43 replies to this topic

[mando]

I think you're on to something. I just rented "cloudy with a chance of meatballs" for the kids, in DVD format, and I'm stunned at how good it looks. A couple of other DVDs I've tried didn't look this good, and this isn't even blu-ray. I will try my Harry Potter blu-ray again once this movie's over, to see if maybe I just hadn't connected my cables firmly enough (I've been swithching them back and forth from set to set-- am I reaching for straws here or what!)

I'm really impressed with this movie, hope to have great results with others. Also, I'm using a regular HDMI cable, but I hear there's a category 2 and even an optical HDMI??? I need to research this to see if this is true and if it can make a difference. I may go to Best Buy and see what cables they have.

I look forward to watching Transformers......thanks for the feedback.

The film itself will have something to do with aparent sharpness. Some film directors/editors may intentionally want a film to be a bit soft-focused. Quality of encoding can also vary.

I have the Harry Potter Blu-Ray and it didn't strike me as particularly sharp. The Star Trek film was good, but not nearly as sharp as the interview footage in the bonus tracks. I would expect CG material (such as ...Meatballs) to be inherently sharper.

It's like the crazy megapixel thing with digital cameras. A million extra pixels will do you no good if your lens doesn't deliver any more information than the sensor could capture before.

I know that there are industry experts on this board who can give the real skinny on what HDMI can and can't do. I would venture to say however that a digital cable's shortcomings would probably NOT manifest itself in a loss of resolution, but rather in image corruption or some other more obvious anomaly - unless the digital link automatically downshifts to a lower bit rate, or something along those lines.

[Dat Orc Homey]

Oh, and concerning 120Hz... does your Blu-ray player really output 120Hz? I think they only output 24, 30 and 60, and then the monitor upconverts from there to 120. I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with the HDMI cable.

[rpo]

I fully disagree... not all HDMI cables are equal. Some do not support 120hz and above.

This is not true at all. HDMI cables will support any current data signals available on the market, regardless of whether or not it is a $5 cable or a $300 cable. Blu-ray players, DVD players, cable/satellite boxes, etc do not output 120 hz. TV's that show 120 hz or higher are INTERNALLY upconverting the incoming signal and adding the missing frames in an attempt to smooth out the video. The signal being sent to the TV is NOT 120hz, as Blu-ray is only 23.97 hz (frames per second). Cable is sometimes 60 hz. Nothing else is higher.

[chris v]

Well, speaking from experience, I went from a $10 cable to a $60 cable and I could see and hear the difference.

[Devdave]

When it comes to HDMI cables it's all about SPEC (Features). Just make sure your HDMI cables are rated at HDMI v1.3 if you can.

Expensive HDMI cables and cheap HDMI cables (if built to HDMI v1.3 spec) will perform (have the same features) similar.

It's a Digital Signal NOT Analog and does not need to be some big thick Monster Cable with extra shielding.

In regards to Blu-Ray Movies, it all depends on what the Producer filmed, for example I watched Harry Potter and noticed it was purposefully grainy in quite a bit of the film.

Try watching UP in Blu-Ray you'll see what it can do.

A quote from HDMI LLC in regards to cheap HDMI vs expensive HDMI cables:

"Fatter cables do not necessarily mean better signals. Previously, fat cables were deemed superior because the copper was thicker and the cables carried more shielding. Additional shielding reduced the likelihood of interference between the copper strands, which led to a better signal.

In the world of digital cables, there's no need for shielding since there is no possibility of interference within a cable. As for the thickness of copper, however, thicker copper will be able to extend the length of a digital signal, but for shorter cable lengths (two meters and under), there is no need for overly thick copper strands. In fact, thicker cables can sometimes be problematic since they are less flexible to bend around sharp corners and the increased weight can cause them to fall out of vertically mounted connectors."

Finally - if you are paying more than 5.00 - 20.00 for your HDMI cables you are paying WAY too much:

HDMI Cables

[Howdy]

Finally - if you are paying more than 5.00 - 20.00 for your HDMI cables you are paying WAY too much:

HDMI Cables

Exactly....Don't fall for the more expensive is better scam.

To the OP...if you still have questions try going over to the forum at http://www.avsforum.com/

Lots of knowledge over there and they can probably get you straightened out.

[Nylaan]

This is a little older article (and more for the tech savvy), but it is a little naive to simply just assume build doesn't matter:

http://gizmodo.com/2...-keep-upusually

For someone not interested in reading the article:

1) At short distances with today's typical content, it almost doesn't matter. Monoprice cables are pretty much a complete waste of money.

2) Monoprice actually outperforms pricy mid-range cables (though, I don't think they sell the ones tested on the website anymore, to be fair).

3) At long distances Monster cables may even struggle.

4) Monster cables would technically be more robust and "future-proof", however, why spend $200 on a cable that will work for 10 years when you can buy a $5 cable that works now and a $5 cable that works for future content in the future.

Having said that Monster cables are not worth it, I am a bit wary of buying any random HDMI cables because they have even showed in this demonstration that some cables may barely be compliant and actually may cause problems.

I think the most interesting finding is that showed that even if you buy a mid-range priced cable ($20 or so) you aren't gaining anything. I pretty much took from this article that I should get my wires from Monoprice, and that I should keep the wires as short as possible.

