I recently bought a new HDTV along wtih a Blu-Ray player.  Prior to the 
purchase, I spent a lot of time trying to understand the technology.  One of 
the things that struck me, was the fact that Walmart's HDMI cables cost 
between $30 to $40+ for a 6 foot cable.  I can find other HDMI cables from 
various reputable sources for less than $10.  Heck, when I bought my new LCD 
monitor last Fall, it came with a "free" HDMI cable.  I've used it and it 
works great.  Certainly, the manufacturer would not have included a $30 
Cable with the monitor.  In fact, they probably wouldn't even include a $5 
cable.

Since HDMI is a digital connection, any cable capable of handling a 1080p 
connection (Blu-Ray) is good enough right?  Short answer, "Yes."  Long 
answer, "Maybe..."  As the length of the cable grows, the quality of the 
cable becomes more important.  Gizmodo.com actually did a really good write 
up on the issue, eventually concluding that while way overpriced, the 
"Monster" brand cables were actually higher quality, but again, so what?  If 
you have an 8-bit-color 1080p signal, any cable shorter than 10' should be 
able to handle the job.

What's interesting is to read reviews of the Monster HDMI cables where they 
sell a 3-foot HDMI cable for around $100.  Some poor saps are saying, how 
it's well worth the money, because it's so much better than composite video. 
Well, yeah, HDMI is much better, but you're still stupid for spending $100 
on a 3-foot cable that you should be able to find for a few bucks.  Others 
claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than the 
other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables.  Unless I'm missing something, that's like 
saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5 
ethernet connection to cat 6.  In the analog realm, high quality cables 
meant a lot.  In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal 
should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really crappy 
quality ethernet cable, as well.  But they either work, or they don't. 
Sometimes you may have partially working ethernet cables, but with HDMI, 
your picture would be getting noticeably screwed up.  i.e. a bad cable would 
become very apparent, very quickly, because you'd see a very screwed up 
picture on your TV, or no picture at all.

Another thing I hear mentioned is the higher bandwitch capacity of Monster 
(and other) HDMI cables.  Again, I'm a bit confused here.  Some day, when 
Blu-ray discs start using 12-bit color or perhaps higher resolutions, then 
the higher bandwidth might be necesary.  But for now, what good is it? 
Isn't that the same as running 100 megabit ethernet on a cable that can 
handle gigabit ethernet?  Yeah, it's nice for the future, but it's not going 
to give you anything extra in the present.  Am I wrong about this?  This is 
the part that confuses me the most, because I see a lot of reviewers 
claiming that the higher bandwidth capacity actually works better for them. 
I believe 1080p/60Hz/24-bit with audio is about 6GB/s, so why would a cable 
capable of handling 15GB/s make anything any better?  Isn't it still 
transmitting at 6GB/s?

Finally, 120Hz LCD.  I suppose in the future, we may have a 120Hz signal 
from a Blu-Ray (or whatever), but currently 60Hz is the max.  So, you're 
still transmitting a 60Hz signal into a 120Hz TV, so I don't see how a 
better quality cable would help there either.  In fact, I'm still not 
convinced that 120Hz LCD makes any sense whatsoever.  With CRT's, it made a 
LOT of difference, because it substantially reduced flicker.  LCD doesn't 
have flicker.  It has response times, and lowering the response times does 
make a difference.  I'm not convinced that a 5ms 60Hz screen would be any 
different from a 5ms 120Hz screen, or even a 5ms 240Hz screen.

There it is.  Let me know if I'm wrong.  I can't believe that I could be 
right about all of this stuff, as there seem to be so many people out there 
who seem to think I'm wrong.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:19:21 -0500, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:

> There it is.  Let me know if I'm wrong.  I can't believe that I could be
> right about all of this stuff, as there seem to be so many people out
> there who seem to think I'm wrong.

One thing that I learned quickly was that if you start looking based on a 
specification (1.2 vs 1.3 vs 1.3b), you're only looking at the connector 
quality, not the actual cable quality.

