HDMI cables

[GTP_Monkey]

Has anyone used the conponent ps3 socket on the rear of the ps3 to 5 phono [CONPONENT] for there hi defination instead of HDMI and if so what are the differences.

Many thanks.

 

[gtuned]

I used component for a while, and when switching to HDMI, Wow. The picture is much sharper and clearer, and not as washed out. I can't tell a difference in sound much, but the picture quality is worth the upgrade.

 

[occasionalracer]

I'm almost positive that you can only yield up to a 1080i resolution via component due protecting material such as BluRay to be duplicated through recording, but in reality they could transfer the signal as cleanly as HDMI. So if your screen don't have 1080p capability, there's no need for it.

 

[occasionalracer]

Gtuned..either you had crappy component cable or had the wrong output setting going, but I was running the component for a year on my Bravia, and upgraded later to watch BluRay and play the few games in on the market that offer full HD(which is very very few) like GT5, but there was essentially no dramatic improvement for games.

 

[PiRacingChamp]

It is an issue of analog vs digital. When using component cables, the signal is converted to analog before going over the cables. When someone uses the HDMI socket, the signal stays in the digital domain until later in the signal path, if it gets converted at all. For example. I use an RPTV, which consists of CRT 'guns' (altho a bigger 'box', I think the color transitions, within the picture, are more natural. But this is personal preference and digital is improving in this area, all the time). This is in the analog domain. So the question is, where do I want to convert to analog? 1: are the converters better in the ps3, or in my rptv, and 2: Is it more useful to leave the signal in the digital formal until it reaches my tv? In my case, the signal goes to the switcher in my THX processor before the video portion moves on to my tv (via an HDMI to DVI cable). In this case, it is better for the signal to stay in the digital realm throughout this process, for a few reasons that I won't bore you with here. If you are using a setup which allows the signal to remain in the digital domain though the entire process, why convert to analog, then convert back to digital at the tv? In some cases, this might be necessary because of limitations in your gear. However, if the beginning, and ending formats are digital, and you want the best quality result, it is best to keep the information as pure as possible, without the digital 'noise' that converters can add. Also, there is one more issue to consider. When using a component cable, only the video portion of the signal gets transmitted, necessitating the use of a separate cable to carry the audio. HDMI carries both audio and video. This means less cabling. I hope this helps.

Also, occasionalracer is correct. If you are willing to spend the money to purchase higher quality component cables, the differences will still be there, but they will be narrower. For those with limited budgets, check out bluejean cables: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/

 

[nick09]

With component it's an analog signal(think of waves) and that signal can be affected by outside interference. Which is the reason why you get the better insulated cable. With HDMI the signal is digital(think of waves again but these are boxy waves going from 1 to 0 and 0 to 1), it does not matter on the quality of the cable. Which means a cheap $2 HDMI cable can be good as a $50 HDMI cable. The HDMI cables are less prone to interference because of the digital signal.

 

[PiRacingChamp]

it does not matter on the quality of the cable. Which means a cheap $2 HDMI cable can be good as a $50 HDMI cable. The HDMI cables are less prone to interference because of the digital signal.

This is not entirely true. We used to think that CDs had perfect sound, because they use 'ones and zeros', and were not subject to distortion. Now we know that the distortions they add are of a different breed, but still exist (jitter, time alignment and converters-yes those again). Here is some useful info:
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/digitalanalog.htm

and:
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm

BTW, I am not a spokesman for Bluejeans cables, but I appreciate that they like an informed clientele. And, their articles are very useful for the layman.

 

[nick09]

I'm well aware of that. Which is the reason why I said they are less prone to it. HDMI does make clutter control easier by having both video and sound in one cable.

 

[GTP_Monkey]

Think i will stick with HDMI then.

 

[aland18]

Think i will stick with HDMI then.

buy them online - much cheaper.

 

[Xenn]

There some retail shops that sell HDMI cables pretty cheap. I got mine for about £9.99, which is pretty cheap, considering they're high speed HDMI cables.

 

[nick09]

You can easily get a six foot HDMI cable for $2.67 with shipping. But if you want the cable now you better hunt for a good price at a retail store.

 

[Tornado]

I'm almost positive that you can only yield up to a 1080i resolution via component due protecting material such as BluRay to be duplicated through recording, but in reality they could transfer the signal as cleanly as HDMI. So if your screen don't have 1080p capability, there's no need for it.

Component is capable of 1080p. The problem was that many early 1080p HDTVs wouldn't accept a 1080p signal over component. This generally hasn't been a problem since 2008, however.