Talk about just about anything else that is non-gaming here, but keep it clean
User avatar
Raskolnikov
Newbie
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: U.S.A.

What's better, HDMI or RGB?

by Raskolnikov Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:31 pm

Hey, I've got a great new question to debate over!

What is better? HDMI, or scart RGB? I would definitely be inclined to guess that HDMI is better. It's new, it's modern, it's digital, and it's similar in nature (and I think more powerful than) to 'Mr. 21 Pins.'

I seen scart RGB cables for the PS3 on sale on the Internet, but with the advent of HDMI, why bother?
User avatar
lordofduct
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: West Palm Beach

by lordofduct Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:21 pm

Well HDMI all in all is better then SCART. Because it is capable of far better picture quality then SCART in the end. But, the general use of HDMI can be easily beaten by SCART.

It all really depends on the video source. HDMI sources are very limited, and must be digital. RGB can be had from just about anything though, it is far more versatile. It also can be used by just about anything. If it can't, it can be easily converted to just about anything. It also supports a huge array of resolutions, sync speeds, and scan mode (interlaced or progressive). HDMI is limited to the handful of predefined resolutions it was given, and all are perceived progressive (though there are 3 interlaced formats supported, they are perceived progressive... but hold an interlace ability merely for CRT HD displays which can handle interlacing).

SCART also carries a composite video signal along with several other things on it as well. In the end I like SCART due to its usefulness, it can be applied to almost anything. HDMI is very limited, it is only supported by a handful of products, and for it to mean ANYTHING, needs to be put into a digital HD display that costs a lot. Lets just put it this way, if you own one of those cheapy EDTV (low resolution CRT monitors), I guarantee you RGB SCART will probably look as good if not better then HDMI on it at times. And is much more accessible then HDMI for older consoles.


Down side, RGB SCART isn't very common in the good ol' US of A.
www.lordofduct.com - check out my blog

Space Puppy Studios - games for gamers by gamers
User avatar
Raskolnikov
Newbie
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Re: What you said

by Raskolnikov Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:04 pm

lordofduct wrote:Well HDMI all in all is better then SCART. Because it is capable of far better picture quality then SCART in the end. But, the general use of HDMI can be easily beaten by SCART.

It all really depends on the video source. HDMI sources are very limited, and must be digital. RGB can be had from just about anything though, it is far more versatile. It also can be used by just about anything. If it can't, it can be easily converted to just about anything. It also supports a huge array of resolutions, sync speeds, and scan mode (interlaced or progressive). HDMI is limited to the handful of predefined resolutions it was given, and all are perceived progressive (though there are 3 interlaced formats supported, they are perceived progressive... but hold an interlace ability merely for CRT HD displays which can handle interlacing).

SCART also carries a composite video signal along with several other things on it as well. In the end I like SCART due to its usefulness, it can be applied to almost anything. HDMI is very limited, it is only supported by a handful of products, and for it to mean ANYTHING, needs to be put into a digital HD display that costs a lot. Lets just put it this way, if you own one of those cheapy EDTV (low resolution CRT monitors), I guarantee you RGB SCART will probably look as good if not better then HDMI on it at times. And is much more accessible then HDMI for older consoles.


Down side, RGB SCART isn't very common in the good ol' US of A.


Okay, so SCART is more useful/versatile and HDMI is more powerful/advanced. I have an HDTV, so I've got a source. Why would I hook RGB to powerful machines like the Xbox 360 and the PS3? That's fine if it's an older console, but these new consoles probably require HDMI for the best quality.

Now it's funny you should mention an EDTV. I entertained the idea of getting one once as my old-school game console source instead of an old crappy computer monitor, but I like my SRS TruSurround XT built-in speakers on my CRT HDTV. Even if there existed a 16:9 widescreen EDTV with built-in speakers that match my HDTV's, I'd still spend about 90% of my gaming on this TV since only the Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3 (if I get one) are more suitable on the HDTV; and I'd still need to buy converters. Not worthwhile, I believe.

