Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for evidence that S-Video is noticeably superior t..

Tags:
  • Tuner Cards
  • Video
  • Pinnacle
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 14, 2005 2:13:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I recently got a standalone DVD player with various options for video out so
I've been doing some experimenting.

Going into a Pinnacle DC-10, running Pinnacle Studio 9 (yes, miracle of
miracles, I actually got it to work) on a 933mhz PIII Compaq running XP
Home, going to a dedicated 7200rpm hard drive. I'm viewing the output
through a brand-new 19" tv. The player is a CyberHome CH-DVD 300. Using
basic RCA composite and S-Video cables off the rack at WalMart.

As my test video, I'm using a DVD of Final Fantasy, the CGI
super-spectacular figuring that should give me about as hi-def an image as
exists along with a wide variety of images, shapes, shades, plenty of
intricate detail.

At this time, I really don't see any discernable difference. Both the
composite and S-Video output look superb, but identical as near as I can
tell. They look indistinguishable from the image straight off the DVD for
that matter.

Is there any particular type of detail I should be looking at to see where
any differences might lie?

The only difference from a technical standpoint that I've seen is that the
S-Video drops a slightly smaller number of frames. So far 1 dropped frame in
just at an hour going through the S-Video, around 3 or 4 in an hour with
composite.

Maybe I need a more hifalutin' TV to see the difference?

More about : evidence video noticeably superior

Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Can't comment on your specific test but I used to own a Sony XBR series 27"
CRT television and with a Sony Playstation connected via S-Video, the
picture was noticeably sharper with much less smearing.

Might be the differences aren't visible until you get into a certain level
of equipment.
Next time I'm comparing, I'll take some still shots and put them online for
all to see.

C.




"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YPg7e.6468$sp3.1768@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I recently got a standalone DVD player with various options for video out
>so
> I've been doing some experimenting.
>
> Going into a Pinnacle DC-10, running Pinnacle Studio 9 (yes, miracle of
> miracles, I actually got it to work) on a 933mhz PIII Compaq running XP
> Home, going to a dedicated 7200rpm hard drive. I'm viewing the output
> through a brand-new 19" tv. The player is a CyberHome CH-DVD 300. Using
> basic RCA composite and S-Video cables off the rack at WalMart.
>
> As my test video, I'm using a DVD of Final Fantasy, the CGI
> super-spectacular figuring that should give me about as hi-def an image as
> exists along with a wide variety of images, shapes, shades, plenty of
> intricate detail.
>
> At this time, I really don't see any discernable difference. Both the
> composite and S-Video output look superb, but identical as near as I can
> tell. They look indistinguishable from the image straight off the DVD for
> that matter.
>
> Is there any particular type of detail I should be looking at to see where
> any differences might lie?
>
> The only difference from a technical standpoint that I've seen is that the
> S-Video drops a slightly smaller number of frames. So far 1 dropped frame
> in
> just at an hour going through the S-Video, around 3 or 4 in an hour with
> composite.
>
> Maybe I need a more hifalutin' TV to see the difference?
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

If you google the subject there are websites that demonstrate the difference
with video captures.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:13:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:27:08 -0400, "C.J.Patten"
<cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:
I also have a 27 inch XBR, it's past it's best, but the difference
between the svhs and the composite inputs is still discernible.
The main difference I see is the dot crawl on straight edges.
Very pronounced on composite, but almost invisible on SVHS.

