HDMI or Component

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I have a Panasonic TH50PX500U, Denon DVD3910, Denon AVR-3805, and a Time
Warner HD box. Everything but the Denon AV receiver has an HDMI interface,
so I am running all the video via component cables so I can do all the
switching through the receiver. 1080i broadcasts through the component I/O
look stunning, I can't imagine they could get better, but I'm curious if
HDMI would be an improvement. Using it would require more manual component
input switching since it would take the Denon AVR out of the loop. Also, to
run both the DVD and the cable box on HDMI I'd need to physically switch the
cableIs because there is only one HDM input on the TV. Is any of this worth
the hassle?

KK


--
Kevin Killebrew
Lakehills Consulting, LP
512-263-1825
54 answers Last reply
More about hdmi component
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <V_oTe.240055$gL1.224502@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
    "Kevin Killebrew" <kkillebrew@austin.rr.com> wrote:

    > I have a Panasonic TH50PX500U, Denon DVD3910, Denon AVR-3805, and a
    > Time Warner HD box. Everything but the Denon AV receiver has an HDMI
    > interface, so I am running all the video via component cables so I
    > can do all the switching through the receiver. 1080i broadcasts
    > through the component I/O look stunning, I can't imagine they could
    > get better, but I'm curious if HDMI would be an improvement.

    I have a Denon receiver too, and have all my video routed through it,
    using the component in and out jacks. I used to run my HD DirecTV
    receiver directly with the HDMI cable.

    Although I did not A/B the outputs and am going strictly by memory, I
    couldn't tell any difference.

    Theoretically, HDMI should give a better picture because it avoids the
    digital to analog to digital conversion, but I can't see it.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Kevin Killebrew wrote:
    >
    > I have a Panasonic TH50PX500U, Denon DVD3910, Denon AVR-3805, and a Time
    > Warner HD box. Everything but the Denon AV receiver has an HDMI interface,
    > so I am running all the video via component cables so I can do all the
    > switching through the receiver. 1080i broadcasts through the component I/O
    > look stunning, I can't imagine they could get better, but I'm curious if
    > HDMI would be an improvement. Using it would require more manual component
    > input switching since it would take the Denon AVR out of the loop. Also, to
    > run both the DVD and the cable box on HDMI I'd need to physically switch the
    > cableIs because there is only one HDM input on the TV. Is any of this worth
    > the hassle?
    >
    > KK
    >
    > --
    > Kevin Killebrew
    > Lakehills Consulting, LP
    > 512-263-1825


    I'd say you are talking a simpler/consistent HDTV system operation

    vs a theoretically better HDTV picture..... with more remotes....

    Depending who in the Family has to 'operate' the HDTV system...

    the consistent Component cable set-up wins.....

    IF you have a 70" + set... HDMI may show better picture...

    If Family members can't get to their Programs.... Component wins.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Dennis Mayer wrote:
    > Kevin Killebrew wrote:
    >>
    >> I have a Panasonic TH50PX500U, Denon DVD3910, Denon AVR-3805, and a
    >> Time Warner HD box. Everything but the Denon AV receiver has an
    >> HDMI interface, so I am running all the video via component cables
    >> so I can do all the switching through the receiver. 1080i
    >> broadcasts through the component I/O look stunning, I can't imagine
    >> they could get better, but I'm curious if HDMI would be an
    >> improvement. Using it would require more manual component input
    >> switching since it would take the Denon AVR out of the loop. Also,
    >> to run both the DVD and the cable box on HDMI I'd need to physically
    >> switch the cableIs because there is only one HDM input on the TV.
    >> Is any of this worth the hassle?
    >>
    >> KK
    >>
    >> --
    >> Kevin Killebrew
    >> Lakehills Consulting, LP
    >> 512-263-1825
    >
    >
    > I'd say you are talking a simpler/consistent HDTV system operation
    >
    > vs a theoretically better HDTV picture..... with more remotes....
    >
    > Depending who in the Family has to 'operate' the HDTV system...
    >
    > the consistent Component cable set-up wins.....
    >
    > IF you have a 70" + set... HDMI may show better picture...
    >
    > If Family members can't get to their Programs.... Component wins.

    Harmony. It has saved my butt from the wrath of the wife and kids!!! Even
    Pops can use it.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    | Theoretically, HDMI should give a better picture because it avoids the
    | digital to analog to digital conversion, but I can't see it.

    It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway. So,
    unless there is some kind of extra conversion taking place, the choice
    between analog component input and HDMI input is more about where the
    digital to analog conversion actually takes place. Deferring conversion
    to the last possible stage is generally better, since that reduces the
    chance of signal distortion and noise that more easily affects analog.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  5. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    > <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    >
    > It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.

    Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
    know that it does or are you just speculating?

    >So,
    > unless there is some kind of extra conversion taking place, the choice
    > between analog component input and HDMI input is more about where the
    > digital to analog conversion actually takes place. Deferring conversion
    > to the last possible stage is generally better, since that reduces the
    > chance of signal distortion and noise that more easily affects analog.
    >
    > --
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
    > http://ham.org/ |
    > | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
    > http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    > news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    >
    >>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    >><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    >>
    >>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    >
    >
    > Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog?

    No reason.

    > Do you
    > know that it does or are you just speculating?

    Pontificating is more his style. If he did the slightest bit of research
    before he posted nonsense, he might not look like such a fool.

    Then again, he probably would.

