TWC DVI vs. Reg HD Input

[Lebowski]

Well I rcvd my $16 DVI cable a few days ago.  After a few days of observations, I've concluded that the picture is BETTER using the regular HD input on my set from the reg. HD out on TWC box.  I know Flanners and BB sell the $120 Monster DVIs...maybe I got what I paid for?

Ugh...now I'll have to get up and swap component cables when I want to watch a Prog. Scan DVD.  I don't want to spend $$$ on a rcvr at this point, and I don't quite understand the "switch" concept yet...

Again, I'm a beginner at this A/V stuff...but has anyone had a similar experience?  

It seems as if the shows I've watched in HD, i.e. CSI, Discovery HD Theater & NBA finals seem to have what I call 'boxy' shadows or outlines on background images (when using DVI)../Almost Atari-like.  Straight-up single color images or logos are fine, but there is a noticeable difference in 'moving images' when I use the reg. HD Input.

Weird, hey?  I thought DVI was supposed to be superior....

Comments?  Concerns?

[summerfun]

You have discovered what most of us already know. DVI is NOT better than component. No matter what the folks at the store say. They are trying to sell $120 cables. You are also correct in purchasing a $16 cable. It will be exactly the same as the $120 monster.

DVI was instituted by the film industry to add a level of copy protection to broadcast HD. It has absolutely nothing to do with PQ. Someday, DVI may be the only allowed input. It is good to have a TV that will accept DVI if that day comes.

You may be able to tweak your TV so that the DVI and the component look the same, saving you the hassle of switching back and forth as you mentioned.

Another solution would be to put the TWC box on the component input and the DVD player in the s-video input. It is very hard to tell the difference between s-video and component on DVD players as they are only 480i/p. You will not be able to use the progressive scan feature of the DVD if you use s-video, but many people find that the de-interlacer of the HDTV is actually better than the one in the progressive scan DVD player.

[gparris]

Quote from summerfun:

"You will not be able to use the progressive scan feature of the DVD if you use s-video, but many people find that the de-interlacer of the HDTV is actually better than the one in the progressive scan DVD player.":eek:

The whole idea is to use the progressive scan feature with the HDTV set. Most sets I have previewed (and there are too many to mention) do NOT do a good job of processing the picture and Sony and Mitsubishi are TWO of them. You need something to connect your component inputs BOTH to your HDTV set.

If you don't believe me about decent progressive processing by using the DVD player, ask Paul in the forum how he likes his Denon 910 player I recommended.

Either buy a new receiver/amp that does component video switching or do the manual box I mentioned in another thread where you go out and get the pushbutton box and connect both HD box and DVD player with component cables input green to yellow, red to red and blue to white and output the red, green and blue correctly to the one component input on your HDTV set.
I do not see how difficult it is going to be when you leave the setup to input from the HD box most of the time and then walk up to the DVD player and insert a DVD into it and push the manual button to change video inputs.
summerfun is right about the DVI: It is made for Hollywood's copy-protection schemes and is not an enhancement.

[summerfun]

Originally posted by gparris
The whole idea is to use the progressive scan feature with the HDTV set. Most sets I have previewed (and there are too many to mention) do NOT do a good job of processing the picture and Sony and Mitsubishi are TWO of them.

I will stand by my point. There are more post than can be read where people have found the progressive scan feature of the DVD player to be of lesser quality than letting the HDTV do the de-interlacing.

Of course it all depends on your exact set up. I too was disturbed to discover after spending extra money on a progressive scan DVD player, that I would have been better off not spending the extra money as I have turned the feature off and let the TV do the work. I get a better PQ. I still use the component cables however.

I'm sure there are better DVD players that this may not be the case.

[gb4fan92]

I have been wondering if buying a progressive scan DVD player would dramatically improve my picture. To be honest it looks fine now. I think I've read that the TV I own does its own progressive scan?   I have read about a few DVD players that can upconvert to 1080i which is appealing to me. But then we have HD-DVD on the horizon. I think I'm going to wait for this. I can't see buying a new DVD player every year for this improvement or that improvement. ( We never did this with vcr's). I bought by DVD player before I bought my tv so that is why I don't have a progressive scan, though I believe that is pretty much standard now.

