24p via component or HDMI

[tinpanalley]

Small question that has cropped up and left me wondering whether I'm using the right cables...
Can a 24p source output to a flatscreen TV via component cables at 720p and 1080p or MUST you have HDMI cables to do this?

Thanks.

 

[JAG87]

Absolutely, component will carry even more than 1080p. It's an analog signal, after it has gone through the RAMDAC it knows not "resolution". The limitation is in the RAMDAC of your source, which most can do up to 2048x1536p60 or higher refresh, which is way more data than 1080p24.

However since you didn't specify, depending on your source you may have licensing issues and may not be able to output 1080p over analog signals.

 

[smitbret]

Small question that has cropped up and left me wondering whether I'm using the right cables...
Can a 24p source output to a flatscreen TV via component cables at 720p and 1080p or MUST you have HDMI cables to do this?

Thanks.

Most of it depends on your playback device and whether it will actually playback anything more than 1080i across component. I'm not an A/V expert, but I have never seen a consumer playback device that allows 1080p or higher via Component. It's a method of countering copyright infringement.

 

[tinpanalley]

However since you didn't specify, depending on your source you may have licensing issues and may not be able to output 1080p over analog signals...

Most of it depends on your playback device...

Thank you both for the replies.
I'll explain further... The only device I have that can output a 24p HD signal anyway is my PS3 bluray player. (Well, my TV box can as well but I couldn't really care less about its HD details because of how rarely it gets used.) So, having just purchased a 720p plasma, I wanted to know if I need to change the component cables to HDMI to see the benefits of 24p on this new TV. Until now I had a CRTHD, in case you're wondering.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Small question that has cropped up and left me wondering whether I'm using the right cables...
Can a 24p source output to a flatscreen TV via component cables at 720p and 1080p or MUST you have HDMI cables to do this?

Thanks.

When it comes to 24p content the only way I have successfully done it is via HDMI and VGA. I am 99% sure component can only do 1080i (so 30hz) and 1080p (60hz). One issue is I don't know of any display device from that era that had proper 24p support.

24p playback is a luxury that we have because digital flat panel displays can properly display temporal resolutions other than the 59.94 Hz NTSC standard CRT were stuck on. Due to the technology of the time we used to run movies that were made for tv by cropping the picture to 4:3 and telecining the 24p to 30ish. We have it much much better today.

Edit: I saw your second post and YES for the love of god get an HDMI cable. Its not only the 24p thing, its the fact that you will be using a completely digital signal that can't pick up interference. You can get one nowaday for less than $10.

 

[JAG87]

Thank you both for the replies.
I'll explain further... The only device I have that can output a 24p HD signal anyway is my PS3 bluray player. (Well, my TV box can as well but I couldn't really care less about its HD details because of how rarely it gets used.) So, having just purchased a 720p plasma, I wanted to know if I need to change the component cables to HDMI to see the benefits of 24p on this new TV. Until now I had a CRTHD, in case you're wondering.

Pretty sure the PS3 will output 720p60 and 1080i60 over component, but not at 24p. The latter case your TV will likely accept the signal, and downscale it.

However, make the investment on an HDMI cable if both your PS3 and TV have it. Quality over HDMI is better than component, no matter how you slice it, and it will support 24p if your TV accepts it.

 

[tinpanalley]

Pretty sure the PS3 will output 720p60 and 1080i60 over component, but not at 24p.

Ok, this is what I'm trying to confirm. Nobody seems sure. I'll simply run a test with components and a bluray on this new TV to see what happens. The disc and the PS3 can be from any region, right?

Quality over HDMI is better than component, no matter how you slice it, and it will support 24p if your TV accepts it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I certainly don't have the knowledge to do so, but I am seeing basically on every site I can dig up that the HD quality of both is identical. Is that wrong?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Is that wrong?

Yes that is wrong.

HDMI support things that Component never will, at even at the same resolutions HDMI has the advantage of really good digital signal retention aka the cheapest HDMI cable works as good as the most expensive one.

With an HDMI cable unless you have a glitter effect on the screen you KNOW the cable is feeding 100% of the signal to the TV.

 

[tinpanalley]

Yes that is wrong.

