Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI TV-out quality

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2004 11:02:35 PM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I've currently got an el-cheapo Radeon 9200SE in my HTPC and the TV-out
quality is quite poor. Am I likely to see an improvement if I get an
older card, especially an ATI branded one, and do the AIW models usually
have better quality TV-out than the basic models?

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.

More about : ati quality

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 14, 2004 12:25:03 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Tony Houghton" <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnckbrmb.7d6.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk...
> I've currently got an el-cheapo Radeon 9200SE in my HTPC and the TV-out
> quality is quite poor. Am I likely to see an improvement if I get an
> older card, especially an ATI branded one, and do the AIW models usually
> have better quality TV-out than the basic models?
>
> --
> The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
> See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact
addresses.
they're all rubbish, nvidia may be better?
September 14, 2004 12:32:59 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Tony Houghton wrote:

> I've currently got an el-cheapo Radeon 9200SE in my HTPC and the TV-out
> quality is quite poor. Am I likely to see an improvement if I get an
> older card, especially an ATI branded one, and do the AIW models usually
> have better quality TV-out than the basic models?
>
The TV out performance of my AIW 128 card was never good enough to
seriously think about using it. I would have expected (hoped) that the
quality on newer cards would be better, not worse.

Cheers,

Chris

--
cut along the dotted line to reply
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 14, 2004 2:21:11 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In <2qmca7F1148s2U1@uni-berlin.de>,
hugh pearce <hwpearce@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:

> "Tony Houghton" <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnckbrmb.7d6.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk...
>> I've currently got an el-cheapo Radeon 9200SE in my HTPC and the TV-out
>> quality is quite poor. Am I likely to see an improvement if I get an
>> older card, especially an ATI branded one, and do the AIW models usually
>> have better quality TV-out than the basic models?
>
> they're all rubbish, nvidia may be better?

I doubt it, NVidia always had an even worse reputation than ATI for
quality, although I don't know if that applies to the TV-out as well.
Now that they both license out to 3rd parties I expect a good brand
NVidia would probably be better than a budget brand ATI. I'll try
comparing it with both of my Sapphires (9000 and 9600XT), if there's a
visible improvement I guess it will be worth looking for something like
an old genuine ATI or Hercules on eBay.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 14, 2004 2:49:18 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In article <slrnckbrmb.7d6.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk>, Tony
Houghton says...
> I've currently got an el-cheapo Radeon 9200SE in my HTPC and the TV-out
> quality is quite poor. Am I likely to see an improvement if I get an
> older card, especially an ATI branded one, and do the AIW models usually
> have better quality TV-out than the basic models?
>
>
THe problem isn't with TV-Out but with the quality of TVs. TV tubes are
very inferior compared to a monitor and you'll be lucky to find a TV
that gives sharp readable text. I have a £800 29" non widescreen Sony
and it ain't pretty. TV-Out IMO is only suitable for playing video
files and DVD.

--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 14, 2004 2:49:19 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In <MPG.1bb0263941209d2f98974d@news.giganews.com>,
Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnckbrmb.7d6.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk>, Tony
> Houghton says...
>> I've currently got an el-cheapo Radeon 9200SE in my HTPC and the TV-out
>> quality is quite poor. Am I likely to see an improvement if I get an
>> older card, especially an ATI branded one, and do the AIW models usually
>> have better quality TV-out than the basic models?
>>
> THe problem isn't with TV-Out but with the quality of TVs. TV tubes are
> very inferior compared to a monitor and you'll be lucky to find a TV
> that gives sharp readable text. I have a £800 29" non widescreen Sony
> and it ain't pretty. TV-Out IMO is only suitable for playing video
> files and DVD.

That's about all I want it for, but it's not very good even for that.
There's some interference noise in the form of faint wavy lines, and the
colours are a bit dull. S-Video is capable of much better than this with
a decent quality output; my DVD player's S-Video is much nearer in
quality to RGB than it is to composite. I've ordered a decent quality,
short, S-Video to SCART lead, but that's as much to tidy things up
instead of having to plug into the front of the TV, I'm not holding out
much hope of a big improvement in quality, and there's only so much you
can do with colour balance/gamma correction etc.

I've made a VGA to RGB lead (ATI and Matrox cards do have the advantage
of having a composite sync option); the picture is much brighter and
free from interference etc; I watched an MPEG 4 film on it with MPlayer
and it looked great, if a tad shimmery from the interlacing.
Unfortunately though the interlacing wrecked DVB playback with vdr-xine.
Maybe MythTV will handle it better.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 14, 2004 4:01:07 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Tony Houghton" <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnckc6sr.9sg.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk...
[snip]
> There's some interference noise in the form of faint wavy lines, and the
> colours are a bit dull. S-Video is capable of much better than this with
> a decent quality output [...]

Sounds very similar to what you get when a composite signal is "interpreted"
as S-video. Worth checking if you haven't already.

Alex
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 14, 2004 4:08:49 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In <2qmn5kF10tdddU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Alex Fraser <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> "Tony Houghton" <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnckc6sr.9sg.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk...
> [snip]
>> There's some interference noise in the form of faint wavy lines, and the
>> colours are a bit dull. S-Video is capable of much better than this with
>> a decent quality output [...]
>
> Sounds very similar to what you get when a composite signal is "interpreted"
> as S-video. Worth checking if you haven't already.