I picked up a 50-foot cable from Firefold (whom I've been quite happy 
with) for about $15, and it's generally worked well for me - though I did 
have issues with losing HDMI sync (that I seem to have resolved) when the 
system was cold (but after it warmed up for about 20 minutes, it was 
usually fine).  The thing to look at is apparently the cable gage and 
shielding (which would be important as well).

Another thing to consider, though, is if the equipment being used has a 
signal booster in it.  Our Harmon/Kardon AVR-254 does signal boosting, 
and that's probably why I can use a lower grade cable with greater 
success.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:19:21 -0000, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay  
<jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> did spake thusly:

> I recently bought a new HDTV along wtih a Blu-Ray player.  Prior to the
> purchase, I spent a lot of time trying to understand the technology.   
> One of
> the things that struck me, was the fact that Walmart's HDMI cables cost
> between $30 to $40+ for a 6 foot cable.  I can find other HDMI cables  
> from
> various reputable sources for less than $10.  Heck, when I bought my new  
> LCD
> monitor last Fall, it came with a "free" HDMI cable.  I've used it and it
> works great.  Certainly, the manufacturer would not have included a $30
> Cable with the monitor.  In fact, they probably wouldn't even include a  
> $5
> cable.
<snippety>

The latest which magazine had a quick segment where they sent a 6.2Gb per  
second data stream through a £10, £20, and £100 HDMI cable of unspecified  
length without a single error occurring.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> Finally, 120Hz LCD.  I suppose in the future, we may have a 120Hz signal 
> from a Blu-Ray (or whatever), but currently 60Hz is the max.  So, you're 
> still transmitting a 60Hz signal into a 120Hz TV, so I don't see how a 
> better quality cable would help there either.  In fact, I'm still not 
> convinced that 120Hz LCD makes any sense whatsoever.  With CRT's, it made a 
> LOT of difference, because it substantially reduced flicker.  LCD doesn't 
> have flicker.  It has response times, and lowering the response times does 
> make a difference.  I'm not convinced that a 5ms 60Hz screen would be any 
> different from a 5ms 120Hz screen, or even a 5ms 240Hz screen.

  If a 120Hz LCD shows each frame of a 60Hz input twice per output frame,
then there ought to be no difference. However, if the LCD does some kind
of interpolation each other frame then there might be some visible
difference. I don't know if they do, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 3/5/2010 11:31 AM, Warp wrote:
> "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay"<jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo>  wrote:
>> Finally, 120Hz LCD.  I suppose in the future, we may have a 120Hz signal
>> from a Blu-Ray (or whatever), but currently 60Hz is the max.  So, you're
>> still transmitting a 60Hz signal into a 120Hz TV, so I don't see how a
>> better quality cable would help there either.  In fact, I'm still not
>> convinced that 120Hz LCD makes any sense whatsoever.  With CRT's, it made a
>> LOT of difference, because it substantially reduced flicker.  LCD doesn't
>> have flicker.  It has response times, and lowering the response times does
>> make a difference.  I'm not convinced that a 5ms 60Hz screen would be any
>> different from a 5ms 120Hz screen, or even a 5ms 240Hz screen.
>
>    If a 120Hz LCD shows each frame of a 60Hz input twice per output frame,
> then there ought to be no difference. However, if the LCD does some kind
> of interpolation each other frame then there might be some visible
> difference. I don't know if they do, though.
>
Both of you are assuming this is "Blue Ray" that is the issue too. Game 
systems, I think, can output in native 120Hz, and computers certainly 
can and *must* in some cases, if you want decent video. If you are 
running 3D shutter glasses through them, then its mandatory, etc. And, 
that looks like something coming up soon with Blue Ray. Also, you are 
assuming that Blue Ray isn't using the full Hz, if available, which 
might be true of the cheaper units, but.. I wouldn't bet on it a) being 
that way with all of them, or b) staying that way.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Since HDMI is a digital connection, any cable capable of handling a 1080p 
> connection (Blu-Ray) is good enough right?

You want few errors. How many errors you actually get depends on your 
environment and your cable length.

> In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal 
> should be as good as any other, 

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.

