Do you mean DVI?
15 responses Add your response
Faroudja DCDi is de-interlacing technology. HDMI is type of connection between display and TV. DCDi and HDMI almost always go together.
Perhaps more interesting comparison would be DCDi vs Anchor Bay VRS technology. DCDi was highly touted in 90's and early 2000. The highest rated de-interlacing technology today is Anchor Bay.
Mantaraydesign, if you are concerned about DVD picture quality as indicated by the original post, you are probably better off getting one of the Oppo's, which is cheaper and probably better in terms of picture quality. Bob, let me dodge the question by changing my earlier statement to "one of the" highest rated de-interlacing technology today is Anchor Bay.
As best as I know, DVI-D and HDMI are merely two types of interfaces which can support HD video... DVI-D IS OR WAS AN INITIAL UPGRADE OVER COMPONNET, ALLOWING FOR hd CONTENT PROTECTION. hdmi IN IT'S LATEST ITTERATION ALLOWS FOR HD AUDIO AND VIDEO FORMAT TRANSMISSION.
Either will or should allow for the same video resolutions to be recreated on a display.
There are also adapters which convert DVI-D to HDMI... albeit only the video info is passed along that sort of device.
DVI also can be another interface which allows for HD video content transmisson. I use an adapter on a DVI connetor, and on a DVI-D to convert to HDMI interface. On my radeon HD 4870 I get the audio (HDMI 1.3) with the Nvidea FX 5300 i ONLY GET THE VIDEO INFO.
Video performance in either is first rate.
Go with HDMI 1.3 or later as the output if possible. It's far more cost effective and quite hard to surpaass performancewise too... there are other options inherent to HDMI as well.
I'd think there are adapters which convert HDMI to DVI-D, or DVI too if the situation requires it.
I have another comparison. Which video quality looks better, HDMI Cable or Component Video Cable connection direct to my TV? I have been using my DVD player using Component Video cable and the video quality on my TV is quite good.
I am just thinking if I buy a new DVD player with HDMI connection direct to my TV will make a huge difference in video quality or if not at all.
Component vs. HDMI ... at the same resolution things shouldn't be any different, apart from the cabling itself.
using component you can not upscale the image to a higher resoltuion facsimile. whatever the output of the disc/player, is all you will get.
With HD content this is not normally an issue as video upsampling usually isn't a consideration.
if no other reason, HDMI ought to be the least expensive path to provide excellent results. Some restrictions apply though, such as length. HDMI supposedly should not exceed runs of 30-35 ft. end to end... again, reportedly. Comnpnent can exceeed such lengths easily. Consequently, other than mere expense, and overall lengths, the only other consideration then is if you wish to upsample the SD video from standard DVDs to higher resolutions. Only HDMI supports that... and lest I forget, lip sync ability only applies to HDMI in my HT receiver.
There is huge advantage using HDMI if the both end of devices are capable of handling digital signals. All the modern displays such as LCD, Plasma, or DLP are digital. All the modern video players such as DVD and BluRay are also digital medium. With HDMI there is no unnecessary digital to analog conversion, and the original signal will be preserved without any degradation. The component video is analog. If you use component video between DVD player and LCD display, then DVD player will convert the digital video into analog using its video DAC, and LCD display will have to digitize the analog signal for display. No one should be using component video except in the case of high end CRT projectors.