HDMI superior to Component-Video?

[Dr.Khron]

Sadly, I still live in an SD world, my TV set is a glass Trinitron CRT. :(

I'm helping my dad set up his fancy new LCD TV, so I need some help. The tube has tons on inputs and outputs, and I'm still trying to get it set up right.

Are there any Picture QUALITY advantages with using HDMI instead of a 3-part component cable?

As far as I can tell, HDMI is just a component video signal with audio built in... except that its "digital"? I'm confused.

This is what I'm hooking up: a HD Dish Network box, and an SD DVD player. (its got NICE upscaling, though, the WALL-E DVD looked fantastic through a component video cable)

[neuron2]

You're going to get losses when converting to analog and back. Are they significant for you? Only you can decide that. Theoretically, HDMI is the better route.

[Dr.Khron]

Ah, thanks, that makes more sense... I wasn't thinking of it as D-A-D.

So, HDMI are (theoretically) superior to Component because of the digital conversion issue. Therfore, the Dish box gets an HDMI.

Does the same hold true for the DVD player?
It does have an HDMI out, but for some reason I have in my head that Component Video is the best that you can do for a DVD player.

[neuron2]

Why would it not hold true for the DVD player?

[Dr.Khron]

Because I'm an idiot?
I dunno, some sales jerk in a store recently told me that, and for some reason, I believed it.

Thanks for the sanity check.

[setarip_old]

Hi!

According to the Wikipedia, there is also a DIGITAL version of component cables:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_component_video

Digital component video is defined by ITU-R BT.601 (formerly CCIR 601) standard and uses the Y'CbCr[1] colorspace. Like Analog Component Video it gets its name from the fact that the video signal has been split into two or more components, that are then carried on multiple conductors between devices. Digital component video is slowly becoming popular in both computer and home-theatre applications. Component video is capable of carrying signals such as 480i, 480p, 576i, 576p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p, although many TVs do not support 1080p through component video.

[RunningSkittle]

...Theoretically, HDMI is the better route...

Only if you take the word of the yuppies at bestbuy for absolute truth ;)

iirc HDMI is subject to significant signal degradation over long distances (because its twisted pair cable) and it is VERY incorrect to say that because it is a digital connection, that the signal does not get processed and changed along the way.

I cant tell the difference between (1080p) 10ft YCbCr component cables and HDMI on my Samsung PN50A550

[neuron2]

You're just wrong. If the digital bit stream gets corrupted, the result will be visible macroblocking. If you stay within the HDMI cable length spec this cannot occur (unless you have a damaged cable).

BTW, I'm a digital video engineer, not a Best Buy yuppie.

[RunningSkittle]

Exactly, HDMI has no error correction.

Btw, HDMI specs do not define cable length.

(I didnt mean to offend you, you are an excellent engineer!)
I only meant that it is a (very) common misconception that HDMI is "better" because it is digital.

[neuron2]

That's true, but the spec implies a limit, via the need to pass eye-test specs at the output of the cable.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/how-long-can-hdmi-run.htm

Properly spec'ed compliant cables will not degrade the signal in any way. And because the extra D->A->D conversion is avoided, HDMI is theoretically better as I said.

[RunningSkittle]

Of course the cables dont do anything themselves, although the specs specifically mention:

Only pixel encodings of RGB 4:4:4, YCBCR 4:2:2, and YCBCR 4:4:4 (as specified in Section 6.5)
may be used on HDMI.

All HDMI Sources and Sinks shall be capable of supporting RGB 4:4:4 pixel encoding.

All HDMI Sources shall support either YCBCR 4:2:2 or YCBCR 4:4:4 pixel encoding whenever that
device is capable of transmitting a color-difference color space across any other component
analog or digital video interface except where that device would be required to convert RGB video
to YCBCR in order to meet this requirement.

For me, HDMI carries no significant advantage other than that it is a smaller cable that can carry my audio to my receiver.

edit: I think i just got my self confused with YUY2, YV12 and YCbCr.. DVDs are commonly YV12 right?