> Finally, 120Hz LCD.  I suppose in the future, we may have a 120Hz signal 
> from a Blu-Ray (or whatever), but currently 60Hz is the max.  So, you're 
> still transmitting a 60Hz signal into a 120Hz TV, so I don't see how a 
> better quality cable would help there either.  

It wouldn't, unless you're actually getting bit errors.

> In fact, I'm still not 
> convinced that 120Hz LCD makes any sense whatsoever. 

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.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message 
news:4b91529b$1@news.povray.org...
> Both of you are assuming this is "Blue Ray" that is the issue too.

Woops.

> Game systems, I think, can output in native 120Hz, and computers certainly 
> can and *must* in some cases, if you want decent video.

120Hz or 120fps?  Sometimes the two terms are interchangeble, but not 
always.  It's true that getting 120fps on a 60Hz monitor won't look as 
smooth as a 120Hz monitor.  I don't think any console systems on the market 
today output at 120Hz, but I could be wrong.

> If you are running 3D shutter glasses through them, then its mandatory, 
> etc. And, that looks like something coming up soon with Blue Ray.

That would be awesome.

> Also, you are assuming that Blue Ray isn't using the full Hz, if 
> available, which might be true of the cheaper units, but.. I wouldn't bet 
> on it a) being that way with all of them, or b) staying that way.

My Blu-Ray player has the capability to output 12-bit color.  Last I 
checked, there were no Blu-Ray discs that contain 12-bit color.  My TV is 
8-bit.  So, while some of the technology is there, it's definitely not all 
there yet, but it probably will be in the next couple years, but it's not 
going to enhance my viewing experience.  Likewise, I'm pretty sure that no 
Blu-ray discs are being produced at 120Hz, nor is that likely to happen over 
the next several years.  Heck, if Hollywood would start filming at a mere 
60fps, it would be a huge improvement.

One of the things that most HDTV's do is anti-judderring, which is 
synchronizing a 24fps signal with a 60Hz monitor.  I've read that with the 
120Hz TV's, they can really smooth-out a 24fps signal, and it looks a lot 
like video-tape (in smoothness, not quality).  That's neat if you want your 
movies to look like video tape.  But I wanted more of an authentic feel, so 
I went with the Sony TV, which shows a 24fps Blu-ray movie at, you guessed 
it, 24Hz.  This seems like a simple solution to a simple problem.

Post a reply to this message

"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

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> 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),

Right. I'm just saying that the equipment at each end determines how good 
quality cable you need. You can't test a cable on lab equipment and say "we 
got no errors, so you won't either."   It's like saying "we put X brand 
gasoline in our car and got 40MPG, so you will to."

I think we understand each other. :-)

> It doesn't just paint the same frame? 

That's what they *say*.  Whether they're just full of it, I couldn't say. 
The demos make it look better, but then they would.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> 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.

  Maybe if there's nearby interference (not completely unthinkable given
how much electronics there are in today's homes) the likelihood for the
bits to get garbled during transport is lessened with the higher-quality
cable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> There it is.  Let me know if I'm wrong.  I can't believe that I could be 
> right about all of this stuff, as there seem to be so many people out there 
> who seem to think I'm wrong. 

You seem to have encountered the High-Def equivalent of extreme
audiophiles. You can find the same people buying CD/DVD/Blue-ray
de-magnetizers, because it makes the sound/image quality better. Or
wooden knobs for their amps, for the tonal quality. Or acoustic rocks,
after-market power cords infused with nitrogen, R-Type stickers that
make their cars go faster . . . wait, slipped off topic for a bit there.

All said, there can be a difference in cable quality. I would not try
pushing 10Gbps ethernet over cat5 cable for any distance. HDMI, if it
were supporting 1080p, 60 Hz frame rate, 12 bit per color with no
compression, would have to support a data rate close to 4.5 Gbps. (G is
SI, not 1024M here). I don't think I would try sending that over
unfolded cloths hangers wrapped together with gaffers tape. But, for the
normally short distances between a TV and other components, just about
any braided copper wire will do, if properly shielded from cross-talk
and such which, I would think, the HDMI standard should cover. If you
get problems between two components then you can look at just those
cables involved, and figure out if they are really bad cables or if the
components need a better cable to communicate over.

