HDCP DVI

No_slouch,

My understanding is that today, HDMI is basically DVI video plus digital audio. An HDMI-to-DVI cable simply passes the HDMI video outputs to the DVI video inputs, and drops the audio. But there are some caveats.

One is that video over HDMI can have more capability than video over DVI, although no one is taking advantage of that yet.

Another is you need to make sure the video output signal from an HDMI device is in the right color space format for a DVI input. I don't remember the details, but www.avsforum.com has a lot of discussion on this. For my 59AVi, this means I need to use the "direct" video mode and not an enhanced mode.

Thanks
Bruce

Bruceomega, can you (or someone) explain why it is possible to connect a DVD player's HDMI output to a DVI input on your display? Does your DVI have HDCP protection?

Thanks for your feedback. I will give a S Video Cable a try for SD.

From what I have read, the value of a DVI/HDMI connection depends on the type of display used. A CRT based display (direct view, RPTV, etc.) doesn't necessarily benefit. I've seen postings that range from no difference to noticeable improvement.

There is a higher probability that a fixed pixel microdisplay based TV (DLP, LCD, LCOS) will benefit from DVI/HDMI. Even here, the amount of improvement varies from what I have read.

From my own personal experience, DVI does improve the PQ, for both DVD and HD-STB sources, compared to Component, on my Samsung DLP (HLN617W). In fact, the improvement is quite pronounced. One of the reasons may be that the Samsung has a native resolution of 720p, and if you feed it a 720p signal via DVI, it displays that signal directly (does not do any additional D/A, A/D, or rescaling).

I went out of my way to get an upconverting DVD player, and made a quick comparison when I first got the player. While playing a DVD, I switched between S-Video, Component, and DVI inputs on the Samsung (all connections are active on my DVD player). Component was better than S-Video, and DVI was better than Component (my DVD player has an HDMI output, so I use an HDMI to DVI cable).

I also upgraded my HD-STB to one with DVI as soon as it became available. There was little if any difference between Component and DVI on the HD channels, but DVI was definitely better than Component on SD digital channels.

Bruce

I have to second most all points made here. For SD;it looks better with an s- cable.---Then, component vs dvi-d--look about the same---same goes for hdmi vs comp.---and one more "me-too"; an enexpensive dvi-d looks as good as an expensive component.---None of these connections are clearly superior---in all cases-- or even clearly better in 'most' cases.-----Can someone even guess how many dvd players were upgraded;just to get dvi-d-out???----Now we are moving t'ward; "dump" the receiver if it doesn't have dvi switching. I'm sure these new connections are more about not being able to make hi quality copies--- than about pq,itself.

If you have to use component vid, may I suggest Tara Labs RSC cables. They're $300 for a meter, but can generally be had for around $225 or so. In a direct comparison vis-a-vis DVI, I really could hardly tell any difference.

Cheaper component cables, by contrast, failed pretty miserably compared to a good DVI cable.

I may have implied too much. On my TV, with HD source material, DVI looks better. Rwwear is right--it varies depending on the monitor and whether, in essence, the D/A conversion is better in your source or your monitor. There are a lot of people that maintain that standard def sources on a HD set look better, in fact, through s-video, since there is some inherent blurring that takes place.

I have seen a lot of instances where the component video looked better than the DVI input.

I like the DVI better than the component input on my TV. Unfortunately, there is no box that will convert DVI/HDCP to DVI in the clear. The whole point of HDCP is to prevent such things...