Is DVI really much better than component?

Discussion in 'Playback Devices' started by Andre Bijelic, Nov 12, 2003.

  1. Andre Bijelic

    Andre Bijelic Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2000
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm taking delivery of a DVI-input equipped set this week. I currently have the Pioneer 563 DVD player, but I might consider picking up the Samsung HD931 is the DVI output truly delivers a superior image.

    Incidentaly, my new set's a CRT=based rear projector.
     
  2. John Kotches

    John Kotches Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you have a fixed panel display (LCD, DLP, LCoS/D'ILA/SXRD) then almost certainly a DVI input would be best. Not 100%, but very close to it [​IMG]

    For CRT-based RPTVs it isn't quite as clear cut -- in most cases I suspect it will have a modest advantage in that the input would not need to perform an A/D conversion.

    Even component inputs are given an A/D conversion so that all processing can be done.

    So, whether DVI is better or not is going to depend on a few things:

    1) Quality of A/D conversion in RPTV
    2) Ability to access color decoder on DVI input to insure color accuracy.

    If 2) isn't true, then you might be better off with component.

    OTOH, if you are using a scaling DVD player, most require DVI output to watch the scaled image.

    Regards,
     
  3. Phil Nichols

    Phil Nichols Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2000
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    John,

    There is a detail in this whole DVI stampede that has been bugging me -

    At what point inside the player is the DVI taken from? I assume it's right after MPEG 2 decoding but before deinterlacing. If so aren't:

    A) ... you depending on the quality of the MPEG 2 decoding in the player, which as we know can vary in "quality" between players and is the subject of much discussion.

    B) ... you giving up any excellent deinterlacing (if you're interested in DVI 480p) in the player (Faroudja/SI) that may be superior to the deinterlacing done in your display device?

    In other words, why would I want DVI for my mega-buck fixed pixel display device unless I simultaneously had the best available decoding and deinterlacing to go with the DVI?
     
  4. Don Munsil

    Don Munsil Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2000
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    DVI actually has to be post-deinterlacing, because DVI is progressive-only. HDMI adds a 480i mode, but it's not widely used yet.

    Don
     
  5. Phil Nichols

    Phil Nichols Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2000
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don,

    Thanks a lot for the eye-opener. I would not have guessed that the DVI pick-off point was after the deinterlacer.

    This means the same old on-going discussions about quality of decoding, 3:2 pull-down, and deinterlacing are just as important for DVI players as pure analog players - I think?

    Then why so little mention of this in the discussions about DVI and how it "looks so good" on fixed-pixel displays, with very little or no mention of the usual artifacts, jaggies, chroma bug, combing, video/film mode-switching problems, etc., etc., that can result from mediocre MPEG decoding, 3:2 pull-down, and non-Faroudja/Silicon Image deinterlacing??

    For instance, does the D1 employ very good decoding, 3:2 pull-down detection, and deinterlacing?

    It seems like that whatever makes an analog video DVD player (discounting the VDAC's and video channel) have reference PQ is also what should be started with to make a great DVI player.

    I'm getting the impression that some newbies to DVI may think bits is bits and therefore any ole' DVI player will do.
     
  6. Levesque

    Levesque Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Phil.

    If you read Secrets report on the D1, they talk about his poor deinterlacing performance. DVI is just a transport, that's all. The D1 is a good scaler, but a really poor deinterlacer.

    I can quote Kris Deering from Secrets in a thread in HomeTheaterSpot talking about the DVI interface of the Bravo:


    ''The D1 uses a VERY poor de-interlacing solution that causes it to drop into video mode for VERY long periods of time. I had a D1 hooked to my projector for quite sometime and grew tired of the poor picture it produced compared to my RP82 or DVD-9000. You must have a good de-interlacer if you want excellent video performance.

    DVI is DVI that is true, but what you have to look at is DVI is nothing more then a transport system, just like component video. To say that all DVI players will be the same is like saying that all component players will be the same. In otherwords, absurd.

    The player is still going to do all the processing of the video signal including MPEG decoding, de-interlacing and scaling. The only thing that is bypassed is the DAC. And we all know that not all MPEG decoders, de-interlacers and scalers are the same.''


    So it's not true that bits are bits. Directly from an editor from Secrets. The Bravo is not the all end all. There will be better DVI players coming in the future. Like the Denon 5900 that is already giving a better picture then the Bravo using the DVI interface.

    If Denon could give us a player with only the DVI interface and video section of the 5900 w/o the analog audio section (at a much lower price), then we would have a really good and affordable digital player. I mean a player with only the DVI interface and the digital audio out, w/o the hi-rez format decoding parts.
     

Share This Page