The age old HDMI quality myth...

james.miller said:
ironically, you are wrong. it makes naff all difference how big the screen is. it's how big each pixel appears and for that it doesnt matter if your watching a 1080p 20" screen from a distance of 20 inches, or a 100@ screen from 15 feet....you'd still see a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Indeed, My TV is 32", And HD movies are miles better than DVD, To say otherwise is silly. Jaybee refer to the pictures in this thread. Why would a smaller screen mean that quality difference would be any narrower?
 
jaybee said:
1: Blu-ray (1080p) is much better quality that DVD but is most noticeable on larger sized screens typically 40" +.
Click to expand...

It;s more noticeable o na small close scren liek a pc monitor :p

hence why they have had resolutions far ahead of HD (720p) for a very long time and 1080p for less time but stil la long time. :p
 
15m should be fine, providing it's not a thin piece of crap.

20m and you're going to playing a fun game of "signal... or no signal" with Noel Edmunds.
 
I found that its worth spending a few extra quid on a cable. The £2.99 ones are ok but i was recommended one for £4.99 and the difference in the snugness when connected seemed worth the money.

And i wish that bloke would go away.
 
james.miller said:
ironically, you are wrong etc
Click to expand...


Sorry but I don't see where my statement is "wrong". It typically is indeed easier to see the quality difference on larger screens. I did not mention anything specific to do with pixels/distance or deny that you couldn't see the difference on smaller screens. Just easier on larger ones generally.
 
Last edited:
wannabedamned said:
Indeed, My TV is 32", And HD movies are miles better than DVD, To say otherwise is silly. Jaybee refer to the pictures in this thread. Why would a smaller screen mean that quality difference would be any narrower?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should revise my "summary" to write an essay to make it pass the strict OCUK regulations? I was just trying to summarize that generally it is easier to see the difference on a larger screen. Would you deny that? Show me where I said DVD is not better than blu-ray on a smaller screen?
 
james.miller said:
ironically, you are wrong. it makes naff all difference how big the screen is. it's how big each pixel appears and for that it doesnt matter if your watching a 1080p 20" screen from a distance of 20 inches, or a 100@ screen from 15 feet....you'd still see a huge difference.
Click to expand...

As well as not being ironic, he isn't really "wrong" as such.

You can safely assume the pixels on a 1080p 32" TV are smaller than those of a 32" 720p screen.

Screen sizes are generally "relative" to how far back you're viewing it.

Sitting 60cm away from a 24" 1080 computer monitor, you're going to see more "definition" than you would on a 42" TV 3 meters away for example.

This isn't really THAT hard to understand is it?
 
Computer monitors are always going to show up detail flaws in movies than a TV screen, Like I showed above in my screenshots, on my 24" the difference between 1080p and DVD is absolutely clear from a laid back distance from an armchair and to further exercise my point:

DVD:
sunshine_IMG_7935.jpg


BluRay:
sunshine_IMG_7936.jpg


That was taken sat approx 7 foot away from the screen and at 50mm which is (give or take) the zoom level of the human eye.
 
mrk said:
Comparisons.
Click to expand...

You know, I'd love to see VHS inserted just before those, LOL.

Back in the day, I remember both my now wife and my father arguing with me that they couldn't see any difference between VHS and DVD when, just as now, the difference was clearly night and day.
 
Lucero said:
It's simple. A digital cable sends a 1 or an 0. That's it. If you want to spend £90 on a cable to do that, you need to have a block of wood with rusty nails hammered up your backside.
Click to expand...

The signal can actually become degraded, although it only becomes a problem at around 25m:

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests/evaluation-conclusion

Your take-away from all this should be the following:

* At lengths less than 4 meters you can just about use silly string (OK, not really) and get HDMI to pass at any current resolution. At less than 3 meters you'll even extend that to 12-bit color and possibly the next crazy idea HDMI Licensing decides to throw at consumers. Don't spend a lot on these cables and if you want to save money you won't let anyone at a big box store talk you into buying from them.

* At long lengths (over 10 meters) you really need to pay attention to the manufacturer if you don't want to risk running into potential problems with 1080p and future formats such as Deep Color. With that said, just about any cable at or under 10 meters will pass 720p/1080i and nearly everyone will pass 1080p at 8-bit color as well.
Click to expand...
 
mrk said:
What is "VHS"?!
Click to expand...

Damn young'uns. I guess you've never heard of Betamax either - let alone the wireless. :p

I've never really been interested in blue-ray (or HD-DVD for that matter). Not because the quality wasn't better (clearly was), but just because I probably wouldn't notice - or at least wouldn't notice enough to justify the cost.

As for the cable 'debate', I too was sold the 'hype' by DSG personnel. I should have been more sceptical than I was - obviously having a bad day that day - but nonetheless didn't buy it. No harm in spending extra on a quality cable, but that's got nothing to do with picture quality.

PS - if a semi-blind man can spot the difference in those screen caps, anyone who can't might be in need of a white cane. I know a reputable supplier. :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom