Component is showing better picture then HDMI on my setup!  

I have only had my A1 for a few days now but it seems the HDCP handshake can be an issue for some people. The simple solution seems to be to turn off both devices and unplug for 5-10 minutes. Turn on your projector first then turn on your A1 to establish the handhsake over HDMI.

I still could believe this with any given projo / display / HD-DVD player combo though.

If you want the best out of your equipment, you better be ready to do some serioous trial and error on different connection schemes. You can't really go by conventional wisdom alone that digital is always better than analog.

If you're getting a picture on your projector with HDMI, then there is no copy protection issue.

And it's entirely reasonable that you might get a better picture with component. All the hype about HDMI is largely theoretical (keeping it all in the digital domain means it will definitely be a better picture). I've done A/B testing with my projector and plasmas and have never been able to see that HDMI ever provided any improvement. It was either a tie, or component was a little better. And I did my testing blinded from the source.

Yes, independent "expert" testing has shown this as well. Component is just damn good. There was nothing wrong with it, consumers were just duped. At least ICT is some years away and my analog set can enjoy some HD signals for the rest of its life.

HDMI was simply a pandora's box. Theoretically it is superior, as one less D/A A/D should be better, but HDMI also brings in other problems, way more annoying than an impercetible (at best) loss in signal.

Enjoy the component, but if you want SD DVD upconversion, you need to backup your DVDs. I do this and it works really, really well. You could run both and use HDMI only for SD DVDs.

I think each setup is different, and there are many different variables. Resolution (of the source and destination), source quality, cable quality, cable length. And last, but probably most importantly...individual perception. Some people like the color reproduction of digital (including me), but probably just as many prefer a softer image that may come from analog signals. I had excellent quality with both component and HDMI, but I prefer the HDMI. Especially over the longer distance I have (25ft), the HDMI is clearly better for me. For smaller runs, I've heard the differences is lesser, even negligible. So, take your pick, choose what works best for YOU. After all, the specs mean nothing if you don't like it!

Don't get your point. It's fairly well known that running the picture through component can be as good as HDMI. Only problem with using components with HD-A1 is you can't use the upconverting ability of the HD-A1.

Here's what I mean. HDMI *theoretically* could give you a better picture because there's one less digital to analog conversion to be made. But in reality, most people can't tell the difference, but some *think* they can. But HDMI was never designed with the viewer's best interest in mind. It was developed as a copy protection vehicle, pure and simple. But some folks have been duped into thinking that it was a gift from the studios to give us better picture quality.

No, HD-DVD (and well done Blu Ray) is clearly not hype, it is significantly better than any SD DVD could be.

You're not understanding what you're talking about. The reason you're buying a more expensive DVD and player is for the higher quality audio and video stored on the discs. But you can still see and hear that higher quality through analog connections like component video and 5.1 channel analog audio.

What HDMI allows for is:
1) the studios to copy protect their stuff (the sole reason for HDMI in the 1st place)
2) a single connection from one component to the next instead of 3 component cables and 6 audio cables
3) one less digital to analog conversion and *theoretically* a resulting better picture

Umm, you're still not with us here. If an analog signal comes into your digital projector, then your projector does an analog to digital conversion and spits out its image. If it receives a digital signal, then depending on the resolution of that signal, it can display it natively or scale it to its native resolution. And your brain is going to do a digital to analog conversion anyway. We don't have digital brains.

So, bottom line, your picture is just fine. All you've done is proven the point that the *theoretical* improvements/benefits of HDMI are just that, *theoretical* in many cases. But it's OK, you're not missing anything.

Ralph,
I'm not misunderstanding anything. I own the same projector. You said your projector was copy protected. Projectors aren't copy protected, the material might be. But if you're getting a picture with your setup, then obviously copy protection is not part of the issue you brought up. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Based on your questions and responses here, I'd encourage you to do a lot more reading and get a better understanding of these technologies or you're goinig to be very frustrated.

