wrote:
>
> I have a Panasonic TH50PX500U, Denon DVD3910, Denon AVR-3805, and a Time
> Warner HD box. Everything but the Denon AV receiver has an HDMI interface,
> so I am running all the video via component cables so I can do all the
> switching through the receiver. 1080i broadcasts through the component I/O
> look stunning, I can't imagine they could get better, but I'm curious if
> HDMI would be an improvement. Using it would require more manual component
> input switching since it would take the Denon AVR out of the loop. Also, to
> run both the DVD and the cable box on HDMI I'd need to physically switch the
> cableIs because there is only one HDM input on the TV. Is any of this worth
> the hassle?
>
> KK
>
> --
> Kevin Killebrew
> Lakehills Consulting, LP
> 512-263-1825


I'd say you are talking a simpler/consistent HDTV system operation

vs a theoretically better HDTV picture..... with more remotes....

Depending who in the Family has to 'operate' the HDTV system...

the consistent Component cable set-up wins.....

IF you have a 70" + set... HDMI may show better picture...

If Family members can't get to their Programs.... Component wins.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dennis Mayer wrote:
> Kevin Killebrew wrote:
>>
>> I have a Panasonic TH50PX500U, Denon DVD3910, Denon AVR-3805, and a
>> Time Warner HD box. Everything but the Denon AV receiver has an
>> HDMI interface, so I am running all the video via component cables
>> so I can do all the switching through the receiver. 1080i
>> broadcasts through the component I/O look stunning, I can't imagine
>> they could get better, but I'm curious if HDMI would be an
>> improvement. Using it would require more manual component input
>> switching since it would take the Denon AVR out of the loop. Also,
>> to run both the DVD and the cable box on HDMI I'd need to physically
>> switch the cableIs because there is only one HDM input on the TV.
>> Is any of this worth the hassle?
>>
>> KK
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Killebrew
>> Lakehills Consulting, LP
>> 512-263-1825
>
>
> I'd say you are talking a simpler/consistent HDTV system operation
>
> vs a theoretically better HDTV picture..... with more remotes....
>
> Depending who in the Family has to 'operate' the HDTV system...
>
> the consistent Component cable set-up wins.....
>
> IF you have a 70" + set... HDMI may show better picture...
>
> If Family members can't get to their Programs.... Component wins.

Harmony. It has saved my butt from the wrath of the wife and kids!!! Even
Pops can use it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

| Theoretically, HDMI should give a better picture because it avoids the
| digital to analog to digital conversion, but I can't see it.

It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway. So,
unless there is some kind of extra conversion taking place, the choice
between analog component input and HDMI input is more about where the
digital to analog conversion actually takes place. Deferring conversion
to the last possible stage is generally better, since that reduces the
chance of signal distortion and noise that more easily affects analog.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.

Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
know that it does or are you just speculating?

>So,
> unless there is some kind of extra conversion taking place, the choice
> between analog component input and HDMI input is more about where the
> digital to analog conversion actually takes place. Deferring conversion
> to the last possible stage is generally better, since that reduces the
> chance of signal distortion and noise that more easily affects analog.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/
> http/ham.org/ |
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/
> http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
>><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>
>>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
>
>
> Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog?

No reason.

> Do you
> know that it does or are you just speculating?

Pontificating is more his style. If he did the slightest bit of research
before he posted nonsense, he might not look like such a fool.

Then again, he probably would.

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11hu4id6vnm3h76@corp.supernews.com...
> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
>> news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
>>><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
>>
>>
>> Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog?
>
> No reason.
>
>> Do you know that it does or are you just speculating?
>
> Pontificating is more his style. If he did the slightest bit of research
> before he posted nonsense, he might not look like such a fool.
>
> Then again, he probably would.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> "All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
> people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)

You are not being helpful, Matthew. Let him respond to the question and
either provide some useful info or learn something. Your attacks do nothing
but add to the BS on the group and make you look foolish.

