No subject
Mon May 18 13:30:33 BST 2009
greatly increases the general clarity and sharpness of the picture. ... The
increase in picture quality that you'll get in platform games (like the PS2)
when you move from composite (yellow-plug) to S-Video is very noticeable and
is well worth spending the extra money to buy the optional cable. "
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video
>
> "S-Video carries standard definition video (typically at 480i or 576i
> resolution)" much the same as composite...."
Yes, the resolution is the same, but that doesn't make the quality the same.
After all component video is the same resolution as well.
"S-Video.....it is also the poorest quality-wise, being far surpassed by the
> more complex component video schemes (like RGB)...."
>
That's simply out of context. The full quote was "S-Video is sometimes
considered a type of component video signal; however, it is also the poorest
quality-wise, being far surpassed by the more complex component video
schemes".
They were comparing S-Video to other component signals, not to composite. In
fact the previous sentence in that article is the relevant one: "This means
that S-Video leaves more information from the original video intact; thus,
it offers an improved image reproduction compared to composite video."
Here's another reference:
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/VideoConnectors/VideoConnectors.asp
"In a nutshell, if your display device can support it, a component or RGB
video connection will give you the best possible image from DVD. An S-Video
connection is not far behind in quality. A composite connection, however,
will result in a perfectly acceptable, but less than optimal result from
your DVD player."
My TV's manual agrees:
"DVI-D, D-Sub, Full SCART > Component > S-Video > Composite, Half SCART"
Though I found the difference between DVD-D and "D-Sub" (VGA RGB) quite
noticeable on that TV. On my LCD monitor DVI-D and VGA RGB are
indistinguishable.
In my limited testing of the two formats I could not see a difference.
You may have had a poor source or a very good composite connection.
Typically the difference is glaringly obvious, especially on computer
outputs. Even if the difference was insignificant with video it's likely to
be obvious in the MythTV menus.
The specs do not speak of vast improvements either.
Yes, they do. The separation of chrominance from luminance is a vast
improvement. Note that it's also the difference between composite and
component (in it's usual TV use YPrPb incarnation).
Cheers,
Steve
--0016364176cffff901046f0fc925
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Tortise <span =
dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:tortise at paradise.net.nz">tortise at paradise=
.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">
</div>Response: =A0I am not sure how MHO can be "wrong" but appar=
ently it can. These references may assist:<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Those references don't support your position.<br>=
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<a href=3D"http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/tech/video-connections.htm=
l" target=3D"_blank">http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/tech/video-conne=
ctions.html</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/svideo.html" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/svideo.html</a></blockquote><div=
><br>From that page: "...<span class=3D"normal">it reduces things like=
color bleeding and dot crawl and=20
greatly increases the general clarity and sharpness of the pictur=
e. ... </span>The increase in picture quality that you'll get in platfo=
rm games (like the PS2) when you move from composite (yellow-plug) to S-Vid=
eo is very noticeable and is well worth spending the extra money to buy the=
optional cable. "<br>
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid =
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video" target=3D"_blank">=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video</a><br>
<div class=3D"im"><a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video" target=
=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video</a><br>
</div><a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video</a><br>
<br>
"S-Video carries standard definition video (typically at 480i or 576i =
resolution)" much the same as composite...."</blockquote><div><br=
>Yes, the resolution is the same, but that doesn't make the quality the=
same. After all component video is the same resolution as well.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
"S-Video.....it is also the poorest quality-wise, being far surpassed =
by the more complex component video schemes (like RGB)...."<br>
</blockquote><div><br>That's simply out of context. The full quote was =
"S-Video is sometimes considered a type=A0of component video signal; h=
owever, it is also the poorest quality-wise, being far surpassed by the mor=
e complex component video schemes".<br>
They were comparing S-Video to other component signals, not to composite. I=
n fact the previous sentence in that article is the relevant one: "Thi=
s means that S-Video leaves more information from the original video
intact; thus, it offers an improved image reproduction compared to
composite video."<br><br>Here's another reference:<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/VideoConnectors/VideoConne=
ctors.asp">http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/VideoConnectors/VideoConne=
ctors.asp</a><br>
"In a nutshell, if your display device can support it,
a component or RGB video connection will give you the best possible image
from DVD. An S-Video connection is not far behind in quality. A composite
connection, however, will result in a perfectly acceptable, but less than
optimal result from your DVD player."<br>
<br>My TV's manual agrees:<br>"DVI-D, D-Sub, Full SCART > Compo=
nent > S-Video > Composite, Half SCART"<br>Though I found the di=
fference between DVD-D and "D-Sub" (VGA RGB) quite noticeable on =
that TV. On my LCD monitor DVI-D and VGA RGB are indistinguishable.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In my limited testing of the two formats I could not see a difference. =A0<=
/blockquote><div><br>You may have had a poor source or a very good composit=
e connection. Typically the difference is glaringly obvious, especially on =
computer outputs. Even if the difference was insignificant with video it=
9;s likely to be obvious in the MythTV menus.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The spe=
cs do not speak of vast improvements either. </blockquote><div><br>Yes, the=
y do. The separation of chrominance from luminance is a vast improvement. N=
ote that it's also the difference between composite and component (in i=
t's usual TV use YPrPb incarnation).<br>
=A0</div>Cheers,<br>Steve<br></div>
--0016364176cffff901046f0fc925--
More information about the mythtvnz
mailing list