I'm sure it's not that. You usually don't get colour at all if you get
that wrong, and the interference is grainy rather than wavy.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 14, 2004 4:36:11 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Tony Houghton" <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnckc6sr.9sg.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk...
> In <MPG.1bb0263941209d2f98974d@news.giganews.com>,
> Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnckbrmb.7d6.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk>, Tony

>
> That's about all I want it for, but it's not very good even for that.
> There's some interference noise in the form of faint wavy lines, and the
> colours are a bit dull. S-Video is capable of much better than this with
> a decent quality output; my DVD player's S-Video is much nearer in
> quality to RGB than it is to composite. I've ordered a decent quality,
> short, S-Video to SCART lead, but that's as much to tidy things up
> instead of having to plug into the front of the TV, I'm not holding out
> much hope of a big improvement in quality, and there's only so much you
> can do with colour balance/gamma correction etc.
>
> I've made a VGA to RGB lead (ATI and Matrox cards do have the advantage
> of having a composite sync option); the picture is much brighter and
> free from interference etc; I watched an MPEG 4 film on it with MPlayer
> and it looked great, if a tad shimmery from the interlacing.
> Unfortunately though the interlacing wrecked DVB playback with vdr-xine.
> Maybe MythTV will handle it better.
>

I used to use an old Voodoo3 3000 with tv-out and the quality on dvd was
stunning. My neighbour still has an old P3-700 I built for her about three
years ago with this card in and she still uses it for dvd viewing as the
quality is better than her stand-alone Sony dvd player.

With the cost of these so low on Ebay it might be worth a try before you
start shelling out silly money.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.760 / Virus Database: 509 - Release Date: 10/09/2004
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 14, 2004 4:13:54 PM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In <%1r1d.140$Tl4.1638587@news-text.cableinet.net>,
BigH2K <peter2004@NOTTHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> I used to use an old Voodoo3 3000 with tv-out and the quality on dvd was
> stunning. My neighbour still has an old P3-700 I built for her about three
> years ago with this card in and she still uses it for dvd viewing as the
> quality is better than her stand-alone Sony dvd player.
>
> With the cost of these so low on Ebay it might be worth a try before you
> start shelling out silly money.

I forgot about Voodoos. Looks like the TV-out can be used with
Linux/XFree86 with a little coaxing.

Anyway, I've just bought a Creative DXR3 from eBay for £8.50 inc
postage. Worth a try at that price; hopefully it should be quite
straightforward to write a VDR plugin for it (thus solving another
problem, because the software playback option for VDR is so poor I was
about to give up on it and try MythTV), and if I'm really lucky it might
be designed so that you can use the VGA passthrough to get the desktop
or whatever displayed on its TV-out.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 15, 2004 4:27:37 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I have tested an ATI AIW8500DV, an older ATI Rage 128, a Nvidia Ti4200 and a
Matrox G450 for TV out quality. I played TV test signals from a AVIA test
DVD disk and measured the frequency response using a Tektronix TV waveform
monitor.

The worst were both ATI cards, they had a loss at 5Mhz of about 80% and had
artifacts. The Nvidia card had a loss at 5 MHz of about 60% but had no
additional artifacts. The Matrox G450 had a loss at 5 MHz of about 10%.


So the Matrox card had by far the best TV out quality and was clean with no
additional artifacts which were noticable on both the ATI cards, but it not
a very fast 3D card if that is needed.

Mike T

"Tony Houghton" <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnckbrmb.7d6.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk...
> I've currently got an el-cheapo Radeon 9200SE in my HTPC and the TV-out
> quality is quite poor. Am I likely to see an improvement if I get an
> older card, especially an ATI branded one, and do the AIW models usually
> have better quality TV-out than the basic models?
>
> --
> The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
> See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact
addresses.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 15, 2004 5:42:11 AM

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In <Y%L1d.1373428$6p.236176@news.easynews.com>,
Mike T <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote:

> I have tested an ATI AIW8500DV, an older ATI Rage 128, a Nvidia Ti4200 and a
> Matrox G450 for TV out quality. I played TV test signals from a AVIA test
> DVD disk and measured the frequency response using a Tektronix TV waveform
> monitor.
>
> The worst were both ATI cards, they had a loss at 5Mhz of about 80% and had
> artifacts. The Nvidia card had a loss at 5 MHz of about 60% but had no
> additional artifacts. The Matrox G450 had a loss at 5 MHz of about 10%.
>
> So the Matrox card had by far the best TV out quality and was clean with no
> additional artifacts which were noticable on both the ATI cards, but it not
> a very fast 3D card if that is needed.

Thanks, that's quite interesting. There are two problems with Matrox
though.

One is that last time I looked on eBay there were absolutely none
available with TV-out, at least none old enough to be cheap, like a G200
or even G400.

The second problem is that they've gone from being the best supported
graphics cards in Linux to the worst. Their TV-out always had very
limited functionality - no X AFAIK - and relied on a non-free HAL driver
that I can't find any more.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
!