<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
HDMI can not achieve the performance limit of DVI; you rate it to
highly.<br>
The cable & connector is cheap.<br>
HDMI has failed to find favour in the audiophile camp due to timing
jitter issues.<br>
HDMI exists for DRM & to insure the removal computer equipment
connectors from AV equipment.<br>
Equipment fitted with DVI-I was allowed to output upscaled 720, 1080
& 1152 analogue signals.<br>
<br>
A video card with only HDMI connectors might be required to ONLY work
with full DRM !<br>
<br>
Analogue signals usually look best on an analogue display.<br>
Digital link bypasses a RAMDAC on the videocard & bypasses the ADC
DFP frontend.<br>
This can only be better unless something is badly configured.<br>
Also should make for a cheaper video card & cheaper DFP.<br>
<br>
A high speed (200MHz) analogue signal requires controlled impedance
cabling system.<br>
Ghosting could be reflections from mismatch etc .<br>
<br>
Most (all) DFP have a frontend pre-scaler. Only laptop & iMac
(internal) screens lack the pre-scaler, in this case the GPU does a
virtual pre-scale & always drives panel at native resolution.<br>
The pre-scaler implementation has a huge impact on image quality.<br>
I would say it is a must to only drive DFPs at native resolution &
via digital link if possible.<br>
Cheap DFPs must have cheap pre-scalers; they should not be able to
better the videocard GPU.<br>
<br>
BUT my Philips Matchline CRT upscaler is much better than the PC video
card upscaling DVD playback !<br>
This is probably my poor mplayer configuration.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 26/03/2010 4:49 p.m., Nick Rout wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:52bd4a781003252049s63e52497s913f5ebaa8f51784@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Steve Hodge <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stevehodge@gmail.com"><stevehodge@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM, David Zanetti <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dave2@wetstring.net"><dave2@wetstring.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
SD Component is nowhere near as good as VGA in effective resolution.
So I'd put them:
Composite
S-Video, SD Component
VGA, HD Component
DVI, HDMI <= 1.3
HDMI >= 1.4, DisplayPort
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes. The only thing I'd add is that the difference between VGA and DVI may
be small or large depending on the display device. On my 19" LCD monitors I
can't see any difference between the VGA and DVI inputs. On my old 42"
plasma the difference is marked - VGA is less sharp and text often has
annoying ghosting. The moral of the story is that it's always best to try
the various options and see which works acceptably for you.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Often the TV will apply different processing to different inputs. VGA
is seen as a computer input that does not need much processing,
whereas HDMI/DVI is seen as a TV style input which will be
overscanned, possibly interlaced, possibly in need of mpeg2 correction
etc etc.
_______________________________________________
mythtvnz mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mythtvnz@lists.linuxnut.co.nz">mythtvnz@lists.linuxnut.co.nz</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz">http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/mythtvnz</a>
Archives <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/">http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/mythtvnz/</a></pre>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a>
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2768 - Release Date: 03/24/10 19:33:00
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>