[leeperry]

I'm a digital video engineer, not a Best Buy yuppie.
http://forum.doom9.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Blue_MiSfit]

Yes DVDs are always YV12. Some players will internally convert to some other colorspace to do upsampling etc, but all DVDs are YV12 :)

And yes, I agree with neuron2 as well, that HDMI provides a theoretically superior signal. Why wouldn't you use it? The only exception I can think of would be long runs, where I wouldn't use anything less than RG6 coax with BNC connectors :)

~MiSfit

[Manao]

If the digital bit stream gets corrupted, the result will be visible macroblockingThe stream going over HDMI isn't compressed, so corruption won't bring you blocking, but random pixels (salt & pepper noise).

[neuron2]

Good point. Thanks for the correction.

[Blue_MiSfit]

That's a good point. Come to think of it, I've never seen cable related digital artifacts.

~MiSfit

[SeeMoreDigital]

That's a good point. Come to think of it, I've never seen cable related digital artifacts.

~MiSfitTry connecting several 5m HDMI cables together using couplers.... and you'll see quite a bit of on-screen data corruption :eek:

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Try connecting several 5m HDMI cables together using couplers.... and you'll see quite a bit of on-screen data corruption :eek:

HDMI repeaters exist for a reason, I guess ;)

[RunningSkittle]

So why not save your self the trouble (and money) and use component cables?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

So why not save your self the trouble (and money) and use component cables?

As said before:
If your source is digital (DVD, BR, DVB) and your Screen requires digital input (LCD, Plasma), then analog transmission is not the best idea and it's inherently lossy!

Using analog component cable means: Loss through Digital/Analog conversion + Loss through analog transmission of the signals + Loss through Analog/Digital conversion :scared:
At the same time HDMI transmits only digital signals, so there will be no D/A conversions and there (usually) is absolutely no loss through the signal transmission.

Remember: Digital signal transmission is 100% lossless, as long as the digital signal can be reconstructed properly on the receivers side (which normally should be case!).
Analog transmission always has a certain amount of loss! Noise is introduced and that noise is amplified & added up at each device/repeater...

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/659/digitalbs8.th.png (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/659/digitalbs8.png)

[shakey]

Good explanation about the difference of analogy and digital signal cables:
http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&thread.id=828972&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

[crypto]

...And don't forget, players and STBs have reduce the resolution over component for protected sources.

[v1rtu0s1ty]

I'm not really techy kind of guy when it comes to conversion. In digital, how is the light distributed to the screen? Correct me if I am wrong that in analog, there is RGB tiny cells. I don't know how they call it. I think, I'm not sure, that these tiny dots gets turned on depending on the signal sent by the source. Do digital displays also use the 3 dot color?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Soulhunter]

In digital, how is the light distributed to the screen? Correct me if I am wrong that in analog, there is RGB tiny cells. I don't know how they call it. I think, I'm not sure, that these tiny dots gets turned on depending on the signal sent by the source. Do digital displays also use the 3 dot color?
Analog/Digital is just the way the signal is transmitted to the display...

Analog -> In waveform (variance in voltage)

Digital -> As 0s and 1s (voltage on/off)

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4328/11158162872757701c18oxm1.gif


And yes, most (all?) color displays use RGB subpixels...

- Macro image of my LCD TV (http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1945/macro005ms4.jpg)

- Macro image of my old CRT monitor (http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/1686/6699ej6.jpg)

- Macro image of my cellphones LCD screen (http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3204/macro001fl9.jpg)

- Macro of my CRT TV (crop that shows the MTV logo, lol) (http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2997/mtvsn9.jpg)


As you see, CRTs use dots or slots as subpixels where LCDs use simply split the actual pixel in 1/3...

Besides this, the way subpixels work is pretty similar. Hope this info helps understanding how it works!


Bye

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Digital -> As 0s and 1s (voltage on/off)

It's much more complex than that :D

For example sender and receiver must sync their clocks. Just think about self-clocking codes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_code

Also you don't transport bits, but symbols. And each symbol may carry several bits.
For example: -2V = 00, -1V = 01, +1V = 10, +2V = 11.

Then you need to indicate the beginning/end of the frames and transfer control information (receiver/sender physical address, check sums, etc).
Usually the beginning/end of a frame is indicated with a "special" symbol that isn't allowed in the payload data.


