Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5040 s-video out?

Last response: in Home Theatre Legacy
Share
December 31, 2004 2:37:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Is there some setting to enable s-video out on a 5040? My composite and
component out is working fine, but when I hook up the s-video out I don't
get any signal. I didn't see any setting to enable it, should it alwasy be
outputting s-video signal? Thanks.

More about : 5040 video

Anonymous
December 31, 2004 2:47:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:37:28 -0800, "dreamer" <dreamer@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Is there some setting to enable s-video out on a 5040? My composite and
>component out is working fine, but when I hook up the s-video out I don't
>get any signal. I didn't see any setting to enable it, should it alwasy be
>outputting s-video signal? Thanks.
>

S-video doesn't require any setting to enable (note that component
video DOES) amd is active at the same time as composite video. Your
unit may be defective. S-video isn't that different from composite
video, so the problem is probably something simple like a broken trace
on the circuit board.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:39:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

>
> S-video doesn't require any setting to enable (note that component
> video DOES) amd is active at the same time as composite video. Your
> unit may be defective. S-video isn't that different from composite
> video, so the problem is probably something simple like a broken trace
> on the circuit board.

One of the benefits of behing an old Commodore 64 user is S-Video, we
had it first. It's composit video with the croma and luma protions
seperated out, that's all it is, sync is on the luma lead if memory
serves (But I do admit it's been a few years)

Kind of neat, it's black and white (And sync) with a color overlay

Clearly gives better video than full composit though, no question there
Related resources
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:39:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <lykBd.8394$_X7.7510@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Kind of neat, it's black and white (And sync) with a color overlay

Which is exactly what NTSC color is. That's because color transmissions
had to be compatible with existing black and white sets.

Never Twice the Same Color. NTSC.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:39:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:39:13 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>>
>> S-video doesn't require any setting to enable (note that component
>> video DOES) amd is active at the same time as composite video. Your
>> unit may be defective. S-video isn't that different from composite
>> video, so the problem is probably something simple like a broken trace
>> on the circuit board.
>
>One of the benefits of behing an old Commodore 64 user is S-Video,

Yes, and that did give a better picture. Of course they called it
"seperated video" rather than S-video.

> we
>had it first. It's composit video with the croma and luma protions
>seperated out,

If that's what it was, you'd get no improvement since the signal would
already be degraded. What's better is composite video with the croma
and luma protions THAT WERE NEVER MIXED. Note that in many situations,
they were. That would explain how using S-video doesn't always help.

> that's all it is, sync is on the luma lead if memory
>serves (But I do admit it's been a few years)
>
>Kind of neat, it's black and white (And sync) with a color overlay
>
>Clearly gives better video than full composit though, no question there

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:48:30 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <lykBd.8394$_X7.7510@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
> John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Kind of neat, it's black and white (And sync) with a color overlay
>
>Which is exactly what NTSC color is. That's because color transmissions
>had to be compatible with existing black and white sets.
>

Right.

>Never Twice the Same Color. NTSC.

Supposedly, S-video allows a color signal with greater bandwidth that
that overlay (what NTSC allows). What people often don't realize is
that once the signals have been mixed, you can't get that advantage
back. Something like having the flu and being put in a germ-free room.
You're still sick.

BTW, did you know that NTSC color includes red and blue signals, not
green?

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:15:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <lykBd.8394$_X7.7510@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
> John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Kind of neat, it's black and white (And sync) with a color overlay
>
>
> Which is exactly what NTSC color is. That's because color transmissions
> had to be compatible with existing black and white sets.
>
> Never Twice the Same Color. NTSC.
>

I know full well what NTSC stands for. However standard composite video
has chroma, luma and Sync all on ONE wire, S-video separates out the
Chroma portion and thus has twice the "Bandwidth" to work with, it thus
gives a better signal.

I've seen the comparisons, I have the ability to run them
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:19:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> If that's what it was, you'd get no improvement since the signal would
> already be degraded. What's better is composite video with the croma
> and luma protions THAT WERE NEVER MIXED. Note that in many situations,
> they were. That would explain how using S-video doesn't always help.

I agree fully with all but one portion of what you said. "If that's
what it was"

Seperated has multiple meanings, You are assuming it means that they
took the composite signal and split it.. (Sorta like seperating Simase
twins) in reality,,, Seperated from birth is closer.. By Seperated they
meant that the signals were kept seperate till they were combined, if
they were combined, either in the monitor or by the user or by a special
doohickey plugged into the video port (I'm intentionally being
unspecific re: Dohickey, you don't need to know, I know how ot build
one, in fact, I did build one)
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:22:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:15:57 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <lykBd.8394$_X7.7510@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
>> John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kind of neat, it's black and white (And sync) with a color overlay
>>
>>
>> Which is exactly what NTSC color is. That's because color transmissions
>> had to be compatible with existing black and white sets.
>>
>> Never Twice the Same Color. NTSC.
>>
>
>I know full well what NTSC stands for. However standard composite video
>has chroma, luma and Sync all on ONE wire, S-video separates out the
>Chroma portion

The same error people often make. The extra quality would have been
lost when the signals were mixed in the first place. Seperating them
would do no good. Where seperate signals are an advantage is where
there were ALWAYS seperate.