Ok, so unless someone is an absolute analog purist, or likes pirating 1080p content, there's no reason to be on component and several reasons NOT to be on it. I run all my audio through optical anyway but having so many HDMI cables, I thought it might be worth it to switch from the components I have clogging my TV area right now.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Ok, so unless someone is an absolute analog purist, or likes pirating 1080p content, there's no reason to be on component and several reasons NOT to be on it.

Yup.

Especially when you consider only HDMI can carry the best audio tracks we can get our hands on.

Maybe if you really care about input lag. That is all I can think of.

 

[tinpanalley]

Especially when you consider only HDMI can carry the best audio tracks we can get our hands on.
Maybe if you really care about input lag. That is all I can think of.

Well, my receiver has no HDMI inputs so I only use optical audio.
And yes, input lag is a slight concern because of gaming but honestly I've seen lag across a wide spectrum with HD displays and I sincerely can't see what everyone is complaining about. I've never felt this massive delay when playing on flatscreens. Maybe my gaming days go back far enough that I adapt better than some younger people. In any event, my TV is supposed to be quite good about input lag and I'm certainly not gonna let that be the reason why I miss out on HDMI. Thanks for the input (pardon the pun)!

 

[LoveMachine]

Slightly off the original question, but here's my 2 bits. Do you need to be displaying 24p? Marketing made me think that I needed that whole thing when I got most of my equipment a few years ago (e.g. watch the movie as the director intended, yada yada). I set it all up as such (Bluray and TV) and the final visual result was rather annoying. Though subtle, each frame in scenes with moderate amounts of motion was distinguishable and the overall experience was stuttery. Switched back to native 60 (or more precisely 59.9whatever) telecined, and movies seemed much smoother. I know it's not the original content, but I don't care. I just looks better to me at 60.

Out of curiosity, do others reading this thread prefer 24p over 60p? (sorry for the mild thread derailment).

 

[tinpanalley]

Yup.
Especially when you consider only HDMI can carry the best audio tracks we can get our hands on.

Hang on here... just in regards to my using optical audio because it's all I have on my receiver...
I just noticed this TV has optical OUT. Can I take that to mean that if I do allow all my video HDMI inputs to send video and audio to the TV, that the optical out can then carry those audio signals to my receiver as they came from the HDMI? Because that would be fantastic!

 

[poofyhairguy]

Hang on here... just in regards to my using optical audio because it's all I have on my receiver...
I just noticed this TV has optical OUT. Can I take that to mean that if I do allow all my video HDMI inputs to send video and audio to the TV, that the optical out can then carry those audio signals to my receiver as they came from the HDMI? Because that would be fantastic!

I think it only will output HDMI sources in stereo, but you should double check.

 

[Automaticman]

Hang on here... just in regards to my using optical audio because it's all I have on my receiver...
I just noticed this TV has optical OUT. Can I take that to mean that if I do allow all my video HDMI inputs to send video and audio to the TV, that the optical out can then carry those audio signals to my receiver as they came from the HDMI? Because that would be fantastic!

Usually the optical out on a TV will output AC3 and DTS from the TV tuner itself, but only stereo from external sources. Another goofy copywrite rule.

 

[tinpanalley]

Usually the optical out on a TV will output AC3 and DTS from the TV tuner itself, but only stereo from external sources. Another goofy copywrite rule.

Ok, yeah, that's confirming what I'm finding elsewhere. Thanks.
I'll just keep using HDMI for video to the TV and sending all my optical audio to my receiver (no HDMI inputs). Still going to do my HDMI and component test with 24p at 720p to see if I can get 24p from the components.

 

[JAG87]

Ok, yeah, that's confirming what I'm finding elsewhere. Thanks.
I'll just keep using HDMI for video to the TV and sending all my optical audio to my receiver (no HDMI inputs). Still going to do my HDMI and component test with 24p at 720p to see if I can get 24p from the components.

You will never get 24p playback from component because the refresh rate of the signal over component is fixed at 59.94 Hz. No matter what you set your source to output, over component there will always be either 29.97 progressive frames x2 (for 720p30 and 1080p30 material), or 59.94 interlaced frames (for 1080p24 and 1080i60).

Over HDMI, you can pretty much output any refresh rate you want because the D to A conversion happens in the TV, so as long as your TV accepts 23.976 Hz as an input, it will work. But then we get into the debate of: is the source actually outputting 23.976 Hz accurately, or is it slightly off and will you eventually end up with sync issues... To be totally honest in my experience, unless your source outputs perfect 23.976 Hz (most BD players do, but most computers don't), 24p is more hassle than it's worth. Even over HDMI, stick to 60Hz (or actually 59.94Hz), and just deal with 3:2 judder, like we have been for the past 50 years.

