"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4b9154a5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Remember that cables don't carry digital signals. They carry analog 
> signals that your equipment interprets as digital values. The cable has to 
> not degrade the signal enough that *your* end equipment can still 
> understand the digital values. You can't hook the cable up to 
> laboratory-quality test equipment and say "Yep, no errors."
>
> Which is not to say cheap cables aren't sufficient. It's merely to say 
> that cheap cables aren't necessarily sufficient just because it's digital.
>
> It's the same reason you can only get ADSL service at certain distances 
> from the telco CO. It's an analog signal. It's only digital once it gets 
> inside your computer.

Yes, but if the bits start out as 101 and end-up as 101 on both the high 
quality cable and the low quality cable (every time), then even though the 
high quality cable is transmitting the analog signal better, it really makes 
no difference, as they both interpret the digital portion the same way.  I 
think we're both on the same page here.

> Understand that there's a processor inside the TV that's interpolating 
> frames. It's not just painting the same frame twice. It's actually drawing 
> something different every frame, based on the motion vectors in the image.

It doesn't just paint the same frame?  Hmmmm...  If so, then it's similar to 
the anti-judderring (or an extension of it).  That's more interesting, now.

Post a reply to this message