    --
    Matthew

    "All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
    people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
    news:11hu4id6vnm3h76@corp.supernews.com...
    > Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    >> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    >> news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    >>><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    >>
    >>
    >> Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog?
    >
    > No reason.
    >
    >> Do you know that it does or are you just speculating?
    >
    > Pontificating is more his style. If he did the slightest bit of research
    > before he posted nonsense, he might not look like such a fool.
    >
    > Then again, he probably would.
    >
    > --
    > Matthew
    >
    > "All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
    > people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)

    You are not being helpful, Matthew. Let him respond to the question and
    either provide some useful info or learn something. Your attacks do nothing
    but add to the BS on the group and make you look foolish.

    Leonard
  8. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
    > news:11hu4id6vnm3h76@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    >>
    >>><phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    >>>><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog?
    >>
    >>No reason.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Do you know that it does or are you just speculating?
    >>
    >>Pontificating is more his style. If he did the slightest bit of research
    >>before he posted nonsense, he might not look like such a fool.
    >>
    >>Then again, he probably would.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Matthew
    >>
    >>"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
    >>people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
    >
    >
    > You are not being helpful, Matthew. Let him respond to the question and
    > either provide some useful info or learn something. Your attacks do nothing
    > but add to the BS on the group and make you look foolish.
    >

    You may be right, but I had the pointy sticks at the ready. I'll try to
    restrain myself, as he really is too easy a target. I really suspect you
    will not see an answer from him.

    --
    Matthew

    "All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
    people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
    |
    | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    |>
    |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    |
    | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
    | know that it does or are you just speculating?

    Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
    form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
    to analog conversion takes place.

    The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
    signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally cannot
    be corrected.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  10. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
    > |
    > | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    > | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    > |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    > |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    > |>
    > |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    > |
    > | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
    > | know that it does or are you just speculating?
    >
    > Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
    > form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
    > to analog conversion takes place.

    Do you really have to prove how stupid you are in _every_ post?

    > The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
    > signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally cannot
    > be corrected.

    Or, as it the case with most modern fixed pixel displays, RBG are not
    converted to analog _AT_ _ALL_. The effect of the light impinging on the
    retina does the mixing.

    OH, some of the better fixed pixel displays do convert luminance to
    analog in an attempt to be more linear at low output. It doesn't seem to
    work all that well, IME.

    --
    Matthew

    "All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
    people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
  11. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    news:dfngah49eg@news2.newsguy.com...
    > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
    > |
    > | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    > | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    > |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    > |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    > |>
    > |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    > |
    > | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
    > | know that it does or are you just speculating?
    >
    > Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
    > form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
    > to analog conversion takes place.

    I don't see why the eyes are relevant on this point. If the conversion to
    analog is sloppy it still looks bad. If extra conversions that are
    unnecessary are performed and the pix is corrupted or poorly processed, it
    still may look bad. What exactly are you trying to say?

    > The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
    > signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally cannot
    > be corrected.

    That is exactly my point. Why would the TH50PX500U convert it to analog?
    This statement seems contrary to your point in the post that I responded to.
    You never answered the question. Do you have some info that the TH50PX500U
    converts the signal to analog or are you just speculating?

    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
    > http://ham.org/ |
    > | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
    > http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That is exactly my point. Why would the TH50PX500U convert it to analog?
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Matthew L. Martin wrote:
    > Or, as it the case with most modern fixed pixel displays, RBG are not
    > converted to analog _AT_ _ALL_. The effect of the light impinging on the
    > retina does the mixing.

    Technologies like LCD and Plasma are analog at the per-pixel control level.

    Technologies like DLP are somewhat digital at the per-pixel level in that
    they
    use pulse width modulation to create luminance differences.

    Thomas Gilg
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "news.cup.hp.com" <thomasDELME_gilgDELME@hpDELME.com> wrote in message
    news:5pLTe.12078$Q66.638@news.cpqcorp.net...
    > Matthew L. Martin wrote:
    >> Or, as it the case with most modern fixed pixel displays, RBG are not
    >> converted to analog _AT_ _ALL_. The effect of the light impinging on the
    >> retina does the mixing.
    >
    > Technologies like LCD and Plasma are analog at the per-pixel control
    > level.
    >
    > Technologies like DLP are somewhat digital at the per-pixel level in that
    > they
    > use pulse width modulation to create luminance differences.
    >
    > Thomas Gilg

    Do you have some detail on these statements or some references?

    Leonard
  14. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:32:28 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
    |
    | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    | news:dfngah49eg@news2.newsguy.com...
    |> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
    |> |
    |> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    |> | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    |> |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    |> |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    |> |>
    |> |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    |> |
    |> | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do you
    |> | know that it does or are you just speculating?
    |>
    |> Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
    |> form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
    |> to analog conversion takes place.
    |
    | I don't see why the eyes are relevant on this point. If the conversion to
    | analog is sloppy it still looks bad. If extra conversions that are
    | unnecessary are performed and the pix is corrupted or poorly processed, it
    | still may look bad. What exactly are you trying to say?

    I can't say whether the D/A conversion in one unit is any better than the
    D/A conversion in another. I don't know the insides of either of these
    units you have.


    |> The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
    |> signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally cannot
    |> be corrected.
    |
    | That is exactly my point. Why would the TH50PX500U convert it to analog?
    | This statement seems contrary to your point in the post that I responded to.
    | You never answered the question. Do you have some info that the TH50PX500U
    | converts the signal to analog or are you just speculating?

