Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Home Theater Hardware  ›  Receivers/Separates/Amps  ›  Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

#1
Rating: 0
5/31/09 at 3:19am
  • Joined: April 1999
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Post Count: 3,703
I see a lot of new receivers no longer include support for S-Video. I'm planning on using one as the main switcher which will then be connected through HDMI to a new TV- I have a Sega Saturn game system which I'd like to keep hooked up with S-Video, and have both S-VHS and Hi8 decks (though they're both busted right now) which I'd also like to hook up with S-Video, since on my old TV the picture is definitely better than through composite- biggest difference is less dot crawl. I know it doesn't make much difference for laserdisc, in fact most say composite is better for that.

I don't know a lot about how upconverting on new receivers and TVs works, so I'm wondering: with a receiver that upconverts through HDMI but has no S-Video inputs, would I be losing any picture quality on these devices hooked up to it using composite video or does it not make any difference once it's been upconverted?

Also annoying is the omission of multi-channel analog jacks which I already know I can't live without, but that's another story.

Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
5/31/09 at 4:51am
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

Personally, I want S-video. I have some older DVD players that will put out widescreen properly through S-video, but composite video obviously doesn't support that.
Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
5/31/09 at 11:40am
  • Joined: June 2000
  • Location: Colorado
  • Post Count: 7,526

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

It would make more sense to me to eliminate component switching than S-Video.


They flutter behind you, your possible pasts.
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.
Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
5/31/09 at 12:17pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

Ack! Yeah, it would, but despite what I wrote earlier, I'd rather keep component video and give up S-video.
Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0
6/1/09 at 11:14pm
  • Joined: October 2002
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Post Count: 3,165

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
............put out widescreen properly through S-video, but composite video obviously doesn't support that.
This must be a new development because I just watched a widescreen movie last night with my Pioneer player connected to an older TV equipped only with a composite jack.
Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0
6/2/09 at 2:43am
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

Composite doesn't have a means of doing so. It just doesn't break that way. Instead, it typically will letterbox the output.
Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 0
6/2/09 at 9:45am
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Post Count: 1,040

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
Composite doesn't have a means of doing so. It just doesn't break that way. Instead, it typically will letterbox the output.


Something is amiss then, Svideo and composite video should be handled identically -- neither can do progressive, both should handle widescreen anamorphic and non anamorphic discs the same. I can't think of any reason they should act differently on a DVD output unless something is wrong with the setup.

Obviously component has different capabilities

"I sit in my cube with my headphones on and try to let my competence hold back the tide for as long as possible, then move on when the flood of stupidity breaches the levee. I'm a refugee from Hurricane Stupid."

Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0
6/2/09 at 9:48am
  • Joined: April 1999
  • Post Count: 1,573

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

It depends on the design of the DVD player. My old DVD player would output 16:9 over composite if you told the player you had a 16:9 set, it's basically just outputting the 16:9 DVD as-is without doing the 4 lines to 3 lines letterbox conversion. There are probably other models around that force letterbox over composite regardless of the setting (though I think such models would do the same for S-video). But who cares when you should be using component/HDMI from DVD anyway? I can live without S-video now, only component where I would want to use it is my S-VHS VCR which has been unplugged for about 6 years!
Export to Wiki
#9
Rating: 0
6/2/09 at 12:32pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Norman
Something is amiss then, Svideo and composite video should be handled identically -- neither can do progressive, both should handle widescreen anamorphic and non anamorphic discs the same. I can't think of any reason they should act differently on a DVD output unless something is wrong with the setup.
Here's why:

Quote:
The S-Video connection also has general provision for widescreen signaling through a DC offset applied to the chrominance signal; however, this is a more recent development, and is not widely supported.
As noted, it is a recent development so only newer devices, such as my Pioneer 810H-S, support it (and then, only during DVD playback).
Export to Wiki
#10
Rating: 0
6/2/09 at 4:35pm
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Post Count: 1,040

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

I concede the point. Now I need some help.

I've read and reread the segment on Wiki and I'm at a massive loss as to what I'm reading. How recent are they talking about?

What function does this provide? What exactly does this enabled S-video do that the older S-Video's and composite can't do when playing DVD's?

Man I thought I was past the stage of feeling like a complete newbie about what should be pretty basic AV 101. Sigh!

"I sit in my cube with my headphones on and try to let my competence hold back the tide for as long as possible, then move on when the flood of stupidity breaches the levee. I'm a refugee from Hurricane Stupid."

Export to Wiki
#11
Rating: 0
6/2/09 at 5:45pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

I bought my Pioneer in 2003.
Export to Wiki
#12
Rating: 0
6/5/09 at 2:23pm
  • Joined: April 1999
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Post Count: 3,703

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

So the question remains- If I get an upconverting receiver that lacks S-Video inputs, will my game systems still look as good if I have them connected with composite video then upconverted through HDMI to the TV, or would they still look better if the receiver did have S-Video?

Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

Export to Wiki
#13
Rating: 0
6/5/09 at 2:38pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

I don't think you're going to get a better answer. I would interpret my answer as advocating towards sticking with S-video if there is such an option, without saying definitely that one is objectively "better" than the other, because people get religious about definitive proof about saying something like that, if they don't agree with it..
Export to Wiki
#14
Rating: 0
6/5/09 at 3:10pm
  • Joined: April 1999
  • Post Count: 1,573

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

That wide-screen signalling advantage for S-video is pretty marginal. If you want widescreen by composite, just change the TV's aspect manually by hitting the remote! For DVD you should be using component video or HDMI anyway, unless your TV is ancient.

For picture quality, on a old game system that doesn't have component video, S-video will be better than composite, you'll get crisper text, avoiding some dot-crawl & color bleeding issues. But if your receiver doesn't have it, so what? Just run the s-video direct to your TV. You are unlikely to have *many* components where S-video is the best connection, where switching on the receiver is desirable, that's why it was dropped as a feature.

Upconversion is not a substitute for using the best signal to begin with. It is merely a convenience feature so that you don't have to switch inputs on the TV. In my view a better way to achieve this convenience is with a universal remote that will switch both receiver + TV for you.

No religion involved, just get your facts straight about composite vs. S-video, widescreen isn't the reason!
Export to Wiki
#15
Rating: 0
6/5/09 at 4:52pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: Do you still need S-Video inputs when you have HDMI?

Widescreen is a reason. My experience is (and you pointed out some of the reasons why) that S-video is much better visually than composite video stretched with the aspect ratio setting.

Beyond that, another reason to use analog connections is that many people are hearing impaired and many DVD players still don't support closed captions through HD connections.
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread