HDMI Wow!

[Tigger29]

Now this brings me to an intriguing thought. My U-verse offers 720p or 1080i. Which do I go with?

1080i.. by a longshot

[sluggish]

It's a 52" 5 years old DLP ... I bet it is Well ebtter sound is always good. Thx.  

BTW does that mean that my BD via HDMI to the TV doesn't actually give me BD quality due to my 1080i TV?

Five year old DLP... Probably not..  And if not, you're not getting full 1080p HD...

[sluggish]

Now this brings me to an intriguing thought. My U-verse offers 720p or 1080i. Which do I go with?

I usually go with 720p.  I honestly can't tell much of a difference...

[sluggish]

1080i.. by a longshot

Please explain your reasoning.

[sluggish]

http://ezinearticles.com/?720p-Vs-1080i-HDTV&id=91443

Is 720p vs 1080i worth being concerned about? Yes and no. If you're a consumer looking for a new TV, you can happily ignore the 720p vs 1080i debate because every TV which is described as HDTV or HDTV Ready is required to support both formats.

NOTE: You should be aware though that lots of TVs which support 1080i have fewer than 1080 lines and so scale the 1080 signal down. That's not a huge issue as even scaled down 1080i is far ahead of a regular NTSC signal. It is worth bearing in mind that more expensive HDTVs tend to have better scalers than cheaper ones, and this may be an issue.

However, for broadcasters it's a live issue. Should they broadcast 1080 lines of interlaced video or 720 lines of progressive scan? They could just broadcast two signals, one in each format, but that would use up a huge chunk of bandwidth and be hugely expensive for very little gain.

To answer the question, it's important to understand the difference between 720p vs 1080i. A 720p signal is made up of 720 horizontal lines. Each frame is displayed in its entirety on-screen for 1/30th of a second. This is know as progressive scan (hence the 'p')The quality is like watching 30 photographic images a second on TV. A 1080i signal comprises 1080 horizontal lines but all the lines are not displayed on-screen simultaneously. Instead, they are interlaced (hence the 'i'), ie every other lines is displayed for 1/60th of a second and then the alternate lines are displayed for 1/60th of a second. So, the frame rate is still 30 frames per second, but each frame is split into two fields, which your brain then puts together subconsciously.

Most of the time interlacing works fine, but for fast moving images, such as sports like baseball and hockey it can cause problems which manifest themselves as a 'stepping' effect on-screen. Progressive scan signals don't have this problem and so are better suited to sports.

ESPN puts it like this: 'Progressive scan technology produces better images for the fast moving orientation of sports television. Simply put, with 104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey, the line-by-line basis of progressive scan technology better captures the inherent fast action of sports. For ESPN, progressive scan technology makes perfect sense.'

Bottom line? For us, as consumers 720p vs 1080i is not a debate worth worrying about, so you can relax and focus on all the other criteria on your list when you buy your next HDTV.

[Getback]

http://ezinearticles.com/?720p-Vs-1080i-HDTV&id=91443

Hmmm, I think I need to play around a bit.

[gyrene81]

1080i is not a good choice over 720p for sure. Now if you were talking the difference between 1080p and 720p then screen size would dictate which one to look into...anything under 42 inches, you won't notice the difference in picture quality from across a 12x12 room. With 46 inches and up there is a noticeable difference.

The only reason I know first hand is 6 hours spent between BestBuy and Sears...tried to warn the sales person at Sears but he wouldn't listen.

[Steve]

Composite (red, white, yellow) can only deliver standard definition video and two channel audio, component (red, green, blue video and red and white audio) can deliver 720p and two channel audio.  HDMI can deliver full 1080p and 7.1 digital surround in one cable.

The only thing that might hold you back from HDMI is the fact that currently the only way to receive 1080p in your home is with a BluRay player or video on demand.

The main reason for most people to go with HDMI is the convenience of doing it all with one cable.  If you buy your cables in a retail store you will pay about the same to go either way.

Good info, thanks. When I sad "3 wires" I was speaking of the video portion of the signal.  Interestingly enough, I have a bluray player and sometimes watch movies via Cox on demand. I also have 2 HDMI cables laying around here somewhere.   

[Dadsguns]

I splurged and finally bought a new Flat Panel LCD TV. Hooked it up with component cables and eh, it was okay. Received my HDMI cable today and holy cow! what a difference.

Welcome to the modern age.

[Soulyss]

The thing that irks me about HDMI is there isn't anything about HDMI that couldn't be done over analog cables.  There isn't anything physically happening in the component (red, green, blue) cable that would prevent it from transmitting 1080P signal but the content providers can't control the distribution of the signal.  That's what HDMI really is, it's control it allows the movie studios to encode their product with HDCP. 

This wouldn't bother me if HDMI was easier to use, but HDMI is a pain if you're trying to setup a video distribution system in your home.  HDMI is expensive, doesn't like to be run through switchers and is severely limited in the distances it can go w/out amplification.  It was pretty much brought to market half baked, based on a format developed for the IT world (DVI) and little thought seems to have been given to some of the challenges that installers run into in the A/V world. 

Yeah, I loathe HDMI.

[RipChord929]

I'm thinking that Computor monitor, and LCD TV technology, are slowly merging.. Eventually all will have the same features, as far as max resolution, scanning and refresh rates, etc.. A video monitor will be a "Video Monitor", for any and all purposes.. Seems like a good idea to me.. Will HDMI be the common vid standard, who knows?

One thing I DON'T like, is the HDMI Socket/pigtail.. Geez, no positive connection method at the pigtail at all.. They just slide together, not even a click.. Just cheap frail and flimsy!   What moron came up with that?  The good quality cables are stiff, and heavy, so they must be supported to prevent them from coming loose under their own weight, plain rediculous!

But with the trouble coming around the corner right now, pc games, and HDMI, will be the LAST thing anyone cares about,  
Many ppl need to put down the HALO2, and get out to practice with the REAL THING pretty soon, or they're gonna be S.O.L.

RC

[sntslilhlpr6601]

So on my Xbox, I run it in 1080i with the 5 cables/HD setting. I'm much better off using the HDMI port for a true 1080 and also maybe get some surround action from my home theater system?

Pretty sure all games for the 360(at least all the visually intensive ones) are rendered in 720p and then upscaled. The consoles just don't have the hardware to do games in 1920x1080 at playable framerates. We're talkin about a jump from 921,600 pixels to over 2 million.

The technology in those things is really starting to show its age. And due to the console's dominance of the gaming market, the evolution of graphics technology is almost at a standstill (Crysis came out 2 and a half years ago!).

Keeps pc gaming cheap as hell, though. So I guess I can't complain.