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11hu4id6vnm3h76@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>>
>>><phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
>>>><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog?
>>
>>No reason.
>>
>>
>>>Do you know that it does or are you just speculating?
>>
>>Pontificating is more his style. If he did the slightest bit of research
>>before he posted nonsense, he might not look like such a fool.
>>
>>Then again, he probably would.
>>
>>--
>>Matthew
>>
>>"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
>>people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
>
>
> You are not being helpful, Matthew. Let him respond to the question and
> either provide some useful info or learn something. Your attacks do nothing
> but add to the BS on the group and make you look foolish.
>

You may be right, but I had the pointy sticks at the ready. I'll try to
restrain myself, as he really is too easy a target. I really suspect you
will not see an answer from him.

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
|> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
|> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
|>
|> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
|
| Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
| know that it does or are you just speculating?

Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
to analog conversion takes place.

The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally cannot
be corrected.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
> |
> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
> |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
> |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> |>
> |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
> |
> | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
> | know that it does or are you just speculating?
>
> Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
> form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
> to analog conversion takes place.

Do you really have to prove how stupid you are in _every_ post?

> The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
> signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally cannot
> be corrected.

Or, as it the case with most modern fixed pixel displays, RBG are not
converted to analog _AT_ _ALL_. The effect of the light impinging on the
retina does the mixing.

OH, some of the better fixed pixel displays do convert luminance to
analog in an attempt to be more linear at low output. It doesn't seem to
work all that well, IME.

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:dfngah49eg@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
> |
> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
> |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
> |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> |>
> |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
> |
> | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
> | know that it does or are you just speculating?
>
> Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
> form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
> to analog conversion takes place.

I don't see why the eyes are relevant on this point. If the conversion to
analog is sloppy it still looks bad. If extra conversions that are
unnecessary are performed and the pix is corrupted or poorly processed, it
still may look bad. What exactly are you trying to say?

> The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
> signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally cannot
> be corrected.

That is exactly my point. Why would the TH50PX500U convert it to analog?
This statement seems contrary to your point in the post that I responded to.
You never answered the question. Do you have some info that the TH50PX500U
converts the signal to analog or are you just speculating?

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/
> http/ham.org/ |
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/
> http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly my point. Why would the TH50PX500U convert it to analog?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Or, as it the case with most modern fixed pixel displays, RBG are not
> converted to analog _AT_ _ALL_. The effect of the light impinging on the
> retina does the mixing.

Technologies like LCD and Plasma are analog at the per-pixel control level.

Technologies like DLP are somewhat digital at the per-pixel level in that
they
use pulse width modulation to create luminance differences.

Thomas Gilg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"news.cup.hp.com" <thomasDELME_gilgDELME@hpDELME.com> wrote in message
news:5pLTe.12078$Q66.638@news.cpqcorp.net...
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>> Or, as it the case with most modern fixed pixel displays, RBG are not
>> converted to analog _AT_ _ALL_. The effect of the light impinging on the
>> retina does the mixing.
>
> Technologies like LCD and Plasma are analog at the per-pixel control
> level.
>
> Technologies like DLP are somewhat digital at the per-pixel level in that
> they
> use pulse width modulation to create luminance differences.
>
> Thomas Gilg

Do you have some detail on these statements or some references?

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:32:28 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:dfngah49eg@news2.newsguy.com...
|> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
|> |
|> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
|> | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
|> |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
|> |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
|> |>
|> |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
|> |
|> | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
|> | know that it does or are you just speculating?
|>
|> Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
|> form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
|> to analog conversion takes place.
|
| I don't see why the eyes are relevant on this point. If the conversion to
| analog is sloppy it still looks bad. If extra conversions that are
| unnecessary are performed and the pix is corrupted or poorly processed, it
| still may look bad. What exactly are you trying to say?

I can't say whether the D/A conversion in one unit is any better than the
D/A conversion in another. I don't know the insides of either of these
units you have.


|> The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
|> signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally cannot
|> be corrected.
|
| That is exactly my point. Why would the TH50PX500U convert it to analog?
| This statement seems contrary to your point in the post that I responded to.
| You never answered the question. Do you have some info that the TH50PX500U
| converts the signal to analog or are you just speculating?

I don't have specific info. I don't own a TH50PX500U. I'm just describing
basic systems, which with some logic, can show that in the average case, it
is better for path to be digital as much as possible. If the TH50PX500U has
something that effectively goofs that up, I don't know about it. I'd have
to have such a unit and dig into it to see what is going on to really know
(e.g. to do real research).

