Author Topic: HDMI for Wii????? (Read 5854 times)

raptorspike · « **on:** April 21, 2007, 05:23:35 AM »

Does anyone know if there are plans (or even possible with the output port on the wii) of an HDMI cable being made? Since the Wii is about simplicity, how much more simple can you get than plugging in one cable, not five with the component cables. And since HDMI can carry a 480p signal, it could work.

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2007, 06:34:36 AM »

I would go out on a limb and say never, the point of HDMI is for high definition content and digital rights management that a lot of movie companies are clamoring about, even if it does support 480i and 480p but it would be wasteful(since your making a bottleneck with the interface itself since the Wii was built to support 480p at most) and plus not a lot of TV owners own a HDTV or a HDTV with a HDMI slot. I think if there was a HDMI port on a Nintendo console it will most likely be on Nintendo's next console as a secondary optional connection since I think component outputs will be popular for a long time.

Strell · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:11:57 AM »

Why in the world would they EVER add HDMI?

It would be like buying a high powered sports car, and then only using it to go pick up fast food 2 miles away.

Louieturkey · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2007, 10:55:15 AM »

Plus, every new tv has component (well, everything above twenty inches that is), but not all new tvs carry hdmi. Only HDTVs will carry hdmi. Nintendo is catering to all categories of tvs and having composite and component is the best option.

Plus, the hdmi version would just cost $50 for no benefit over component.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2007, 10:57:06 AM »

I don't see what the big deal over HDMI is. I don't see how slightly better picture and sound is worth basically over a hundred dollars more, when you include the cost of the cables. I think it's ridiculous.

The Omen · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2007, 04:16:05 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
I don't see what the big deal over HDMI is. I don't see how slightly better picture and sound is worth basically over a hundred dollars more, when you include the cost of the cables. I think it's ridiculous.

One of the pluses is saving your component inputs for another device if you only have one set.

I made Comcast bring me HDMI cables to work with the their digital cable box so that I could hook my Wii up through the component. For free.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2007, 04:25:40 PM »

I would love HDMI, and personally think every type of A/V component should include it. I'll take 1 wire over 5 any day, and it's universal for all systems, so if you're TV only had 1 HDMI input, you could unplug the cable from your system and place it in another. Also, you should never pay more than $15 for an HDMI cable, since they're all exactly the same.

Blue Plant · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:26:04 PM »

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't HDMI allow for uncompressed data stream? While component has a very good signal, it's still being compressed?

My new HDTV (sans any HD service other than over-the-air PBS HD) has an unused HDMI port I'd love the Wii to use.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:41:08 PM »

Correct.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:39:22 PM »

Pfft. Everything goes into SCART.

Artimus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2007, 09:33:07 PM »

This would be so pointless?

Rhoq · « **Reply #11 on:** April 24, 2007, 02:46:37 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Blue Plant
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't HDMI allow for uncompressed data stream? While component has a very good signal, it's still being compressed?

Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
Correct.

Not quite.

HDMI carries uncompressed audio. The video signal being output is the same whether it's Component or HDMI, the only difference is that component is analog and HDMI is digital. Because of this HDMI is supposedly slightly sharper, though most people would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

Picture quality will only be as good as the source. HDMI will not make a difference.

Pale · « **Reply #12 on:** April 24, 2007, 07:41:12 AM »

I don't understand why people insist that they need an HDMI cable. There really is zero benefit to it.

Rhoq · « **Reply #13 on:** April 25, 2007, 01:50:49 AM »

Not "zero benefit", but I see your point. HDMI might just be the most over hyped and over rated technology of the moment.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #14 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:49:00 AM »

It's not over rated, it just should have come out years ago. HDMI wouldn't automatically turn Wii graphics into HD, but it would give the absolute "this is the way it's supposed to look" image. I honestly don't think it would look that much better, if at all, but it would just be 5x as convenient.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #15 on:** April 25, 2007, 07:50:47 AM »

Err, and I know that it actually did come out years ago, it should have came out years before it actually did is what I meant. Every new piece of A/V should come with HDMI as the standard cable, besides a VCR.

Pale · « **Reply #16 on:** April 25, 2007, 09:24:26 AM »

No one can prove that HDMI looks better than component. At least no-one that's talked to me. I've done extensive tests myself and it's usually down the middle on which one looks better. They are nearly identical.

The only real benefit anyone could have is saying that it's more convenient to run sound and video in one cable, but to me that is limiting. What if I want to pipe my video directly to my tv and my sound to an external amp?