But the fundamental difference is:
Analog signals are amplified on the receiver's side, while digital signals are reconstructed on the receiver's side!

This means that analog transmission will amplify and add up the noise at each station/device.
At the same time digital transmission will filter out the noise and retain a 100% clean signal at each station/device.
Except for "bit errors", of course. These may (or may not) be detected and corrected...

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/659/digitalbs8.png

[Soulhunter]

It's much more complex than that :D

For example sender and receiver must sync their clocks. Just think about self-clocking codes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_code

Also you don't transport bits, but symbols. And each symbol may carry several bits.
For example: -2V = 00, -1V = 01, +1V = 10, +2V = 11.

Then you need to indicate the beginning/end of the frames and transfer header infos (e.g. receiver/sender physical address, check sums, etc.)

Well, for simplicity I left out stuff like frequencys, modulation or synchronization... ;]

Also, I tried to show the general difference between analog n digital signals (broadcasting, storage on mediums etc.)

For audio for example, the digital signal must be reconstructed to a analog waveform again, which involves other problems again!


Bye

[LoRd_MuldeR]

For audio for example, the digital signal must be reproduced to a analog waveform again, which involves other problems again!

And IMO you missed the most important difference (quality wise), the "amplify -vs- reconstruct" part :)

[roozhou]

As said before:
If your source is digital (DVD, BR, DVB) and your Screen requires digital input (LCD, Plasma), then analog transmission is not the best idea and it's inherently lossy!

Using analog component cable means: Loss through Digital/Analog conversion + Loss through analog transmission of the signals + Loss through Analog/Digital conversion :scared:
At the same time HDMI transmits only digital signals, so there will be no D/A conversions and there (usually) is absolutely no loss through the signal transmission.

Remember: Digital signal transmission is 100% lossless, as long as the digital signal can be reconstructed properly on the receivers side (which normally should be case!).
Analog transmission always has a certain amount of loss! Noise is introduced and that noise is amplified & added up at each device/repeater...

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/659/digitalbs8.th.png (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/659/digitalbs8.png)

VGA is analog, right? But I cannot see any visual difference between VGA and DVI/HDMI. And a DVI/HDMI cable is much more expensive than a VGA cable.

[SeeMoreDigital]

...And a DVI/HDMI cable is much more expensive than a VGA cable.Indeed.... And compared to the same length, a DVI-to-HDMI lead costs more than an HDMI-to-HDMI lead :eek:

You should see a clearer difference between analogue and digital when viewing "still" images. Try looking for differences in noise levels: -

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5134/01bbcsmdbiq1.th.png (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=01bbcsmdbiq1.png)


Cheers

[roozhou]

Indeed.... And compared to the same length, a DVI-to-HDMI lead costs more than an HDMI-to-HDMI lead :eek:

You should see a clearer difference between analogue and digital when viewing "still" images. Try looking for differences in noise levels: -

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5134/01bbcsmdbiq1.th.png (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=01bbcsmdbiq1.png)


Cheers
My 44" LCD TV accepts both HDMI and VGA. And unfortunately with VGA it looks better. And a VGA cable costs me ~$2. I don't think Digital->Analog->Digital is always lossy.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I don't think Digital->Analog->Digital is always lossy.

It's inherently lossy!

The big question is: Will the loss be visible to you? And that is highly subjective.
If VGA looks better than HDMI this is probably due too a bad HDMI hardware implementation and/or a bad(ly shielded) cable.

[roozhou]

Here lossy means the digital signals coming out of ADC is not identical to those going into DAC.

e.g.
-2V = 00, -1V = 01, +1V = 10, +2V = 11

10 -> +1V -> +1.2V (lossy) -> 10
It's still 10 not 11 or 01.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Here lossy means the digital signals coming out of ADC is not identical to those going into DAC.

e.g.
-2V = 00, -1V = 01, +1V = 10, +2V = 11

10 -> +1V -> +1.2V (lossy) -> 10
It's still 10 not 11 or 01.

Lossy means that an analog signal can never be transferred in a lossless way over a cable! Some noise and distortions will always be added to the analog signal. And these will be amplified on the receivers side! So there will be some loss! At the same time a digital signal will be reconstructed at the receiver's side. That mean's all the noise and distortions (that are always present on the transmitted signal) will be left out and you get a 100% clean signal again. So there (theoretically) is absolutely no loss at all in digital transmission! Of course bit errors may happen. But usually they should be extremely rare (e.g. 10^-8). Only a bad cable, a too long cable or a bad hardware implementation can cause a significant amount of bit errors.

Look at the sample:
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/659/digitalbs8.png

With analog transmission you'd get, amplify and display something like that what is shown at "received signal" (the "transmitted" signal would look a bit different, of course) -> lots of distortion :scared:
With digital transmission you'd reconstruct, decode and use something like that what is shown at "received data" (usually without the bit error, of course) -> no loss at all :D

[roozhou]

Lossy means that an analog signal can never be transferred in a lossless way over a cable! Some noise and distortions will always be added to the analog signal. And these will be amplified on the receivers side! So there will be some loss! At the same time a digital signal will be reconstructed at the receiver's side. That mean's all the noise and distortions (that are always present on the transmitted signal) will be left out and you get a 100% clean signal again. So there (theoretically) is absolutely no loss at all in digital transmission! Of course bit errors may happen. But usually they should be extremely rare (e.g. 10^-8). Only a bad cable, a too long cable or a bad hardware implementation can cause a significant amount of bit errors.

Look at the sample:
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/659/digitalbs8.png

With analog transmission you'd get, amplify and display something like that what is shown at "received signal" (the "transmitted" signal would look a bit different, of course) -> lots of distortion :scared:
With digital transmission you'd reconstruct, decode and use something like that what is shown at "received data" (usually without the bit error, of course) -> no loss at all :D

This only applies to CRT displays which process analog signals internally. LCD controllers accept digital signals so analog via VGA must be converted back to digital. Analog does get distorted, e.g. +1V becomes +1.2V, but it does not affect ADC and we will still get 10 at last.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

LCD controllers accept digital signals so analog via VGA must be converted back to digital.

Exactly! So if you feed analog data into an LCD screen things get even worse! :eek:

The distorted/noisy analog signal that is received at the LCD screen must be converted to a digital representation! This step is completely different from reconstructing a digital signal (as shown above). Instead of keeping the noise out and reconstructing clean digital information, the Analog/Digital converter will unavoidably interpret the noise as being part of the analog signal (see blow). Also each Analog/Digital conversion introduces new kinds of distortions to the signal (quantization + limited sampling rate). Hence analog transmission is the worst way to transfer data between a digital source and a digital receiver...

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/6059/samplingys1.png

(Once again you refuse to understand. Since everything has been explained, I could only repeat myself. So I will stop here to not get off-topic. Please re-read the existing posts)

[roozhou]

Exactly! So if you feed analog data into an LCD screen things get even worse! :eek:

The distorted/noisy analog signal that is received at the LCD screen must be converted to a digital representation! This step is completely different from reconstructing a digital signal (as shown in the graphic above). Instead of keeping the noise out and reconstruction a clean digital signal, the Analog/Digital converter will interpret the noise as being part of the analog signal (quantization + limited sampling rate). Also each Analog/Digital conversion introduces new kinds of distortions to the signal. Hence analog transmission is the worst way to transfer data between a digital source and a digital receiver...

(Once again you refuse to understand. Since everything has been explained, I could only repeat myself. So I will stop here. Please re-read the existing posts)

Unless the noise is "strong" enough to turn 0 to 1 or vice versa, the digits received by LCD controller should be exactly the same as those from video card's DAC. Of course absolutely "clean" analog signal does not exist but we can minimize it using high quality DAC, ADC and cables. If i am wrong, how can you explain 99% of people use VGA to connect to their LCD displays and few of them complain about noise or distortion?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Unless the noise is "strong" enough to turn 0 to 1 or vice versa, the digits received by LCD controller should be exactly the same as those from video card's DAC.

That applies for a digital signal only!

