Component vs S-Video connection (1 Viewer)

[Gerard Martin]

Would I see an improved picture if I

were to use component cables rather

than S-Video given my TV set is a

regular analog tv with standard component inputs and DVD player is

non-progressive scan. AN early reply

sincerely appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Most people see only a small improvement (if any) in the move from S-video to component. Occasionally I've seen people report a degree of improvement they found significant, but I suspect this reflects the different sensitivities of individual viewers to minute changes in image quality.

M.

 

[Bob McElfresh]

Home Theater magazine compared all 3 connection types on a "reference" 50" RPTV. Their conclusion was:

Component Video:Baseline

SVideo: 20% better than Component

Composite: 25% better than Component

So you see, it's diminishing returns.

They also noted that the improvements are LESS for smaller displays, and MORE for larger screen sizes.

Hope this helps.

 

[Kevin Coleman]

Bob,
You might want to re-read your post. I think you have it backwards.
Kevin C.

 

[Arthur W]

Hey Bob, is that what you really ment to say, or do you have it backwards?

 

[StevenB]

Hi,

I've always read and heard the composite is slightly better than S-video in regards to color. Not sure about overall quality, but you definitely can notice that the colors are more dynamic with a component connection. Just my $.02 because I've noticed the difference on my Sony WEGA.

Steve

 

[Allan Jayne]

Try not to use composite from a DVD player.
Actually, interlaced component video is the native (straightforward) output from DVD. The player goes out of its way with slight picture degradation to make S-video, and more out of its way with noticeable degradation to make composite.
Also component (if imputs exist) has the most straightforward (of the three formats above) path into the TV onto the picture tube(s)! The TV has to do more to handle S-video and do still more to handle composite!
Video hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/video.htm

 

[Arthur W]

ok, now in addtion to wondering if Bob's post was written correctly, I am now wondering if StevenB's post was written correctly. People may be typing Composite, when they mean component and visa versa.

Anyway, just wondering.

 

[Ted Lee]

bob knows his stuff...he just had a brain-fart.
in order of increasing improvement:
1. composite
2. s-video
3. component

 

[Bob McElfresh]

(Duhhh) That will teach me to post before my morning coffee.
Thanks for the catch guys. :b
Let me try and make amends by adding some value.
Your TV has a circuit called a Comb Filter. Its job is to take Composite video and convert it to SVideo.
Televisions are judged by how good their Comb filters are. The comb filters are expensive, precise and difficult to do well.
But a DVD stores it's video already seperated. Using SVideo will by-pass the Comb filter in your TV.
This is why you get a 20% jump in the picture quality with SVideo over Composite.
Hope this helps.

 

[Hugh Scrivener]

But a DVD stores it's video already seperated. Using SVideo will by-pass the Comb filter in your TV

Does component video by-pass the comb filter also? If so is a 5% gain worth the expense of a component cable when a high quality s-video cable can be had so readily and much cheaper?

 

[Michael Reuben]

If so is a 5% gain worth the expense of a component cable when a high quality s-video cable can be had so readily and much cheaper?

That's the kind of cost/benefit decision that's highly personal. I would not, however, that good quality component cables don't have to be expensive. RG6 coax fitted with RCA connectors works very nicely.

M.