On the otherhand, if the TV has an advanced (3d?) comb filter
installed, it's probably much closer.
Dave

>Can't comment on your specific test but I used to own a Sony XBR series 27"
>CRT television and with a Sony Playstation connected via S-Video, the
>picture was noticeably sharper with much less smearing.
>
>Might be the differences aren't visible until you get into a certain level
>of equipment.
>Next time I'm comparing, I'll take some still shots and put them online for
>all to see.
>
>C.
>
>
>
>
>"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:YPg7e.6468$sp3.1768@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>I recently got a standalone DVD player with various options for video out
>>so
>> I've been doing some experimenting.
>>
>> Going into a Pinnacle DC-10, running Pinnacle Studio 9 (yes, miracle of
>> miracles, I actually got it to work) on a 933mhz PIII Compaq running XP
>> Home, going to a dedicated 7200rpm hard drive. I'm viewing the output
>> through a brand-new 19" tv. The player is a CyberHome CH-DVD 300. Using
>> basic RCA composite and S-Video cables off the rack at WalMart.
>>
>> As my test video, I'm using a DVD of Final Fantasy, the CGI
>> super-spectacular figuring that should give me about as hi-def an image as
>> exists along with a wide variety of images, shapes, shades, plenty of
>> intricate detail.
>>
>> At this time, I really don't see any discernable difference. Both the
>> composite and S-Video output look superb, but identical as near as I can
>> tell. They look indistinguishable from the image straight off the DVD for
>> that matter.
>>
>> Is there any particular type of detail I should be looking at to see where
>> any differences might lie?
>>
>> The only difference from a technical standpoint that I've seen is that the
>> S-Video drops a slightly smaller number of frames. So far 1 dropped frame
>> in
>> just at an hour going through the S-Video, around 3 or 4 in an hour with
>> composite.
>>
>> Maybe I need a more hifalutin' TV to see the difference?
>>
>>
>>
>
April 14, 2005 11:24:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I used to be dubious about S-video until recently. I have a FTA dish
system and noticed that the video was not near as clear as the analog
video from the large C-Band dish, and had been unsuccessful in
capturing any high quality video using the composite outputs. Then I
just bought a new flat screen display that has the S-Video input. So
I took the S-Video output of the dish receive and feed it into my ATI
capture card S-Video input as well as the S-Video input of the flat
screen display. Well, I was amazed. A 720 x 480 capture is now
excellent and almost DVD quality.
Before using the S-Video I had tried every method of capture to try to
get decent video, but it all showed loss of high frequency resolution.
I am now convinced and am getting excellent video captures and burns
to DVD.


On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:13:12 GMT, "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com>
wrote:

>I recently got a standalone DVD player with various options for video out so
>I've been doing some experimenting.
>
>Going into a Pinnacle DC-10, running Pinnacle Studio 9 (yes, miracle of
>miracles, I actually got it to work) on a 933mhz PIII Compaq running XP
>Home, going to a dedicated 7200rpm hard drive. I'm viewing the output
>through a brand-new 19" tv. The player is a CyberHome CH-DVD 300. Using
>basic RCA composite and S-Video cables off the rack at WalMart.
>
>As my test video, I'm using a DVD of Final Fantasy, the CGI
>super-spectacular figuring that should give me about as hi-def an image as
>exists along with a wide variety of images, shapes, shades, plenty of
>intricate detail.
>
>At this time, I really don't see any discernable difference. Both the
>composite and S-Video output look superb, but identical as near as I can
>tell. They look indistinguishable from the image straight off the DVD for
>that matter.
>
>Is there any particular type of detail I should be looking at to see where
>any differences might lie?
>
>The only difference from a technical standpoint that I've seen is that the
>S-Video drops a slightly smaller number of frames. So far 1 dropped frame in
>just at an hour going through the S-Video, around 3 or 4 in an hour with
>composite.
>
>Maybe I need a more hifalutin' TV to see the difference?
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:33:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I have a similar experience as C.J.Patten's. My 25" Sony TV shows a
noticable improvement when I switch from composite video ro S-video (I
forgot the model number of the Sony TV). On the other hand, I don't see
any improvement when I make the same change on two different JVC TV
sets (32" and 25"). The fact that my Sony TV costed more than either of
the JVC TVs may have something to do with this.

