YES!!!
Component will always look better than S-video since it's a step up in PQ.
Component will always look better than S-video since it's a step up in PQ.
-
Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
-
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.
Question about component video?
I just purchased a standard definition 32" Sony television for the bedroom. This set KVHS120, allows for component video input. Somehow I was under the impression that component video was only useful for high-definition tvs. I currently have the set hooked up to my Directv receiver through the Svideo feed.
Will I get a better picture if I spend a few bucks and hook up the component video feeds even though this is a set limited to 480i?
Will I get a better picture if I spend a few bucks and hook up the component video feeds even though this is a set limited to 480i?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
With 480i.. perhaps only a slight step up. YMMV
It would serve to make your dvds look better.
Quote:
I was under the impression that by using component cables the signal would be cleaner, or at least induce less problems.
Am I wrong here?
| Originally Posted by Ratman Why? They are still 480i. YMMV |
Am I wrong here?
Yes and no... it depends on the source/destination equipment (and perhaps quality of the cables).
With 480i signals, many times there is little if any difference between S-Video and component.
With 480i signals, many times there is little if any difference between S-Video and component.
Quote:
OK.
I was mistakenly lumping S-Video in with Composite. I see now that Component and S-Video are very close in what they do (I looked it up).
Thanks!
| Originally Posted by Ratman Yes and no... it depends on the source/destination equipment (and perhaps quality of the cables). With 480i signals, many times there is little if any difference between S-Video and component. |
I was mistakenly lumping S-Video in with Composite. I see now that Component and S-Video are very close in what they do (I looked it up).
Thanks!
Quote:
Where do you see this?
S-video is closer to composite then it is to component.
S-video still carries the colour signals on a phase modulated subcarrier, just like composite, where component carries higher bandwidth colour difference signals, in baseband...not modulated.
| I see now that Component and S-Video are very close in what they do (I looked it up). |
S-video is closer to composite then it is to component.
S-video still carries the colour signals on a phase modulated subcarrier, just like composite, where component carries higher bandwidth colour difference signals, in baseband...not modulated.
Both S-Video and component separate chroma and luma.
S-Video is much closer to component than composite.
With 480i... bandwidth is a non-issue.
Component separates an additional color... not much to "improve" picture quality per se... perhaps better(?) color. YMMV
S-Video is much closer to component than composite.
With 480i... bandwidth is a non-issue.
Component separates an additional color... not much to "improve" picture quality per se... perhaps better(?) color. YMMV
There is a big difference between a bandwidth limited subcarrier, modulated with 2 colour difference signals, compared to component, which carries wider bandwidth colour difference signals, in baseband.
The only difference between s-video and composite is that composite combines the subcarrier with the luminence, s-video keeps it seperated.
The only difference between s-video and composite is that composite combines the subcarrier with the luminence, s-video keeps it seperated.
Yeah... okay. Let's hear what the perceptble feedback is from the OP if he/she decides to compare.
So even though you're technically correct, that doesn't translate to a better picture quality "with 480i signals". (since we know that component is the minimum requirement for 480p or higher which can provide a dramatic improvement).
So even though you're technically correct, that doesn't translate to a better picture quality "with 480i signals". (since we know that component is the minimum requirement for 480p or higher which can provide a dramatic improvement).
Quote:
Why not?
| that doesn't translate to a better picture quality "with 480i signals". |
This is not a response to any of the response posts above. This is a response to the topic post only.
Component video is supposed to be superior to S-Video, which in turn is supposed to be superior to composite. Component video runs three separate signals to your TV to carry all the color information separately in a sense, S-Video runs only 2 signals (it looks like one cable but it is 2 cables inside), composite is only 1 signal where all the color information is "mixed" together.
The biggest advantage of component over S-Video and composite, though, is that the HD format is not supported through S-Video and composite. S-Video and composite can only do 480i.
You can still send 480i through component also and the quality is supposed to be slightly better because it is 3 cables, as mentioned above. However, exactly how much better is debatable.
What matters more than anything else is the source and destination equipment. From what I've noticed the destination equipment (the TV itself) is the biggest factor. For example most of the Toshiba 2005 CRT HDTV sets are HORRIBLE through component, where the quality at any resolution is unwatchable due to some disease called "Y/C delay". I don't know all the details of what causes it, but some of the components inside the TV, that the component cable signals run through, are the culprit. On the other hand the S-Video and composite signals are displayed much better on this set. But this is due to the poorness of the TV itself, not the cables. In theory component should be better than S-Video and composite, even on 480i signals, by a tiny bit.
