|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
dbaisey
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 821
Location: Southern Cal LA / Seattle WA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | It dawned on me that one advantage of HD-SDI is cabling. ... RG6 is much more suited to endure the rigors of a commercial environment. |
And, in particular, the BNC connector used on HD-SDI is basically bombproof and easy to fix if damaged, whereas the HDMI connector is a bad joke. Fragile and non-repairable. |
Sure, but so what? How much abuse do you plan on subjecting your video cables and connectors to? Mine get zero abuse, and I mean ZERO. Once they're hooked up, they're never TOUCHED, much less abused. My HT had several HDMI devices. My current plasma TV setup is all new equipment, and are ALL HDMI devices. I have never had ONE HDMI problem. EVER! I think anyone that doesn't beat on their HDMI cables and connectors with a hammer should be fine.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | So there ARE advantages to HD-SDI, and very good reasons for commercial gear to have HD-SDI. It's just that NONE of the reasons involve the quality of the signal. PQ is NOT the reason commercial gear uses HD-SDI. |
I think it'd be safe to say that the **PQ as affected by signal transmission** is not the reason. I suspect Gary would agree that HDMI is just as good at HD-SDI for the "bits going into the wire == bits coming out of the wire" job. If I understand Gary's recent comments, he's saying that HD-SDI gives you unmolested bits from the source materials, BD or whatever, whereas players with HDMI outputs apparently modify the signal somewhere between the disk and the HDMI port.
The question is whether that apparent modification affects the PQ adversely, BEFORE it gets to the HDMI port. Gary's saying it does. Correct, Gary?
Then there's the obvious advantage of dumping HDCP, but that's a different issue. |
If the video source is altering the HDMI signal, then you have a SOURCE problem, not an interface problem. Just buy better sources that don't do that.
Last edited by Phil Smith on Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read that the other day. I really didn't see where he says HD-SDI is better. What am I missing?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EXACTLY, Athanasios.
I was going to jump into this discussion when it was only one or two pages, but stayed out. I have to jump in now.
| nomadII wrote: | | The fact that such a high % of the contributors here will claim sight unseen that "theoretically there should be no difference", also comical. |
Why is it comical? There is simply no data, no technical specifications, and no logical reason which would suggest that HD-SDI would hold any advantage whatsoever over HDMI in terms of picture quality in the HOME environment. None. Period. So, why is it comical for people to question the value? ESPECIALLY when somebody is hawking something.
If somebody here suggested that a Rolex duct-taped to the side of our projectors would improve image quality, we wouldn't all run and buy a Rolex to try it, without first asking why and how it improves anything! Most here would want to know by what mechanism the Rolex would improve the picture quality, and what sort of improvements to expect. We'd want to know before we went and spent money. It wouldn't be enough if it was just suggested, "But, you haven't seen it. You can't question it because you haven't seen it." The HD-SDI mod is similar, in that there's nothing whatsoever on paper that would indicate it would be better - I'll say it again - in terms of picture quality in the HOME environment - ESPECIALLY between source and processor.
Did you read the article? Could you point out what FACTS you're referring to that lead you to believe HD-SDI is any better for us in our HT setting (outside a better physical connection and no HDCP, that is)?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary M. wrote: | | what most of you guys don't know or would even want to admit if you did is that blu-ray players are adding processing to the HDMI outputs! I cannot reveal my source for this, but it is a fact that was gleaned from a Sony Blu-Ray hardware guy, again let me repeat, there is processing happening on HDMI outputs on BD players, IE contrast boosting, color boosting, sharpness enhancement etc. |
Which Blu-ray players? Which brands? Which models? OK, so you have it from a source you won't reveal that Sony has added hardware that, in the digital domain is boosting contrast, saturating color, and sharpening? OK. Well.. Maybe. I'll accept that could be true... But not until I see from a respected, objective source something to that effect. Somebody with an engineering background or that at least has some credibility in the area. Anybody with the expertise and the right equipment could certainly prove or disprove what you're saying.