There is no 0 and 1 in the analog signal! Hence even the slightest noise/distortion will change the information that is received (and hence distort the output on the screen). The fact that the analog signal will be converted to a digital representation later (in the next step) doesn't change that fact - may make it even worse. I say it again and for the last time: There is an important difference between reconstruction a digital signal and converting an analog signal to a digital representation (sampling). The first will keep out noise and retain 100% clean digital information, except for rare(!) bit errors. The latter will interpret noise as information and (if that wasn't bad enough) adds additional sampling/quantization errors.

EXAMPLE: Analog signals use a continuous scale, digital representations need a fixed scale! The conversion from continuous to fixed scaled is called "quantization". Now imagine our sample A/D converter will round all input to the next integer. Hence 4,49999 will be rounded to 4,0 and 4,50000 will be rounded to 5,0. Obviously now a very minor (analog) distortion of +0,00001 will lead to a completely different result after the A/D conversion: 5.0 instead of 4.0 (different digital representation on receiver side!) At the same time such a minor distortion would never cause a bit error, if you transmit a digital signal! And you won't need any D/A or A/D conversion at all for digital transfer, as the sender starts with a digital representation (as found on the DVD) and the receiver (LCD screen) expects a digital representation too.

Also this really was my last (off topic) post ;)

[roozhou]

EXAMPLE: Analog signals use a continuous scale, digital representations need a fixed scale! The conversion from continuous to fixed scaled is called "quantization". Now imagine our sample A/D converter will round all input to the next integer. Hence 4,49999 will be rounded to 4,0 and 4,50000 will be rounded to 5,0. Obviously now a very minor (analog) distortion of +0,00001 will lead to a completely different result after the A/D conversion: 5.0 instead of 4.0 (different digital representation on receiver side!)

Your example does not exist in reality. Why do you think DAC produces 4.49999? They produce 4.00000 and neither 3.99999 nor 4.00001 brings different result. All ADC have a limited bit depth. e.g. we have a 16bit ADC. 0 = 0V and 65535 = +5V. Noise less than 5/2^16 = 0.000076V will not lead to different result.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Your example does not exist in reality. Why do you think DAC produces 4.49999? They produce 4.00000 and neither 3.99999 nor 4.00001 brings different result. All ADC have a limited bit depth. e.g. we have a 16bit ADC. 0 = 0V and 65535 = +5V. Noise less than 5/2^16 = 0.000076V will not lead to different result.

We ware talking about analog signals. Analog signals are continuous :rolleyes:

My example explained why minimal analog distortions can cause huge difference after Analog/Digital conversion (quantization).

[neuron2]

Just as in your example, if a digital signal is attenuated to be near the threshold for detection of a 1 versus a 0, a very small noise addition can change the received digital signal.

You're overplaying your hand here. You should rather say that the analog errors cannot be avoided while with the digital signal, there is sufficient margin such that the signal is not near threshold (i.e., cable not too long, etc.)

[roozhou]

Just as in your example, if a digital signal is attenuated to be near the threshold for detection of a 1 versus a 0, a very small noise addition can change the received digital signal.

You're overplaying your hand here. You should rather say that the analog errors cannot be avoided while with the digital signal, there is sufficient margin such that the signal is not near threshold (i.e., cable not too long, etc.)

Agreed. For digital signal the threshold is large, e.g. 0 = [0V,2.5V) and 1 = [2.5,5V]. But for analog signals the threshold is quite small, e.g. 0x7F = [2.48V,2.5V) and 0x80 = [2.5V,2.52V).

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Just as in your example, if a digital signal is attenuated to be near the threshold for detection of a 1 versus a 0, a very small noise addition can change the received digital signal.

Yes, it can happen with digital signals too and it's a called a "bit error". But in a digital signal we only deal with a very limited number of discrete signals values. So even with pretty strong noise/distortion, the receiver can still distinguish and restore the original information - most of the time. Bit error rates are usually around 10^-8. At the same time with an anlaog signal we have a continuous scale of values. So even the slightest noise/distortion will unavoidably changes the information. With Analog/Digital conversion in mind, this can become even worse. When the (original) analog signal was very close to a quantization boundary, then a very small distortion can lead to a different (digital) information after the A/D converter. This can't happen with digital transmission, because of the limited number of pre-defined discrete values.

