AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
if you connected, let's saw the pio503 via 5002/DVI as opposed to standard 15-pin VGA (assuming u drive the display @ native resolution)?


with lcd monitors, the difference is HUGE, but am wondering if it's the same with plasmas?


thx,


MMAfia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,500 Posts
Having a Panny that doesn't support DVI, I can only say that VGA is near perfect, and can't speak from experience of having done a direct comparison. But on VGA, I can get each indivdual pixel directly contolled by my PC. So with VGA can providing accurate discrete pixel control, what does DVI gain you over that?


This is an item of contention, and there's no clear consensus. Some expect the sort of difference that you've experienced with LCD. But from those who have done A/B tests on both, there have been mixed results. Some have claimed that VGA looks even better than DVI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
I havn't completed my HTPC yet, but I hear from people that DVI is more stable than using VGA. The computer matches up to the display's native resolution without much messing around. I could be completly wrong, but thats just what I heard. As for PQ, I would assume its better because the signal is kept in the digital domain. Using RGB or component is an analog signal.


Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
hmmm... interesting. on an lcd monitor, using anolog results in pixel 'jitter', and an image that is relatively blurry and washed out compared with DVI.


on my samsung 240T 24" flat panel, going analog results in a terrible image quality at the monitor's native resolution of 1900x1200. the difference is night and day when switching from analog to digital.


plasmas don't have as high a resolution, and the image area is much larger... has anyone actually done A/B on the plasma units that support DVI?


thx,


MMAfia
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,492 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Felgar



This is an item of contention, and there's no clear consensus. Some expect the sort of difference that you've experienced with LCD. But from those who have done A/B tests on both, there have been mixed results.
I have done A/B tests and I think the above describes it well- there are incremental differences very difficult to quantify- I would not call it one way or the other


I got excellent results from an HTPC with DVI to a Pro1000/5002 but ultimately went back to using analog inputs- it was easier to deal with/switch


when DVI-HDCP is more universally adopted, and more HD content is out there, it will/should have a better margin over analog


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
interesting. i wonder why the difference is more pronounced using lcd display technologies? maybe due to the extemely close viewing distancs involved when using a computer monitor as opposed to watching a large plasma display?


hmmm...


thx for the info.


MMAfia
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,133 Posts
It was never promised that you would get this night and day difference using DVI over Component, and from what I have read this claim holds true, it only really promised that you wouldn't have to make so many adjustments to the picture. Take it for what its worth, no more, no less. Remember people have claimed to have seen ghost- so I guess if you want it to be better, then I guess it will be better.


Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Quote:
It was never promised that you would get this night and day difference using DVI over Component, and from what I have read this claim holds true, it only really promised that you wouldn't have to make so many adjustments to the picture. Take it for what its worth, no more, no less. Remember people have claimed to have seen ghost- so I guess if you want it to be better, then I guess it will be better.
interesting... there seems to be a different sentiment over this topic in the HTPC forum.


mark, what was your HTPC config when you did the A/B test? what video cards did you use to compare, and what software DVD players/version were used? were you running both DVI and analog at native 1280x768 as well as other non-native 'scaled' resolutions?


i plan to run these tests myself using my AIW9700pro card and powerdvdxp/cineplayer... happy happy joy joy. :cool:


MMAfia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
I find DVI to be a better connection after directly comparing it with VGA on the same system. I have my ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon AGP connected with a 6' DVI-D single link cable to my NEC PlasmaSync 42MP3, running at 848x480 & 60Hz. When I originally was using VGA with the VGA/DVI adapter for the AIW I noticed problems in the shadow detail where the pixels would flicker when barely energized, probably because of problems with the analog signal. This effect was completely eliminated after I switched to DVI, every pixel is rock steady no matter what the brightness is. Also, under VGA it was necessary to adjust the picture size and position occasionally, but with the DVI connection the picture is perfectly configured all the time.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,492 Posts
clarification:


the HTPC /DVI is the one place where DVI is better as other posters have commented:


I used a 1.7Ghz P4 with ATI 7500 card running NR 1280x768: you must set the Pioneer to wide XGA and you must see dot by dot on the display