    I don't have specific info. I don't own a TH50PX500U. I'm just describing
    basic systems, which with some logic, can show that in the average case, it
    is better for path to be digital as much as possible. If the TH50PX500U has
    something that effectively goofs that up, I don't know about it. I'd have
    to have such a unit and dig into it to see what is going on to really know
    (e.g. to do real research).

    I take it you really prefer to have answers from other TH50PX500U owners to
    see what their experiences are. In that case, I'll have to bow out.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  15. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Leonard Caillouet responded to Thomas Gilg with:
    > Do you have some detail on these statements or some references?

    Everyone gets wrapped up in whether the imaging pipeline and connectors are
    analog v. digital that I just wanted to jog everyone's brains into recalling
    (what I consider obvious) that at the pixel level, LCD and Plasma are
    driven/operated in an analog fashion. When you ask a pixel to do 50% of
    anything, the 50% is achieved via a corresponding voltage level, +/- some
    under and over driving to compensate for where the pixel has been or will be
    going over time. DLP and any other light value technologies which can slam
    to full on and full off many-many times per second (aka pulse width
    modulation) can build up the appearance of 50% by fast and controlled bursts
    of full-on light followed by full-off. On-Off-On-Off-... done say 10,000
    times in a second will look like 50%; On-Off-Off-Off-On-Off-Off-Off-...
    would yield 25%.

    Thomas Gilg
  16. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <Om%Te.12133$0E6.6018@news.cpqcorp.net>,
    "news.cup.hp.com" <thomasDELME_gilgDELME@hpDELME.com> wrote:

    > Everyone gets wrapped up in whether the imaging pipeline and connectors are
    > analog v. digital that I just wanted to jog everyone's brains into recalling
    > (what I consider obvious) that at the pixel level, LCD and Plasma are
    > driven/operated in an analog fashion.

    ALL of life is operated in an analog fashion.

    I love hearing terms like "digital quality!" My eyes see in analog, my
    ears hear in analog, my fingers feel in analog...so "digital speakers"
    simply tells me to stay away from that purely marketing-driven product.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    > ALL of life is operated in an analog fashion.
    >
    > I love hearing terms like "digital quality!" My eyes see in analog, my
    > ears hear in analog, my fingers feel in analog...so "digital speakers"
    > simply tells me to stay away from that purely marketing-driven product.


    And..."music" CD-ROM blanks.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    news:dfpt5r27i2@news1.newsguy.com...
    > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:32:28 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
    > |
    > | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    > | news:dfngah49eg@news2.newsguy.com...
    > |> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:02:56 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com>
    > wrote:
    > |> |
    > |> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    > |> | news:dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com...
    > |> |> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:38:57 -0700 Michelle Steiner
    > |> |> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
    > |> |>
    > |> |> It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    > |> |
    > |> | Why would a TH50PX500U convert the TMDS from the HDMI to analog? Do
    > you
    > |> | know that it does or are you just speculating?
    > |>
    > |> Your eyes are not digital, are there? It has to reach you in analog
    > |> form, regardless of which technology is involved, or where the digital
    > |> to analog conversion takes place.
    > |
    > | I don't see why the eyes are relevant on this point. If the conversion
    > to
    > | analog is sloppy it still looks bad. If extra conversions that are
    > | unnecessary are performed and the pix is corrupted or poorly processed,
    > it
    > | still may look bad. What exactly are you trying to say?
    >
    > I can't say whether the D/A conversion in one unit is any better than the
    > D/A conversion in another. I don't know the insides of either of these
    > units you have.

    If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
    statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
    started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.

    > |> The whole point is, the more the path is analog, the more exposure the
    > |> signal has to interference, distortion, and noise, that generally
    > cannot
    > |> be corrected.
    > |
    > | That is exactly my point. Why would the TH50PX500U convert it to
    > analog?
    > | This statement seems contrary to your point in the post that I responded
    > to.
    > | You never answered the question. Do you have some info that the
    > TH50PX500U
    > | converts the signal to analog or are you just speculating?
    >
    > I don't have specific info. I don't own a TH50PX500U. I'm just
    > describing
    > basic systems, which with some logic, can show that in the average case,
    > it
    > is better for path to be digital as much as possible. If the TH50PX500U
    > has
    > something that effectively goofs that up, I don't know about it. I'd have
    > to have such a unit and dig into it to see what is going on to really know
    > (e.g. to do real research).
    >
    > I take it you really prefer to have answers from other TH50PX500U owners
    > to
    > see what their experiences are. In that case, I'll have to bow out.

    You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
    unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful about
    what you post.

    > --
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
    > http://ham.org/ |
    > | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
    > http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  19. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:05:59 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:

    | If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
    | statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
    | started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.

    You think that having an analog connection does NOT expose you to some
    potential distortion, noise, and interference? People who have learned
    this stuff and known it for decades don't need to research to understand
    the obvious.


    | You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
    | unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful about
    | what you post.

    I suggest you just stick with digital connections. You do not appear to
    understand the limitations of analog and just want to bicker with anyone
    who tries to explain it to you.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  20. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:05:59 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
    >
    > | If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
    > | statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
    > | started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.
    >
    > You think that having an analog connection does NOT expose you to some
    > potential distortion, noise, and interference? People who have learned
    > this stuff and known it for decades don't need to research to understand
    > the obvious.

