Post what's on your mind now

[carlsojos]

Uh... Every LCD I've seen has had every type of input you can put on a TV regardless of size- it's just that HDMI has significantly higher quality than, say, coaxial. I can't say the same thing about CRTS- I've only seen one that supports component input.

[Zucca]

Well. DVI and DisplayPort is the way to go. I also can use VGA with max. 1K resolution. Although it needs a good quality cable to transmit high resolution picture while preserving the picture quality.

[carlsojos]

I'm not fully versed in it, but if I heard correctly, except for the fact that one has audio and the other doesn't, HDMI and DVI is even cross-compatible with eachother with just an adapter to get the connectors to fit.

[BenoitRen]

it's just that HDMI has significantly higher quality than, say, coaxial.

That's a wildly inappropriate comparison.

Component and VGA are of high enouqh quality for 480i/p.

I'm not fully versed in it, but if I heard correctly, except for the fact that one has audio and the other doesn't, HDMI and DVI is even cross-compatible with eachother with just an adapter to get the connectors to fit.

The video part of the HDMI signal is electrically equivalent to DVI. More evidence that HDMI is stupid.

[carlsojos]

it's just that HDMI has significantly higher quality than, say, coaxial.

That's a wildly inappropriate comparison.

It is not. It is simply the largest difference between the various cable choices, and one of the only ones that supports out-of-stream data.

[BenoitRen]

It's exactly because it's the largest difference that it's wildly inappropriate.

[carlsojos]

Another reason why I chose coaxial as the closest comparison is that RCA, S-Video, and Component do not have bandwidth reserved for data, which is quite useful for a myriad of things since pictures aren't always the only thing that need to be communicated between devices.

[BenoitRen]

SCART does have bandwidth reserved for data. But unfortunately for you, America considered S-video adequate and never adopted it.

[carlsojos]

And thus, HDMI is the best choice for equipment here if you want an accurate image. Just don't be fooled by the salesman who insists that the $100 cable does better than the $20 one.

[BenoitRen]

No, the best choice would obviously be component.

[carlsojos]

Component has no way to communicate things like aspect ratio, it uses several cables that provide a chance to mis-wire it, and it really does have an inferior image quality.

[BenoitRen]

The image quality is barely 'inferior'. It's on par with VGA, basically. Plus, no DRM or different versions!

I'll give you the bit about there being no bandwidth for data on those cables, though I'm not sure it's much of a problem. Arguing that there's a chance to miswire it is silly, though. RTFM.

[carlsojos]

In, my experience, VGA absolutely sucks on TVs. It could just be the quality of the wires, but the colors tend to bleed a lot when I ran a VGA.

Also, the DRM has been cracked years ago.

[Zucca]

Seriously... ThunderBolt/DisplayPort anyone?

Oh and also: I use VGA instead of HDMI when connecting my laptop to my 1K display on my desktop. Colors may just barely bleed. The VGA Cable is 1m in length.
I used to use HDMI, but I needed that HDMI cable on my server. I bought a new one that didn't work with my laptop, but worked on my server. Sometime later I learned that I may have used wrong HDMI cable version... WTF... The problem in HDMI is the versioning. But I'll use it if I can get it working easily.

[carlsojos]

I've never had a problem with HDMI versions- though I only have relatively new equipment. Like I said, the problem could've been with the cable I used (Taken from a CRT monitor), but the color palette was also significantly off, too. Since I don't want to spend hours trying to tune in the adjustments, I let the TV talk to the laptop/PS3 and coordinate profiles. I also don't get tangled up in my 3.5mm cable since that thing loves to wrap itself around everything.