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
I've got an sdi-modded rp-56 dvd player running into a digital Leeza scalar/deinterlacer and the output of the Leeza runs to a 50" plasma (the 503cmx) via DVI. I haven't done a blind a/b test, but when I had my system calibrated, the ISF calibrator and I did run component out from the Leeza into the monitor in order to calibrate the monitor's component input and, while that was set up, we did do an a/b test of avia's resolution test pattern via compoent vs. via DVi. The result: there was considerably higher resolution via DVI than via component. I've heard that this difference, while obvious on the AVIA test pattern, does not translate into an obvious difference while watching real dvds, but I've never really tried this scientifically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Screwtop
I find DVI to be a better connection after directly comparing it with VGA on the same system. I have my ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon AGP connected with a 6' DVI-D single link cable to my NEC PlasmaSync 42MP3, running at 848x480 & 60Hz.
Screwtop - isn't it torture using a small 848x480 desktop resolution for web surfing? I realize that there is nothing that is going to be as crisp as NR, but what happens to your image if you go to 1024x580 or 1280x768 using DVI? Howard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Plasman
Screwtop - isn't it torture using a small 848x480 desktop resolution for web surfing? I realize that there is nothing that is going to be as crisp as NR, but what happens to your image if you go to 1024x580 or 1280x768 using DVI? Howard
I have to admit I don't mind using IE on the 848x480 desktop. This model has the benefit of displaying bigger standard text than a HD panel would display at its native rate, so I am able to view the text from a greater distance. The only thing that can be problematic is the vertical resolution (since the horizontal resolution is acceptable), I have to use the scroll bar more than usual! :) I've tried 1376x768 and it is scaled to the screen resolution, and as you say the picture and text are not terribly sharp, even with DVI. IMO the benifit of obtaining a greater screen area does not offset the loss of hard edges on this screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,500 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Plasman
Screwtop - isn't it torture using a small 848x480 desktop resolution for web surfing? I realize that there is nothing that is going to be as crisp as NR, but what happens to your image if you go to 1024x580 or 1280x768 using DVI? Howard
Even though you didn't address me, I can confirm screwtops conclusion. Running non-NR is basically just not an option. The picture looks horrible. If the res if fairly close then text can still be made out, but not comfortably.


And actually, 848x480 is not thaaaaat bad. As mentioned, mostly you just scroll vertically quite a bit. But you can take measures to help. Shrink down the title bars, shrink fonts, auto-hide the taskbar, etc. These are all little things that do in fact add up to a decent impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
I guess 848 width is really not that bad now that I think about it. Must look quite good actually with DVI. Just remember to press F11 when using IE to maximize vertical desktop. Then press F11 again if you need more of the menus or to enter a web address. Someone posted the quick-keys for IE a while back and I remember that Ctrl-O brings up a dialog to enter a web address if you keep things in the F11 mode.


At 1280x768 with the Pio I did need to increase font sizes, icons, etc in WinXP. This was not due to any fuzziness (DVI is so incredibly sharp even if you go up to the panel and stick your nose in it) - just the reality of being able to read small stuff from 12 feet away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Screwtop
IMO the benifit of obtaining a greater screen area does not offset the loss of hard edges on this screen.
Sorry...can you clarify this? By "screen area" I assume you mean desktop pixel count (e.g., 1600x1200), not display size (42" diagonal)?


One significant reason for me (considering) upgrading our CRT to a plasma is to be able to view Real One player (the front-end to our MP3 library) from the sofa 15' away. On our current CRT, you just can't read the text, even at 800x600, more than 6' away (and even close up it's painful). 852x480 would be fine for that use, as it's much more important to have horizontal info than vertical info in Real One.

- Craig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by cmf
Sorry...can you clarify this? By "screen area" I assume you mean desktop pixel count (e.g., 1600x1200), not display size (42" diagonal)?
Sorry, bad choice of words on my part, I did not mean display size. I was trying to avoid saying "greater resolution" since the NEC 42MP3 can receive higher resolutions than 848x480, but it will scale them down. Maybe I should have said "desktop area".


I also view my screen from 15' away, though I don't use Real One and I don't know what kind of footprint the GUI requires. IMO a SD plasma screen would be a vast improvement over SD CRT, even though it intuitively seems that vertical information will be lost in your setup in going from 800x600 to 848x480. The difference is that the CRT is interlaced while the plasma is progressive scan, not to mention that there is additional loss of sharpness due to scaling in sending 800x600 to a CRT. It's been my experience that 800x600 looks terrible on a CRT, and that 640x480 is much clearer (while not great) and probably the best PQ you can get with 480i.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
actually, 800x600 on my 34" sampo crt via rgb is very clear. it's just that with a 34" screen, you can't go too far without the text getting too small...


MMAfia
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top