>and thus has twice the "Bandwidth" to work with, it thus
>gives a better signal.
>

True, but see above. High bandwidth is of no help, when the quality
was already lost.

>I've seen the comparisons, I have the ability to run them

The comparisons are without the degradation you'll have do deal with
in the real world.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
January 1, 2005 7:37:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

>What people often don't realize is
>that once the signals have been mixed, you can't get that advantage
>back.

Computer folks call that GIGO.
If your basic signal came in NTSC that is all you will ever have.
"Digital" cable is so compressed I doubt that will ever really be much better.
They use all that extra bandwidth to shove more channels down the pipe, not
more quality.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:37:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On 01 Jan 2005 16:37:24 GMT, gfretwell@aol.com (Greg) wrote:

>>What people often don't realize is
>>that once the signals have been mixed, you can't get that advantage
>>back.
>
>Computer folks call that GIGO.
>If your basic signal came in NTSC that is all you will ever have.
>"Digital" cable is so compressed I doubt that will ever really be much better.

Satellite (DirecTV, Dish, and probably Voom) is too.

>They use all that extra bandwidth to shove more channels down the pipe, not
>more quality.

I tried S-video (with DirecTV), found no difference, and went back to
composite because of the physical security (connector seldom falls
out, spoiling automatic recordings).

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:33:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

If you are not getting video out of the S-Video connector, than the video
cable is still connected to the yellow RCA jack. Only one cable can be
connected at a time.

Chris Werner

"dreamer" <dreamer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41d501fa$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> Is there some setting to enable s-video out on a 5040? My composite and
> component out is working fine, but when I hook up the s-video out I don't
> get any signal. I didn't see any setting to enable it, should it alwasy
> be
> outputting s-video signal? Thanks.
>
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 3:46:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> I tried S-video (with DirecTV), found no difference, and went back to
> composite because of the physical security (connector seldom falls
> out, spoiling automatic recordings).

I have never had a S-Video cable come loose, which is not to say it
can't happen, it only means it has not happened to me.... YET!

As to differences... Many things depend on your source. I use S-Video
when I'm transferring DVD and I do see a slight difference. Back in my
Commodore 64 Days I used Commodore S-Video (Different connectors) and I
clearly could see the difference

Recording off the air, be it satellite or broadcast or cable.....

I'm not sure I could see a difference
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 3:46:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:46:02 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> I tried S-video (with DirecTV), found no difference, and went back to
>> composite because of the physical security (connector seldom falls
>> out, spoiling automatic recordings).
>
>I have never had a S-Video cable come loose, which is not to say it
>can't happen, it only means it has not happened to me.... YET!
>

I didn't have that happen much, but it can be annoying to lose 6-12
hours of recordings because of it.

>As to differences... Many things depend on your source. I use S-Video
>when I'm transferring DVD and I do see a slight difference.

You will there, just not on much broadcast material.

>Back in my
>Commodore 64 Days I used Commodore S-Video (Different connectors) and I
>clearly could see the difference
>
>Recording off the air, be it satellite or broadcast or cable.....
>
>I'm not sure I could see a difference

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 3:49:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:15:57 GMT, John in Detroit
> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>>In article <lykBd.8394$_X7.7510@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kind of neat, it's black and white (And sync) with a color overlay
>>>
>>>
>>>Which is exactly what NTSC color is. That's because color transmissions
>>>had to be compatible with existing black and white sets.
>>>
>>>Never Twice the Same Color. NTSC.
>>>
>>
>>I know full well what NTSC stands for. However standard composite video
>>has chroma, luma and Sync all on ONE wire, S-video separates out the
>>Chroma portion
>
>
> The same error people often make. The extra quality would have been
> lost when the signals were mixed in the first place. Seperating them
> would do no good. Where seperate signals are an advantage is where
> there were ALWAYS seperate.

You are making an assumption that the signals were combined and then
split, I am making no such assumption

In the devices I used to test the video was NOT combined and then split
it was seperated "from birth" as it were.