Jay Chan
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:49:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YPg7e.6468$sp3.1768@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I recently got a standalone DVD player with various options for video out
>so
> I've been doing some experimenting.
>
> Going into a Pinnacle DC-10, running Pinnacle Studio 9 (yes, miracle of
> miracles, I actually got it to work) on a 933mhz PIII Compaq running XP
> Home, going to a dedicated 7200rpm hard drive. I'm viewing the output
> through a brand-new 19" tv. The player is a CyberHome CH-DVD 300. Using
> basic RCA composite and S-Video cables off the rack at WalMart.
>
> As my test video, I'm using a DVD of Final Fantasy, the CGI
> super-spectacular figuring that should give me about as hi-def an image as
> exists along with a wide variety of images, shapes, shades, plenty of
> intricate detail.
>

Once again Doc, DVD does not hold hi-def whether it is Final Fantasy or the
Matrix. CGI has nothing to do with it. DVD video is 720x480 whether it is
letterboxed or full screen.

> At this time, I really don't see any discernable difference. Both the
> composite and S-Video output look superb, but identical as near as I can
> tell. They look indistinguishable from the image straight off the DVD for
> that matter.
>
> Is there any particular type of detail I should be looking at to see where
> any differences might lie?
>
> The only difference from a technical standpoint that I've seen is that the
> S-Video drops a slightly smaller number of frames. So far 1 dropped frame
> in
> just at an hour going through the S-Video, around 3 or 4 in an hour with
> composite.
>
> Maybe I need a more hifalutin' TV to see the difference?
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 8:03:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I've often wondered if lower-end equipment with external S-video ports are
actually just "soldered" into the same circuit as the RCA jack.
Same effect as having a $5 external RCA to S-VIDEO dongle.

Based on what I'm reading here, I'm leaning toward that conclusion.

C.

<jaykchan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113496433.527249.91220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I have a similar experience as C.J.Patten's. My 25" Sony TV shows a
> noticable improvement when I switch from composite video ro S-video (I
> forgot the model number of the Sony TV). On the other hand, I don't see
> any improvement when I make the same change on two different JVC TV
> sets (32" and 25"). The fact that my Sony TV costed more than either of
> the JVC TVs may have something to do with this.
>
> Jay Chan
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 8:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:EtGdnTSwA8IVUcPfRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
> I've often wondered if lower-end equipment with external S-video ports are
> actually just "soldered" into the same circuit as the RCA jack.
> Same effect as having a $5 external RCA to S-VIDEO dongle.
>
> Based on what I'm reading here, I'm leaning toward that conclusion.
>
> C.

I don't think such a thing exists. S-video handles chroma and luminence
signals separately. You can combine the two mechanically into a single RCA
connector and wind up with a composite signal. However, I don't think you
can take a composite signal and separate out chroma and luminance except
electronically.

>
> <jaykchan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113496433.527249.91220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>I have a similar experience as C.J.Patten's. My 25" Sony TV shows a
>> noticable improvement when I switch from composite video ro S-video (I
>> forgot the model number of the Sony TV). On the other hand, I don't see
>> any improvement when I make the same change on two different JVC TV
>> sets (32" and 25"). The fact that my Sony TV costed more than either of
>> the JVC TVs may have something to do with this.
>>
>> Jay Chan
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 8:41:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:EtGdnTSwA8IVUcPfRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
> I've often wondered if lower-end equipment with external S-video ports are
> actually just "soldered" into the same circuit as the RCA jack.
> Same effect as having a $5 external RCA to S-VIDEO dongle.
>
> Based on what I'm reading here, I'm leaning toward that conclusion.
>
One difference between S-video (Y/C) and Composite is
that the luminance signal (Y) and the Chrominance signal are
mixed together and sent down a single wire instead of 2
separate wires as in S-video (Y/C).

The Y part of the signal contains all of the detail an luminance
information. Because it is carried separately, S-video can have
a noticeable improvement in clarity. Before the 2 can be combined,
some of the detail has to be filtered out so as not to compete with
the color information. By keeping the color information separate
the detail of the luma channel doesn't get interpreted as color.

The most obvious example is when someone on TV wear something
with tight stripes causing a rainbow of dancing colors. That is because
tight stripes look just like color to the color circuits in the TV.

