Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of DBSTalk by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

622 HDMI worse than component


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
83 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   knealy

knealy

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 120 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2002

Posted 25 April 2006 - 06:45 PM

The HDMI connection on my 622 produces a fuzzier and duller image than the component hookup does. My 921 was much clearer with the DVI connection. Has anyone else noticed that the HDMI picture is worse than the component one?

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   Ron Barry

Ron Barry

    622 Tips & Trick Keeper

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 9,879 posts
Joined: Dec 10, 2002

Posted 25 April 2006 - 06:47 PM

I have not noticed that to be the case. I am using HDMI on both My TVs. What is your TV make and model. Maybe someone else has that model and can pipe in with their experiences.
<strong class='bbc'>New Member of the 9K club & 922/612 User<br /></strong><span style='font-size: 8px;'>"A release is not a release until it is released." - Me. <br />"To the true believer, no proof is necessary. To the non believer, no proof is sufficient." - Peter James (Derived from a Stewert Chase Quote)</span>

#3 OFFLINE   boylehome

boylehome

    Hall Of Fame/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 2,143 posts
Joined: Jul 16, 2004

Posted 25 April 2006 - 06:59 PM

The HDMI connection on my 622 produces a fuzzier and duller image than the component hookup does. My 921 was much clearer with the DVI connection. Has anyone else noticed that the HDMI picture is worse than the component one?

It looks like component is the same in quality as the HDMI here. The audio through the HDMI is better than the RCA connectors for the component.

#4 OFFLINE   jsanders

jsanders

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 21, 2004

Posted 25 April 2006 - 07:04 PM

The HDMI connection on my 622 produces a fuzzier and duller image than the component hookup does. My 921 was much clearer with the DVI connection. Has anyone else noticed that the HDMI picture is worse than the component one?



Maybe you should get an eye exam or something.

There should be no difference between an HDMI and DVI connections as far as picture quality goes. They are the same interface, HDMI adds sound, that is it.

The digital to analog conversion happens in your TV with these interfaces. Unless you changed TVs in the process, there is no difference, you are using the same digital to analog converter in your TV in both cases!

#5 OFFLINE   bobukcat

bobukcat

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,957 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2005

Posted 25 April 2006 - 07:34 PM

Maybe you should get an eye exam or something.

There should be no difference between an HDMI and DVI connections as far as picture quality goes. They are the same interface, HDMI adds sound, that is it.

The digital to analog conversion happens in your TV with these interfaces. Unless you changed TVs in the process, there is no difference, you are using the same digital to analog converter in your TV in both cases!


I think you missed his point, he's saying that the HDMI looks worse than the component on his 622 but on his 921 the DVI provided better quality than component. I don't think it is at all unbelievable that the OP's 622 could show worse video quality than his 921 with DVI. It could be something about the specific combination of reciever and monitor, it could be a less than ideal 622, or maybe the OP does need an eye examination.

:rolleyes:

#6 OFFLINE   wcswett

wcswett

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 363 posts
Joined: Jan 07, 2003

Posted 25 April 2006 - 11:09 PM

The HDMI connection on my 622 produces a fuzzier and duller image than the component hookup does. My 921 was much clearer with the DVI connection. Has anyone else noticed that the HDMI picture is worse than the component one?


Yes, I have the same problem. The HDMI image is clear but the colors are washed out and it lacks anything close to "black". The component connection is fine. I have only checked this on one of my two 622's.

--- WCS
DISH RECEIVERS: 622(x2), 510, 211(x2)
PROGRAMMING: DISH HD Platinum, Atlanta locals
ANTENNAS: 61.5, 110, 119, 129

#7 OFFLINE   jsanders

jsanders

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 21, 2004

Posted 26 April 2006 - 12:07 AM

I think you missed his point, he's saying that the HDMI looks worse than the component on his 622 but on his 921 the DVI provided better quality than component.


HDMI is a digital signal, it spits out zeros and ones.
DVI is a digital signal, it spits out zeros and ones.

The television takes those numbers, and converts those numbers to an analog signal internally.

Both connections use the *same* Digital to Analog converter, the DVI/HDMi connection makes no difference because they are both spitting out bits.

The component outputs on the 921 and 622 have have their own D/A conversion in them. If you say that the HDMI looks worse than component on the 622, but DVI looked better than component on the 921, you might be looking at it backwards.

The DVI/HDMI should give exactly the same picture (unless the scaler changed in the unit which I think is unlikely). It could mean that the 622 has a better D/A converter than the 921. Look at it from the reference of the component looking better or worse than HDMI/DVI, not HDMI/DVI looking better or worse than component.