    You used the word "potential" in a place that counters the meaning you
    may intend to impart. Here is a hint "Potential != Actual".

    > | You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
    > | unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful about
    > | what you post.
    >
    > I suggest you just stick with digital connections. You do not appear to
    > understand the limitations of analog and just want to bicker with anyone
    > who tries to explain it to you.
    >

    HOWLS OF DIRISIVE LAUGHTER!!@!!!!

    --
    Matthew

    "All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
    people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
  21. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    You said that a particular set converts digital to analog. I asked if you
    had some information regarding this that I did not.

    Your post implied that it did not matter whether the signal was digital
    because the set converts it anyway.

    Now you want to lecture me on the value of digital connections? I never
    engaged that debate at all. I simply tried to find out if you knew
    something that I did not about the Panasonic PDPs. You then proceeded to
    atttack my understanding of the technology and to argue a point that your
    own post contradicted.

    If you want to play these games, look for someone else, but expect to first
    be called on your BS before I terminate the conversation.

    Look back to the posts and see if you can figure out what I was asking and
    find where I said that an analog connection does not afford potential for
    distorting the signal. It is simply not there.

    Leonard

    <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    news:dfsb0r21mtl@news3.newsguy.com...
    > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:05:59 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
    >
    > | If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
    > | statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
    > | started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.
    >
    > You think that having an analog connection does NOT expose you to some
    > potential distortion, noise, and interference? People who have learned
    > this stuff and known it for decades don't need to research to understand
    > the obvious.
    >
    >
    > | You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
    > | unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful
    > about
    > | what you post.
    >
    > I suggest you just stick with digital connections. You do not appear to
    > understand the limitations of analog and just want to bicker with anyone
    > who tries to explain it to you.
    >
    > --
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
    > http://ham.org/ |
    > | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
    > http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  22. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    news:dfsb0r21mtl@news3.newsguy.com...
    > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:05:59 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
    >
    > | If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
    > | statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
    > | started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.
    >
    > You think that having an analog connection does NOT expose you to some
    > potential distortion, noise, and interference? People who have learned
    > this stuff and known it for decades don't need to research to understand
    > the obvious.
    >
    >
    > | You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
    > | unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful
    > about
    > | what you post.
    >
    > I suggest you just stick with digital connections. You do not appear to
    > understand the limitations of analog and just want to bicker with anyone
    > who tries to explain it to you.
    >
    > --
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
    > http://ham.org/ |
    > | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
    > http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Unbelievable. Why don't you go do some research on "GOING AWAY"?!
  23. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > You said that a particular set converts digital to analog. I asked if you
    > had some information regarding this that I did not.
    >
    > Your post implied that it did not matter whether the signal was digital
    > because the set converts it anyway.
    >
    > Now you want to lecture me on the value of digital connections? I never
    > engaged that debate at all. I simply tried to find out if you knew
    > something that I did not about the Panasonic PDPs. You then proceeded to
    > atttack my understanding of the technology and to argue a point that your
    > own post contradicted.
    >
    > If you want to play these games, look for someone else, but expect to first
    > be called on your BS before I terminate the conversation.
    >
    > Look back to the posts and see if you can figure out what I was asking and
    > find where I said that an analog connection does not afford potential for
    > distorting the signal. It is simply not there.
    >

    I knew it would only be a matter of time. phil-news appears to get off
    pontificating on usenet. Yawn! Him and few 10s of thousands of others.
    You have given him more than enough opportunity to actually post
    something useful but he followed his muse.

    By the way, great use of top posting. This is one of the very few times
    in which top posting can be correctly used.

    --
    Matthew

    "All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
    people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
  24. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
    news:11i3f35p6nb4ib4@corp.supernews.com...
    > Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    >> You said that a particular set converts digital to analog. I asked if
    >> you had some information regarding this that I did not.
    >>
    >> Your post implied that it did not matter whether the signal was digital
    >> because the set converts it anyway.
    >>
    >> Now you want to lecture me on the value of digital connections? I never
    >> engaged that debate at all. I simply tried to find out if you knew
    >> something that I did not about the Panasonic PDPs. You then proceeded to
    >> atttack my understanding of the technology and to argue a point that your
    >> own post contradicted.
    >>
    >> If you want to play these games, look for someone else, but expect to
    >> first be called on your BS before I terminate the conversation.
    >>
    >> Look back to the posts and see if you can figure out what I was asking
    >> and find where I said that an analog connection does not afford potential
    >> for distorting the signal. It is simply not there.
    >>
    >
    > I knew it would only be a matter of time. phil-news appears to get off
    > pontificating on usenet. Yawn! Him and few 10s of thousands of others. You
    > have given him more than enough opportunity to actually post something
    > useful but he followed his muse.
    >
    > By the way, great use of top posting. This is one of the very few times in
    > which top posting can be correctly used.
    >
    > --
    > Matthew
    >
    > "All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
    > people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)

    I know, you all warned me...

    Thank you, Matthew.

    You see Phil, Matthew can be civil and gracious. I could have taken his
    comment as baiting, given that he is well aware of my preference fo top
    posting and that I bottom post mostly in this group because most people
    prefer it here. I did not. We have had healthy debates, but do show each
    other respect. We also read the posts and respond to what is actually said,
    not some dream state.

    Leonard
  25. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Leonard Caillouet (no@noway.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > I know, you all warned me...

    Well, it had to happen sometime. He seems to want to contradict everything
    here.