[gparris]

Noting what you have for yourself summerfun,
the RCA DVD player you have might look Ok to you
as that is your preference...

But the RCA doesn't have Faroudja processing and it ain't no Denon, either.

:eek:

Lebowski: Use the DVD player with a component setup!

gb4fan92: Quote:"I bought by DVD player before I bought my tv so that is why I don't have a progressive scan, though I believe that is pretty much standard now."

Answer: Yes, buy one as it will be a year or two before the HD DVD format war ends and prices come down to where you don't have to pay the price of a HDTV set to get an HD DVD player.
So: Buy a decent progressive scan player, one with the Faroudja processor or the Sage chip and you WILL notice the difference.
It leaves the interlaced DVD players in the dust and almost looks like HD.

Paul S.(the Pirate): you can chime in anytime about your Denon 910 you bought for less than $299!

Thank you.:wave:

[summerfun]

Originally posted by gparris
But the RCA doesn't have Faroudja processing and it ain't no Denon, either.

My point exactly. Some progressive scan DVD players may be better than others. I pointed that out in both of my post. But, most do not have the Faroudja chip and if you don't, then you may be better of not using the progressive scan feature of the DVD player and letting the HDTV do the work.

The original post was about not having enough component inputs. My suggestion was for him to use the s-video input and let the HDTV do the deinterlacing. I am not alone in the opinion, you will find it posted many times by others.

Obviously if he was willing to buy a new Denon DVD player and a receiver or switch, this would be a different issue, but that is not what he was asking.

[dlhoppe]

I just recently bought the top-of-the-line Pioneer progressive scan DVD player to replace my older Pioneer DV-33 thinking I would get better picture quality. I was wrong. I and others who I asked for opinions from on the difference in PQ between the two were unanimous in selecting my older DV-33 player.  So I took the new "fancy" player back to the store for my refund. I have a Hitachi 51S500 and it does a fantastic job of converting the 480i signal from my old player. Fortunately, the DV-33 has component output (even though it's not progressive), so at least I'm giving up as little loss as possible during the transport to the TV.

Just "2 cents" from someone that has proven that TV's CAN do a better job.

[gparris]

Sometimes it is either the TV or the player that does a good job.
Most of the time, it is the player or the individuals eyesight.

The best example of a upgraded picture from S-Video to Progressive scan occurred recently when I helped a friend with her installation and it went like this:

46" Mitsubishi RPTV with Sony DVD player single disc with S-Video interlaced-only installation:

Ok picture, nothing to get excited about, just Ok.

Same HDTV set w/Sony DVD Progressive-Scan player (new)
with pulldown, component cables (Monster 2):

Fantastic, smooth, clean picture with no artifacts, very close to my Faroudja processor.
She is very excited that I not only helped her hook up, but is glad I selected the proper DVD player and cabling.

Point IS: Here is an example of the same HDTV set, same manufacturer of DVD player and S-Video cables going TO the same manufacturer with a better DVD player and good component cables with a much-better-outcome.
NEVER discount component cabling for DVD players or a decent DVD player with progessive scan.
In this example:
IT WORKED VERY WELL - Excellent, actually, BIG Difference!

As far as Pioneer goes, I sold my last Pioneer DVD player, and it was an Elite model,  for the Kenwood Faroudja system.
Some discs it wouldn't play and with the other Pioneer DVD player, it had optical out audio problems. I believe that you had just a bad manufacturer here, at least for DVD players as it was with my experience, twice.  So far the receiver/amp I have is doing fine, but it is top-of-line, from Pioneer.