I've got some more questions. Sorry to keep bothering you like this, but I like reading what you have to say ... and you answer me. On that note -- would you mind if I PM you anytime I have a question about RGB or video?

Is RGB superior in quality to component video? I think I read "yes" on NeoGeoMan's site, but I'm not totally sure of that.

When telling me of all the things I'd need to get to achieve RGB goodness in the U.S.A., you mentioned something about an RGB "switch." What's that? All the other things you said, I've researched into and know all about now (that's right! I pay attention to everything you say. Everything you've mentioned on this thread I've gone and researched soon afterwards, so I now know what you're talking about. See. You do a lot of good here).

And one last one: I seen a converter that converts RGB into S-video, or maybe it was visa versa. How does RGB handle a transition like that? It doesn't sound to me like it would do much good if you needed to use it. RGB is best converted into YUV component, eh? Right?
User avatar
lordofduct
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: West Palm Beach

Re: What you said

by lordofduct Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:09 pm

Raskolnikov wrote:
Okay, so SCART is more useful/versatile and HDMI is more powerful/advanced. I have an HDTV, so I've got a source.


a source is actually the device that creates the signal, i.e. a DVD player.

Why would I hook RGB to powerful machines like the Xbox 360 and the PS3? That's fine if it's an older console, but these new consoles probably require HDMI for the best quality.


If you have a good HDTV you probably wouldn't want to. These products support 1080p through HDMI (the 360 Elite, not the lower models). Yes you would probably want it if you have the HDTV that supports it, but say you don't. RGB can still give you great resolution on other displays, hence the SCART and VGA possibilities on the 360. You can get high resolution to a display that costs far less then an HDTV. And due to the great picture quality of computer monitors, it can actually be better because your display is of higher detail quality (try running your PC on a HDTV, you'll notice that detail and contrast is really wonky... movies and TV aren't concerned about crispness and minor detail because text readability isn't necessary. HDTV is better at realistic colours!


Now it's funny you should mention an EDTV. I entertained the idea of getting one once as my old-school game console source instead of an old crappy computer monitor, but I like my SRS TruSurround XT built-in speakers on my CRT HDTV. Even if there existed a 16:9 widescreen EDTV with built-in speakers that match my HDTV's, I'd still spend about 90% of my gaming on this TV since only the Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3 (if I get one) are more suitable on the HDTV; and I'd still need to buy converters. Not worthwhile, I believe.

I've got some more questions. Sorry to keep bothering you like this, but I like reading what you have to say ... and you answer me. On that note -- would you mind if I PM you anytime I have a question about RGB or video?

I can't promise quick responses, but I don't mind.



Is RGB superior in quality to component video? I think I read "yes" on NeoGeoMan's site, but I'm not totally sure of that.

yes... yes. In a way. That's a really complex question and many people could bring up all kinds of weird technicalities that are specific from display to display. It is all rooted in the fact that RGB and Composite exist in two different colour spaces. RGB is in the RGB obviousily, and Composite/S-Vid are in the YUV colour scale. Each with their pros and cons. Alas i always just say, in the end all CRT and most digital displays are RGB in the end.

But for the best answer that makes the most sense. Yes, RGB is much better. It has 3 discrete colour lines keeping all video information seperate with very little cross talk, and usually has a dedicated sync line (SCART has a dedicated composite sync line... composite because vertical and horizontal are stored together).


When telling me of all the things I'd need to get to achieve RGB goodness in the U.S.A., you mentioned something about an RGB "switch." What's that? All the other things you said, I've researched into and know all about now (that's right! I pay attention to everything you say. Everything you've mentioned on this thread I've gone and researched soon afterwards, so I now know what you're talking about. See. You do a lot of good here).


I was referring to a SCART switch. Basically a little device that switches between multiple SCART sources. They have them for all kinds of different inputs so that you can hook multiple devices up to a display that only has 1 or 2 inputs.


