Posted by dmaster on 11/14/06 16:07

Guest wrote:
....
> Even is the cables(transmission) themselves are made of better materials for
> transmission?
....

As long as we are talking about digital transmissions, until the
quality of the cable falls so low that bits (smallest unit of
information) start getting corrupted, there will be no difference
what-so-ever.

And refering back to an ealier post by you where you stated that the
artifacts you saw were "film artifacts" not "digital artifacts": The
information between the two ends of an HDMI or optical audio cable *is*
a digital transmission. The only kind of artifacts you can possibly
introduce are the "digital artifacts" you claim you didn't see.

You've got to understand, in old analogue systems, the information is
encoded in the amplitude and frequency of a wave. Anything that
changes the wave changes the information. Should the change be large
enough, a human may notice. Digital is not like that at all. The wave
has only two distinct values, not a continuum. To cause an error, you
need enough interference to change one value into the other. What that
has done, in effect, is corrupted a byte in the data stream. The
change is as likely to be a huge change as a small change. If data
correction does not detect and correct the error, then a "digital
artifact" occurs. Once again, unlike an analogue media, where
corruption can effect primarily the high frequency components, of the
high power components, etc... digital artifacts are equally likely
anywhere. You are most likely going to see (or hear) a rather gross
effect, like macro-blocking. It is completely unlikely that the
artifacting will be "to generally preserve less detail" or "change the
realism of ground textures" or anything like that at all.

Dan (Woj...)

[Back to original message]