So, the potential difference is better detail, and slightly cleaner color.
The color bandwidth is limited in both cases because of the way color
is superimposed on the color subcarrier, so the color doesn't look
better by as much as the luma detail.

If an S output is derived from the signal after it has been filtered, then
it wouldn't be a lot better than the composite out of the same box.

David
April 15, 2005 1:05:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Digital Video Solutions" <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote in message
news:aqv7e.434$_t3.222@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...


> Once again Doc, DVD does not hold hi-def whether it is Final Fantasy or
the
> Matrix. CGI has nothing to do with it. DVD video is 720x480 whether it is
> letterboxed or full screen.

In this case, I wasn't actually referring to "Hi Def" as in the Hi Def tv
system as I did in a separate post. I meant it seems this would represent
the highest quality image you're going to find on a DVD, though I really
wasn't up on Hi-Def tv enough to know that DVD doesn't meet Hi-Def specs.

Of course, this brings up another question - if DVD's are all going to look
degraded on a Hi-Def TV, that seems to cut out a certain part of the
incentive to get such a TV. I don't think I could watch a movie that looked
the way the image did on these things, the jaggedness in the image was
really distracting.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:08:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GWA7e.6954$sp3.6804@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Digital Video Solutions" <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote in
> message
> news:aqv7e.434$_t3.222@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
>> Once again Doc, DVD does not hold hi-def whether it is Final Fantasy or
> the
>> Matrix. CGI has nothing to do with it. DVD video is 720x480 whether it is
>> letterboxed or full screen.
>
> In this case, I wasn't actually referring to "Hi Def" as in the Hi Def tv
> system as I did in a separate post. I meant it seems this would represent
> the highest quality image you're going to find on a DVD, though I really
> wasn't up on Hi-Def tv enough to know that DVD doesn't meet Hi-Def specs.
>
> Of course, this brings up another question - if DVD's are all going to
> look
> degraded on a Hi-Def TV, that seems to cut out a certain part of the
> incentive to get such a TV. I don't think I could watch a movie that
> looked
> the way the image did on these things, the jaggedness in the image was
> really distracting.
>
>

I think somone else responded by saying that it is likely WalMart and other
outlets may have been playing the 4:3 version stretched and/or zoomed to
fill the screen. Also it is likely they did not have progressive scan
enabled on the sets you saw. I have a Pioneer 50 inch plasma and DVD
playback looks great. I only play the widescreen versions and do not use
zoom. Sometimes the variations of letterbox give black at the top and bottom
of the screen, which is where most would use the zoom function since it
seems to bother them not have the picture fill the entire display. My
simplest advice would be to go elsewhere to view the output - Best Buy,
Circuit City or other places where electronics is their main product. Find
the display you like and then shop around WalMart and wherever for the best
price. Best Buy is nice because their stuff is normally given some "same as
cash" for so many months when you purchase.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 6:05:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:25:55 -0700, "PTRAVEL"
<ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
>news:EtGdnTSwA8IVUcPfRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
>> I've often wondered if lower-end equipment with external S-video ports are
>> actually just "soldered" into the same circuit as the RCA jack.
>> Same effect as having a $5 external RCA to S-VIDEO dongle.
>>
>> Based on what I'm reading here, I'm leaning toward that conclusion.
>>
>> C.
>
>I don't think such a thing exists. S-video handles chroma and luminence
>signals separately. You can combine the two mechanically into a single RCA
>connector and wind up with a composite signal. However, I don't think you
>can take a composite signal and separate out chroma and luminance except
>electronically.

FWIW, my new HP Media Center (tm -- I'm sure) came with such a
dongle. Checking the pinout (and numbering the S-video pins clockwise
from the key), I found the RCA center conductor connected to pin 2,
RCA shield connected to pins 1 and 4. No connection between the
S-video shield and anything else nor the S-video pin 3 and anything
else. Both ends were as small as would be expected, so I have no
reason to suspect there were any additional electronics buried in the
assembly.