Now to the serious issue: Assuming what you're suggesting about the players is true, then none of what's "fixed" by the mod is getting fixed by HD-SDI. HD-SDI is just the transport. So, it isn't HDMI that's broken - it's the PLAYER'S DESIGN you're fixing by bypassing something it! WTF does that have to do with HD-SDI vs HDMI? The answer is nothing. Therefore... say this with me... HD-SDI IS NO BETTER THAN HDMI FOR HT (in terms of PQ, of course).
In fact, this whole argument about HD-SDI vs. HDMI is stupid and misses the point. This thread is apparently about modding screwed-up players, not about HD-SDI vs. HDMI! Assuming proper implementation, the mod could have just as well used HDMI and not required processors or other equipment downstream that uses HD-SDI!!!!
| Gary M. wrote: | a good real world example:
BD30 via 1080p/2 4:2:2 HDMI into VP50pro requires -4 on the color setting on the pro for correct color output, BD30 via 1080p/24 4:2:2 HD-SDI requires +1 on the pro for correct color output, but what gives here? they are theoretically identical 4:2:2 outputs? is the VP50pro that much off between it's inputs or is there a difference in the HDMI and HD-SDI outputs from the BD30? you decice? as a long time beta tester for the pro I know the answer but I will just keep it too myself  |
Oh, Gary... This isn't an example of anything! What "gives" is that there are so many variables in those two examples that you don't have a damn CLUE what the difference is, nor what's causing it! With all due respect, you don't have the engineering background, the experience or the expensive test equipment to be able to quantitatively test and find that answer with ANY degree of certainty. Or, did you get your MSEE when none of us were looking?
When somebody can explain why a 4:2:2 HD-SDI connection between a source and a processor is better than HDMI IN TERMS OF PICTURE QUALITY, and WHY, I'll listen. I'm not saying anything is snake oil. I'm not saying no advantage exists. I'm not saying HD-SDI isn't more robust, more flexible, used by professionals, or is better overall. But, in terms of real picture quality, displaying 4:2:0 or 4:1:1 compressed AVC or VC-1 source material, if you're going to say HD-SDI holds some superior advantage, you're going to have to do better than describing some "veil" that's been lifted or throwing out seat-of-the pants impressions about it - because it doesn't make any sense.
Sorry for the long post.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | garyfritz wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | It dawned on me that one advantage of HD-SDI is cabling. ... RG6 is much more suited to endure the rigors of a commercial environment. |
And, in particular, the BNC connector used on HD-SDI is basically bombproof and easy to fix if damaged, whereas the HDMI connector is a bad joke. Fragile and non-repairable. |
Sure, but so what? How much abuse do you plan on subjecting your video cables and connectors to? Mine get zero abuse, and I mean ZERO. |
Fine. But you were talking about "enduring the rigors of a commercial environment." The HDMI connector design would never stand up to commercial use.
But even in a home environment, HDMI connectors are too damn fragile. See e.g.
http://www.straferight.com/forums/pc-hardware-software/176592-current-hdmi-ports-too-fragile.html
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=990043
...or any of the dozens of examples you can get by googling "fragile hdmi".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The ranks of the skeptics are growing! Even SC couldn't stand it anymore and had to throw his 2 cents in.
I think part of the problem is that many people assume that everything is hard to do, or can be done better. That only the expensive, esoteric gear will do the task right. Is it really that hard to imagine that HDMI is fully capable of accomplishing the task at hand? That maybe the task at hand is just not that hard to do? That nothing is to be gained by throwing more money at it?
You don't need a street sweeper to pick some bread crumbs. A small dust pan and whisk broom will do.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | garyfritz wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | It dawned on me that one advantage of HD-SDI is cabling. ... RG6 is much more suited to endure the rigors of a commercial environment. |
And, in particular, the BNC connector used on HD-SDI is basically bombproof and easy to fix if damaged, whereas the HDMI connector is a bad joke. Fragile and non-repairable. |
Sure, but so what? How much abuse do you plan on subjecting your video cables and connectors to? Mine get zero abuse, and I mean ZERO. |
Fine. But you were talking about "enduring the rigors of a commercial environment." The HDMI connector design would never stand up to commercial use. |
Gary that's exactly the point I was making in that post. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about.