#8 OFFLINE   olgeezer

olgeezer

    Guest

  • Registered
  • 1,833 posts
Joined: Dec 05, 2003

Posted 26 April 2006 - 06:36 AM

In other words, its best to send 0s and 1s as far down the pipe as possible, which would be the display. If component looks better on the display than HMDI or DVI, it means that the STB does a better D/A conversion than your display. This is unusual, but not overly unusual.

#9 OFFLINE   lujan

lujan

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,202 posts
Joined: Feb 10, 2004

Posted 26 April 2006 - 06:55 AM

With my Mitsubishi TV, I'm able to change the settings (color, contrast, brightness, etc.) separately for each input (component, HDMI, etc.). I had to change the HDMI input settings drastically so that the picture would look as good as the component picture. WCSWETT is right, before I made all the setting changes, the HDMI picture looked washed out. I was amazed at all the changes I had to make to get the HDMI to look as good as the component.
171 Blu-ray
83 DVD
63 HD DVD

#10 OFFLINE   ebaltz

ebaltz

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,432 posts
Joined: Nov 23, 2004

Posted 26 April 2006 - 08:15 AM

HDMI to DVI on my Pany looks amazing and better than componant. It works perfectly and looks great.
Dish HD w/ 1 Hopper and 3 Joey, PS3, Sony HN1000 Receiver and Sony Bravia HX800 3D TV

#11 OFFLINE   David_Levin

David_Levin

    Icon/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 1,227 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 26 April 2006 - 09:08 AM

The television takes those numbers, and converts those numbers to an analog signal internally.


Actually, I think this is only true if the display is CRT based. LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCOS, etc wouldn't need a conversion to analog,

This is where I'd expect the digital cable to do better.
Bye Bye 921
Now playing with 2x 622s.

#12 OFFLINE   jsanders

jsanders

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 21, 2004

Posted 26 April 2006 - 10:42 AM

Actually, I think this is only true if the display is CRT based. LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCOS, etc wouldn't need a conversion to analog,

This is where I'd expect the digital cable to do better.


This isn't that movie, "The Matrix", you don't watch numbers on your screen that represent pictures, whether it be LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCOS, or anything else.

Something has to take those numbers and translate them into their corresponding wavelengths of light that emit from the television. The light that forms the picture that you see coming from the television is *analog*. You have to convert those numbers being sent to the television into the light produces the TV picture. There is always a digital to analog conversion.

#13 OFFLINE   LtMunst

LtMunst

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,261 posts
Joined: Aug 24, 2005

Posted 26 April 2006 - 11:23 AM

Something has to take those numbers and translate them into their corresponding wavelengths of light that emit from the television. The light that forms the picture that you see coming from the television is *analog*. You have to convert those numbers being sent to the television into the light produces the TV picture. There is always a digital to analog conversion.



I don't think that is what was meant by a digital TV not doing a digital-analog conversion. Of course the light we see is analog. A digital TV, however, does not have to convert a digital signal into analog in order to fire the pixels (unlike a CRT). The pixel matrix is controlled entirely by digital commands (ie pixel #... on/off at ...intensity).

#14 OFFLINE   jsanders

jsanders

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 21, 2004

Posted 26 April 2006 - 12:04 PM

Let's see what you are saying here...

You were talking about Digital TVs, with digital inputs. A digit is representative of a finger on your hand, namely a digit. The number system on the TV is base 2, not base ten that humans use. In other words, the TV has only one finger, instead of ten found on the human hands.

With reference to the TV picture, you said,

"Of course the light we see is analog".


Then you said,

I don't think that is what was meant by a digital TV not doing a digital-analog conversion.


Why should I even bother with arguing this point? You contradict yourself.

If you have digital bits coming in, and you have analog light coming out, then you must convert from digital to analog. How can you possibly have analog coming out and digital going in without doing some kind of D/A conversion?? You are defying the laws of physics!

I don't think that is what was meant by a digital TV


That is where the mistake is, you use the word, "I". Why not look up what is meant by digital TV, and get the real definition instead of a personal definition.

Digital TV does not refer to the TV being digital all the way through. Digital TV (DTV) is referring to the broadcast signal (8VSB in the United States) being digtial and not analog. It has nothing to do with what happens inside the television.

#15 OFFLINE   jsanders

jsanders

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 21, 2004

Posted 26 April 2006 - 12:11 PM

In other words, its best to send 0s and 1s as far down the pipe as possible, which would be the display. If component looks better on the display than HMDI or DVI, it means that the STB does a better D/A conversion than your display. This is unusual, but not overly unusual.



Yes! Olgeezer got it right! This is because the analog signal properties, while they do have more resolution than digital signals, degrade over distance and time without the possibility of being able to be regenerated to their original state. Digital signals can be regenerated and repeated over distances without loosing any data, which is in this case correlates to picture quality. By doing your conversion to analog at the last possible stage, you are insuring the best possible reproduction of the source without loss of quality.