Googling 's-video rca connector' finds many such devices,
mostly described as bidirectional. One such description --

-----------------
<http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10362705&loc=...;
The Bi-Directional RCA to S-Video Adapter from Cables To Go is a
low-cost alternative to high priced active converters. This
bi-directional video adapter is designed to convert composite RCA to
S-Video or vice-versa. The Y/C signal separation circuitry provides a
bright, crisp picture from DVD, VCD, laser disc, VCR, camcorder and
multimedia PC.
-----------------

Based on what I found in the pinout, I strongly doubt they
contain such "circuitry" and consequently doubt the ability to convert
in the RCA to S-video direction.

An apparently more accurate description, found elsewhere
reads:

-----------------
<http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/adapters.html&gt;
S-Video female connector to female RCA composite video
"bi-directional" adapter. Female connectors on both sides.
The adapter works nicely from a composite video source to an S-Video
destination as well as in the reverse with no noticeable Chrominance
or Luminance abberations. Tested with Digital Cable S-Video and
Composite video outputs to Sony® 51HW40 HDTV S-Video and composite
video outputs using Monster Cable®, and MaxCable® S-Video and
composite video cables. *Converting from S-Video to composite video
must always have some slight negative effect since the Chrominance and
Luminance signals are combined and no longer kept seperate.
-----------------

I'm far more inclined to believe this latter description,
especially the last line.

Perhaps a more expensive "active" converter might be able to
reconstruct the originals of the two combined signals.


>
>>
>> <jaykchan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1113496433.527249.91220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>I have a similar experience as C.J.Patten's. My 25" Sony TV shows a
>>> noticable improvement when I switch from composite video ro S-video (I
>>> forgot the model number of the Sony TV). On the other hand, I don't see
>>> any improvement when I make the same change on two different JVC TV
>>> sets (32" and 25"). The fact that my Sony TV costed more than either of
>>> the JVC TVs may have something to do with this.
>>>
>>> Jay Chan
>>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 4:55:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On 4/14/2005, kashe@sonic.net managed to type:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:25:55 -0700, "PTRAVEL"

<SNIP>

> FWIW, my new HP Media Center (tm -- I'm sure) came with such a
> dongle. Checking the pinout (and numbering the S-video pins clockwise
> from the key), I found the RCA center conductor connected to pin 2,
> RCA shield connected to pins 1 and 4. No connection between the
> S-video shield and anything else nor the S-video pin 3 and anything
> else. Both ends were as small as would be expected, so I have no
> reason to suspect there were any additional electronics buried in the
> assembly.

There was a circuit published on the web a year or two ago, or in a
news group, I forget the location and the details. It was to make a
combiner for S-Video to composite on the cheap.

The chroma connection to the center conductor was via a capacitor
(small - a few dozen pF, IIRC), so it would show infinite resistance to
any ohmmeter check...

<SNIP>

HTH,
Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 3:52:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote ...
> There was a circuit published on the web a year or two ago, or in a
> news group, I forget the location and the details. It was to make a
> combiner for S-Video to composite on the cheap.
>
> The chroma connection to the center conductor was via a capacitor
> (small - a few dozen pF, IIRC), so it would show infinite resistance to
> any ohmmeter check...

http://www.epanorama.net/circuits/svideo2cvideo.html
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:48:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On 4/18/2005, Richard Crowley managed to type:
> "Gene E. Bloch" wrote ...
>> There was a circuit published on the web a year or two ago, or in a
>> news group, I forget the location and the details. It was to make a
>> combiner for S-Video to composite on the cheap.
>>
>> The chroma connection to the center conductor was via a capacitor
>> (small - a few dozen pF, IIRC), so it would show infinite resistance to
>> any ohmmeter check...
>
> http://www.epanorama.net/circuits/svideo2cvideo.html

Thaks - now I don't have to find the cable I made and take it apart :-)

(It's been too long - I couldn't find any references on my computer or
I would have put one in my previous post...)

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
!