Re: HDMI or Component

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:35:49 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| Michelle Steiner wrote:
|> In article <dfmv1d631fa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
|> wrote:
|>
|>
|>>| Theoretically, HDMI should give a better picture because it avoids
|>>| the digital to analog to digital conversion, but I can't see it.
|>>
|>>It gets converted to analog in the display at some point, anyway.
|>
|>
|> Does it with DLP? The signal flips mirrors; so each mirror has an on
|> and an off state, so they're binary. Where does the analog come in?
|> I'm not trying to be sarcastic; if there is an analog portion of the
|> signal path, I'm curious as to where it is because I thought it was
|> digital all the way with HDMI.
|>
|
| Don't bother with this troll. He has demonstrated time and again that he
| knows little to nothing about the subjects that he posts on. He has been
| corrected, many times, by many people. It appears that his sole purpose
| in posting here is to make himself feel important. He is wrong in this
| case, as he almost always is.

Ignore Matthew L. Martin. He and his twin Jeff Rife are just pompous
antisocial assholes that make personal attacks and never discuss the
merits of a topic when it comes to something their low intelligence
just cannot handle.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.