|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Gary M. wrote: | | with your diagram though there is something that I didn't even realize, the digital audio signals are multiplexed with the digital video signals |
Hmm...well that does sound bad! You know what sounds even worse? Cramming ALL the data one ONE wire, like HD-SDI does.
Man, the more I think about HD-SDI, the worse it sounds!  |
I believe twisted cant hold as much as solid RG6, that why they need more in there. a dual link HD SDI carries way more, but that is really only used in the Pro Broadcast field. plus shielding is much better with HD SDI, no possibility of cross talk or any fields being produced with one solid single wire.
Athanasios
_________________
Don't blame your underwear for your crooked ass~ unknown Greek philosopher
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." --- President Reagan
One Smart Dog!!!
Marquee High Performance Bellows now shipping!!
Marquee Modifications and Performance Enhancement
Marquee C-element and Bellow removal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary M. wrote: | whatever Phil 
I just stated that I didn't know that HDMI info, nothing more was said
smart ass comments help this discussion about as much as a fart in the wind 
-Gary |
You don't back peddle worth a sh*t Gary?
Hey, let's see a pic of the inside of your modded BR player! You can cover up part numbers to protect your mod. I just want to see in general what it looks like.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | Gary M. wrote: | | with your diagram though there is something that I didn't even realize, the digital audio signals are multiplexed with the digital video signals |
Hmm...well that does sound bad! You know what sounds even worse? Cramming ALL the data one ONE wire, like HD-SDI does.
Man, the more I think about HD-SDI, the worse it sounds! |
I believe twisted cant hold as much as solid RG6, that why they need more in there. a dual link HD SDI carries way more, but that is really only used in the Pro Broadcast field. plus shielding is much better with HD SDI, no possibility of cross talk or any fields being produced with one solid single wire.
Athanasios |
Umm...I don't know how data transfer works, but I don't think that's right. I'll look into it tomorrow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | probably like any SDI mod of a regualr DVD player.
Athanasios |
exactly  only about 3 times as many connections 
plus if I post images I am marketing, and finally I *can't* for various reasons
-Gary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Gary M. wrote: | whatever Phil
I just stated that I didn't know that HDMI info, nothing more was said
smart ass comments help this discussion about as much as a fart in the wind
-Gary |
You don't back peddle worth a sh*t Gary? |
you never give it up dude
-Gary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
SDI SMPTE 259M supports 360 Mbit/s
HD-SDI SMPTE 292M supports 1.4 Gbit/s
dual link HD-SDI SMPTE 372M supports 2.9 Gbit/s
HDMI 1.3b supports 10.2 Gbit/s
-Gary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom.W
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 6635
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
you never give it up dude Thumbs Up
-Gary
It's going around .....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomadII
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 252
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Be it HD-SDI or HDMI information is carried in specified packets.
HDMI has one packet dedicated soley to HDCP. This should be irrefutable, it is why the format exist for gods sake.
HD-SDI 292 M standards state that jitter must be within a spec of .673 pico seconds or it would also have problems very similar to a HDMI handshake issue.
Goal here for HD-SDI was performance oriented not protection oriented.
HD-SDI implements a NRZI codec, non return zero inverted so that a signal can be precisely re-clocked if necessary.
Once again the goal here is all out performance not compatibility exclusion.
I did not indicate that my link would tell you that Somers preferred one format over the other (exactly who are you waiting to hear that from?) he merely stated the differences in how they work & were constructed.
Give me an example of your favorite HD-DVD or Blu-Ray & I can tell you right now which format they used. Perhaps they had no knowledge that HDMI was "in theory" the equivalent???
Please show me a freaking $40,000 HD-Camera with an HDMI output!!
Dual link is a non factor since 3gig chip solutions have already made them obsolete.
They are now back to a single BNC w 424M.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Gary M. wrote: | | with your diagram though there is something that I didn't even realize, the digital audio signals are multiplexed with the digital video signals |
Hmm...well that does sound bad! You know what sounds even worse? Cramming ALL the data one ONE wire, like HD-SDI does.
