HDMI cable and upconvert dvd player

[zurch1818]

I just got a 720p HDTV and was looking to buy an upconvert DVD player. Is it necessary to have an HDMI cable or will I get near 720p quality with component cables connected to the unconvert dvd player?

[TCSM]

there is a HUGE difference in quality between HDMI and component cables. with an upconvert dvd player and component you're limited to 1080i where hdmi cables will give you 1080p. Yeah you can't get that high but the quality difference should amaze you...depending on the tv to a point.

 

Leads me to the next point, what kind of tv do you got?

[kilgore37]

you dont need hdmi since your tv is only 720p. I run them because you can run audio through them and its less clutter.

[mothershipconnection]

Get your HDMI cables cheaply online and they'll be about the same price as cheap component cables, only I'd trust a cheap digital (HDMI) cable more than the components, since it's harder to screw up (as far as I understand).

[tnweill]

I know this was discussed previously in a different thread, but, where would you recommend going online to get some cheap HDMI cables?

[TCSM]

www.overstock.com.....ive bought 3 total off there for less then $30. Each one sold separately in store is well over $80.

[zurch1818]

Its a 50 inch plasma panasonic with 720p. But here is the dilema; Charter for whatever reason decided to supply me with an HDMI cable and component cables when I went over there to pick up my box. I decided to put the HDMI cables with the box, but I still have component cables that aren't being used. My TV has another HDMI port, so that isn't an issue. I just don't know if it is worth buying a new cable or just using my components that Charter supplied me with. Is the quality really going to improve much?

 

Thanks for the advice, I'm still not sure what I'm going to do. I'm leaning towards going online and just buying a cheap HDMI cable.

[TCSM]

i tried the difference with the 2 same tvs side-by-side, same movie, but one with component and one with a hdmi cable. You will be surprised on the quality level with a hdmi cable.

[endaround]

For an upconverting DVD player going to 720P I highly doubt its worth it. You may want to keep an eye out for cheap HDMI cables (saw some on clearance at Target for $15) but I wouldn't go out of my way for it.

[jwill535]

especially for an upconvert you really are getting much. Go onto ebay or amazon and get a used HDMI if you really want one i got mine for $8. As for Charter didnt know they had HDMI yet, when i had them they had DVI to HDMI. Since Charter doesnt broadcast in Digital(its up converted from Analog in the box) the cables are really going to make that much of a difference for you cable. If you dont want to buy another cable put the HDMI on the DVD and use the cables for the cable box.

[Viva La Grinch]

I just ordered my HDMI cable yesterday from monoprice.com. Cost me $5 plus $3 and change to ship. Since its a digital signal, any cable will do fine as you either get the signal, or you don't. Don't fall into the trap of being monster cable thinking it will be better quality.

 

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024008&p_id=3992&seq=1&format=2

[rluzinski]

there is a HUGE difference in quality between HDMI and component cables. with an upconvert dvd player and component you're limited to 1080i where hdmi cables will give you 1080p.

 

I doubt the majority of people would even notice the difference between 1080i or p.

[Schlitz001]

I doubt the majority of people would even notice the difference between 1080i or p.

 

I think it's larely dependant on the size of your television.

[zingsheim]

I was the one having the delema at first in the earlier post and I got an hdmi and have not noticed a huge difference at all. I was running 1080i through the component cables and now it's running through the hdmi and the diff. is very small if even noticable. I also got an upconverting dvd player for Christmas and I ran that through an hdmi as well. It upconverts the dvd to 720p and 1080i and I think it has really nice picture and sound.

[TCSM]

there is a HUGE difference in quality between HDMI and component cables. with an upconvert dvd player and component you're limited to 1080i where hdmi cables will give you 1080p.

 

I doubt the majority of people would even notice the difference between 1080i or p.

Thats where you are wrong. 1080p scans twice as fast and the difference is phenomenal in a lot of cases. Things just as a 1000 difference in contrast ratio are hard to see the difference, but i and p or easily differentiated.