The only catch with buying a single cable on Monoprice is the shipping - but if you buy multiple cables, generally it does not affect the shipping costs, as long as the weight is still pretty small.

[Dave Burrell]

I pretty much took from this article that I should get my wires from Monoprice, and that I should keep the wires as short as possible.

The only catch with buying a single cable on Monoprice is the shipping - but if you buy multiple cables, generally it does not affect the shipping costs, as long as the weight is still pretty small.

I agree and that's how I have mine setup, I got my cables super cheap on ebay - believe it or not I paid $1 dollar for a nice new HDMI cable and it had free shipping!, its worked great going over a year so far - another DVI to HDMI cable I bought for a buck stopped working after about 3 months, but what the heck, it was a buck, ordered another one and that one's been going great for 7 months now

[Darth Lefty]

In regards to Blu-Ray Movies, it all depends on what the Producer filmed, for example I watched Harry Potter and noticed it was purposefully grainy in quite a bit of the film.

This is still I believe just digital compression. Just because the picture is twice as big doesn't mean it's gone away.

For example this is what a freeze frame of Comcast digital HD looks like. Edward James Olmos is grainy at the best of times but sheesh:

[Devdave]

Nylaan - the article noted that Monoprice was the way to go, which I've confirmed through use and also AVSForums.

Did you mean "Monster Cables" vs "Monoprice" cables are pretty much a complete waste of money.

I think you and I agree on this one....

If it's true to the HDMI v1.3 spec - build should not be a factor. Build only comes into play if it isn't truly up to spec or the connectors are built really crappy. But then every cable I've bought at Monoprice has always worked from 3m to 15m up to 1080p. They aren't the super crappy ones you can buy on Amazon for less than a buck a piece.

As to future 1440p, that's not the current rated spec and I wouldn't expect my cables to do that. They weren't certified to that spec.

As Dave Burr said "I'll buy another 5.00 cable at that time." If in fact I need 1440p

For someone not interested in reading the article:

1) At short distances with today's typical content, it almost doesn't matter. Monoprice cables are pretty much a complete waste of money.

2) Monoprice actually outperforms pricy mid-range cables (though, I don't think they sell the ones tested on the website anymore, to be fair).

3) At long distances Monster cables may even struggle.

4) Monster cables would technically be more robust and "future-proof", however, why spend $200 on a cable that will work for 10 years when you can buy a $5 cable that works now and a $5 cable that works for future content in the future.

Having said that Monster cables are not worth it, I am a bit wary of buying any random HDMI cables because they have even showed in this demonstration that some cables may barely be compliant and actually may cause problems.

I think the most interesting finding is that showed that even if you buy a mid-range priced cable ($20 or so) you aren't gaining anything. I pretty much took from this article that I should get my wires from Monoprice, and that I should keep the wires as short as possible.

The only catch with buying a single cable on Monoprice is the shipping - but if you buy multiple cables, generally it does not affect the shipping costs, as long as the weight is still pretty small.

Absolutly true for Cable, but not for BLU-Ray.

This is still I believe just digital compression. Just because the picture is twice as big doesn't mean it's gone away.

For example this is what a freeze frame of Comcast digital HD looks like. Edward James Olmos is grainy at the best of times but sheesh:

[Darth Lefty]

Absolutly true for Cable, but not for BLU-Ray.

Why do you think so? The space on the disk is not infinte. It's 50 gig. This is about 6x a DVD. With 1080p being about 6x the pixels as 480p, the amount of compression is going to be about the same. The increase in clarity from more pixels is lost via the enormous picture size of new TV's.

I can fully believe that the cable signal is getting more compression, but it's still not going to be a perfect picture.

[eVader]

This is still I believe just digital compression. Just because the picture is twice as big doesn't mean it's gone away.

For example this is what a freeze frame of Comcast digital HD looks like. Edward James Olmos is grainy at the best of times but sheesh:

http://www.directv.com/

[Devdave]

Yes, Blu-Ray is also compressed, but nothing like what Comcast is doing, I guess that's all I was saying.

Blu-Ray compression is high quality low loss (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC) compared to Comcast.

Why do you think so? The space on the disk is not infinte. It's 50 gig. This is about 6x a DVD. With 1080p being about 6x the pixels as 480p, the amount of compression is going to be about the same. The increase in clarity from more pixels is lost via the enormous picture size of new TV's.

I can fully believe that the cable signal is getting more compression, but it's still not going to be a perfect picture.

[stangage70]

...
I can fully believe that the cable signal is getting more compression, but it's still not going to be a perfect picture.

Here is what Comcrap compression looks like compared to full rate broadcast TV (see pictures within this link)
http://www.avsforum....d.php?t=1008271

Broadcast TV tops out at 20 Mbs. BluRay uses more advanced compression algorithms AND higher bitrates. True - it won't be perfect, but one should be able to see a difference quite clearly.

Full rate:


Comcast "Digital HD":

[stangage70]

I pretty much took from this article that I should get my wires from Monoprice, and that I should keep the wires as short as possible.

The Monoprice cables are the ones I use with confidence.
They are rated to 165MHz. 1080p @ 60 Hz is 148.5 MHz. Anything beyond about 3M in length is asking for trouble. The electrical characteristics of HDMI don't lend to good signal integrity.