And one last one: I seen a converter that converts RGB into S-video, or maybe it was visa versa. How does RGB handle a transition like that? It doesn't sound to me like it would do much good if you needed to use it. RGB is best converted into YUV component, eh? Right?


This is one of the reasons I love RGB. RGB is versatile and can be converted very easily on the fly into all kinds of different formats. It's all just a matter of adding and subtracting signals from each other to convert it. Converting RGB to S-Video or to YUV Component is basically the same task. You find the Luma (Y) of it by adding up all the RGB values weighted, and the chrominance (UV) is another weighted subtraction of the RGB values with the luminance. This results in a flat blue image, a flat orangish red image, and a black and white image. The B+W image tints the two other images that are layed over each other to create a colour image.

S-vid and YUV Component are both in the YUV colour scale. Component just has the two UV images stored seperately. Where S-vid has them stored together. Both keep the B+W picture (luma) on its own line with the sync signal. Converting to YUV Component is better merely because it's a better picture quality. To make S-vid you would actually make component, and then down convert the component to s-vid. So in the end you are left with a signal that has been converted more, and in a format that is of lower quality in general (as it has to be broken back up). Check out any diagram for a composite video encoder chip in a game console... you'll see the seperate U + V signals created inside of the encoder chip from the RGB. They just never pass these discrete signals out of the chip... they only combined them and passed out the UV composite signal instead.

The s-vid version is just more common because S-vid and Composite are very common solutions for the regular consumer. S-vid to composite conversion is cake walk as well (the converter is the size of my pinky and basically just adds the two wires together into one. You could easily do it with a resistor and a piece of wire!).

Long winded but that should answer your question.






//composite is a very bad word to describe the yellow cable. The word composite just means all parts combined. General usage of the word on it's own usually always refers to YUV composite. When used with another word, it does NOT refer to YUV composite. So when I say UV composite, composite sync, or anything similar... I am referring to the definitive meaning of the word, when I say composite... I am using it in respect to YUV composite.

same can be said about the word Component. Component just means all parts separate.
www.lordofduct.com - check out my blog

Space Puppy Studios - games for gamers by gamers
gradualmeltdown
128-bit
 
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Portland Oregon

by gradualmeltdown Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:38 pm

a better way to refer to the yellow cable would the connector type RCA. Wish consumer products You can use that that piece of copper for many signal types although it might not be intended or optimal for them. All cable is not created equally that is for sure.

When I need a composite cable I generally ask for the connector type and specify the signal type. Some types of RG-59 attenuate signal more efficiently in specific frequencies thus supporting certain signal types.

lordofduct you really know your shit. Now the real question, what display can I tell the difference between RGB and component YUV? The only real difference would be keeping everything in its native color space and maybe slightly more accurate blanking or sync. Really cool but not worth the work with the displays I use at home :)

Nothing but SDI for us when we converge our 20,000k DLP projectors.
I like old games
I like new games
I like games
User avatar
Raskolnikov
Newbie
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: U.S.A.

by Raskolnikov Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:00 am

gradualmeltdown wrote:a better way to refer to the yellow cable would the connector type RCA.


Correct! I was just going to say that myself.
User avatar
Raskolnikov
Newbie
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Re: What you said

by Raskolnikov Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:04 am

lordofduct wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
Okay, so SCART is more useful/versatile and HDMI is more powerful/advanced. I have an HDTV, so I've got a source.


a source is actually the device that creates the signal, i.e. a DVD player.

Why would I hook RGB to powerful machines like the Xbox 360 and the PS3? That's fine if it's an older console, but these new consoles probably require HDMI for the best quality.


If you have a good HDTV you probably wouldn't want to. These products support 1080p through HDMI (the 360 Elite, not the lower models). Yes you would probably want it if you have the HDTV that supports it, but say you don't. RGB can still give you great resolution on other displays, hence the SCART and VGA possibilities on the 360. You can get high resolution to a display that costs far less then an HDTV. And due to the great picture quality of computer monitors, it can actually be better because your display is of higher detail quality (try running your PC on a HDTV, you'll notice that detail and contrast is really wonky... movies and TV aren't concerned about crispness and minor detail because text readability isn't necessary. HDTV is better at realistic colours!


