|
New member Username: PareshPost Number: 6 Registered: Jun-06 | I came across a post (linked below) in which a person named Targus seems to be saying that unless one has an HD cable box, the best quality video one can ever have is composite. So therefore, even if you have a digital cable box that has S-video and component outs, you still are never going to get better picture quality than composite (because the original source is composite) even using the better video outs. First can anyone here confirm this for me? Second, my cable company says that I can use an HD cable box (I think it's an all-in-one solution for digital and HD) even though I don't currently have a HD television, in order to get the better quality video outs. My question is since all of the channels I can see will not be in HD (and since most of the channels anyone can see, even with an HD screen are not in HD), does Targus'point still apply: that for non-HD channels the best video quality available is composite? Or is there something about the HD box itself that allows for better video quality, even on non-HD channels or even without an HD tv? Thank you for bearing with my somewhat convoluted questions. And thank you for in any way attempting to respond. Any clarification is much appreciated. Paresh http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-671590.html |
|
Gold Member Username: SamijubalPost Number: 2834 Registered: Jul-04 | Mostly it depends on the equipment being used. On my TV in the bedroom, there's a huge difference between composite and s-video, s-video being far better. I've seen TVs where it made little or no difference though. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 1023 Registered: Feb-04 | S-video transmission is theoretically superior to composite because S-video keeps the luminance signal (black & white, greyscale) on separate lines from the chrominance signal (color), thereby eliminating possible crosstalk distortion due to their overlapping bandwidths. If given a choice of only composite or S-video hookup then the choice should be S-video, even if there isn't a noticeable difference in picture quality. S-video cables are not that expensive, so why not? "Or is there something about the HD box itself that allows for better video quality, even on non-HD channels or even without an HD tv?" When I got my first HD cable box, I hooked it up to my 50" fixed-pixel HDTV via the coax antenna output, composite out, S-video out and component out. I then compared the picture via these four hookups on a standard def channel. First, I did see some small improvement switching from the ant (Ch 3 in my area) to the composite input. But after that the picture quality didn't change that much with each successive step "up." I was somewhat disappointed that there wasn't more difference when I switched to component. To be honest, there was some difference between the three line inputs, but that difference was barely discernable. I have not hooked up my HD box to any of my other standard def TVs in the house, but I would be willing to bet that there is no difference in picture quality between it and the digital standard def cable boxes hooked up to them now. Paresh, your obsession with cable boxes and possible hookups is slightly misplaced, in my opinion. Not that they aren't important, but in the end it is both your specific TV and your eyes that are going to the most impact on perceived picture quality. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 1024 Registered: Feb-04 | Sorry, that last sentence should read ....TV and your eyes that are going to have the most impact..... I still can't edit posts here. Wassup? |