 

[tinpanalley]

To be totally honest in my experience, unless your source outputs perfect 23.976 Hz (most BD players do, but most computers don't), 24p is more hassle than it's worth. Even over HDMI, stick to 60Hz (or actually 59.94Hz), and just deal with 3:2 judder, like we have been for the past 50 years.

Ok, I'll check it out when my TV takes a break from slides mode.

 

[poofyhairguy]

(most BD players do, but most computers don't)

That is old info. Pretty much any modern (GT210 or newer) Nvidia card can hit 24p perfectly, and any Haswell Intel GPU can. You are correct a few years ago 24p was a pain, but for a plasma (which handles it better than any non 480hz LED) its worth the trouble.

Just saying "deal with 3:2 pulldown" is like saying "a stick shift is a pain because you have to learn to use a clutch, just stick to automatic cars." Sometimes the performance is worth the pain.

 

[JAG87]

That is old info. Pretty much any modern (GT210 or newer) Nvidia card can hit 24p perfectly, and any Haswell Intel GPU can. You are correct a few years ago 24p was a pain, but for a plasma (which handles it better than any non 480hz LED) its worth the trouble.

Just saying "deal with 3:2 pulldown" is like saying "a stick shift is a pain because you have to learn to use a clutch, just stick to automatic cars." Sometimes the performance is worth the pain.

No, I wouldn't use that comparison.

Using 24p on an HTPC still means that you either have a lag-tastic UI, or you have to wait for your TV to switch refresh rate every time you play something at 24 fps. That is another annoyance you have to take into account. And at the end of the day, even if you really try to pay attention, 3:2 judder is only visible on slow camera pans, it's practically imperceivable when the camera is steady or when there is extremely fast motion, and I can guarantee you wouldn't identify which is which if I showed you two screens side by side unless I played a slow camera pan, or an object was moving slowly across the display.

So like I said before, it's pretty much not worth the hassle, IMO.

 

[poofyhairguy]

No, I wouldn't use that comparison.

Using 24p on an HTPC still means that you either have a lag-tastic UI, or you have to wait for your TV to switch refresh rate every time you play something at 24 fps. That is another annoyance you have to take into account.

No I don't quite honestly. With the newest Nvidia and Intel drivers I don't think you have to make a custom resolution anymore to hit 23.976 in Windows, and programs like XBMC can switch to the proper refresh when you play the content and switch back when you stop. Its takes less than a second each way, and XBMC even delays the audio to keep everything in sync. I know for a fact on my army of XBMCbuntu x86 HTPCs with their Nvidia GPUs go from 60fps in the GUI to 23.976 during playback every time, without question, and without any sort of annoyance.

And at the end of the day, even if you really try to pay attention, 3:2 judder is only visible on slow camera pans, it's practically imperceivable when the camera is steady or when there is extremely fast motion, and I can guarantee you wouldn't identify which is which if I showed you two screens side by side unless I played a slow camera pan, or an object was moving slowly across the display.

You shouldn't make that guarantee with me. I am INCREDIBLY sensitive to 3:2 pulldown, partially because almost every modern big budget movie is full of panning shots and the exact kind of motion that falls apart during pulldown. My wife fiddled with my Blu Ray player the other day and accidentally disabled its 24p mode, and I noticed it within a minute of putting in the Star Trek: Into Darkness Blu Ray because 3:2 drives me nuts.

I agree with you that I am in the minority, and a lot of people can't tell, don't care, or actually prefer the old comfy pulldown (the same reason we are stuck with only 24fps in 2014). But some people don't notice HD even on a big tv, prefer Netflix to Blu Rays, etc. The point being- enthusiasts care and there is no reason to not get as close to the theater as you possibly can.

Especially if you have something like a projector, a plasma, or a 480hz LED that can do it properly.

 

[mindbomb]

i think component is limited to 29.97 interlaced. There are various anti-judder technologies in many things though, so it might not be a big problem if you enable that.