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #17 on:** April 25, 2007, 05:29:32 PM »

Almost anything that uses HDMI will also have L/R audio output jacks and an optical output jack as well, also just about any new (decent) receiver has HDMI input (multiple) and output. There is a difference in quality, it just depends on the source, like Rhoq said, it also depends on the display. It's (almost) like comparing stereo CD audio using L/R analog cables or using a digital optical connection, the latter will sound perfectly clear, assuming the CD has been recorded properly, without any hiss that doesn't exist on the disc when you turn up the volume.

BigJim · « **Reply #18 on:** April 26, 2007, 02:59:45 AM »

Why does HDMI have to be "proven"? It's an option like any other, and at least as good as component.

Even if there's an amp, the convenience is no worse than being a 3-in-1 rather than 5-in-1 cable.

nitsu niflheim · « **Reply #19 on:** April 26, 2007, 03:19:43 AM »

My TV doesn't have a HDMI port, but it does have 2 component ports (Wii and DVD player use these), 1 DVI port (older computer uses this), 1 (or 2) composite ports (PS2 is uses this)

Pale · « **Reply #20 on:** April 26, 2007, 04:14:03 AM »

It doesn't have to be proven. Sure put it on there. I'm just sick of people thinking one piece of hardware is "better" than another because of HDMI.

hudsonhawk · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2007, 10:54:59 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Rhoq
Quote
Originally posted by: Blue Plant
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't HDMI allow for uncompressed data stream? While component has a very good signal, it's still being compressed?

Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
Correct.

Not quite.

HDMI carries uncompressed audio. The video signal being output is the same whether it's Component or HDMI, the only difference is that component is analog and HDMI is digital. Because of this HDMI is supposedly slightly sharper, though most people would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

Picture quality will only be as good as the source. HDMI will not make a difference.

Not at all.

First off, the notion that "picture quality will only be as good as the source", and is only true if you have a medium over which to transport that data losslessly. Otherwise we'd still be using coax inputs for our tv's.

Component is compressed vs. HDMI. The color palette is larger due to the greater available bandwidth. Even VGA is better than component.

The other advantage to HDMI is that it's digital the whole way. With component you go from digital to analog back to digital again at the television. You're saving two steps of conversion with HDMI because your TV can natively do the scaling.

There will always be exceptions to any rule, but by and large HDMI is superior to component.

Quote
HDMI might just be the most over hyped and over rated technology of the moment.

I just think you don't "get it." Personally, I have a nest of cables behind my system - toslink or audio cables going from each component to the preamp, component and toslink or RCA cables going each component to the amp.... if everything just used HDMI (and, well, if my preamp accepted it) I could replace 2 component cables, 1 DVI cable, 2 toslink cables, 1 coax cable, and 5 single RCA cables (for 5-channel lossless from my SACD / DVD-Audio player) with 4 HDMI cables. And I would experience an increase in quality in most cases.

It gets rid of the clutter, and the need for any configuration - imagine if you could just plug in a high definition device and you didn't have to go into the menus and enable upscaling or progressive scan or set the resolution. With HDMI it's all automatic.

Ceric · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2007, 11:01:41 AM »

Dude do you know a good place to get DVD Audio disc from? I really like to get some Jazz and Brass band on DVD because the extra quality would be worth it with those sort of things.

hudsonhawk · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2007, 02:24:14 PM »

Try Music Direct and Elusive Disc - they have most everything.

I get a lot of stuff from eBay and local retailers as well. There's quite a few good jazz SACD and DVD-audio discs out there, start with the Miles Davis Kind of Blue Dualdisc. You might even find that at your local BestBuy.

anubis6789 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2007, 09:10:24 PM »

I'm with Pale on this one, HDMI may be technically better (as in on paper) but there is little to no noticeable difference between it and component on a properly setup monitor. Really, at least in my opinion, the only thing that HDMI has going for it is the convenience of having everything on one cable, in fact I have theory that the only reason HDMI is even being pushed onto consumers is because of HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection).

This kind of argument reminds me of the whole 720p vs. 1080i discussion, where even trained television setup professionals cannot tell the differences between the standards, out side of screen size (past a certain size 1080i does become noticeably better) and interlacing (some people can see and others cannot), yet everyone tends to be for one or the other (personally though I prefer 720p because I can see interlacing, but that is just me). I have another theory here too, I believe the only reason 1080p is being pushed right now is because they wanted those early adopters who bought older HDTVs to buy the big new thing. What is funny about this though is that 1080p runs at 30fps (1080i runs at 60 fields per second as opposed to full frames) while 720 runs at 60fps, so do not be surprised if in a year or so newer HDTVs start touting 1080p at 60fps as a new feature.

Btw a component signal is not compressed when it reaches the TV, whatever is sending the signal tends to decompress the signal before it gets turned into analog (I have never in my life heard of analog compression).

News:

Author Topic: HDMI for Wii????? (Read 5854 times)