    > Thank you, Matthew.
    >
    > I did not. We have had healthy debates, but do show each
    > other respect.

    Agreed. I know I've been over the top lately, but after 30-40 posts of
    trying to be helpful but getting passive aggressive responses, I finally
    blew.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/GutterBall.gif
  26. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:26:44 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
    | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    |> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:05:59 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
    |>
    |> | If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
    |> | statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
    |> | started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.
    |>
    |> You think that having an analog connection does NOT expose you to some
    |> potential distortion, noise, and interference? People who have learned
    |> this stuff and known it for decades don't need to research to understand
    |> the obvious.
    |
    | You used the word "potential" in a place that counters the meaning you
    | may intend to impart. Here is a hint "Potential != Actual".

    Installed and protected properly, with good shielded cable, and good
    interface circuits on each end, with correct impedance matching, then
    the potential for problems will not be realized. Otherwise it is a
    matter of degree.


    |> | You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
    |> | unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful about
    |> | what you post.
    |>
    |> I suggest you just stick with digital connections. You do not appear to
    |> understand the limitations of analog and just want to bicker with anyone
    |> who tries to explain it to you.
    |>
    |
    | HOWLS OF DIRISIVE LAUGHTER!!@!!!!

    Well, at least you can be entertained.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  27. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:06:12 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:

    | I know, you all warned me...
    |
    | Thank you, Matthew.
    |
    | You see Phil, Matthew can be civil and gracious. I could have taken his
    | comment as baiting, given that he is well aware of my preference fo top
    | posting and that I bottom post mostly in this group because most people
    | prefer it here. I did not. We have had healthy debates, but do show each
    | other respect. We also read the posts and respond to what is actually said,
    | not some dream state.

    Maybe he can be civil and gracious. But "can" does not mean he actually
    does. And he has not ever been so here, with any postings of mine. Lots
    of other people have disagreed with me before on many matters, but they
    do not act uncivil as Matthew (and Jeff) did. If you think I am wrong,
    just point at specifically what is wrong. I'll do the same. If we don't
    end up liking each other's answer, we should simply just drop it and
    leave it civil.

    But if I get attacked personally, I will respond in kind.

    As for top posting vs. bottom posting, I prefer bottom posting, but I
    can live with top posting. But if you top post, I'll skip reading the
    article enclosed unless you also say there are some inserted comments
    therein. So if you top post _and_ bottom post in the same post, please
    do say so, so things are not missed (I'm not accusing you of having
    done that).

    You obviously had a different perspective in this thread, focusing on the
    particulars of a given model, whereas my perspective is focusing on the use
    of analog vs. digital connections. Digital is always better than analog
    in general, but very innovative engineers can manage to totally screw up
    either.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  28. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    news:dfsjg9123jq@news2.newsguy.com...
    > You obviously had a different perspective in this thread, focusing on the
    > particulars of a given model, whereas my perspective is focusing on the
    > use
    > of analog vs. digital connections. Digital is always better than analog
    > in general, but very innovative engineers can manage to totally screw up
    > either.


    I asked a simple question in response to your post. The question was very
    clear and simple. You did not answer it and you went on to argue the above
    point, which the post that you made that I questioned actually contradicted.
    You are being obtuse and argumentative. I have criticized Jeff and Matthew
    for their hositle attitude toward you, but I am beginning to see why they
    got so frustrated. Enough. I will not respond on the matter any further.

    Leonard
  29. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:17:19 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:
    | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    | news:dfsb0r21mtl@news3.newsguy.com...
    |> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:05:59 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@no.com> wrote:
    |>
    |> | If you don't know, then pose a question or do some research. Making
    |> | statements that are just speculation can mislead people and get ideas
    |> | started that can affect the understanding others have of the technology.
    |>
    |> You think that having an analog connection does NOT expose you to some
    |> potential distortion, noise, and interference? People who have learned
    |> this stuff and known it for decades don't need to research to understand
    |> the obvious.
    |>
    |>
    |> | You made a statement in response to a post about this unit that seemed
    |> | unlikely, based on my knowledge. If you don't know, be more careful
    |> about
    |> | what you post.
    |>
    |> I suggest you just stick with digital connections. You do not appear to
    |> understand the limitations of analog and just want to bicker with anyone
    |> who tries to explain it to you.
    |>
    |> --
    |> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    |> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
    |> http://ham.org/ |
    |> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
    |> http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    |> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    |
    |
    | Unbelievable. Why don't you go do some research on "GOING AWAY"?!

    Maybe I'll do some research on making you go away. I'll reserve about
    5 minutes of time for that.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  30. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > | Unbelievable. Why don't you go do some research on "GOING AWAY"?!
    >
    > Maybe I'll do some research on making you go away. I'll reserve about
    > 5 minutes of time for that.

    Hopefully, even you can understand that it's not just a couple of people who
    see how moronic you are.

    You are welcome here if you can post intelligently and not assume you know
    more than every person here. Otherwise, please go away. We could killfile
    you, but then unsuspecting newbies might see your drivel and believe it is
    true.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/UserFriendly/SPAMOurCustomers.gif
  31. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:29:53 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
    |
    | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
    | news:dfsjg9123jq@news2.newsguy.com...
    |> You obviously had a different perspective in this thread, focusing on the
    |> particulars of a given model, whereas my perspective is focusing on the
    |> use
    |> of analog vs. digital connections. Digital is always better than analog
    |> in general, but very innovative engineers can manage to totally screw up
    |> either.
    |
    |
    | I asked a simple question in response to your post. The question was very
    | clear and simple. You did not answer it and you went on to argue the above
    | point, which the post that you made that I questioned actually contradicted.
    | You are being obtuse and argumentative. I have criticized Jeff and Matthew
    | for their hositle attitude toward you, but I am beginning to see why they
    | got so frustrated. Enough. I will not respond on the matter any further.