For 120Hz, and now 240Hz, some (most?) of those TVs blend frames
together, to blur the change between each frame. Watching the
side-by-side demos in stores hasn't impressed me too much, maybe because
the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
these big TVs. Maybe when 3D becomes more used, I will check them out again.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
> these big TVs. 

You know, I used to think that.  I used to work on compression algorithms, 
so I got really good at seeing the kind of artifacts that jpeg and mpeg 
produce. Every time I went in the store and looked at the HDTV, I saw all 
the compression artifacts in the background and thought 'wow, that sucks.'

Then my TV died, so we bought a big-screen LCD TV. The difference between 
the SD channels on cable and the HD channels on cable is stunning. Stadium 
crowds that used to look like a Monet painting now all have faces and stuff 
even in the background. You can see grass blades. Etc.

Yes, the compression artifacts are still there, but they're *still* smaller 
than the analog blurring and color drift artifacts on a TV set that size. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
>> these big TVs. 
> 
> You know, I used to think that.  I used to work on compression
> algorithms, so I got really good at seeing the kind of artifacts that
> jpeg and mpeg produce. Every time I went in the store and looked at the
> HDTV, I saw all the compression artifacts in the background and thought
> 'wow, that sucks.'
>

I could ignore them on my old small TV, when cable started
rebroadcasting very compressed signals. Now I have a large 1080p tv, but
I get programing over the air, so the local news and such comes in very
clear while other programing varies.

> Then my TV died, so we bought a big-screen LCD TV. The difference
> between the SD channels on cable and the HD channels on cable is
> stunning. Stadium crowds that used to look like a Monet painting now all
> have faces and stuff even in the background. You can see grass blades. Etc.
> 
> Yes, the compression artifacts are still there, but they're *still*
> smaller than the analog blurring and color drift artifacts on a TV set
> that size. :-)
> 

Oh, yeah. It's the angle the they have you viewing the TVs at in stores
that make the difference. I am not likely to watch the tele from 1 foot
away, nor from 6 feet under the box staring up a wall at it. It benefits
the high end TVs that do some filtering, which I suspect all have a
higher margin for the stores.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4b919449$1@news.povray.org...
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
>> these big TVs.
>
> You know, I used to think that.  I used to work on compression algorithms, 
> so I got really good at seeing the kind of artifacts that jpeg and mpeg 
> produce. Every time I went in the store and looked at the HDTV, I saw all 
> the compression artifacts in the background and thought 'wow, that sucks.'

I'm not sure if it's just the Walmart in my neighborhood, or if all of them 
are like this, but they have lots and lots of TV's all running the same 
signal, and their TV's look like crap.  For one thing, most (if not all) are 
using shared analog connections of some kind.  Plus, the demo they have 
running has TONS of compression artifacts in it.  Any time the on-screen 
text should look clear and crisp, it looks like an awful, lossy JPEG.  It 
certainly doesn't impress.

Ironically, that's where I bought my TV.  :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message 
news:4b91c890@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
>>> these big TVs.
>>
>> You know, I used to think that.  I used to work on compression
>> algorithms, so I got really good at seeing the kind of artifacts that
>> jpeg and mpeg produce. Every time I went in the store and looked at the
>> HDTV, I saw all the compression artifacts in the background and thought
>> 'wow, that sucks.'
>
> I could ignore them on my old small TV, when cable started
> rebroadcasting very compressed signals. Now I have a large 1080p tv, but
> I get programing over the air, so the local news and such comes in very
> clear while other programing varies.
>

Digital compression on my old 27" TV bothered me, but I guess I could handle 
it.   Once we got the 46" screen, it was painful to watch.  Generally 
speaking, I only watch the HD channels now, and by and large, they look 
pretty good.  (DISH Network)

