directedition
Member
I understand that in the analog world, component is far superior to composite because the signals won't interfere with each other, or be as susceptible to ambient interference when the cable travels a long distance. In the end, it all boils down to how reliably you can reproduce the original image. At least, that's my understanding.
So why is it that in digital formats, component is superior to composite? In the digital realm, signals can't 'interfere' with each other and bleed into one another. Ambient interference could corrupt the digital signal itself, but it would have no impact at all on quality (in digital, it's all or nothing, akin to the difference between digital and analog transmitter cell phones). Since the digitized signal can be perfectly reproduced, why does the difference between the two matter?
Maybe I'm just not grasping some basic concept about the difference between composite and component.
So why is it that in digital formats, component is superior to composite? In the digital realm, signals can't 'interfere' with each other and bleed into one another. Ambient interference could corrupt the digital signal itself, but it would have no impact at all on quality (in digital, it's all or nothing, akin to the difference between digital and analog transmitter cell phones). Since the digitized signal can be perfectly reproduced, why does the difference between the two matter?
Maybe I'm just not grasping some basic concept about the difference between composite and component.