Now it's funny you should mention an EDTV. I entertained the idea of getting one once as my old-school game console source instead of an old crappy computer monitor, but I like my SRS TruSurround XT built-in speakers on my CRT HDTV. Even if there existed a 16:9 widescreen EDTV with built-in speakers that match my HDTV's, I'd still spend about 90% of my gaming on this TV since only the Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3 (if I get one) are more suitable on the HDTV; and I'd still need to buy converters. Not worthwhile, I believe.

I've got some more questions. Sorry to keep bothering you like this, but I like reading what you have to say ... and you answer me. On that note -- would you mind if I PM you anytime I have a question about RGB or video?

I can't promise quick responses, but I don't mind.



Is RGB superior in quality to component video? I think I read "yes" on NeoGeoMan's site, but I'm not totally sure of that.

yes... yes. In a way. That's a really complex question and many people could bring up all kinds of weird technicalities that are specific from display to display. It is all rooted in the fact that RGB and Composite exist in two different colour spaces. RGB is in the RGB obviousily, and Composite/S-Vid are in the YUV colour scale. Each with their pros and cons. Alas i always just say, in the end all CRT and most digital displays are RGB in the end.

But for the best answer that makes the most sense. Yes, RGB is much better. It has 3 discrete colour lines keeping all video information seperate with very little cross talk, and usually has a dedicated sync line (SCART has a dedicated composite sync line... composite because vertical and horizontal are stored together).


When telling me of all the things I'd need to get to achieve RGB goodness in the U.S.A., you mentioned something about an RGB "switch." What's that? All the other things you said, I've researched into and know all about now (that's right! I pay attention to everything you say. Everything you've mentioned on this thread I've gone and researched soon afterwards, so I now know what you're talking about. See. You do a lot of good here).


I was referring to a SCART switch. Basically a little device that switches between multiple SCART sources. They have them for all kinds of different inputs so that you can hook multiple devices up to a display that only has 1 or 2 inputs.


And one last one: I seen a converter that converts RGB into S-video, or maybe it was visa versa. How does RGB handle a transition like that? It doesn't sound to me like it would do much good if you needed to use it. RGB is best converted into YUV component, eh? Right?


This is one of the reasons I love RGB. RGB is versatile and can be converted very easily on the fly into all kinds of different formats. It's all just a matter of adding and subtracting signals from each other to convert it. Converting RGB to S-Video or to YUV Component is basically the same task. You find the Luma (Y) of it by adding up all the RGB values weighted, and the chrominance (UV) is another weighted subtraction of the RGB values with the luminance. This results in a flat blue image, a flat orangish red image, and a black and white image. The B+W image tints the two other images that are layed over each other to create a colour image.

S-vid and YUV Component are both in the YUV colour scale. Component just has the two UV images stored seperately. Where S-vid has them stored together. Both keep the B+W picture (luma) on its own line with the sync signal. Converting to YUV Component is better merely because it's a better picture quality. To make S-vid you would actually make component, and then down convert the component to s-vid. So in the end you are left with a signal that has been converted more, and in a format that is of lower quality in general (as it has to be broken back up). Check out any diagram for a composite video encoder chip in a game console... you'll see the seperate U + V signals created inside of the encoder chip from the RGB. They just never pass these discrete signals out of the chip... they only combined them and passed out the UV composite signal instead.

The s-vid version is just more common because S-vid and Composite are very common solutions for the regular consumer. S-vid to composite conversion is cake walk as well (the converter is the size of my pinky and basically just adds the two wires together into one. You could easily do it with a resistor and a piece of wire!).

Long winded but that should answer your question.