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

ADSL is a digital signal modulated into an analogue one. (And carried 
over cables supplied by the lowest bidder, specified to carry voice data 
only, at the minimum quality level necessary for it to be vaguely 
comprehendable.) HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
>> these big TVs. 
> 
> You know, I used to think that.  I used to work on compression 
> algorithms, so I got really good at seeing the kind of artifacts that 
> jpeg and mpeg produce. Every time I went in the store and looked at the 
> HDTV, I saw all the compression artifacts in the background and thought 
> 'wow, that sucks.'
> 
> Then my TV died, so we bought a big-screen LCD TV. The difference 
> between the SD channels on cable and the HD channels on cable is 
> stunning. Stadium crowds that used to look like a Monet painting now all 
> have faces and stuff even in the background. You can see grass blades. Etc.
> 
> Yes, the compression artifacts are still there, but they're *still* 
> smaller than the analog blurring and color drift artifacts on a TV set 
> that size. :-)

Well, let me see now.

On my mum's old CRT TV, there was really no noticable difference between 
analogue and digital. Both looked equally fuzzy.

(I once plugged my laptop into the TV, and even if I set the resolution 
absurdly low and made all the fonts huge, they were unreadable.)

Now my mum has this shiny new LCD TV. And suddenly digital looks 
*awful*! As soon as anything moves faster than 2 MPH, it's blocky and 
unrecognisible. Although... it seems to vary by channel somewhat.

(And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV. 
There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality 
programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter 
crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)

I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no 
visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my 
mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously, 
everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing 
experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x. 
And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast, 
and not much else.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.

There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no 
> visible difference between HD and SD.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's really a tremendous 
difference, but you have to notice it by switching back and forth between HD 
and SD.

It's like playing a game with all the graphics turned up, vs playing in 256 
colors at 640x480.

> If I ever get time to set up my 
> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. 

I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won. I prefer the 
speckly-dithering to the blocky compression, especially at more than a foot 
from the screen.

> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing 
> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution.

And digital, meaning no blur or color smear.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

>> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
> 
> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.

There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no 
>> visible difference between HD and SD.
> 
> That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's really a tremendous 
> difference, but you have to notice it by switching back and forth 
> between HD and SD.
> 
> It's like playing a game with all the graphics turned up, vs playing in 
> 256 colors at 640x480.

Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD 
and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD 
is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not 
worth paying £20,000 for.

> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.

...there's a difference between them?

>> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing 
>> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution.
> 
> And digital, meaning no blur or color smear.

Meaning no blur *if* the signal is uncompressed - which it never ever 
will be.

In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression 
artifacts. (And - if you're talking about transmission - a different 
failure mode in case of interference. Although admittedly it takes more 
interference now to make it fail.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.

> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.

  Of course there is.

  Modulation means encoding the information into the higher frequencies of
a base carrier signal. For instance radio transmissions work that way: You
have a carrier signal at a certain base frequency, and then the sound is
encoded into it by slightly modifying its amplitude (AM) or frequency (FM).

  Modems work that way too: The bits are encoded in a similar way as
variations of a carrier signal.

  Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1". (Of course the
actual process is a bit more complicated due to synchronization problems
and such, but basically it's just that.) There's no carrier signal, hence
no modulation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not
> worth paying £20,000 for.

20k£? Where do you shop? :O

> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
> artifacts. (And - if you're talking about transmission - a different
> failure mode in case of interference. Although admittedly it takes more
> interference now to make it fail.)

Yes. OTOH the digital signal fails fully when it fails, with analog
signal you're still able to get the information from the news with even
very bad signal (while you don't want to see a movie with such signal).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/10 08:57, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
> 
> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.

	Max Planck begs to differ.<G>

-- 
I'm not afraid of heights... I'm afraid of depths.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now my mum has this shiny new LCD TV. And suddenly digital looks
> *awful*! As soon as anything moves faster than 2 MPH, it's blocky and
> unrecognisible. Although... it seems to vary by channel somewhat.

	Get a plasma TV next time (or a better LCD TV).

> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
> and not much else.

	Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
stores I've been to just show trash.

-- 
I'm not afraid of heights... I'm afraid of depths.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/5/2010 12:52 PM, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott"<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote in message
> news:4b91529b$1@news.povray.org...
>> Both of you are assuming this is "Blue Ray" that is the issue too.
>
> Woops.
>
>> Game systems, I think, can output in native 120Hz, and computers certainly
>> can and *must* in some cases, if you want decent video.
>
> 120Hz or 120fps?  Sometimes the two terms are interchangeble, but not
> always.  It's true that getting 120fps on a 60Hz monitor won't look as
> smooth as a 120Hz monitor.  I don't think any console systems on the market
> today output at 120Hz, but I could be wrong.
>
Actually, in the case of LCD, the general case is, if its not 120Hz, its 
not "possible" to be 120fps. The reason being that, without the higher 
Hz, you can't get a fast enough refresh to handle a doubling of the 
frame rate (at all), or.. well, not if you want it to not look like 
total crap compared to a LCD display for a computer, which are, now, 
almost 100% 120Hz (with a few cheaper exceptions). To get the same on a 
TV requires going all the way up to a 34", or something, in most cases. 
Its really kind of annoying. Guess the cost of the tuner gets traded 
from the cost of the extra refresh, so the small TVs and the small 
monitors stay close to the same price, but... I find it more than a 
little frustrating (Had my TV blow some caps a while back, so bought a 
smaller one, for a temp, intending to possibly use it as a display 
later. Never did, precisely due to that issue.)





-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 3/5/2010 8:56 PM, UncleHoot wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4b919449$1@news.povray.org...
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
>>> these big TVs.
>>
>> You know, I used to think that. I used to work on compression
>> algorithms, so I got really good at seeing the kind of artifacts that
>> jpeg and mpeg produce. Every time I went in the store and looked at
>> the HDTV, I saw all the compression artifacts in the background and
>> thought 'wow, that sucks.'
>
> I'm not sure if it's just the Walmart in my neighborhood, or if all of
> them are like this, but they have lots and lots of TV's all running the
> same signal, and their TV's look like crap. For one thing, most (if not
> all) are using shared analog connections of some kind. Plus, the demo
> they have running has TONS of compression artifacts in it. Any time the
> on-screen text should look clear and crisp, it looks like an awful,
> lossy JPEG. It certainly doesn't impress.
>
> Ironically, that's where I bought my TV. :-)
Yeah, never got that myself. Use crappy splitters, which are expensive, 
but the cable guy, when I showed him one goes, "There isn't even an 
specs on the thing, I have no way of knowing what the variance is in the 
signal attenuation!", with some crappy splitter box, which has been 
turned on for 4 years, and is in 80% failure, then expect people to look 
at the images and go, "Wow! I will buy that one!" lol

Mind, even when they use digital, they use the some similar splitter, 
and *it* is invariably cheap, flaky, and in partial failure.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
>>
>> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.
> 
> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.

And where does "recognising" happen? In the signal, or in the signal processor?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
> It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1". 

Except it's impossible to recognise the difference between "current" and 
"shouldn't be current but there's minute noise on the line."

In other words, you need some minimum amount of current before you say it's 
actually a 1, right?

And if the current you detect is right on the border between what you 
consider "zero current" and "one current", then it's not digital. And that 
happens every time the current goes between a zero and a one.

Indeed, the whole *reason* for using digital is to make broader swaths of 
analog come out to the same value. If you actually *could* transmit digital 
signals, you wouldn't *need* to.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD 
> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD 

> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly no
t 
> worth paying £20,000 for.

It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just be
ing 
dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500. What the
 
heck are you paying £20,000 for?

>> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
> ...there's a difference between them?

Stick with analog.

> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression 
> artifacts. 

True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

On 3/6/2010 10:45 AM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
>> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
>> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not
>> worth paying £20,000 for.
>
> 20k£? Where do you shop? :O
>
Given what he describes happening with movement.. Some place where the 
TV people are being robbed blind by companies selling them bad 
compression, and the people delivering it the same. Or.. He has 
satellite. lol That is the thing they "don't" tell you with the whole, 
"satellites have more bandwidth" BS. First, its basically a lie. I get 
the same number of channels + high speed digital internet over my cable, 
so.. the idea there isn't bandwidth is just silly. So.. How do they get 
that extra "bandwidth" they claim? Simple... they compress the hell out 
of the signal, so much so that your HD signals look as bad as my 
**better** standard signals look "good". In other words - make up the 
space lost by sending you the signal, by sending you 10% less data in 
the signal, or what ever it is.

