sAxman_Returns said:
newbies? then it doesn't really matter to them, even if there is a SLIGHT difference.
the key thing is the length........I deal with industrial PC, VGA vs DVI, why DVI is better? coz it can travel longer, and coz it's running on Digital Signal (not the DVI analogue version). And when the distance is very long(still, subjective to scenarios), the better the "insulation" of the cable, the better "efficiency" the cable, you get "better" output. However, the 1-5% improvement in video output may not be important at all.
What you observe is exactly what would happen, DVI and HDMI use the same digital signalling technology called TMDS (Transition Minimized Differential Signalling).
VGA uses an analog RGBHV video signal (similar to component cables).
All cables when they become very long, are susceptible to electromagnetic interference or "noise", and the gradual weakening of the signal strength. The better the cable's shielding or "insulation", the better it can withstand the electromagnetic interference. The better the cable's "efficiency", the better it can preserve the strength of the signal it is carrying.
For analog signals, the longer the cable gets, the more the picture quality degrades *gradually* (it becomes less sharp, there is visible noise or shadowing in the picture).
For digital signals, the longer the cable gets, the higher the chance that the receiving end will not be able to receive the digital signal without any corruption of the data. If the digital signal is not degraded more than a certain threshold, then the receiver will be able to show the video perfectly clearly as if the cable was short. Past a certain threshold of interference, the picture quality suddenly becomes a lot worse (lots of noise in the picture, or corruption of picture, or picture sometimes on and off). Then past another threshold of interference, there will be no picture at all.
This is not based on personal opinion or conjecture, but is based on electronics and physics. I guess the point I would like to make is - dont eagerly go spending huge amounts of money on "premiere" HDMI cables, when based on science, it will probably make no difference to the picture quality. Still, I havent found any definitive A-B tests and I certainly have no expensive HDMI cable to compare with the "cheap" one that I use.
Still, as Peter mentioned, this being a public forum, dont take what I say as being the ultimate truth but rather follow up on it with research on your own - if you are interested that is.
Suffice to say, even a cheap HDMI cable will be able to transmit all of the 1920x1080 pixels at 24/50/60 Hz and the full bits per color. This you can easily test by running some sort of resolution test, like this:
Assuming you have a full hd 1920x1080 TV/monitor, and you have configured it to match the output from HDMI pixel-to-pixel (i.e. you turned off overscan on the TV), you should be able to resolve each and every line individually and they should not "blend" together in any way. The slight "blending" and "rainbow effect" in the picture is due to the camera's resolution.
As long as you dun get monster cable then it's good enough... But i also have one qns on the HDMI cable... Is it necessary to get HDMI 1.3 complimant??? Need advise from gurus here...