[BillMilosz]

DVI is not a plug, it's an INTERCONNECTION STANDARD which was developed in the computer industry - the Digital Display Working Group to be exact- to connect high-bandwidth signals from computers to displays.  DVI was for sure and absolutely NOT developed by the Entertainment Industry, no matter what some uniformed persons might think. (The Jack Velenti's of the world found  that the DVI interface could be used to pass along signals containing their copy-protection schemes, so they "allowed" DVI connectors to be included on consumer gear.)  Here is a definition of DVI http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/DVI.html

As you can see, DVI is standardized to allow bandwidths up to 160 MHz to be faithfully transmitted.  Component video cables TRY to offer 37 MHz bandwidth, though I've swept some and found this is rarely the case.  ATSC 720p has a technical bandwidth requirement of 37 Mhz. (See http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/bandwid.htm) In my experience, most cables start to roll off above 10 Mhz.  Component video signals are ANALOG so bandwidth is important.  And if you're feeding compnent video into a cheap A/V receiver, be aware that the switching fabric of most of these consumer units have ~20 MHz bandwidth at best.


How much bandwidth is needed?  MOST EXPERTS SAY YOU NEED TEN TIMES THE MINIMUM IN ORDER TO OFFER "LOSSLESS" TRANSMISSION.  See http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/whyten.htm

If your DVI inputs look worse than your component inouts, look at your TV, your cable, your cable box or your CABLE COMPANY.  The software settings loaded by the cable company, along with the choice of set-top box, will have an impact on performance of the DVI interface in the set-top box. Many set-top boxes don't offer quality DVI interfaces, and most cable companies don't QA the DVI before they send the unit out to you.  A good cable company would provide you with a set-top box and a signal that complied with the DVI 160-MHz standard.  I'll bet Time Warner in Wisconsin doesn't even have the test equipment to QA the DVI capability of the set-top boxes they provide!

[Paul S.]

Originally posted by gparris

Paul S.(the Pirate): you can chime in anytime about your Denon 910 you bought for less than $299!

Thank you.:wave:

Sorry, I was in Menoqua all weekend!

You are 100% right- nothing beats a good progressive scan DVD player. Saying that the deinterlacer on a TV is better is just plain crazy (sorry SF!). I'm sure every ISF trained calibrator will harken to the same.

The 910 is crazy bad a$$!

[summerfun]

Originally posted by gparris
NEVER discount component cabling for DVD players or a decent DVD player with progessive scan.
 

gparris,
You keep missing the point. I AGREE that a superior progressive scan player with component cables would be the best connection. But the original posted question was by a guy that did not have a Faroudja progressive scan DVD player and he did not have an extra component connection.

My original solution was to continue using the DVI cable and his progressive scan DVD, but if that did not work, I gave him another solution to try that has worked for many people with his equipment and configuration.

[summerfun]

Originally posted by Paul S.
Saying that the deinterlacer on a TV is better is just plain crazy (sorry SF!). !

Depending on the quality of the DVD player and the quality of the HDTV, it could go either way. I promise you my $50 progressive scan DVD player does not do as good of a job as my $4000 HDTV set on de-interlacing.

I may be out numbered here on this board, but I am not alone in this opinion.

[summerfun]

Originally posted by BillMilosz
DVI was for sure and absolutely NOT developed by the Entertainment Industry, no matter what some uniformed persons might think.  

I did not say it was developed by the Entertainment Industry, I said it was instituted by them. That is to say, they are the ones pushing it forward to promote copy protection. The industry is scared that copied HD programs will become as available as illegal music is today.

What do you think all the downresing controversy is about? The industry wants to force downresing on all analog connections to force the use of DVI and copy protection. Its not to improve PQ.

The retail outlets are promoting DVI as a better connection to improve PQ. That just is not true. For them, it is about selling $120 cables. There are thousands of posts on all these HD boards from people new to HD asking why their DVI cable does not improve their PQ. The simple answer is its probable not going to. Maybe in a lab in perfect conditions, but not in the real world.

[Paul S.]

Originally posted by summerfun
Depending on the quality of the DVD player and the quality of the HDTV, it could go either way. I promise you my $50 progressive scan DVD player does not do as good of a job as my $4000 HDTV set on de-interlacing.

I may be out numbered here on this board, but I am not alone in this opinion.

If you're comparing a shat $50 player to a $4000 TV, then you're right. I'm saying the PS is light years better on my Denon (which isnt all that costly) than my TV.