Man, the more I think about HD-SDI, the worse it sounds! |
I don't think Phil was making smart ass comments. (Well yes he was, but he made a good point too. )
His point: you're all concerned now that you discover HDMI multiplexes digital audio and digital video. But HD-SDI uses a single wire, so obviously it is ALSO multiplexing digital audio/video! So if it's a problem for HDMI, why isn't it a problem for HD-SDI -- or if HD-SDI is so perfect and it multiplexes, why is it an issue of HDMI multiplexes?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | | Gary M. wrote: | | with your diagram though there is something that I didn't even realize, the digital audio signals are multiplexed with the digital video signals |
Hmm...well that does sound bad! You know what sounds even worse? Cramming ALL the data one ONE wire, like HD-SDI does.
Man, the more I think about HD-SDI, the worse it sounds! |
I don't think Phil was making smart ass comments. (Well yes he was, but he made a good point too. )
His point: you're all concerned now that you discover HDMI multiplexes digital audio and digital video. But HD-SDI uses a single wire, so obviously it is ALSO multiplexing digital audio/video! So if it's a problem for HDMI, why isn't it a problem for HD-SDI -- or if HD-SDI is so perfect and it multiplexes, why is it an issue of HDMI multiplexes? |
but I wasn't saying that, I simply was saying that I did not know that HDMI worked that way, I assumed it had separate data channels for audio and video, no discussion was made of whether or not I thought that was a *issue*, if I thought that you can be damn sure that I would have said something, I don't shy away from anything
for the record, we are not multiplexing audio and video with home implemented HD-SDI, only video, not that it would matter I would think
I don't know enough about either to start discussing multiplexing 
-Gary
Last edited by Gary M. on Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nomadII wrote: | Be it HD-SDI or HDMI information is carried in specified packets.
HDMI has one packet dedicated soley to HDCP. This should be irrefutable, it is why the format exist for gods sake.
HD-SDI 292 M standards state that jitter must be within a spec of .673 pico seconds or it would also have problems very similar to a HDMI handshake issue.
Goal here for HD-SDI was performance oriented not protection oriented.
HD-SDI implements a NRZI codec, non return zero inverted so that a signal can be precisely re-clocked if necessary.
Once again the goal here is all out performance not compatibility exclusion.
I did not indicate that my link would tell you that Somers preferred one format over the other (exactly who are you waiting to hear that from?) he merely stated the differences in how they work & were constructed.
Give me an example of your favorite HD-DVD or Blu-Ray & I can tell you right now which format they used. Perhaps they had no knowledge that HDMI was "in theory" the equivalent???
Please show me a freaking $40,000 HD-Camera with an HDMI output!!
Dual link is a non factor since 3gig chip solutions have already made them obsolete.
They are now back to a single BNC w 424M. |
Mark everyone here is missing your entire point you are trying to make, professional users were attempting for best performance as possible and in regards to PQ as much, this is in addition to the robustness, that is going over folks heads because you know, digital is digital so HDMI = HD-SDI
-Gary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nomadII wrote: | Be it HD-SDI or HDMI information is carried in specified packets.
HDMI has one packet dedicated soley to HDCP. This should be irrefutable, it is why the format exist for gods sake. |
Ok. I'm not getting the point you're trying to make.
| Quote: | HD-SDI 292 M standards state that jitter must be within a spec of .673 pico seconds or it would also have problems very similar to a HDMI handshake issue.
Goal here for HD-SDI was performance oriented not protection oriented.
HD-SDI implements a NRZI codec, non return zero inverted so that a signal can be precisely re-clocked if necessary.
Once again the goal here is all out performance not compatibility exclusion. |
The handshake issue seems for the most part a thing of the past. Unless you plan on buying 1st generation gear, I wouldn't worry about it.
I've had 2 handshake issues:
One was with John's DVI card. An EDID chip update fixed that. But that's a cottage industry product and doesn't really count.
The other was an Octava HDMI switcher. That turned out be because something was wrong with it (as in broke). Initially it wouldn't handshake with my HD-DVR. AS time went on, it wouldn't handshake with anything! So again, it was because it had problems other than inherent ones. So that doesn't count either.
The 7 or 8 mainstream HDMI products I've owned have had zero handshake problems. Granted, it would be nice to eliminate HDCP altogether, but I see that as a luxury, not a necessity.
| Quote: | | I did not indicate that my link would tell you that Somers preferred one format over the other (exactly who are you waiting to hear that from?) he merely stated the differences in how they work & were constructed. |
And here's another article where he doesn't say anything negative about HDMI: http://www.extron.com/company/article.aspx?id=dvihdmi_ts
And another: http://www.inavateonthenet.net/article.aspx?ArticleID=15364
So as you say, Somers doesn't prefer one format over the other. Thanks for "pro HDMI" link Mark!
| Quote: | Give me an example of your favorite HD-DVD or Blu-Ray & I can tell you right now which format they used. Perhaps they had no knowledge that HDMI was "in theory" the equivalent???
Please show me a freaking $40,000 HD-Camera with an HDMI output!! |
I thought we got past that, but I guess not. HD-SDI *IS* better in a commercial envioment, but NOT because of PQ. I'm not going to cover it again. You can read the posts of Gary F. and I "violently arguing" while in total agreement ( ) that you apparently skipped over.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary M. wrote: | | Mark everyone here is missing your entire point you are trying to make, professional users were attempting for best performance as possible and in regards to PQ as much, this is in addition to the robustness, that is going over folks heads because you know, digital is digital so HDMI = HD-SDI |
I'm beginning to think that you HD-SDI guys are living in a "pro environment fantasy land". You're just gear whores that are dreaming your HTs are professional studios.
HD-SDI is designed for a commercial environment. HDMI is designed for a home environment. So what did the HDMI engineers say to each other when they were designing HDMI? Maybe, "Even though it's easy to make HDMI PQ perfect, we need to mess it up a little, because it's not intended for the commercial market. Home market stuff should inherently be a little sh*tty."
You guys make a lot of assumptions about HDMI's supposed limitations. Saying, "HD-SDI is a pro format!" in no way proves that HDMI is inferior. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Gary M. wrote: | | Mark everyone here is missing your entire point you are trying to make, professional users were attempting for best performance as possible and in regards to PQ as much, this is in addition to the robustness, that is going over folks heads because you know, digital is digital so HDMI = HD-SDI |
I'm beginning to think that you HD-SDI guys are living in a "pro environment fantasy land". You're just gear whores that are dreaming your HTs are professional studios.
HD-SDI is designed for a commercial environment. HDMI is designed for a home environment. So what did the HDMI engineers say to each other when they were designing HDMI? Maybe, "Even though it's easy to make HDMI PQ perfect, we need to mess it up a little, because it's not intended for the commercial market. Home market stuff should inherently be a little sh*tty."
You guys make a lot of assumptions about HDMI's supposed limitations. Saying, "HD-SDI is a pro format!" in no way proves that HDMI is inferior. |
you know that CRT PJ you use Phil, you think it was designed for the home enviornment? you point is worthless
| Phil Smith wrote: |
I thought we got past that, but I guess not. HD-SDI *IS* better in a commercial envioment, but NOT because of PQ. |
prove it , statements mean nothing without proof, I have offered contrary evidence to that yet you have offered nothing but HDMI = HD-SDI for PQ, hardly valid Phil especially coming from someone that has never seen it in action
are you having a senior moment? have you not read this entire thread of examples and technical reasons why HD-SDI gives better PQ? you have addressed none of them and my guess is that you will not
it would be nice if everyone lived in a fairy tale world like you do and they could go around and claim everything they think is better is definitively better while ignoring evidence and claims to something else superiority, you are so confident that you don't even address it
you have yet to address why some sources with HD-SDI and HDMI look better via HD-SDI (Samsung 1000 definitively and every other player released IMHO), you say get better sources, in that very comment you prove my entire point that I and others are making, yet you don't even realize it
you have also yet to address the technical aspects or even my points of argument I posted a few pages back (well you did address point 1)
1) HDCP insertion is processing whether you like it or not, simple fact, processing is processing
2) colorspace sampling and conversions on 90% of players, 4:4:4 HDMI vs 4:2:2 HD-SDI (BD30 Panny is the first BD player I have had in my hands that does 4:2:2 HDMI) again this is processing, processing is processing
3) bit errors in the HDMI signal, digital is digital but not without problems, all HDMI contains bit errors, HD-SDI does not in anyway, bit errors cause picture problems like noise and other degradation
4)direct pure digital signal from the decoder chip, bypassing all player processing including all the above including picture controls in some cases
5)highest end direct decoder feed to your scaler which is free from all processing that can be done inside the player, results in the best image for a scaler to work with
5)HDMI port is free for audio usage only (HDMI splitters cause further bit errors and just flat out don't work)
6)unamplified HDMI cables over 10 feet in some cases have problems, HD-SDI with Belden 1694a can be run 500 feet+
7)HDMI connectors break all the time, HD-SDI is a bulletproof BNC locking connector
8)processing of the HD-SDI signal in a device(scaler etc.) can all be done digitally and then output via RGBHV analog thru high-end D/A converters, no need for HDMI converters, add-on cards or etc.
