New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

S-Video/Composite or Composite

post #1 of 6
5/25/09 at 9:27am
Thread Starter 
Hi,

I want to connect a TV with composite connector 40 feet away,
at PC output I have the choice to S-Video or Composite.

What is the best:
1- Take a S-Video cable and convert to RCA at TV location
or
2- Take a composite only

Thanks
Reply
post #2 of 6
5/25/09 at 4:14pm

Re: S-Video/Composite or Composite

Just do a straight composite, because that's what you're going to end up with anyway.

S-Video keeps the luminance (brightness/contrast) and color parts of the signal separate, sending them on separate wires within the cable. Composite (as the name implies) sends all parts of the signal together down one wire. (Component video further divides the signal and uses three different 75 Ohm cables.)

So if the TV only has a composite input, a combined signal is your only option and you gain nothing by starting with s-video and doing additional processing to recombine the brightness and color signals instsead of just starting with a combined signal in the first place.

(And s-video to composite convertors aren't cheap. Because the signals actually have to be recombined, it isn't simply a matter of using an adpater to make the connectors match phyically.)

Regards,

Joe
Reply
post #3 of 6
5/25/09 at 4:49pm

Re: S-Video/Composite or Composite

Quote:
(And s-video to composite convertors aren't cheap. Because the signals actually have to be recombined, it isn't simply a matter of using an adpater to make the connectors match phyically.)
But there are such adapters available for only a few dollars. I have one, somewhere. However, the resulting picture quality is worse than just using composite all the way so, as Joseph said, don't even bother.
Reply
post #4 of 6
5/27/09 at 1:27pm

Re: S-Video/Composite or Composite

Quote:
Originally Posted by gene c
But there are such adapters available for only a few dollars. I have one, somewhere. However, the resulting picture quality is worse than just using composite all the way so, as Joseph said, don't even bother.

Well, I was kinda ignoring those, precisely because the picture quality sucks.

Back in my early HT days, before HDMI and before I had a TV with component inputs, I ran everything through my AVR via s-video - which meant (brand new $500) DVD player, older ($250) LD player, S-VHS deck and standard VHS deck. (I forget why I felt the need to have both VCRs connected - probably the need to dub home movies.) Anyway, the old VCR did not have an s-video output. After trying one of those dreadful "adapters" I ended up buying a powered coverter that cost about 100 dollars and allowed for adjustment of the luminence and color signals to fine-tune the image. It actually produced quite a good picture, but there would clearly be no benefit to spending that kind of money in this case. (Or most others I can think of, nowadays. )

Regards,

Joe
Reply
post #5 of 6
5/27/09 at 4:33pm

Re: S-Video/Composite or Composite

Quote:
Well, I was kinda ignoring those, precisely because the picture quality sucks.
That's why I mentioned them. I wanted everyone else to know they sucked too .
Reply
post #6 of 6
5/27/09 at 7:27pm
Thread Starter 

Re: S-Video/Composite or Composite

Thanks

I will go with composite
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home