Well I guess it can happen, but it's sure never happened to me, and I'm not cautious at all when plugging and unplugging HDMI cables. And poorly designed female inputs on SOME devices doesn't make the entire format bad. It only makes the inputs on THOSE devices bad.
I think I've owned 7 or 8 devices with HDMI inputs. No problems so far.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Gary that's exactly the point I was making in that post. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about. |
I think we're violently agreeing.  You said HDMI wouldn't stand up to commercial use; I said yup, especially the connectors; you said who cares, they don't get abuse in a home HT; I said um, weren't we talking about commercial use?
But -- speaking of home use now -- the fact that you've been lucky and haven't had any HDMI connectors fail doesn't make them reliable. Google for "fragile DVI" and all you'll see is comments about how DVI connectors are so much better than the "fragile HDMI" connectors. You don't hear about RCA connectors or BNC connectors or anything else crapping out all the time, but with HDMI connectors it's too common. Maybe HDMI is "good enough" for home use but a lot of people are having trouble with them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Give a valid technical reason why HS-SDI is better. |
very easy, overall technical reasons including PQ ones
1) HDCP insertion is processing whether you like it or not, simple fact, processing is processing
2) colorspace sampling and conversions on 90% of players, 4:4:4 HDMI vs 4:2:2 HD-SDI (BD30 Panny is the first BD player I have had in my hands that does 4:2:2 HDMI) again this is processing, processing is processing
3) bit errors in the HDMI signal, digital is digital but not without problems, all HDMI contains bit errors, HD-SDI does not in anyway, bit errors cause picture problems like noise and other degradation
4)direct pure digital signal from the decoder chip, bypassing all player processing including all the above including picture controls in some cases
5)highest end direct decoder feed to your scaler which is free from all processing that can be done inside the player, results in the best image for a scaler to work with
5)HDMI port is free for audio usage only (HDMI splitters cause further bit errors and just flat out don't work)
6)unamplified HDMI cables over 10 feet in some cases have problems, HD-SDI with Belden 1694a can be run 500 feet+
7)HDMI connectors break all the time, HD-SDI is a bulletproof BNC locking connector
8)processing of the HD-SDI signal in a device(scaler etc.) can all be done digitally and then output via RGBHV analog thru high-end D/A converters, no need for HDMI converters, add-on cards or etc.
9)most gear has superior PQ with a HD-SDI input versus the HDMI input route (scalers, processors, blendzilla, edge blenders etc.)
that is a decent start
-Gary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: |
If the video source is altering the HDMI signal, then you have a SOURCE problem, not an interface problem. Just buy better sources that don't do that. |
what did I just say, the quote I have from the blu-ray person is saying that all BD players are processing the HDMI output, not just Sony, sorry if I confused anyone with that statement, all BD stuff whether Pioneer or Panasonic or etc. is Sony in some form because it is their format, BD software and hardware overall people are Sony employed
-Gary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | EXACTLY, Athanasios.
I was going to jump into this discussion when it was only one or two pages, but stayed out. I have to jump in now.
| nomadII wrote: | | The fact that such a high % of the contributors here will claim sight unseen that "theoretically there should be no difference", also comical. |
Why is it comical? There is simply no data, no technical specifications, and no logical reason which would suggest that HD-SDI would hold any advantage whatsoever over HDMI in terms of picture quality in the HOME environment. None. Period. So, why is it comical for people to question the value? ESPECIALLY when somebody is hawking something.
If somebody here suggested that a Rolex duct-taped to the side of our projectors would improve image quality, we wouldn't all run and buy a Rolex to try it, without first asking why and how it improves anything! Most here would want to know by what mechanism the Rolex would improve the picture quality, and what sort of improvements to expect. We'd want to know before we went and spent money. It wouldn't be enough if it was just suggested, "But, you haven't seen it. You can't question it because you haven't seen it." The HD-SDI mod is similar, in that there's nothing whatsoever on paper that would indicate it would be better - I'll say it again - in terms of picture quality in the HOME environment - ESPECIALLY between source and processor.
Did you read the article? Could you point out what FACTS you're referring to that lead you to believe HD-SDI is any better for us in our HT setting (outside a better physical connection and no HDCP, that is)?
SC |
you ever had a privileged conversation with someone that said please don't tell anyone that I was the source? if you were in this position would you betray that trust and screw yourself from further info? no, either I am lying to sell HD-SDI players or I am not betraying this trust, take your pick 
you are flat out undeniably wrong with that statement, the proof is there, read my previous post for technical only reasons, this doesn't even include real world PQ
Mark is right, it is very comical, you guys are literally embarrassing yourself with every comment trying to explain away something that you don't understand in the least and don't want to for fear of improvement beyond what you have, I don't care if someone can't afford HD-SDI or doesn't want to pay for it, whether or not someone wants to see improvement before money is spent has nothing to do with the fact that something is better or not
-Gary
Last edited by Gary M. on Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
Oh, Gary... This isn't an example of anything! What "gives" is that there are so many variables in those two examples that you don't have a damn CLUE what the difference is, nor what's causing it! With all due respect, you don't have the engineering background, the experience or the expensive test equipment to be able to quantitatively test and find that answer with ANY degree of certainty. Or, did you get your MSEE when none of us were looking?
When somebody can explain why a 4:2:2 HD-SDI connection between a source and a processor is better than HDMI IN TERMS OF PICTURE QUALITY, and WHY, I'll listen. I'm not saying anything is snake oil. I'm not saying no advantage exists. I'm not saying HD-SDI isn't more robust, more flexible, used by professionals, or is better overall. But, in terms of real picture quality, displaying 4:2:0 or 4:1:1 compressed AVC or VC-1 source material, if you're going to say HD-SDI holds some superior advantage, you're going to have to do better than describing some "veil" that's been lifted or throwing out seat-of-the pants impressions about it - because it doesn't make any sense.
Sorry for the long post.
SC |
what doesn't make sense is your post
SC you are committing a genetic fallacy when you say I don't have a degree in EE(you are attacking me instead of my points of interest), I am presenting points that need to be addressed and you have done so in a illogical manner which means your entire post is worthless to a valid discussion on the subject, my origin on the subject (whether EE or not) has nothing to do with what I have stated or claim, you need to address that and not me to enter into a valid discussion that I have interest in commenting to
and for starters please address these in a intelligent manner:
1) HDCP insertion is processing whether you like it or not, simple fact, processing is processing
2) colorspace sampling and conversions on 90% of players, 4:4:4 HDMI vs 4:2:2 HD-SDI (BD30 Panny is the first BD player I have had in my hands that does 4:2:2 HDMI) again this is processing, processing is processing
3) bit errors in the HDMI signal, digital is digital but not without problems, all HDMI contains bit errors, HD-SDI does not in anyway, bit errors cause picture problems like noise and other degradation
4)direct pure digital signal from the decoder chip, bypassing all player processing including all the above including picture controls in some cases
5)highest end direct decoder feed to your scaler which is free from all processing that can be done inside the player, results in the best image for a scaler to work with
5)HDMI port is free for audio usage only (HDMI splitters cause further bit errors and just flat out don't work)
6)unamplified HDMI cables over 10 feet in some cases have problems, HD-SDI with Belden 1694a can be run 500 feet+
7)HDMI connectors break all the time, HD-SDI is a bulletproof BNC locking connector
8)processing of the HD-SDI signal in a device(scaler etc.) can all be done digitally and then output via RGBHV analog thru high-end D/A converters, no need for HDMI converters, add-on cards or etc.
9)most gear has superior PQ with a HD-SDI input versus the HDMI input route (scalers, processors, blendzilla, edge blenders etc.)
and please do list the variables in my comparison you said was bogus
-Gary
Last edited by Gary M. on Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:08 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary M. wrote: | HD-SDI is a bulletproof BNC locking connector
-Gary |
Yes, they even have a website.
http://www.bncbulletproof.com/home.html
I do question Gary that a BNC connector is truly bulletproof. Perhaps we can have Cliffy conduct a test with his glock. 
HDMI connector does suck, but I don't know it’s worth spending $3500 on a scaler and $1500 for an HD-SDI mod BD30 for some maybe just not me. My money would be much better spent upgrading my XG to a G90, even that I question right now, I have to be honest I think our CRT's have a somewhat limited practical life remaining. Most of us will succumb to digital within the next 5 years if not simply because our tube cost will not make it practical keeping them.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | | Gary M. wrote: | HD-SDI is a bulletproof BNC locking connector
-Gary |
Yes, they even have a website.
http://www.bncbulletproof.com/home.html
I do question Gary that a BNC connector is truly bulletproof. Perhaps we can have Cliffy conduct a test with his glock.
HDMI connector does suck, but I don't know it’s worth spending $3500 on a scaler and $1500 for an HD-SDI mod BD30 for some maybe just not me. My money would be much better spent upgrading my XG to a G90, even that I question right now, I have to be honest I think our CRT's have a somewhat limited practical life remaining. Most of us will succumb to digital within the next 5 years if not simply because our tube cost will not make it practical keeping them.
Mike |
I just got a new Glock 17 myself, I would be happy to try it, I bet money they would make it thru a direct shot 
money issue is certainly understood, unlike some people, I am glad you are not letting this taint your opinion as to whether or not HD-SDI is better
-Gary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emdawgz1
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 7949
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | Most of us will succumb to digital within the next 5 years if not simply because our tube cost will not make it practical keeping them.
Mike |
HERETIC!!!!
Burn the Heretic!!!! 
_________________
Follow my blog
www.thesinglebrother.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| emdawgz1 wrote: | | MikeEby wrote: | Most of us will succumb to digital within the next 5 years if not simply because our tube cost will not make it practical keeping them.
Mike |
HERETIC!!!!
Burn the Heretic!!!! |
LOL...I moved my projector closer to the screen to maximize my raster a few months ago and it uncovered a slight amount of wear on the green. It's only noticeable on all white image but it still bugs me. I think it’s nearly impossible to find XG tubes with OEM hard LC hardware installed & after hearing all the horror stories about glycol leaks I’m not sure that I am up for those headaches of a non-oem tube. I need to call VDC to find out what one will set me back even if I don't replace it right now.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | Gary that's exactly the point I was making in that post. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about. |
I think we're violently agreeing. |
That's funny! I'll have to borrow that.
| Quote: | | But -- speaking of home use now -- the fact that you've been lucky and haven't had any HDMI connectors fail doesn't make them reliable. Google for "fragile DVI" and all you'll see is comments about how DVI connectors are so much better than the "fragile HDMI" connectors. You don't hear about RCA connectors or BNC connectors or anything else crapping out all the time, but with HDMI connectors it's too common. Maybe HDMI is "good enough" for home use but a lot of people are having trouble with them. |
I did some Googling and AVS searching. I did find many mentions of broken HDMI, but many were in regard to HDMI not WORKING, not physically being damaged. The not working problem for the most part seems to be a thing of the past. You don't here many people complaining about that anymore.
I did read about the stress that large gage HDMI cables puts on the input jacks. That does make sense, and is definitely a negative. That I concede. And I do concede it's not the most rugged connector around. Just keep your hammer in the tool box and there shouldn't be any problems.
I still think it's just a question of being careful (even though I'm not). A lot of these people with problems claim they didn't do anything out of the ordinary when the input broke, and I'm sure for some that's true. But you how people can be. Some of them banged or stressed the input hard, and it's no surprise it broke. They just don't realize what they did or won't admit it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