    What I posted about and what you posted about were on different divergent
    paths for the original question. But I guess I could not make it clear to
    you the scope of what I was talking about.

    All they had to do was actually read what I posted. Typically about 1% of
    Usenet readers post w/o reading. Seems to be a much higher percentage in
    the "alt" groups.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  32. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
    wrote:

    > | Theoretically, HDMI should give a better picture because it avoids
    > | the digital to analog to digital conversion, but I can't see it.
    >
    > It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.

    Does it with DLP? The signal flips mirrors; so each mirror has an on
    and an off state, so they're binary. Where does the analog come in?
    I'm not trying to be sarcastic; if there is an analog portion of the
    signal path, I'm curious as to where it is because I thought it was
    digital all the way with HDMI.

    -- Michelle

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:05:32 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
    | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    |> | Unbelievable. Why don't you go do some research on "GOING AWAY"?!
    |>
    |> Maybe I'll do some research on making you go away. I'll reserve about
    |> 5 minutes of time for that.
    |
    | Hopefully, even you can understand that it's not just a couple of people who
    | see how moronic you are.

    I will admit that THIS newsgroup has more of you idiots than any other
    single newsgroup I have participated in, with the sole exception of one of
    the anti-spam newsgroups that gets frequented by spammers and dummies who
    let spammers use their networks and wonder why thousands of other networks
    block them. But none of them have been so persistent about saying things
    you know nothing about as you (and Matt). And that is how all of this
    started: YOU made a statement that was factually incorrect, and for which
    you have no way of knowing the facts because you simply were never here to
    observe them. And then you are doing the same thing all over again about
    my monitor. You have absolutely no basis to say it cannot have happened
    because you simply were not here.


    | You are welcome here if you can post intelligently and not assume you know
    | more than every person here. Otherwise, please go away. We could killfile
    | you, but then unsuspecting newbies might see your drivel and believe it is
    | true.

    I suggest you limit your posts to things you actually know and see, not
    things you figure out using the wrong formula and never validate for
    yourself by actual testing.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  34. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    >
    > [troll posting snipped]
    >

    Please don't feed the troll.

    phil-news-nospam@ipal.net will post on any subject, even if he has no
    clue about it.

    He has been corrected numerous times by a wide variety of other posters,
    yet continues to post nonsense.

    He will also ask you to do his research for you, then get mad when you
    don't do it in the way he wanted you to.

    Just ignore him, and he will eventually go away.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/TractorBeam.jpg
  35. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > In article <dfmv1d631fa@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>| Theoretically, HDMI should give a better picture because it avoids
    >>| the digital to analog to digital conversion, but I can't see it.
    >>
    >>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    >
    >
    > Does it with DLP? The signal flips mirrors; so each mirror has an on
    > and an off state, so they're binary. Where does the analog come in?
    > I'm not trying to be sarcastic; if there is an analog portion of the
    > signal path, I'm curious as to where it is because I thought it was
    > digital all the way with HDMI.
    >

    Don't bother with this troll. He has demonstrated time and again that he
    knows little to nothing about the subjects that he posts on. He has been
    corrected, many times, by many people. It appears that his sole purpose
    in posting here is to make himself feel important. He is wrong in this
    case, as he almost always is.

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  36. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <11i5kosopkhc201@corp.supernews.com>,
    "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

    > >>| Theoretically, HDMI should give a better picture because it
    > >>| avoids the digital to analog to digital conversion, but I can't
    > >>| see it.
    > >>
    > >>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
    > >
    > >
    > > Does it with DLP? The signal flips mirrors; so each mirror has an
    > > on and an off state, so they're binary. Where does the analog come
    > > in? I'm not trying to be sarcastic; if there is an analog portion
    > > of the signal path, I'm curious as to where it is because I thought
    > > it was digital all the way with HDMI.
    > >
    >
    > Don't bother with this troll. He has demonstrated time and again that
    > he knows little to nothing about the subjects that he posts on. He
    > has been corrected, many times, by many people. It appears that his
    > sole purpose in posting here is to make himself feel important. He is
    > wrong in this case, as he almost always is.

    Oh. OK. But is my impression of the digital path correct? I guess
    that one could say that the light itself is analog, so at the point when
    the light is reflected off the mirror, the signal becomes analog.
    (Before the light is reflected off the mirror, the light isn't carrying
    a signal, so its state is not a determining factor at that point.)

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > Oh. OK. But is my impression of the digital path correct?

    Yes, it is.

    DLP is digital from the HDMI/DVI input all the way to the mirrors. As you
    say, only the constant-brightness light is analog (but don't get me started
    on quantum theory, which says that light is actually digital at the very
    basic particle structure). The light is controlled by the mirrors using a
    digital technique (they either reflect toward the viewer or they don't).