 

[Katuluu]

Uhh, no it's not. In the case of movies their is essentially no difference between 1080i and 1080p as the frame rates are not in sync with the refresh rates of the TVs. Thus additional frames are added for both formats. Outside of hard core gamers whose games have frame rates in sync with refresh rates, or people with 60"+ TV's, their is minimal difference for the most part.

[jwill535]

1080p is only worth while if you play alot of video games or watch alot of HD DVDs since they do not and most likely will not be able to broadcast anything in 1080p

[rluzinski]

Thats where you are wrong. 1080p scans twice as fast and the difference is phenomenal in a lot of cases. Things just as a 1000 difference in contrast ratio are hard to see the difference, but i and p or easily differentiated.

 

Yes, progressive scan scans all 1080 lines every frame. Interlaced refreshes every other. For a still picture, there is literally no difference. For fast moving pictures, there is a difference but it's not nearly as dramatic as you suggest, IMO. When Halo 2 came out, I ran to my nearest store to get the component connection for my Xbox, so I could enjoy it in all the glory of 480p. Did it look nice? Sure. Was it a dramatic difference? Naaa. On the contrary, it was very subtle. IIRC, I even ended up turning it off 480p widescreen, so I didn't have to play coop with the tv vertically split.

 

The majority of people entering the high def market are still at 42" or below. That's why all this talk of 720 being worse than 1080 and 1080p being better than 1080i is pretty irrelevant, IMO. Unless you sit very close to your 42" TV (something like 6' or closer... google it if you want), you eyes physically can't see the difference between 720 and 1080. The difference between progressive scan and interlaced is equally subtle. TV manufacterers would have you believe otherwise, as they spend millions of dollars to market their TVs but I just don't see it.

 

Sony might think that 1080p is the only "real high def" but I couldn't care less if my 42" TV at 10' viewing distance is displaying 720i or 1080p. I'm not even sure if 20/20 vision could see the difference. Now, if you are talking about 10' away from a 100"+ high def projector, that's a whole different story.

[TCSM]

halo 2 was only 480p/720i which compares no where near 1080p. Only 3, maybe now, 4 games have even come out in 1080i form so to compare that doesn't make much sense to me.

 

You are correct that 1080i scans every other line where 1080p does every line. To correctly summarize it, 1080i scans every other line then comes back a second time to fill in the rest. That is done in 1/30th of a second. Where as 1080p will do every line once in a 1/60th of a second. In retrospect thats more then twice the speed of 1080i.

 

Within a smaller tv, for example 32", I can see just as much of a difference then a 42". The smaller the tv, to a point, can have the most dramatic effect between i and p. Most 32" you find will be sitting at 1080i with an increased contrast ratio to make up the detail. We have 2 Sharp 32" tvs as work, one being 1080i and one being 1080p. A side by side comparison greatly shows the difference and I've yet to have a customer say likewise. Will you notice it when you get home? Depends on what you have. If you have the conventional dvd/vcr combo player it won't matter a licking what tv you got. Anything on a HD feed, such as cable, satellite, or movies, the difference even just at home is visible.

 

I do believe when you look at a plasma the difference between i and p is pretty hard to notice, especially the distance you sit (ex: 10-15 feet).

[Katuluu]

HD feeds broadcast at 1080i. It doesn't matter at all if you have 1080i or 1080p televisions. Even if you have an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, your 1080p TV needs a refresh rate of at least 75mHz to see any noticeable difference between it and 1080i, which is fairly uncommon in American television sets.

[rluzinski]

halo 2 was only 480p/720i which compares no where near 1080p. Only 3, maybe now, 4 games have even come out in 1080i form so to compare that doesn't make much sense to me.

