Difference between hdmi and component cables?

Question

I have a hd tv which has a socet for av cables and component cables but does not have a hdmi input

is component cable still hd

i know av isnt

because i have a ps3 and i am using the av cables and am loocking into buying the component cable because it says in manual component cable does suport 720p hd

so what is the difference between hdmi and component cables

Answer 1

HDMI (high definition media interference) it supports all HD 720p 1080i 1080p get but if you don't have a input for that use component cables they are HD very good the 2nd best cable it supports the same HD 720p 1080i 1080p

Answer 2

Component can support up to 1080i.  HDMI, on the other hand, can support up to 1080p.  Component will be perfectly fine for a Playstation 3 because most of the games support up to 720p resolution.

Answer 3

Via component cables an analog signal is transfered. HDMI is digital. Among other things this has the following advantage: As long as the data is transferred correctly you have the perfect image data arriving at your TV. There won't be a single pixel difference in what the 'sending' device puts out and what reaches your TV. Component signals (as all analog signals) can vary in quality and you can get disturbances.

So actually: At first glance HDMI cables might appear more expensive than component cables, but that's not entirely true. For HDMI the requiered quality of the cable is related to the length you need. If you only need to cover a short distance (two or three meters) a cheap cable will give you the best possible result that could ever be achieved by any means ... it's digital ... the cheap cable has no influence on the image quality ... just like the network cable your computer uses to hook up to the inet has no influence on the image quality of videos you download / stream.

For component cables that's a different story: Because it's analog you don't actually need any expensive shielding to get "something" at the other side, but to even get close to a perfect picture (which still would be worse than hdmi in every case) you would need an incredibly expensive, well shielded component cable.

Of course this doesn't mean component is bad: Among affordable analog video connections it's probably by far the best, but HDMI just has the advantage of not having to care about the signal being unintentionally "affected" by outside influences during transfer. So if you can: HDMI is the better choice.

Oh: HDMI cables don't blow up anything. The only actual disadvantage of HDMI is, that the plugs aren't all that great. So if for example you have more players / gaming consoles / whatever than you have HDMI connectors on your TV you should not start plugging them in and out to switch between them. If you do that on a regular basis (like twice a day) after a few months or at least a few years your HDMI connectors on your TV could suffer from that. If this would be the case for you (as HDMI switches are still expensive) I'd recommend you to connect one of the devices via component cable to preserve your hdmi connectors for a long time to come. ;)

Answer 4

they isnt a difference in quality, but i have herd from a few satelite installers that hdmi cables will burn up satelite receivers and such...i would go with componant cables, i think their cheapier too..

Answer 5

In you case it is a moot point.

Component is a fine transport and in some applications (not many in the consumer world though)can be  better than 1080p.

HDMI is really there for high resolution with copy protection, as far as the physical transports go Component is more robust and frankly better IMO, however the copy protection is very appealing to studios. Way to go a new connector that doesn't do as good a job, that no one really has yet, and makes the complexity and cost sky rocket.