You're overplaying your hand here. You should rather say that the analog errors cannot be avoided while with the digital signal, there is sufficient margin such that the signal is not near threshold (i.e., cable not too long, etc.)

That's what I try to do since the very beginning. But roozhou's replys always required for another post/explanation :)

[neuron2]

So even the slightest noise/distortion will unavoidably changes the information. That's just not true. It will change it only if it crosses a level threshold of the ADC.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

That's just not true. It will change it only if it crosses a level threshold of the ADC.

You took it out of the context. That statement was about the analog information, not about the A/D converted (quantized) information. And in case the original analog signal was very close to a "level threshold of the ADC" (which can easily happen with the continuous analog values), then a very minor distortion may change the signal in a way that it crosses this threshold. Consequently a minor distortion on the analog transmission may cause a big difference after A/D conversion (there error would be an entire quantization step, in this case.) And still this problem isn't there when only transferring a limited number of discrete values (digital transmission), because none of these pre-defined discrete values will ever be near a quantization border.

[neuron2]

I didn't take anything out of context. Your statement was flat out wrong. Now you equivocate:

a very minor distortion may change the signal in a way that it crosses this threshold "may" is quite different from "unavoidable".

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I didn't take anything out of context. Your statement was flat out wrong. Now you equivocate:

"may" is quite different from "unavoidable".

Okay. On a pure analog signal transmission (e.g. D-Sub to CRT Screen) the slightest distortion would change the analog information and consequently change the screen output (more or less). If the analog signal is A/D converted on the receiver's side (e.g. D-Sub to LCD Screen) distortions & noise may (or may not) change the screen output, depending on whether the distortions cause the signal to cross a "level threshold of the ADC" or not. And I think we can assume that this effect causes much more visible "errors" than the extremely rare bit-errors of a (proper) digital connection...

[mousemurder]

...This is what I'm hooking up: a HD Dish Network box, and an SD DVD player. (its got NICE upscaling, though, the WALL-E DVD looked fantastic through a component video cable)

my opinion, there would be no benefit to using hdmi on the sd-dvd player (if it were a blu-ray player i would use hdmi because the player is designed to take advantage of the superior thouroughput).

the component cable is quite capable of transferring the signal to the best of the players ability.

[mousemurder]

...
And yes, I agree with neuron2 as well, that HDMI provides a theoretically superior signal. Why wouldn't you use it? The only exception I can think of would be long runs, where I wouldn't use anything less than RG6 coax with BNC connectors :)

~MiSfit

aside from more malneable/ flexable cables why is hdmi the current de facto standard for a/v interconnect ?
if the original source into the house is coax why arent cable/ satellite set-top boxes wired to output hd thru the coax out to tv?

[neuron2]

You'd need an expensive QAM RF modulator in the STB (as well as a tuner/demod in the TV). It's just a silly idea. The decoder generates a digital decoded picture, so it's easiest to just send it with a digital interface (HDMI) to the TV.

[Inventive Software]

aside from more malneable/ flexable cables why is hdmi the current de facto standard for a/v interconnect ?
if the original source into the house is coax why arent cable/ satellite set-top boxes wired to output hd thru the coax out to tv?

It's a sad fact, but people these days associate HDMI as being HD capable, without recognising that Component can deliver something comparable to it (not exactly since it's analogue) without the branding.

[Blue_MiSfit]

HDMI is the standard IMO largely because of three things

1) Simplified cabling (audio included)
2) Marketing
3) Future usefulness

For now, there's little visual difference to using an HDMI cable versus component cables on a standard 6-12ft run. In the future (i.e. if we start pushing 1080p60, or higher bit depths) all the extra bandwidth may be useful.

HDMI's also a bitch to route / split ;)

~MiSfit

[Soulhunter]

In the future (i.e. if we start pushing 1080p60, or higher bit depths) all the extra bandwidth may be useful.
*Cough* DisplayPort... *Cough* Also future proof... *Cough* No licensing or royalty fees! *Cough* :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

*Cough* DisplayPort... *Cough* Also future proof... *Cough* No licensing or royalty fees! *Cough* :DAgreed...

I would prefer to see DisplayPort connectors fitted to graphics cards over HDMI ;)