 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: is component always better than S-video? posted by jeff in kc on November 25, 2000 at 10:03:58:
GPB enumerated what is usually the correct order, with a caveat noted below, but what really, is the difference? And what about those who seem to prefer their S-Video feeds to component? Is that justified, or at least explainable?The big difference all comes down to resolution- and not simple "luminance" resolution (which is what is quoted for TV sets), which is just black and white, literally, but color resolution. Imagine, instead of having alternating black and white test stripes, you use alternating color stripes, say, magenta and yellow, or cyan and red. Just like B&W patterns, there is a point in which the separate stripes disappear, and it turns into "gray", or "mud", in the case of color.
Now, a tyipcal Composite NTSC decoder will produce a color image capable of resolving about 50 color lines horizontally. A really good Faroudja grade decoder will muster 75-80 from a composite signal. S-Video will produce at best about 100 lines. Component video from DVD will produce a little over 300 lines.
On a 27" TV, it is theoretically possible to resolve those differences; on a 29" presentation monitor, they're quite, QUITE obvious. Also, on larger RPTVs in good calibration, and FPTVs, the degradation of color resolution from component to S-Video is very obvious, in the loss of fine detail in images, such as textures on the surface of cloth, concrete, painted walls, etc. However, depending on visual acuity, a lot of veiwers may not notice that. And video processing used by default in many TV's, including DNR, SVM, edge enhancement, all strategies to eak out a little more "puch" from a low res signal, all work to the detriment of a true high res signal, such as a well mastered DVD is capable of providing. As a result, many friends who have said "Oh yeah, S-Video is great, don't need that component stuff", have a different veiw after seeing how good a component signal looks on a larger display; and if you run both signals through a scaler, such as a Faroudja, then the difference is even more obvious. A deinterlace/scaler with only S-Video input (such as the DVDO) is unfortunately crippled for really decent displays. Mind you, I'm even talking about sets in the $3K and less range, also.
Another consideration for S-Video, is being careful to chose WHERE you have the Y/C separation done, because often the Y/C filter in an LD player or VCR (tuner output) is poorer than in the TV or projector; in that case, you can actually wind up getting a better image using the composite connection to the "advanced" comb filter in the TV.
Regards,Jon
Follow Ups:
Hi Jon, would a front projector (Sharp) that does 500 lines of resolution benifit from component ?
If the Sharp has a component input, I'd give that a serious evaluation. As an example, on a Sony 400Q that's setup properly, IMO there's a significant advantage to the component input over the S-Video. Important to note, the Sony is 16X9, and doesn't require the CD player to do down conversion for anamorphic DVD's. If your projector requires down converted sources (say, 640X480 equivalent) for widescreen, you'll lose some of the benefit with that kind of material; however, you'll probably still notice it if you use 4:3 source material.
It's important to check the setup using a good test disk, such as AVIA; it's not uncommon the S-Video is "spot on" out of the box, and component may be low, or darker. Also, many early RPTV's had component color matrix decoding that was decidely inaccurate; hence, the problems with some Toshiba's having a green or yellow cast. Try it and see; doesn't cost you anything except time and cables, if you've got the connections already.
...the Sharp projector I have is only capable of 4:3, and yes - it has component in. So I do plan on purchasing a component cable which will need to be about 12-14' feet in length (I hope the distance isn't a factor). The player is a Pioneer Elite DV-05, and it has the component out - otherwise I'd be 'stuck' with s-video ! :-)
You bring up another point of interest, you say component tends to be darker than s-video. This may be an additional plus for me since I prefer heavy contrast, and deep blacks (I always have the DV-05 in the 'dark' video mode). Hopefully I'll see a noticeable difference.
Lastly, is the general rule of thumb that the benifits of component are usually only visable on 36" tv's or bigger ?
That rule of thumb relates to the comments I made about it being more obvious with front projection; BUT, what's reall at issue is the "resolving power" of the display, and how close you sit, and your visual acuity. For example, my bedroom system is not a conventional TV, but an NEC XM29Plus presentation monitor, 29" diagonal, with a phosphor strip pitch 1/2 the size of a TV set that size, and capable of scanning to 1280X1024. DVD is stored in component mode, and obviously the RGB output from my HTPC reproduces all the color bandwidth available from the signal. As a giggle, and to make my point with a friend, we played two copies of "Fifth Element", one on my Toshiba SD6100 DVD player (from daughter's room) on S-Video into the NEC (it also has conventional video inputs, besides several RGB inputs), and the other from the HTPC. To avoide down conversion, the NEC has vertical height control even via the remote, so we set the DVD player to 16X9 mode, and setup the HTPC to mimic it for playback resolution, though I normally scale up to higher res. Well, there's no comparison in fine picture detail reproduction, particuarly things like skin texture, clothing texture, masonery, etc. S-Video, even on a 29" monitor, looks smeared and cartoonish (i.e., like video) in comparison to high grade reproduction of the component source- which literally, looks more like film. The thing is, a lot of early sets DID have problems with the component matrix color decoding, whereas S-Video was an established, mature technology. So, it's like anything else in this wacky hobby- make sure everything is set up accurately as possible on a techical basis before drawing conclusions.
Another example of that problem is comparing RPTV's to direct view; a "classic" judgement by many is that RPTV's don't have as sharp a pictuire, ergo not as high a resolution. Well, if you compare an RPTV fresh out of the box, not converged, this may be close to the case. Misconvergence by one scanning line width kills half the video bandwidth. BUT, RPTV's are not limited by the shadow mask/phosphor strip size, which is a problem for direct view sets, and why even the Sony HDTV direct views really can only resolve about 800 lines- less than a Sony 400Q projector. Many direct larg screen direct view sets have phosphor strip pitches of 1mm; 3 mm for RGB, so res per horizontal inch is under 10 lines. A properly setup RPTV is limited either by video bandwith, or in some cases, by the lenticular screen design; but the screen passes all colors in each pitch. Thoughts to ponder....Regards,
Jon
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]