Picture quality improvement with HDMI?
Thread starter Bcc335
Has anyone upgraded from a DVI to HDMI Cable on their LCD? Could you tell a difference? Was there any improvement?
dandragonrage
They're both digital.
evilsofa
HDMI is merely DVI with sound. It will be exactly, 100% the same picture quality.
GJSNeptune
evilsofa said:
If you can tell a difference, it's placebo. Now, if you were talking about VGA to DVI, then we'd have something to discuss.
HDMI is merely DVI with sound.
Functionally, yes. Technically different though similar.
Nielo TM
Bcc335 said:
This is a slightly complected subject, but I'll keep it simple.
1. In monitors, no, there's no difference between the two
2. In HDTVs, yes, but only when taking advantage of the HDMI v1.3 specs (e.g. x.v. color, deep color etc...).
Nielo TM said:
Well, yes, but there are no xvYCC sources out at the moment.
There are. Most modern HD camcorders use the x.v. color space.
Also, standard gamut contents can also be up-sampled with the use of deep-color
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
dandragonrage said:
explain please
criccio
Zepher said:
GIYF
Google said:
HDMI and DVI actually are more alike than they are different. Both of these support the transmission of digital signals. Both DVI and HDMI are based on specifications that are similar, because HDMI specification was derived from the specification for DVI.
There are two important differences between DVI and HDMI. The first difference is that HDMI technology incorporates content security that is called High Definition Content Protection, also known as HDCP. The other huge difference between Digital Video Interface and High Definition Multimedia Interface is that DVI can only support digital video, and HDMI can support audio and video on the same cable.
This leads to another big difference between HDMI and DVI. The number of cables that need to be used and run during installation. With Digital Video Interface at least two cables are needed. One cable is needed to support the video signal, and one cable or cord is needed to support the audio signal, because DVI can only support video, not audio. With HDMI only one cable is needed for the installation. This is because the HDMI can support all formats of digital video plus it can support multiple channels of audio signal as well.
The good news is that despite their differences, a backward compatibility for video exists between HDMI and DVI. Because HDMI evolved from DVI, they are both identical when it comes to video. But remember, DVI can not support digital audio. A good example is an older DVI connection on the source and an HDMI connector to the display. In this case, all that is needed to see the video is an HDMI to DVI cable. However, a separate cable for audio is needed to carry the the digital audio so the sound can be heard.
Electrically compatible but can use different colorspaces and has a different clock rate natively, etc.
11jkarrasch
no its pretty much the same
noobman
Yes I have, and no I haven't seen any improvement.
I tried both, and just went back to DVI because I wanted to use the HDMI connection for my 360 as opposed to using the VGA connection.
Because HDMI evolved from DVI, they are both identical when it comes to video. But remember, DVI can not support digital audio. A good example is an older DVI connection on the source and an HDMI connector to the display. In this case, all that is needed to see the video is an HDMI to DVI cable. However, a separate cable for audio is needed to carry the the digital audio so the sound can be heard.
That is strange, I got audio from my DVI port on my old Asus 3650 card. I had a DVI to HDMI cable hooked up to my TV and audio went through that cable just fine.
That is specific to the DVI port on video cards. It will transmit S/PDIF. Thing is, if you just hook up a normal DVI cable, the audio stops at the port, nothing is being transmitted over the DVI cable, so the above information stands true.
Both support VESA and CEA standards. So color space and black level isnt a problem. Also, DVI supports High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and it can be mandatory depending on the display type and country.
criccio said:
The ATI HD series have Realtek audio chip onboard and they will transmit uncompressed audio via DVI when using the supplied adapter.
Simply put, the DVI ports on the cards are modified but it's not a recognized standard.
Yes, but only if an HDMI cable is connected, if you connect a standard DVI cable to the DVI port, the audio signal is not being passed over the DVI cable. That it was I was trying to say.
That is only because the receiving hardware doesn't have the Audio connected. If it did have audio then it would go all the way.
I personally prefer DVI over HDMI.
HDMI is a fragile non-locking connector.
Great responses, Tks to all for your replies. Since the consensus is that for a lcd pc monitor you will proably see no difference Ill stick with dvi until the hdmi is needed.
albovin
Another note.
Some monitors do not support video signal from stand alone devices (PS3, BD player) via HDMI without distortion and overscan, or at least overscan.
If a monitor has just one digital input in the form of HDMI, it's likely to be a cheap product with potentially problematic video support.