With the RCA HDV-5000 and my Pioneer DV-59avi I get a better picture through component than HDMI to DVI on my Pioneer Elite RPTV. Sound and Vision Mag tested the big brother to my set 64in. and said when running high def signals through component and DVI the component resolved higher frequency signals than did the DVI allowing for greater resolution than the new digital input was capable of. With anything I have put in the component output looks noticeably better. I think the results will vary by set. In theory Blu Ray was supposed to look better than HDDVD, so no HDMI is not always superior.

This is exactly right - look at which companies were behind creating the HDMI spec - Silicon Images, Microsoft, Intel, and the movie studios. Not a single Consumer Electronics company. HDMI wasn't invented to provide better picture quality, it was primarily a trojan horse to give movie studios HDCP protection on their content.

And after the exceptional marketing blitz, it seems to have worked.

The best HD vs SD is the reason to buy the player. Not Digital vs analog.

It's very common for component to work better than DVI/HDMI on a CRT. Having the player do the D/A conversion instead of the display seems to work better (video signal in a CRT has to be converted to analog at some point for output). On my Sony CRT RPTV (KP-57WS520) component and HDMI are very close once fully calibrated, but I give component a slight edge. But, Sony did a good job implementing HDMI on my set.

HDMI produces an image that is superior to one delivered by component.

If that's not the case on your setup, then it needs some adjustments.

Tell you what - you come over to my house and check out Lost in high-def, which I have going through component. If you're not completely floored, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Based on what I've seen from my calibrated display, HDMI is nothing more than a quicker way to make a connection, accompanied by a crapload of handshaking problems; the superiority to component is almost nil, and I have good eyes for that stuff.

My own independent testing concludes pretty much the same. One, however, should always keep in mind all displays are not equal. Some may be optimized for one over the other, while their is no discernable difference in others. Go with whichever solution provides the best image.

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. :rolleyes:

Delt with many HT systems???? Blanket statements like that show a lack of experience is all. :)

Well I did not mean it to be personal. But after dealing with between 500 and 1000 different peoples setups and transformations. over the past 10 years or so. The only way to know you are getting the absolute best performance you can is to try it all, retry it all and decide for yourself which is the best way to connect and run various display / audio source combos.

This is just the reality of it.

Alright, now this only applies to my 2 displays (Pioneer 6070 plasma and Panasonic 500 pj). But I just hooked everything up in parallel via HDMI and component. I have my TiVo S3 hooked up and a DVD player so I can A/B the same scenes over and over. HDMI and Component are INDISTINGUISHABLE. Can't tell them apart on A/B.

So 1 cable vs. 4 is nice. And with HD-DVD/BD, 1 cable vs. 9 is even nicer. But don't think you're going to get a magically better picture with HDMI. End of story.

And your proof is......what?

Component looks better on my TV (57s500) than the HDMI/DVI, not much better, but the color and depth of the picture just seem richer. I have a DLP HDTV and a CRT HDTV and the CRT beats out the DLP for overall picture quality.

Variations in these are not caused by the connection, but by differences in calibration for the various inputs on your display.

On a high quality display, with properly designed circuitry, and with moderate to long cable runs, an HDMI connection will always display a significant increase in detail with less ringing than any form of analog connection. This is simply due to the fact that termination and impedance discontinuities in the analog world cause reflections within the cable, which blurs sharp transitions and increases blurring on edges in the image. This problem does not occur in the digital (DVI, HDMI) world.

Any other differences (black level, chroma, tint, gamma, picture "depth", etc etc) are merely byproducts of differences in calibration between the inputs being used. Calibrate both of the the inputs to a standard and these differences will disappear.


Vern

unless what he's seeing is the black crush problem with hdmi:dvi

i wonder if he's got any adapters or a hdmi to dvi connection in his setup.

i just picked up my hd-a1 last night and i'm pretty disappointed with the black. i think i'm encountering this problem as i have a dvi switch between my hdmi receiver and hdmi projector. i'm going to test component tonight. but the whole bummer with this is that the reason i bought a new pio 84 receiver was so i could enjoy dd+ and ddthd over a single hdmi cable. :(

i'm really not in the mood to hook up the analog outs. :(