Mind, this is likely no the case with the re-broadcasts, since such 
signals still need to be used to transmit to the cable people, but those 
are **not** what you get from Direct TV, or the like. You are getting 
their version of DSL, while the signal to the cable company is more 
like.. T1. The only way to end up with "less" bandwidth is if the cable 
company decides to screw you too, with crappy compression, to give 
themselves more bandwidth than they need (which I don't doubt happens).

So, yeah.. What your picture looks like is going to vary, even if there 
isn't anything wrong with the TV at all. Its all dependent on if the 
people sending you the signal figure they can get by with it, or not.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.

Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use analog 
components.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
>> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
> 
> Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use 
> analog components.

Yep. That's why all digital electronics uses this method internally.

Oh, wait a sec...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?

Nothing. My point is, anything that says "HD" on it - whether it's a TV 
or a coffee mat - instantly becomes drastically more expensive than the 
"non-HD" version. Which seems silly, given the minimal difference in 
quality.

It just puzzles me that if they were going to make everything 
incompatible so they could up the resolution, why didn't they up it to 
something really high? You know, so you can *see* a difference?

Then again, I suppose you usually sit sort of 12 feet away or something...

>>> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
>> ...there's a difference between them?
> 
> Stick with analog.

Not an opion, sadly.

>> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression 
>> artifacts. 
> 
> True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.

...OK...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
>>> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
>>
>> Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use 
>> analog components.
> 
> Yep. That's why all digital electronics uses this method internally.

What part of "if you use analog components" did you miss?  Have you ever 
tuned a guitar?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression 
>>> artifacts. 
>>
>> True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.
> 
> ...OK...

... which was that no, I thought the same as *you* do when *I* only saw them 
in stores, but in an actual home environment, the difference is stunning.

And the resolution is already pushing the limits of technology.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> I thought the same as *you* do when *I* only saw 
> them in stores, but in an actual home environment, the difference is 
> stunning.

Oh, right. OK. Well if I can GET to the side of the room where the TV 
is, maybe I'll try it. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
> > It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1". 

> Except it's impossible to recognise the difference between "current" and 
> "shouldn't be current but there's minute noise on the line."

> In other words, you need some minimum amount of current before you say it's 
> actually a 1, right?

> And if the current you detect is right on the border between what you 
> consider "zero current" and "one current", then it's not digital. And that 
> happens every time the current goes between a zero and a one.

> Indeed, the whole *reason* for using digital is to make broader swaths of 
> analog come out to the same value. If you actually *could* transmit digital 
> signals, you wouldn't *need* to.

  I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.

I'm not talking about modulation. I'm pointing out that there's no such 
thing as a digital signal, unless you start getting into quantum 
cryptography or something.  It doesn't matter if it's modulated or not.

There's no such thing as a digital signal. There's only a signal that you 
choose to interpret in a digital way. But that's a feature of 
interpretation, not a feature of the signal.

For example, digital CDMA cell phones do not operate if the actual 
over-the-air signal is digital. They rely on looking at the analog 
properties of the radio waves to sort out the digital signals. Beyond just 
the tuning bit.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than the
> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables.  Unless I'm missing something, that's like
> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
> ethernet connection to cat 6.  In the analog realm, high quality cables
> meant a lot.  In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal
> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really crappy
> quality ethernet cable, as well.  But they either work, or they don't.

Perfect analysis.  You know how software makers are able to get a lot of money
from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works?  Audio-video industry
is just about as horrendous.

Post a reply to this message

> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression artifacts.

Yep.  In some cases, it's more pronounced than in others.  Initially, 
satellite HDTV was horrible in comparison to what's available now.  They 
simply didn't have the bandwidth to support it.  Even now, I can notice it a 
little bit, but for the most part, I don't see the artifacts.  Artifacts are 
most noticeable in dark images.

Post a reply to this message

> It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just 
> being dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500. 
> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?

$780 USD for my Sony 46" 1080p.  Other brands are cheaper.

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message 
news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
> On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
>> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
>> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
>> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
>> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
>> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
>> and not much else.
>
> Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
> if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
> stores I've been to just show trash.
>

Agreed.  The stores suck.    And the difference in quality is huge.  Anyone 
who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480 interlaced 
analog monitor.  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.4b9311a1977651427220e2710@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
>> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than 
>> the
>> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables.  Unless I'm missing something, that's 
>> like
>> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
>> ethernet connection to cat 6.  In the analog realm, high quality cables
>> meant a lot.  In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the 
>> signal
>> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really 
>> crappy
>> quality ethernet cable, as well.  But they either work, or they don't.
>
> Perfect analysis.  You know how software makers are able to get a lot of 
> money
> from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works?  Audio-video 
> industry
> is just about as horrendous.
>

I suppose that if I spent $100 for a 3-foot cable, I'd delude myself too, 
though.  Admitting that I just paid 20 times more than a reasonable price 
would just be too difficult for me.  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"UncleHoot" <jer### [at] mutualdatacom> wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
> > On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
> >> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
> >> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
> >> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
> >> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
> >> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
> >> and not much else.
> >
> > Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
> > if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
> > stores I've been to just show trash.
> >
>
> Agreed.  The stores suck.    And the difference in quality is huge.  Anyone
> who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480 interlaced
> analog monitor.  ;-)

I seriously think Andrew's glasses are wearing out, but the stores may be guilty
indeed:  many of them just play regular blurry DVDs on HDTVs.  Talk about truly
awful marketing skills...

Post a reply to this message

UncleHoot wrote:
>> It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just
>> being dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500.
>> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?
> 
> $780 USD for my Sony 46" 1080p.  Other brands are cheaper.

Or if he wants a big picture but without a TV:
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2018129/art/sanyo/plv-z700-video-projector.html
I'm pretty sure Andrew could get The Best dvb-tuner in the world for the
19k£ that's left...

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

OK, so I set up the BluRay player today and took it for a spin.

The player is hooked up to the LCD TV via an HDMI cable. Apparently the 
TV is in 1080p mode. (Presumably that means 1080 scanlines with 
progressive scan?) I've played some DVDs and some BluRay disks.

There *is* a difference. But it still seems quite small. The main place 
you see it is actually in the setup menues, weirdly enough. The 
texturing seems sharper. Once the film itself is playing, you don't 
really see a whole lot of difference. Except sometimes in shots that are 
very still, or have lots of close-up detail.

I can only guess that most of the time, large parts of the frame are out 
of focus anyway, so there's no extra detail to capture except on the 
foreground objects which are in sharp focus. And also, if the objects 
are moving around a lot, there's so much motion blur that you don't see 
any extra detail.

So in summary, apart from the occasional shot where you go "oh, that 
looks a little sharper than usual", there's not much to see. (And most 
especially, when you first start watching it seems a little sharper, but 
after 20 minutes you've forgotten all about it.) It's certainly not the 
"OMG, your eyeballs will drop out of your skull in sheer amazement" 
effect that everybody keeps promising.

Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains 
the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for 
like. But I haven't done so yet.

The main thing is, I can now throw away the *useless* DVD player we've 
been using! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

hey, how about paying a visit to your ophthalmologist? :D

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hey, how about paying a visit to your ophthalmologist? :D

BTW, here's a spot on comparison I caught from another forum.

DVD shot, upscaled to 1080p:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Gone%20With%20The%20Wind/4ac8c10f.png

Bluray:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Gone%20With%20The%20Wind/03a3bde1.png

guess for someone calling Mozart bland it's all equally blurry, but I can see
details of the dress, faces and background foliage in bluray HD glory. :)

and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!  The difference is
much more pronounced in the crisp images of modern movies like, say, Pixar
movies:

http://www.pixartalk.com/2009/06/17/the-blu-ray-difference-with-pixar/

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!

Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film was 
new and amazing on blu-ray.

Do the same comparison with something like Batman.

And remember that DVD is significantly better than VHS and (most) broadcast, 
while HDTV has only compression artifaacts to worry about.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message