Hi all!

I am not sure if this is the correct thread to post video picture quality.

I would like to know if any of you ever experience the quality of DCDi by Faroudja vs. HDMI? I am thinking of buying a universal player but not sure which video format to purchase. I would be connecting the universal player directly into my TV. My DLP projection TV has HDMI connection on the back.

I just like to know if there really is a difference in DVD video quality between the DCDi and HDMI connection.

Thanks for any advice!!
What is a DCDi connection?

I thought that "DCDi by Faroudja" referred to the video processing done by the DVD player and has nothing at all to do with connecting the player via HDMI.

In general, you'll want to use the HDMI connection between the player and TV regardless of what video processing technology the player uses.
Do you mean DVI?
I am talking about DCDi. As far as I know, DVD players with HDMI do NOT carry HDMI connection.
Sorry, let me rephrase that again:

As far as I know, DVD players with DCDi do NOT carry HDMI connection.
I believe mid-line Denons with DCDi have HDMI outputs.
This Denon DVD-1940CI has HDMI and uses DCDi.

Any recent player that uses DCDi will have HDMI output. In fact, my DVD-3910 has both http://www.usa.denon.com/ArchivedDVDPlayers.asp?archivedModelSearch=true&clearCurrent=true&archivedCategory=DVD&archivedModel=DVD-3910&imageField.x=13&imageField.y=12. It's for sale here if you're interested.
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.
I was looking at these 2 universal players:

- Pioneer Elite DV-79AVi

- Sony DVP-NS9100ES

Anyone ever own any of these two universal plays?
The highest rated de-interlacing technology today is Anchor Bay.

Rated by whom? What about the Silicon Optix HQV technology as implemented in the Reon and Realta chips?
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.

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.
Jylee, OK. I'm interested to see how well the Oppo Blu-ray with VRS does on the HT magazine video tests. A recent Yamaha receiver with VRS didn't fair as well as expected. I bought a Samsung Blu-ray player based on its use of the Reon chip and I've been very pleased with its video performance - compared to my Denon 3910.

At this point, I think either VRS or HQV would be a good choice.
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.

Component vs. HDMI ... at the same resolution things shouldn't be any different, apart from the cabling itself.

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.