The results in the table below are a victory for the concepts of common sense and frugality. The output is 100 per cent identical, whether you are spending £1.50 or £100 on a lead. HDMI guarantees you a pristine image - how good the image is comes down to the quality of your screen, and your perception of how it looks.
The only point of interest we'll add to this is that the hash for the original BMP picture file we ran on the XMB Photo Viewer was different to the capture. And if we captured the capture (in essence, creating a second generation grab of the original image) the hash changed again. But we will assume this is all down to the inner workings of the PS3 - perhaps reformatting the 24-bit RGB image to confirm with the XMB framebuffer, resulting in a tiny difference invisible to the human eye. Changing cables always resulted in the same, adjusted hash. If you'd like to see our captured images, feel free to download them.
On the face of it, the conclusion is that you can run any HDMI cable - no matter how cheap - and get identical results. However, very poor quality cabling can present image problems in certain circumstances, and the accepted wisdom that with digital you either get an image or you don't isn't exactly true. A low quality, very long HDMI cable could work fine at 720p for example, but could introduce digital artifacts at 1080p.
But the important thing to point out is that there is no real parallel with the world of analogue cables. Gold-plated cables didn't really do much on the older analogue leads, and do nothing at all in the digital world - and all the other insulation techniques described in the HDMI Truth Bomb will have zero bearing on the effectiveness of the average HDMI cable. Traditional analogue cables could be vulnerable to external interference that results in image degradation, but if a digital signal is interrupted, this manifests in a completely different way.
Cambio titolo
Rispondi con Citazione
Hide Your Tears
, beh meglio cosi visto che piu è corto meglio è 
.
