Component vs SCART
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote:

A lot of the problem is that you are in the hands of the circuit designers.
all things being equal, rgb should look better, the fact that many say its
not is rather a sad inditement of the designs in the various interfacing
components.

The TV circuit often converts RGB internally to something like "component"
so that the brightness and saturation can be adjusted by user controls,
before re-converting it back to RGB.

Component vs SCART
 

In article , Scott wrote:
I am puzzled about the distinction between RGB and component. I
though RGB was component and composite was the alternative (and not as
good).

"Component" on a piece of domestic video equipment means YUV, in other
words luminance and the usual two colour difference signals, fed through
phono connectors. They're really both just different types of component
signals, but the name seems to have stuck, in the same way that "PAL"
now seems to mean 625 lines even if there's no PAL coding involved, and
people talk about "filming" with video cameras. That's what common usage
amongst the ignorant can do to a language.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Component vs SCART
 

In message en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart writes
In article , Scott wrote:
I am puzzled about the distinction between RGB and component. I
though RGB was component and composite was the alternative (and not as
good).

"Component" on a piece of domestic video equipment means YUV, in other
words luminance and the usual two colour difference signals, fed through
phono connectors. They're really both just different types of component
signals, but the name seems to have stuck, in the same way that "PAL"
now seems to mean 625 lines even if there's no PAL coding involved, and
people talk about "filming" with video cameras. That's what common usage
amongst the ignorant can do to a language.

"Filming" is arguably better than "videoing"!!
--
Ian

Component vs SCART
 

Is there any difference in picture quality between a SCART connection
and a component connection? I'm running out of SCART sockets on my TV
and I am wondering whether to connect my best device or worst device
using a component lead. (I know to use HDMI if the device will
support it.)

Any help appreciated.

The important thing is to use good quality cables particularly SCART ones. I don't mean the ridiculously priced ones that make
even more ridiculous claims about their performance. The ones supplied by Solent Cables are top quality and in my experience the
company gives excellent service..

http://www.solentcables.co.uk/acatal...art-Cable.html

Peter Crosland

You were doing so well...
....Then spoilt it by linking to an oxygen free cable at about twice that I would
feel comfortable paying for a 1m cable.

I like the flat ribbon type SCART's particularly when the connecter is horizontally
orientated as they are lighter, and such weight they possess is more evenly distributed.
Also it is evident that each signal wire is individually screened which, by far, is the
most important factor.



--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Component vs SCART
 

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 10:50:56 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Scott wrote:
I am puzzled about the distinction between RGB and component. I
though RGB was component and composite was the alternative (and not as
good).

"Component" on a piece of domestic video equipment means YUV, in other
words luminance and the usual two colour difference signals, fed through
phono connectors. They're really both just different types of component
signals, but the name seems to have stuck, in the same way that "PAL"
now seems to mean 625 lines even if there's no PAL coding involved, and
people talk about "filming" with video cameras. That's what common usage
amongst the ignorant can do to a language.

Rod.

I know language can live on. People still talk about dialling phone
numbers and having a 'bad line' on a mobile phone.

What I am getting at is the menu on my Sony Bravia TV refers to a
component input. If I use this because I have run out of SCART will I
get the same quality as I would using the SCART input. If its better
quality I will put my 'best' equipment into this input. If it is
worse quality I will put my 'worst' equipment into the input.

Component vs SCART
 

"Scott" wrote in message
...



What I am getting at is the menu on my Sony Bravia TV refers to a
component input. If I use this because I have run out of SCART will I
get the same quality as I would using the SCART input. If its better
quality I will put my 'best' equipment into this input. If it is
worse quality I will put my 'worst' equipment into the input.




it depends what you are connecting.
at worst you'll probably not spot a difference, at best it could be better.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!

Component vs SCART
 

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:49:12 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:



"Scott" wrote in message
.. .



What I am getting at is the menu on my Sony Bravia TV refers to a
component input. If I use this because I have run out of SCART will I
get the same quality as I would using the SCART input. If its better
quality I will put my 'best' equipment into this input. If it is
worse quality I will put my 'worst' equipment into the input.




it depends what you are connecting.
at worst you'll probably not spot a difference, at best it could be better.

OK, thanks. Sounds like I should be putting the preferred piece of
equipment into the 'component' input.

At least it means each bit of kit will have its own input.

Component vs SCART
 

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Scott
saying something like:

Is there any difference in picture quality between a SCART connection
and a component connection? I'm running out of SCART sockets on my TV
and I am wondering whether to connect my best device or worst device
using a component lead. (I know to use HDMI if the device will
support it.)

Any help appreciated.

According to what I've read, the Sky (standard SD) RGB on SCART should
be equal to component, but it ain't so on my boxes. The component input
from the DVD is most definitely inferior, but that may be an
illustration of crappy componentry/processing in the player. That said,
the Sky RGB is of much better quality than I ever expected it to be, and
it's really noticeable how much better on an LCD telly than it ever was
on CRT.

Component vs SCART
 

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Scott
saying something like:

OK, thanks. Sounds like I should be putting the preferred piece of
equipment into the 'component' input.

Best to try it each way round and see for yourself, imo. As pointed out
above, various bits of kit (and the telly) have their own
characteristics.
Fwiw, my box has only one SCART input, so I was forced to go component
for the DVD - previously, its SCART output was better, but I prefer
keeping the telly SCART input for the Sky box.

Component vs SCART
 

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:12:19 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Scott
saying something like:

OK, thanks. Sounds like I should be putting the preferred piece of
equipment into the 'component' input.

Best to try it each way round and see for yourself, imo. As pointed out
above, various bits of kit (and the telly) have their own
characteristics.
Fwiw, my box has only one SCART input, so I was forced to go component
for the DVD - previously, its SCART output was better, but I prefer
keeping the telly SCART input for the Sky box.

I think that is the massage, and thanks to everyone for their
comments. Another factor may be that the TV may only auto-detect from
SCART (and HDMI), so maybe the most used equipment should be SCART
connected.