 

I was comparing Halo 2 on the original Xbox (which didn't support 780i) when I changed from 480i vs. 480p. Comparing that to the difference between 1080i vs. 1080p makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps a side by side comparison would have made the differences obvious but if I couldn't even notice the difference while playing in one vs. the other, the practical difference between the two was negligible for me.

 

Within a smaller tv, for example 32", I can see just as much of a difference then a 42".

 

If your customer is going to watch that 32" TV from 2' away, I can't argue with you. You'd better sell them some glasses with their new TV if they are going to do that, however.

 

Anything on a HD feed, such as cable, satellite, or movies, the difference even just at home is visible.

 

To echo Kat, that's not even physically possible over cable/satellite, since nothing (in the US as far as I know, at least) is even broadcasts in 1080p. If a guy comes home and thinks he can see the difference between 1080i and 1080p while watching Dancing With the Stars, I'd tell him he's been listening to salesmen too much. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

For anyone wanting to buy a $1200+ HD set in the near future, I suggest doing a lot of research online at places like CNET.com and other unbiased tech/review websites. They'll explain the technical differences but they'll also explain the practical differences. The CNet's TV buyer's guide is a good place to start:

 

http://reviews.cnet.com/tv-buying-guide/?tag=dir

[TCSM]

HD feeds broadcast at 1080i. It doesn't matter at all if you have 1080i or 1080p televisions. Even if you have an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, your 1080p TV needs a refresh rate of at least 75mHz to see any noticeable difference between it and 1080i, which is fairly uncommon in American television sets.

the average processor speed in a tv sits at 60 ghz, anything above that will be 120ghz. the difference, minimal. If you wan't to see a difference between picture look at the contrast ratio.

 

[Katuluu]

Actually no it's not. If the TV has a 60 Hz refresh rate then the frame rate for movies sits at a 2:3 ratio. Films are shot at a frame rate of 24 frames per second, to sync with the TV they will double the first frame, then triple the second frame, the double the third frame, then triple the fourth frame and so on and so fourth. This can give the film a jerky feel. If you have a 72 Hz refresh rate (anything higher then 60 Hz is very uncommon in the US) and up they will simply it shows the film at a 3:3 ratio, which means they triple each frame and it makes for a much smoother and seamless viewing. Games use 60 frames per second, so that is why the TV's will show a more distinct difference if you compare them, as they are perfectly synced up and have no additional frames.

[rluzinski]

Games use 60 frames per second, so that is why the TV's will show a more distinct difference if you compare them, as they are perfectly synced up and have no additional frames.

 

When you say, "games use 60 FPS" do you mean that they output a frame to the TV, regardless of whether they have drawn a new one? I just assumed that when a game bogs down and can only crank out 30 FPM during a part of a game, the processor doesn't even bother sending out the old frame again. Of course, I don't really know how any of that works http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[mothershipconnection]

In my non-technical, layman's opinion based purely on anecdote, what you really need to care about most is brand quality. My Panasonic plasma is "only 720p", but is simply beautiful. I have a friend who has a 720p discount-brand LCD...not so beautiful. Another friend has a 1080p Acquos, and he paid as much for his 32" as I did for my 42", but you simply can't tell the difference in picture, and I believe that model was discontinued for that reason. What I've heard/read, and seems to hold true, is that you buy a Panasonic or Pioneer if Plasma and Sharp or Sony if LCD.

 

Specs often don't mean as much as some would have you believe. I used to be really into car audio when I was younger, and a good 400 Watt RMS amplifier would push a set of good speakers really hard and clear, while a 1000W RMS cheapo brand would just make them fart a little, and a distorted fart at that. People get caught up in numbers, but you can make anything produce numbers that are an aberration under the proper conditions. I've been told that this is the case with contrast ratio - that no TV really puts out that ratio in practice.

 

Let your eyes and ears be your guide - not a listing of numbers, and always beware of sales tricks like feeding an inferior signal to one model to try to sell you on the more expensive/high-commission model.