 

[JAG87]

No I don't quite honestly. With the newest Nvidia and Intel drivers I don't think you have to make a custom resolution anymore to hit 23.976 in Windows, and programs like XBMC can switch to the proper refresh when you play the content and switch back when you stop. Its takes less than a second each way, and XBMC even delays the audio to keep everything in sync. I know for a fact on my army of XBMCbuntu x86 HTPCs with their Nvidia GPUs go from 60fps in the GUI to 23.976 during playback every time, without question, and without any sort of annoyance.



You shouldn't make that guarantee with me. I am INCREDIBLY sensitive to 3:2 pulldown, partially because almost every modern big budget movie is full of panning shots and the exact kind of motion that falls apart during pulldown. My wife fiddled with my Blu Ray player the other day and accidentally disabled its 24p mode, and I noticed it within a minute of putting in the Star Trek: Into Darkness Blu Ray because 3:2 drives me nuts.

I agree with you that I am in the minority, and a lot of people can't tell, don't care, or actually prefer the old comfy pulldown (the same reason we are stuck with only 24fps in 2014). But some people don't notice HD even on a big tv, prefer Netflix to Blu Rays, etc. The point being- enthusiasts care and there is no reason to not get as close to the theater as you possibly can.

Especially if you have something like a projector, a plasma, or a 480hz LED that can do it properly.

Some TVs take longer to change refresh then others. Kind of like some TVs are faster and some are slower at switching inputs. On my TV (Pioneer Kuro), I need to set a 4 second audio start delay in XBMC. This gets annoying very quickly. But I disgress.

I am not going to contest the fact that you can notice the difference. I am sure you can (I can too if I really try), or at least have trained yourself to look for it. But in my opinion, 24p vs 3:2 is for the most part a negligible difference. It's like going from 20 to 24 fps in a video game. Yes 24 will be a tiny bit smoother, but both stutter like shit where smoothness is required most, so there isn't that much of a difference.

Your analogy on the other hand... Nobody prefers Netflix to BD. They prefer the convenience of it. If you sit anybody with decent eyes down in front of 2 TVs, one playing compressed Netflix and one playing high bitrate BD, they will immediately pick out the latter for it's better sharpness. Do the same with 24p vs 3:2, and not only will most people not see the difference, but if they try to identify which is which they will get it wrong in most cases.

I understand that you are a videophile and want the absolute best, but the analogies you are using aren't really fitting the topic very well, because the examples you are using are way more noticeable than 3:2 judder, not just to enthusiasts, but even to the common folk.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Some TVs take longer to change refresh then others. Kind of like some TVs are faster and some are slower at switching inputs. On my TV (Pioneer Kuro), I need to set a 4 second audio start delay in XBMC. This gets annoying very quickly. But I disgress. .

Fair enough.

I am not going to contest the fact that you can notice the difference. I am sure you can (I can too if I really try), or at least have trained yourself to look for it. But in my opinion, 24p vs 3:2 is for the most part a negligible difference. It's like going from 20 to 24 fps in a video game. Yes 24 will be a tiny bit smoother, but both stutter like shit where smoothness is required most, so there isn't that much of a difference. .

I think a well done 24p mode gets as close as you can to film. At exactly 24hz or a multiple (like a plasma or projector 72 or 96 hz) you can see film grain that 3:2 sometimes basically erases. I feel its a more authentic experience and worth having and using.

Your analogy on the other hand... Nobody prefers Netflix to BD. They prefer the convenience of it. If you sit anybody with decent eyes down in front of 2 TVs, one playing compressed Netflix and one playing high bitrate BD, they will immediately pick out the latter for it's better sharpness. Do the same with 24p vs 3:2, and not only will most people not see the difference, but if they try to identify which is which they will get it wrong in most cases.

I understand that you are a videophile and want the absolute best, but the analogies you are using aren't really fitting the topic very well, because the examples you are using are way more noticeable than 3:2 judder, not just to enthusiasts, but even to the common folk.

The analogy wasn't really about a quality difference between the two, but the fact the public takes convenience over quality in many cases. Hence YouTube over almost everything, Netflix over Blu Ray, LED over plasma, etc. Its more a statement I agree with you and not many care, and many just leave their TV in blast out vibrant mode. But I feel for those who have the feature its worth using (and movie loves should strive to get there) to see the full material as it was intended, unless the delay annoys you.

 

[tinpanalley]

I think a well done 24p mode gets as close as you can to film...

Maybe you can recommend to me an example that pops out in your memory of 3:2 being quite noticeably poorer than 24p so I can check it out?