The "tiny bit" of improvement caused by having 3 separate color signals vs 1 transcoded signal is not as much these days though, because all these HD CRTs have very good 3D Y/C comb filters in them. The only job of the 3D comb filter is to take a composite signal and attempt to make it as good as a component signal.
Having said all that, I do recommend buying component cables. What do you have to lose? It's only a few bucks. Just buy them and try it on your TV and see what happens. If it looks worse (it might) then switch back. If it looks better, that's great. And if it looks the same just keep using component because it is supposed to be better. If it looks the same then it probably is better but you just don't know how to notice the difference.
Component video is supposed to be superior to S-Video, which in turn is supposed to be superior to composite. Component video runs three separate signals to your TV to carry all the color information separately in a sense, S-Video runs only 2 signals (it looks like one cable but it is 2 cables inside), composite is only 1 signal where all the color information is "mixed" together.
The biggest advantage of component over S-Video and composite, though, is that the HD format is not supported through S-Video and composite. S-Video and composite can only do 480i.
You can still send 480i through component also and the quality is supposed to be slightly better because it is 3 cables, as mentioned above. However, exactly how much better is debatable.
What matters more than anything else is the source and destination equipment. From what I've noticed the destination equipment (the TV itself) is the biggest factor. For example most of the Toshiba 2005 CRT HDTV sets are HORRIBLE through component, where the quality at any resolution is unwatchable due to some disease called "Y/C delay". I don't know all the details of what causes it, but some of the components inside the TV, that the component cable signals run through, are the culprit. On the other hand the S-Video and composite signals are displayed much better on this set. But this is due to the poorness of the TV itself, not the cables. In theory component should be better than S-Video and composite, even on 480i signals, by a tiny bit.
The "tiny bit" of improvement caused by having 3 separate color signals vs 1 transcoded signal is not as much these days though, because all these HD CRTs have very good 3D Y/C comb filters in them. The only job of the 3D comb filter is to take a composite signal and attempt to make it as good as a component signal.
Having said all that, I do recommend buying component cables. What do you have to lose? It's only a few bucks. Just buy them and try it on your TV and see what happens. If it looks worse (it might) then switch back. If it looks better, that's great. And if it looks the same just keep using component because it is supposed to be better. If it looks the same then it probably is better but you just don't know how to notice the difference.
Quote:
The only job of a comb filter is to seperate the chroma (the modulated 3.58MHz subcarrier) from the luminence signal in a composite source.
Quote:
Saw it...still not correct.
| The only job of the 3D comb filter is to take a composite signal and attempt to make it as good as a component signal. |
Quote:
| Refer to post #7. |
Quote:
Yeah... that helps clarify everything. 
| Originally Posted by Porcupine2 If it looks worse (it might) then switch back. If it looks better, that's great. And if it looks the same just keep using component because it is supposed to be better. If it looks the same then it probably is better but you just don't know how to notice the difference. |
Targus...
You are absolutely correct. Component will always "look" better than S-Video with 480i signals.
I hope that makes you feel better.
You are absolutely correct. Component will always "look" better than S-Video with 480i signals.
I hope that makes you feel better.
Quote:
I see. I guess the comb filter only attempts to make composite as good as S-Video then (not component)? Someday I will have to figure out or read in full detail how this entire scheme works (all mathematical details, not the simplified explanations I see on most websites).
Ratman, don't respond to what I post. I am trying my best not to respond to anything you post either. We are not on good terms.
| Originally Posted by Targus The only job of a comb filter is to seperate the chroma (the modulated 3.58MHz subcarrier) from the luminence signal in a composite source. |
Ratman, don't respond to what I post. I am trying my best not to respond to anything you post either. We are not on good terms.
Quote:
Seeing that I have been 'involved' from the beginning, why did you feel the need to jump in? Your info/response was convoluted, therefore my response to you.
If you don't want me to respond to you... avoid me. But, I will call you out when you post nonsense. Such as:
Quote:
If you don't know that... you should have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
| Originally Posted by Porcupine2 Ratman, don't respond to what I post. I am trying my best not to respond to anything you post either. We are not on good terms. |
If you don't want me to respond to you... avoid me. But, I will call you out when you post nonsense. Such as:
Quote:
| Someday I will have to figure out or read in full detail how this entire scheme works (all mathematical details, not the simplified explanations I see on most websites |
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
909 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
512 Replies
bass addict
399 Replies
Recommended Communities