9)most gear has superior PQ with a HD-SDI input versus the HDMI input route (scalers, processors, blendzilla, edge blenders etc.)
yet you have come to this uninformed conclusion that HDMI is as good as HD-SDI for PQ, I have to say people reading this can see your view point and how shallow, uninformed and thick skulled it is, there is nothing on this earth that will prove to you that HD-SDI is better, it will never happen, just admit it, continue to be sour and go on with life
just like scalers are for rich idiots and have no use, I shutter to think what else you think is superior that is flat out wrong
-Gary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary M. wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: |
I thought we got past that, but I guess not. HD-SDI *IS* better in a commercial envioment, but NOT because of PQ. |
prove it , statements mean nothing without proof, I have offered contrary evidence to that yet you have offered nothing but HDMI = HD-SDI for PQ, hardly valid Phil especially coming from someone that has never seen it in action
are you having a senior moment? have you not read this entire thread of examples and technical reasons why HD-SDI gives better PQ? you have addressed none of them and my guess is that you will not
it would be nice if everyone lived in a fairy tale world like you do and they could go around and claim everything they think is better is definitively better while ignoring evidence and claims to something else superiority, you are so confident that you don't even address it
you have yet to address why some sources with HD-SDI and HDMI look better via HD-SDI (Samsung 1000 definitively and every other player released IMHO), you say get better sources, in that very comment you prove my entire point that I and others are making, yet you don't even realize it |
Lumagen says otherwise Gary. Sorry, I have no reason not to believe them.
As I get time, I'm going to educate myself on this subject, because admittedly, I don't know that much about it.
But in spite of that, I don't see where you guys make a convincing argument - at all! For one, that whole, "HD-SDI is commercial" argument that you guys are so fond of is ridiculous. It's stupid! How can you argue with anti-logic like that? You can't!
You guys are tiring ME out. I will come back to this gunfight better prepared to shoot down these unsubstantiated claims.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomadII
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 252
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Phil,
I sent links to a site where you can learn, not hear someones elses opinion.
Couple of the things about the AWay 8022
1) It is most decidedly a non HDCP compliant device.
2) It absolutely is Pro-Gear, which is where its intended use originated.
3) It has HD-SDI inputs which allow it to perform all of its processing purely in the digital domain.
I would submit that once you have comitted to a blend it is more than a tad unsettling that all of the effort can be undone by content protection. When you find a way around it, you take it.
HD-SDI is the cleanest signal I can provide the 8022 with, makes little sense for me not to take that path.
Moome & others have done more than a commendable job, but it is a weakspot in the video chain that I can now eliminate.
The only 8022 HD-SDI experimantation that I know of to date consist of Gino & a converted HD-DVD source & Parker & Kosmann trying out the converters made by Convergent Design. Mike indicated that all though they had compatibility problems with a Beta version of the converter he clearly saw improvements that he thought had merit.
My implementation will be much cleaner since the HD-SDi output signal will come straight from a VP50Pro.
Parker vs "HDMI must be as good" means very little to me.
It may just turn out that I get best results with HD-SDI into the 8022 & RGBHV out. I will have to wait & see.
I will not have to wait & be told or assured by a third party.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
