|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I'm experimenting at home with a Toshiba projector I've borrowed from the office. I'm told I'd get a MUCH better picture with an S-video cable vs. a composite RCA cable. I'm not thrilled about buying a long S-video cable just for playing around, but since the image is somewhat fuzzy, I'm wondering if its worth $25 (no way I'm buying a premium cable). I'm running video only to the projector; no audio.
Follow Ups:
Most definetly go for it, especially with a projector. Here is the one I use or my benQ. Quite reasonable price for the incredible quality.
I have both a 10 meter composite run ($100 cost), and a 10 meter S-video run ($100 cost) to my 36" tube TV.I have a $1500 Sony DVD player (9000), and $3500 Pre/Pro/video processor.
When I freeze the frame, I can easily tell the difference between composite and S-video. Lines are sharper and color slightly deeper. However, when the video is playing, I find it difficult to tell the difference.
I suspect the difference would be more pronounced with a projector.
If you know the projector is blurry by nature and it's only a loaner anyway, it might not be worth the hassle.
Personally I've noticed a much better picture with S-Video. More accurate color, less smearing and blurriness... a solid and definite improvement.I think it's worth $25, but try conning a store into loaning you a short S-cable to test first. You might succeed if you tell them you're going to buy a longer run later. This would save you $25 off the bat, but you'd have to move your DVD player to test the cable. Is it worth it? Maybe worth a shot just to see if you like the results. Of course a longer run would change your results, but since it's a borrowed projector anyway...
I've heard "experts" claim 25-30% improvement with S-Video. But who knows what those figures really mean? Where do they come from?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: