DVD to LCD - component v scart?
 

had an LCD tele for a week or so and have it connected to the DVD player by
a scart to scart lead the same way as I connected my old CRT tele to it.
now going thru the manual I notice that it recommends that the DVD to LCD is
connected via a component 3 part cable.

just wonder before I splash out on a component lead whether it will give me
improved picture quality as the scart seems fine? it did say on the tv
cables web site that a component connection is the best for dvd to
LCD/Plasma because dvd is recorded as a component signal.

appreciate any feedback on this!

ta.
Mike

In article , Mike
writes
had an LCD tele for a week or so and have it connected to the DVD player by
a scart to scart lead the same way as I connected my old CRT tele to it.
now going thru the manual I notice that it recommends that the DVD to LCD is
connected via a component 3 part cable.

just wonder before I splash out on a component lead whether it will give me
improved picture quality as the scart seems fine? it did say on the tv
cables web site that a component connection is the best for dvd to
LCD/Plasma because dvd is recorded as a component signal.

If your scart lead, and the scart sockets either end, are wired for RGB
then it will not make any difference.

If they are only composite video (you will be able to see some fuzz
around the edges of coloured objects) then a component lead will improve
it.

It's rubbish to say that "Dvd is recorded as a component signal".
--
Tim Mitchell

In article
. co.uk.invalid, Alan
Pemberton wrote:
Tim Mitchell wrote:

It's rubbish to say that "Dvd is recorded as a component signal".

But DVD *is* recorded as a component signal. The only pictorial benefit
of using RGB over component connections is if on-screen graphics are
rendered in RGB-space, which most are, the Sky digibox's being an
exception.

Phil: It doesn't matter whether it was in (commponent) form or not on the
disc (its actually buried within MPEG encoding as well which has far more
impact) - Changing from component to RGB is simply a mathematical matrix
involving no loss to the signal (nor gain) and if it makes the processing
easy or more standard in the following stage, then its not a bad thing!
The final display is RGB - depending on the device, there could be an
element of Y, R G and B drives (matrixing), but ultimately it'll end up as
RGB (phosphors/ light filters). If that processing enables the cost to be
halved through standardiasation (eg the SCART plug - not the best example)
then there is no loss, only a benefit in not having to buy a separate
converter box.

--
Phil Spiegelhalter:
==== Technical Training for Broadcasters =====
*RE CUE Mobile DV Multi-Camera Production and Non-Linear Editing*

In article
. co.uk.invalid, Alan
Pemberton writes
Tim Mitchell wrote:

It's rubbish to say that "Dvd is recorded as a component signal".

But DVD *is* recorded as a component signal. The only pictorial benefit
of using RGB over component connections is if on-screen graphics are
rendered in RGB-space, which most are, the Sky digibox's being an
exception.

Well that's what I meant really. I meant that the comment about using
component connections because "DVD is recorded as a component signal"
was rubbish.

I would argue that DVD is not recorded as a component signal. It's
recorded as an MPEG2 digital signal. The means by which the original
video gets into the MPEG2 coder is not really relevant; it could be
component, or it could be digital all the way from the camera.
--
Tim Mitchell