I take it you really prefer to have answers from other TH50PX500U owners to
see what their experiences are. In that case, I'll have to bow out.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet responded to Thomas Gilg with:
> Do you have some detail on these statements or some references?

Everyone gets wrapped up in whether the imaging pipeline and connectors are
analog v. digital that I just wanted to jog everyone's brains into recalling
(what I consider obvious) that at the pixel level, LCD and Plasma are
driven/operated in an analog fashion. When you ask a pixel to do 50% of
anything, the 50% is achieved via a corresponding voltage level, +/- some
under and over driving to compensate for where the pixel has been or will be
going over time. DLP and any other light value technologies which can slam
to full on and full off many-many times per second (aka pulse width
modulation) can build up the appearance of 50% by fast and controlled bursts
of full-on light followed by full-off. On-Off-On-Off-... done say 10,000
times in a second will look like 50%; On-Off-Off-Off-On-Off-Off-Off-...
would yield 25%.

Thomas Gilg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <Om%Te.12133$0E6.6018@news.cpqcorp.net>,
"news.cup.hp.com" <thomasDELME_gilgDELME@hpDELME.com> wrote:

> Everyone gets wrapped up in whether the imaging pipeline and connectors are
> analog v. digital that I just wanted to jog everyone's brains into recalling
> (what I consider obvious) that at the pixel level, LCD and Plasma are
> driven/operated in an analog fashion.

ALL of life is operated in an analog fashion.

I love hearing terms like "digital quality!" My eyes see in analog, my
ears hear in analog, my fingers feel in analog...so "digital speakers"
simply tells me to stay away from that purely marketing-driven product.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> ALL of life is operated in an analog fashion.
>
> I love hearing terms like "digital quality!" My eyes see in analog, my
> ears hear in analog, my fingers feel in analog...so "digital speakers"
> simply tells me to stay away from that purely marketing-driven product.


And..."music" CD-ROM blanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:dfpt5r27i2@news1.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:32:28 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
> |
> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:dfngah49eg@news2.newsguy.com...
> |> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com>
> wrote:
> |> |
> |> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> |> | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
> |> |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
> |> |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> |> |>
> |> |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
> |> |
> |> | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do
> you
> |> | know that it does or are you just speculating?
> |>
> |> Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
> |> form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
> |> to analog conversion takes place.
> |
> | I don't see why the eyes are relevant on this point. If the conversion
> to
> | analog is sloppy it still looks bad. If extra conversions that are
> | unnecessary are performed and the pix is corrupted or poorly processed,
> it
> | still may look bad. What exactly are you trying to say?
>
> I can't say whether the D/A conversion in one unit is any better than the
> D/A conversion in another. I don't know the insides of either of these
> units you have.

If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.

> |> The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
> |> signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally
> cannot
> |> be corrected.
> |
> | That is exactly my point. Why would the TH50PX500U convert it to
> analog?
> | This statement seems contrary to your point in the post that I responded
> to.
> | You never answered the question. Do you have some info that the
> TH50PX500U
> | converts the signal to analog or are you just speculating?
>
> I don't have specific info. I don't own a TH50PX500U. I'm just
> describing
> basic systems, which with some logic, can show that in the average case,
> it
> is better for path to be digital as much as possible. If the TH50PX500U
> has
> something that effectively goofs that up, I don't know about it. I'd have
> to have such a unit and dig into it to see what is going on to really know
> (e.g. to do real research).
>
> I take it you really prefer to have answers from other TH50PX500U owners
> to
> see what their experiences are. In that case, I'll have to bow out.

You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful about
what you post.

> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/
> http/ham.org/ |
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/
> http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:05:59 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:

| If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
| statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
| started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.

You think that having an analog connection does NOT expose you to some
potential distortion, noise, and interference? People who have learned
this stuff and known it for decades don't need to research to understand
the obvious.


| You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
| unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful about
| what you post.

I suggest you just stick with digital connections. You do not appear to
understand the limitations of analog and just want to bicker with anyone
who tries to explain it to you.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------