//composite is a very bad word to describe the yellow cable. The word composite just means all parts combined. General usage of the word on it's own usually always refers to YUV composite. When used with another word, it does NOT refer to YUV composite. So when I say UV composite, composite sync, or anything similar... I am referring to the definitive meaning of the word, when I say composite... I am using it in respect to YUV composite.

same can be said about the word Component. Component just means all parts separate.


Yeah, and that's why I once referred to component as YUV component (the kind most people are aware of) so that you'd know what I meant; because there's different kinds of "component."

Yes, that certainly answers my questions, and thank you for it. You're awesome, duct.
User avatar
lordofduct
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: West Palm Beach

by lordofduct Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:51 am

Raskolnikov wrote:
gradualmeltdown wrote:a better way to refer to the yellow cable would the connector type RCA.


Correct! I was just going to say that myself.


I don't know why... I hate the name RCA. But that's just me... I know, RCA invented and patented the stupid little plug... but I just don't like calling something named after a company name. Then again I'm also the same guy who hates it when everyone gives Newton all the credit for Calculus... stupid physicists... grrrrrrrrrrrrr
www.lordofduct.com - check out my blog

Space Puppy Studios - games for gamers by gamers
User avatar
Raskolnikov
Newbie
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: U.S.A.

by Raskolnikov Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:17 am

lordofduct wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
gradualmeltdown wrote:a better way to refer to the yellow cable would the connector type RCA.


Correct! I was just going to say that myself.


I don't know why... I hate the name RCA. But that's just me... I know, RCA invented and patented the stupid little plug... but I just don't like calling something named after a company name. Then again I'm also the same guy who hates it when everyone gives Newton all the credit for Calculus... stupid physicists... grrrrrrrrrrrrr


lol.

The reason I asked about S-Video conversion is because I'm thinking about getting the customized creation of VideoGameCentral.com, the "Retroduo," (http://store.videogamecentral.com/retroduo-white-blue.html) which is a 2-in-1 console that plays NES and SNES games, as well as European Super Famicom games (it would be far better if it played both Japanse Famicom and Super Famicom games, but oh well). As you can see, it has a S-Video output as well as an RCA (you die a little each time we say that, don't you? :D) outputs. Well, SNES using S-Video on my HDTV is not to my satisfaction, so I'm going to try to convert it to S-Video; and if that's a bad idea, I'll just get a SNES scart cable and hook it to a converter that transforms it into YUV component.

So, for the Retroduo, I could buy this:
http://www.b2cshop24.com/en/rgb-scart-to-3-rca-av-m-to-f-s-video-converter-adapter.html
And then get another S-Video cable to output THAT to my TV.

OR ... I could get THIS:
http://cgi.ebay.com/33FT-10M-ATLONA-SCART-TO-S-VIDEO-AUDIO-CABLE-ADAPTER_W0QQitemZ140185625236QQihZ004QQcategoryZ64631QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem?refid=store
Which I'll then plug into THIS:
http://www.lenexpo-electronics.com/product.php?productid=17064
An RGB to component converter.

What does your expertise say?
User avatar
lordofduct
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: West Palm Beach

by lordofduct Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:33 am

it all bottle necks through s-video. You aren't pulling any raw RGB data from anywhere. SCART to S-Video cables almost always just tap the s-vid pins of the SCART cable instead of figuring it out from the RGB values. Nevermind that you are using a device that is turning into S-video anyways... hence the futility of it.

but because of your constant bottle neck through some type of S-vid, you'll always get S-video quality, if not worse. I don't know a lot about the retro-duo or it's video capabilities inside of it. I know it lacks the A-V out the SNES/Gamecube/N64 gives you (which can give you access to RGB). Hopefully the encoder chip passes a clean RGB signal out that you can use to convert to YUV Component with out any bottle necks.
www.lordofduct.com - check out my blog

Space Puppy Studios - games for gamers by gamers
Return to Off-Topic / Whatever

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ziggy587 and 4 guests