If for some reason you want HDMI input on your monitor, make sure it has both DVI and HDMI, or in case of "HDMI only" make sure the monitor has been proven workable.
Example. Although the Hanns-G 281DP is advertised as Full HD monitor, it does not support Full HD from a BD player via HDMI (cropping, distortion).
Elledan
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2010
It's likely that HDMI won't be used much with PC monitors/GPUs in the future anyway, as DisplayPort is making inroads at this point. DisplayPort is similar to HDMI, with mostly a better connector and superior to HDMI 1.3 with respect to max resolution and such.
In the end, though, it's all digital
Mr. Wolf
I just switched my HDTV from Comcast to AT&T U-verse. The Comcast box connected via DVI while AT&T uses HDMI. No difference in picture quality. The AT&T service is better and cheaper, though.
chrcoluk
I believe hdmi will be required for copy protected bluray content?
brumwald
Elledan said:
Just because DisplayPort probably will take over the PC doesn't mean that support for DVI/HDMI is scrapped. DisplayPort can even carry (but isn't required to) at least DVI-D so a simple pin-converter will do the trick.
Just look at VGA how long it has lasted. There will always be a way to output DVI/HDMI as long as thats what HDTVs take and it will take many many years before even PC-monitors are expected to have DisplayPort.
chrcoluk said:
Not HDMI but HDCP, and DVI supports HDCP as well (but it isn't as common).
brumwald said:
Actually Apple monitors are all DisplayPort already and I have seen quite a few (higher-end) LCDs with DP input (like that new H-IPS HP screen). Being able to use a DP to DVI adapter is nice for people with displays that can't natively accept DP, but I don't see a reason to not use DP directly outside that.
As for HDTVs, I grant you that.
brumwald ok thanks for the correction.
Apple has one monitor with DisplayPort.
My Dell has DisplayPort but just because DisplayPort is making it's way to the market doesn't mean that DVI/HDMI won't be supported. There are tons and tons of VGA only (even TFT) displays out there still today. There are only a handfull of graphic-cards on the market with DisplayPort and they are, atleast most of them, overpriced.
It will take long before even all new monitors and graphic cards support DisplayPort - but after that it will take many years before DVI is phased out. Irregardless of HDTVs, but since HDMI won't be replaced for an even longer time in HDTVs you can count on it being available, in some way or another.
Even the Mac Mini has got DisplayPort output.
DVI will hang around for a while longer, sure, as will VGA. HDMI is more popular in home theatre setups and thus will stick around there for a while. DisplayPort, however, supports the same features as HDMI and doesn't require a license fee, which is why I think it will ultimately be the winning connector.
It comes down to this.
In the consumer devices it was always Component for the best quality connection and DVI in computers.
That will move to HDMI for consumer devices (already has) and DisplayPort for computer devices.
They are two separate markets.
phide
The issue is that devices from two separate markets are often placed in an environment in which they need to interact with each other. Adapters exist, but still...
Hopefully we'll see DisplayPort being used in consumer entertainment devices as well, but I'm not banking on it.
JakFrost
I doubt that DisplayPort will get much traction as a standard seeing how HDMI has much wider support and audience. The video card manufacturers don't mind the 4-cent per connector and $10K a year fee if they can standardize on one slim connector type for computer and consumer hardware since it would save them just as much money by getting rid of the dual DVI connections and not having to deal with yet another DisplayPort interface. Now that HDMI 1.3a supports higher bandwidth it's just a matter of time until it moves up to higher resolutions.
Forget DisplayPort and DVI already, and let's go with a single slim connector for all video/audio equipment!
serpretetsky
I prefer dvi to all other connections, it's nice having both analog and digital in the same port, and i definitly don't care to have sound in the same port.
rtheb
If anyone is interested woot sellout has HDMI to HDMI cable for $2.99 today only.
JakFrost said:
Well, Apple, HP and others have apparently chosen DisplayPort as the only or additional in/output option on their displays and computers. DisplayPort also has the better connector compared to HDMI, which makes it very desirable in my eyes. Mini DisplayPort is a standard now as well, whereas attempts to shrink the HDMI connector (for mobile usage and such) are so far hitting a brick wall due to the complexity of the HDMI connector.
And your comment about manufacturers having no issues with the costs of HDMI licensing, I'm willing to bet that if they can save 4 cents/part with a production run of 10k on top of saving the $10k yearly fee, they'd go with the royalty-free option in a heart beat.