There is also another issue. Every processing stage where it's seperated
is better than combined So even if you split it, and recombine it, If it
goes through processing while split it will be better
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 3:49:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:49:49 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:15:57 GMT, John in Detroit
>> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <lykBd.8394$_X7.7510@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Kind of neat, it's black and white (And sync) with a color overlay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which is exactly what NTSC color is. That's because color transmissions
>>>>had to be compatible with existing black and white sets.
>>>>
>>>>Never Twice the Same Color. NTSC.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I know full well what NTSC stands for. However standard composite video
>>>has chroma, luma and Sync all on ONE wire, S-video separates out the
>>>Chroma portion
>>
>>
>> The same error people often make. The extra quality would have been
>> lost when the signals were mixed in the first place. Seperating them
>> would do no good. Where seperate signals are an advantage is where
>> there were ALWAYS seperate.
>
>You are making an assumption that the signals were combined and then
>split, I am making no such assumption
>
>In the devices I used to test the video was NOT combined and then split
>it was seperated "from birth" as it were.
>
>There is also another issue. Every processing stage where it's seperated
>is better than combined So even if you split it, and recombine it, If it
>goes through processing while split it will be better

There is a problem with that word, "seperated". It sounds like
something has been done to it (and it can't be seperated if it isn't
combined first). How about avoiding the ambiguity and calling it
"seperate"? That's the right word anyway.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:32:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:37:28 -0800, "dreamer" <dreamer@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Is there some setting to enable s-video out on a 5040? My composite and
>component out is working fine, but when I hook up the s-video out I don't
>get any signal. I didn't see any setting to enable it, should it alwasy be
>outputting s-video signal? Thanks.
>

Are you sure the problem is in the Replay, not in the TV (or other
sevice you're sending s-video to)? Some TVs will automatically select
the video input (composite or s-video). In that case you need to
connect ONLY the desired one THEN select the video input.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:29:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

>>As to differences... Many things depend on your source. I use S-Video
>>when I'm transferring DVD and I do see a slight difference.
>
>
> You will there, just not on much broadcast material.

Ah, well, in my case since "Brodcast" is an antenna, not cable or sat, I
suspcet I'd see a BIG difference (no signal at all on the S-Video
cable he said jokingly). Or non-jokingly, S-video not an option when
your "Broadcast" is picked up via antenna and is analog, not digital.

So, we are in basic agreement.

There is another advantage to using S-video for DVD copy only......

If (when?) the cable comes loose.... Since I'll know BEFORE I send the
DVD back... No problem to run it again (plugging in this time)
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:31:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> There is a problem with that word, "seperated". It sounds like
> something has been done to it (and it can't be seperated if it isn't
> combined first). How about avoiding the ambiguity and calling it
> "seperate"? That's the right word anyway.
>

Ok, you may feel free to substitute SEPARATE for every incidence of
SEPARATED in anything I typed other than the last bit where I spoke of
processing. Actually, in context the two words have the same meaning.
January 2, 2005 9:31:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:31:29 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> There is a problem with that word, "seperated". It sounds like
>> something has been done to it (and it can't be seperated if it isn't
>> combined first). How about avoiding the ambiguity and calling it
>> "seperate"? That's the right word anyway.
>>
>
>Ok, you may feel free to substitute SEPARATE for every incidence of
>SEPARATED in anything I typed other than the last bit where I spoke of
>processing.

You see the problem with that. think about what happens then people
actually mean "seperated".

> Actually, in context the two words have the same meaning.

No they don't. "seperated" is the past-tense form of a verb (indicates
an action was performed). "seperate" is a condition (adjective).
Sounds like something I learned in Elementary School. You probably
did too.

Even if "seperated" could be used for either, there is a potential for
confusion, as happened with that other poster. I guess he assumed that
"seperated" meant "seperated", rather than something else.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 1:24:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Sam wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:31:29 GMT, John in Detroit
> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is a problem with that word, "seperated". It sounds like
>>>something has been done to it (and it can't be seperated if it isn't
>>>combined first). How about avoiding the ambiguity and calling it
>>>"seperate"? That's the right word anyway.
>>>
>>
>>Ok, you may feel free to substitute SEPARATE for every incidence of
>>SEPARATED in anything I typed other than the last bit where I spoke of
>>processing.
>
>
> You see the problem with that. think about what happens then people
> actually mean "seperated".
>
>
>> Actually, in context the two words have the same meaning.
>
>
> No they don't. "seperated" is the past-tense form of a verb (indicates
> an action was performed). "seperate" is a condition (adjective).
> Sounds like something I learned in Elementary School. You probably
> did too.
>
> Even if "seperated" could be used for either, there is a potential for
> confusion, as happened with that other poster. I guess he assumed that
> "seperated" meant "seperated", rather than something else.
>
Separated is one of those strange words that can have differet types

Seperate is also

Separated, in this context, means "Traveling down separate wires"

Seperate, refers to the wires theselves, That's about all I can tell
you... YOu have to look at the word in context.

However. In the case of Satalite or Digital cable, it is combined before
broadcase and then sliced out, (your defination of seperated) so it fits.

However in my case the infomation is already separate, and it will
follow separate paths to where it's going... Kind of important to keep
those paths the same length though
!