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Peanuts/TenPin.gif
  38. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michelle Steiner wrote:

    >
    > Oh. OK. But is my impression of the digital path correct? I guess
    > that one could say that the light itself is analog, so at the point when
    > the light is reflected off the mirror, the signal becomes analog.
    > (Before the light is reflected off the mirror, the light isn't carrying
    > a signal, so its state is not a determining factor at that point.)
    >

    Well, in the strictest sense there are no digital signals. but that is
    another story.

    In almost all cases for fixed pixel displays the final drive is pulse
    width modulation of either voltage of current. Most would agree that
    this a a analog signal in that a numerical value is translated into a
    pulse width. It is not analog in the sense that there is no single
    output for each color as in digital to RGB. There is a conversion for
    each element of each color triad but that conversion is independent of
    the value for horizontally adjacent triads. In the classic sense of a
    D/A conversion horizontally adjacent triad values are filtered to
    provide a signal that sweeps from one value to the next.

    I hope this helps.

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  39. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <11i8potd2he1l17@corp.supernews.com>,
    "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

    > In almost all cases for fixed pixel displays the final drive is pulse
    > width modulation of either voltage of current. Most would agree that
    > this a a analog signal in that a numerical value is translated into a
    > pulse width. It is not analog in the sense that there is no single
    > output for each color as in digital to RGB. There is a conversion for
    > each element of each color triad but that conversion is independent
    > of the value for horizontally adjacent triads. In the classic sense
    > of a D/A conversion horizontally adjacent triad values are filtered
    > to provide a signal that sweeps from one value to the next.
    >
    > I hope this helps.

    If I had the background to understand it, I'm sure it would have helped.
    Last time I heard anything about pulse width modulation was in
    connection with the Nike Missile guidance system in the 1960s--and all I
    recall about that now is that it used pulse width modulation.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d8e2babc33f389989fa5@news.nabs.net>,
    Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

    > > Oh. OK. But is my impression of the digital path correct?
    >
    > Yes, it is.
    >
    > DLP is digital from the HDMI/DVI input all the way to the mirrors.
    > As you say, only the constant-brightness light is analog (but don't
    > get me started on quantum theory, which says that light is actually
    > digital at the very basic particle structure).

    I almost got into that in my reply, but figured that it would only
    confuse things.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <03b9i1t9k3b747pkvr0rip780avtuj1oaa@4ax.com>,
    akjack@excite.com wrote:

    > Are you sure Michelle Steiner is a "she"?

    I don't know whether he is sure or not, but I'm sure that I'm a "she."

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:09:21 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

    | You have a small problem with your credibility. Michelle has been around
    | about as long as we have. She is more than capable of deciding whom she
    | wishes to beleive.

    It's more for the newbies that don't yet know of your history of harassment.


    | Moron.

    It's a pathologic compulsion you have to persist in making attacks on
    people rather than actually discuss the real topic.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  43. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:09:21 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
    >
    > | You have a small problem with your credibility. Michelle has been around
    > | about as long as we have. She is more than capable of deciding whom she
    > | wishes to beleive.
    >
    > It's more for the newbies that don't yet know of your history of harassment.
    >
    >
    > | Moron.
    >
    > It's a pathologic compulsion you have to persist in making attacks on
    > people rather than actually discuss the real topic.
    >

    Start saying anything that isn't moronic.

    Moron.

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  44. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:23:01 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
    | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    |> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:09:21 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
    |>
    |> | You have a small problem with your credibility. Michelle has been around
    |> | about as long as we have. She is more than capable of deciding whom she
    |> | wishes to beleive.
    |>
    |> It's more for the newbies that don't yet know of your history of harassment.
    |>
    |>
    |> | Moron.
    |>
    |> It's a pathologic compulsion you have to persist in making attacks on
    |> people rather than actually discuss the real topic.
    |>
    |
    | Start saying anything that isn't moronic.

    If you were not so blinded, you might see that I have. But for people like
    you and Jeff, it's not really worth the time to say much.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  45. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:23:01 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
    > | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    > |> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:09:21 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
    > |>
    > |> | You have a small problem with your credibility. Michelle has been around
    > |> | about as long as we have. She is more than capable of deciding whom she
    > |> | wishes to beleive.
    > |>
    > |> It's more for the newbies that don't yet know of your history of harassment.
    > |>
    > |>
    > |> | Moron.
    > |>
    > |> It's a pathologic compulsion you have to persist in making attacks on
    > |> people rather than actually discuss the real topic.
    > |>
    > |
    > | Start saying anything that isn't moronic.
    >
    > If you were not so blinded, you might see that I have. But for people like
    > you and Jeff, it's not really worth the time to say much.
    >

    When? Where? Certainly not on this newsgroup.

    Moron,

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  46. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:38:58 GMT Phil Ross <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:

    | I think that the great irony with this guy is that I don't think that he
    | (Phil Howard) even has an HDTV. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I swear that he
    | posted that he doesn't even have a High Def set. Now, that doesn't
    | necessarily disqualify a person from posting in a forum such as this, but it
    | would be helpful if he actually had anything substantive or useful to post,
    | or was actually attempting to find information.

    No, I do not have an HDTV.

    I have made inquiries regarding things more associated with DTV than HDTV.
    But given the structure of the newsgroups, there is no one group focused
    exactly on digital broadcasting. This HDTV group would in theory overlap
    into DTV, since for OTA HDTV, DTV is involved. There is a digital video
    newsgroup, but that can overlap into other things like Firewire video, and
    was not, at the time, very busy.

