Component vs HDMI

>>51475416
Component doesn't offer any advantages over HDMI. Maybe they're more durable on average, but that's about it.

>>51475490
I've heard VGA has some quality loss at higher resolutions like FullHD 1080p since it's analog but is that true for Component? They work on a different principle although both analog and I haven't noticed difference between 1080p Component and HDMI (digital). Some say digital is always better.

>>51475636
I forgot about signal degradation.

Image quality wise they're basically on par. HDMI will look a little bit better, but not by much. Component can be better for longer distances since HDMI tends to drop out or sparkle around ~50 feet. High quality cables and boosters can help mitigate this, but I digress.

>>51475938
I should have mentioned in the beginning I meant YPbPr when I said component. It's different from VGA but I haven't noticed much signal degradation but I haven't used VGA at 1080p to compare with Component and then again with HDMI.

At least no DRM with VGA and Component right?

This entire thread sounds like one big samefag

>>51476749
It's two people alternating actually. Thanks for the quality post.

This thread was or still is on /v/.

>>51475416
Definitely component. The soft 480p look it provides and lack of compatibility with modern devices invokes a strong sense of nostalgia in me that the superior clarity and convenience of HDMI simply can't match.

>>51476922
>480p look.
Not all devices are shit and work like shit with analog.
>lack of compatibility with modern devices
You can thank the push for digital DRM in HDMI for that one.

>component
A shit that never should have grown out of broadcast tv.
>I need better compression on a five foot run from my dvd player to my tv
Makes total sense. Clearly any flavor of RGB couldn't have handled that.