#16 OFFLINE   abricko

abricko

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 49 posts
Joined: Mar 01, 2006

Posted 26 April 2006 - 12:18 PM

I've noticed HDMI output is off a bit, the Black Levels appear to be crushed over HDMI... just because it's a full digital signal it doesn't mean the receiver is outputting properly, it means that you will not have added analog noise (over component out)...
VIP 622
42" Sony KDF-42WE655

#17 OFFLINE   SaltiDawg

SaltiDawg

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,375 posts
Joined: Aug 30, 2004

Posted 26 April 2006 - 01:07 PM

...

There should be no difference between an HDMI and DVI connections as far as picture quality goes. They are the same interface, HDMI adds sound, that is it.

...

D'oh.

I don't think he was suggesting a difference because of DVI vs HDMI, but rather that the digital output of his 921 was better than the analog. Now with the 622 on the same TV the analog looks better than the digital.

#18 OFFLINE   TechnoCat

TechnoCat

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 128 posts
Joined: Sep 04, 2005

Posted 26 April 2006 - 01:32 PM

In other words, its best to send 0s and 1s as far down the pipe as possible, which would be the display. If component looks better on the display than HMDI or DVI, it means that the STB does a better D/A conversion than your display. This is unusual, but not overly unusual.

That's not quite correct. First off, digital signals along HDMI attrit more quickly than analog do - it's just that for the first three metres or so it's below the error-correction floor. But more importantly, there are several factors in Component vs HDMI... and digital vs. analog is NOT one of them.

Yes, component is analog. But it's three pipes; it has plenty of bandwidth for 720p and for 1080i. THERE'S NO MEASURABLE OR PERCEPTABLE LOSS IN NORMAL DISTANCES OVER COMPONENT. The primary distinction between using component and HDMI is simply this: Where does the scaling happen? (Or how often?)

Scaling will always happen on a Plasma regardless, simply because no mass-market plasma has a 1920x1024 panel (1080) nor do they match the 720 spec exactly either. So if you send an HDMI signal, you've already scaled on the receiver and now you have to scale again.

MPEG is a compression technology. That's an important term, because it compresses in several dimensions. It's not just "map this color to this number" - although it does that. It's not just "turn these close-together colors into one", although it does that too. It's also "turn these 17 pixels that are the same color or real close, into a single big blobby pixel" and also "turn the area from 212,32 to 254,56 that don't change for 14 frames into a single image once rather than 14 times.

The important part of that here is that the definition of a "pixel" is fluid in MPEG. (And in JPEG.) There is a native resolution going in, but much less so coming back out. And so what happens next, on either signal? It has to be sampled for rescaling. Which completely obliterates any theoretical "pure-digital" advantage to HDMI.

So which is better? Both work fine. Certainly one cable (HDMI) is more convenient than 4 (3 component plus digital audio), though the Component will carry the signal further. But the big choice you're left with is the quality of the source scaler. Many televisions have good ones for HD and crappy for SD. Which would put you much better off using Component than HDMI because the receiver can upscale, essentially, better to a point where the TV can downscale effectively. Not typically an HD issue because that's where the bucks/sex/sales are (and it's a smaller resolution change), but try it with SD and you may see a difference.

#19 OFFLINE   jsanders

jsanders

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 21, 2004

Posted 26 April 2006 - 02:08 PM

D'oh.

I don't think he was suggesting a difference because of DVI vs HDMI, but rather that the digital output of his 921 was better than the analog. Now with the 622 on the same TV the analog looks better than the digital.



Actually, the way he stated it, he was using the analog as the reference in the two receivers to quantify the digital. That is backwards. The digital is the same, he needs to use the digital as a reference on both boxes, and use that as a reference to compare the analog signals on both boxes, as the 622 and 921s will have different D/A converters, but digitally they will spit out the same bits.

#20 OFFLINE   LtMunst

LtMunst

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,261 posts
Joined: Aug 24, 2005

Posted 26 April 2006 - 02:30 PM

Why should I even bother with arguing this point? You contradict yourself.

If you have digital bits coming in, and you have analog light coming out, then you must convert from digital to analog. How can you possibly have analog coming out and digital going in without doing some kind of D/A conversion?? You are defying the laws of physics!



Dude, noone is arguing that there is a final D/A conversion as a result of the creation of light waves. In this respect everthing we see and hear is always analog. That is not the question.

The original poster I referenced simply stated that unlike a CRT, an LCD/DLP does not have to internally convert/process the digital signal to an analog wave. A CRT requires an analog wave signal to funtion. A LCD/DLP chip works with digital commands. And yes, the final result of both is an analog light wave.

Minor semantics issue.. no need to get worked up over it. :nono2:




spam firewall