    When I first asked some questions, Jeff Rife jumped to some conclusion
    about what I said, and got it wrong. So therefore he thought I should
    be looking for one thing, when in fact I was looking for something else.
    But before that misunderstanding could be resolved, he switched into
    his "personal attack" mode, which basically negated any possibility of
    a civil discussion with him. Matthew Martin later jumped in with like
    attacks, and a couple other people have taken pot shots. ALL of them
    are no longer considered valid resources for information here or in any
    other newsgroup, website, or email. I'll never know if information they
    might provide in future inquiries is meant to inform or confuse, since
    I would never be able to trust their motives.

    I do know that in many newsgroups, newbies to that group often get the
    third degree. But aside from one anti-spam group, I've never seen it
    any worse than here. In that anti-spam group, I'm not the newbie, and
    have to sometimes try to get some of the other regulars to settle down.


    | I suppose that once Wheeling WV gets more than one digital station, old Phil
    | might break down and get himself a digital set.

    Actually, I get Pittsburgh better, given the location on the east side of
    the hill. So when I do get DTV capability, that should give me channels
    25, 42, 43, 48, and 51. But I hope to relocate to a higher location before
    that happens, so I can get even more. I do know that channel 7 here has
    elected to stay on 7 (giving up channel 32). As for channel 9, there is
    choice in first round elections, and they can't stay on channel 57. I do
    imagine they might stay on 9, but I would have suspected that would show
    up in the first round. The other 2 channels in town are low power and not
    on digital, yet.

    Getting a digital set depends on what becomes available. I have these
    current desires:

    1. A portable TV, about 7 inch to 12 inch in size. It must receive digital
    so that it is not obsolete in 4 years (since an STB is not practical for
    a portable TV). It does NOT need to have HD (not very useful at this
    size), but it must be able to handle and display all ATSC formats. This
    CAN be in black-and-white. Screen ratio can be either 4:3 or 16:9.

    2. A home TV. I do NOT want a big screen TV. But I do want this one to
    be HD and 16:9. Using a separate STB for tuning is certainly an option
    in this case. This should be CRT technology as I don't think LCD is
    going to be very good at this size for HD. I once saw a 16:9 CRT based
    computer monitor. I think Sony made it. I guess it didn't make it in
    the market, otherwise it might have been adaptable (but probably no HDCP).
    The size I want is 16 to 20 inches. I expect at least HDMI or DVI input
    with HDCP support. NTSC composite in for SD analog is a big plus, too.
    Analog component in is also a plus.

    3. A computer tuner. This is more of a special case project. I want one
    that provides the raw bit stream or transport stream unchanged (after
    RF is downconverted, channel filtered and demodulated, trellis decoded,
    and FEC/RS error correction). While Jeff has claimed every tuner will
    do this, other people (in computer newsgroups and by email) have said
    that relatively few have the capability and are limited most to those
    that do the ATSC work in software. I want a corresponding modulator,
    too.

    4. I'm also looking for a PCI card that includes a DV codec built in and
    does baseband video I/O. For input, the software would get DV frames
    as blocks of 120000 (for NTSC) bytes. For output, the same format would
    be written out to the device. I could use a Canopus ADVC-110 or the like
    via Firewire, but I'd rather have a PCI card for this. It needs Linux
    capability. It could, in theory, have Firewire on board with video, and
    just use the normal Firewire drivers. I have found ONE card that does
    this (w/o Firewire emulation) but it is way expensive since it also
    does tons of other stuff for broadcast applications: Skymicro Merlin05.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  47. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:15:54 GMT akjack@excite.com wrote:

    | Are you sure Michelle Steiner is a "she"?

    No. But someone mentioned that before, so I just presumed as much.
    Even if they had not, I would have probably assumed that anyway.
    A girlfriend from the early 1980's was named Michelle, and that does
    influence perceptions.

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
    | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  48. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    akjack@excite.com wrote:

    >
    > Are you sure Michelle Steiner is a "she"?

    Sure? No.

    All of the males I have known in my life with that name have spelled it
    "Michel". All of the females I have know with that name have spelled it
    "Michelle". YMMV

    Matthew (not that it matters to me in any way)

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  49. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <Om%Te.12133$0E6.6018@news.cpqcorp.net>,
    news.cup.hp.com <thomasDELME_gilgDELME@hpDELME.com> wrote:
    >
    >Everyone gets wrapped up in whether the imaging pipeline and connectors are
    >analog v. digital that I just wanted to jog everyone's brains into recalling
    >(what I consider obvious) that at the pixel level, LCD and Plasma are
    >driven/operated in an analog fashion. When you ask a pixel to do 50% of
    >anything, the 50% is achieved via a corresponding voltage level, +/- some
    >under and over driving to compensate for where the pixel has been or will be
    >going over time.

    True, however, also bear in mind that the LCD screens are driven by
    selecting a column of the screen and driving a whole row of pixels at a
    time. This actually happens a lot more often than the nominal refresh
    rate of the source, and is stored in a digital buffer up to that point.

    So, whilst the pixels themselves are analog, it's very late in the game
    that that happens, and it certainly doesn't make sense for the signal to
    come in via an analog input and then through an ADC first if you can
    avoid it.

    Granted, most LCD screens do have very good ADCs and you probably won't
    actually notice the difference anyway, but personally, I'd always rather
    keep as much in the digital domain as I can help. Therefore, I'd always
    recommend HDMI or DVI over component, where available.

    Ralf
    --
    Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
    www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV Components HDMI Home Theatre