HDMI input
tmartin2 -- Sat, 02/04/2006 - 10:09
I've heard that HDMI inputs are not always the best (component can be better). Is this true? When and why?
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Many reviewers find HDMI to be superior to component in general, but there are plenty of exceptions. For example, some devices do not implement HDMI completely or correctly. Also, long cables can cause problems. For the upcoming issue of TPV (#67, Mar/Apr 2006), Barry Willis reviewed 16 DVD players and found that in all but two cases, the component output looked better than the upconverted HDMI output, which typically exhibited higher black levels and some color shifts. On the other hand, if you want to see true high-definition pictures from an HD DVD or Blu-ray player, HDMI is the only way to go; both formats are likely to allow content providers to determine whether the component outputs will pass a high-def signal or downconvert it to 480p. Which option do you suppose most will choose?
Various implementations of the HDMI standard can cause some handshaking problems between things like your cable box and display.
Typically, these are resolved by cycling inputs, but this can be somewhat of a pain after awhile.
Coming out of a cable box, component looks as good as HDMI (not better) in my set-up (Comcast/Mote box, Vizio 50" plasma) and doesn't have the handshaking problems.
Of course, you'll need HDMI for Blue-Ray/HD-DVD.
Randy Tomlinson recently ISF'd my Hitachi and found that the Digital input was far superior to the component input. I do not know why, it is just the way it was....that kinda sounds like a television news guy...was it Walter ?
Anyway, I have the HDMI running to the FPJ and it looks quite good.
Jack