Component vs SCART
 

"Paul Heslop" wrote in message ...
" wrote:

On Oct 3, 9:06 pm, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:
"Graham." wrote in message
A 1m RGB shielded cable from CPC is er one pound (£1).http://cpc.farnell.com/pro-signal/ps...-lead-1m/dp/AV...

Scarts from under 50p, but that is 100+, 0.75m and might not be shielded.

As a matter of interest I wanted some compartmentalised dado trunking
t'other day and CPC's price was double that of QVS.

Bill

did it hurt?

Is it legal?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Component vs SCART
 

In article , Ian Jackson wrote:
"Filming" is arguably better than "videoing"!!

What's wrong with "recording"? Years ago in the BBC studios, the
command from the gallery to the videotape operator to start recording
was (wait for it ...) "start recording", and you can probably guess the
corresponding command to stop. Those were the days when Plain English
had a higher value than it does now. The last time I had any
involvement with the making of television programmes, the Floor
Managers (sorry, "Assistant Directors") were calling things like "turn
over", or "roll up", or occasionally "roll tape", even though by that
time it was mostly being recorded by ethernet straight into a central
server and there was no tape involved. The industry seemed to have been
invaded by film cameramen and young upstarts with "Media" training and
an aspiration to work in the movies, so I daresay they were using the
language they thought appropriate to that.

The practice of copying a tape into the server by the way, seems to be
not just "copying" as you'd expect if you spoke Plain English, but
"ingestion", which immediately suggests to me a wonderfully appropriate
term for playing it back.

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

Component vs SCART
 

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

What's wrong with "recording"? Years ago in the BBC studios, the
command from the gallery to the videotape operator to start recording
was (wait for it ...) "start recording", and you can probably guess the
corresponding command to stop. Those were the days when Plain English
had a higher value than it does now. The last time I had any
involvement with the making of television programmes, the Floor
Managers (sorry, "Assistant Directors") were calling things like "turn
over", or "roll up", or occasionally "roll tape", even though by that
time it was mostly being recorded by ethernet straight into a central
server and there was no tape involved. The industry seemed to have been
invaded by film cameramen and young upstarts with "Media" training and
an aspiration to work in the movies, so I daresay they were using the
language they thought appropriate to that.

The practice of copying a tape into the server by the way, seems to be
not just "copying" as you'd expect if you spoke Plain English, but
"ingestion", which immediately suggests to me a wonderfully appropriate
term for playing it back.

The command I seem to remember hearing on my regular visits to Granada
was an unequivocal "Roll VT to record".
Google is aware of only one instance of that exact phrase, from the US.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Component vs SCART
 

On Oct 4, 7:51*am, Bob Latham wrote:
In article
,
* wrote:


Despite a number of people saying that HDMI doesn't suffer this fate, I
have actually got a Sony DVD/HD recorder that whilst it is in standby and
starts a recording sends a signal via HDMI to my 5 in 2 out HDMI switch
box and would you believe it, it switches. So I'm watching Sky via HDMI
and the Sony starts a timed recording and the HDMI switch box responds and
flips my TV to the Sony box which because its in standby gives no picture
or sound. In effect, my tv goes blank suddenly and for no obvious reason
at the time. Utterly, utterly ridiculous.

Well that is just stupid isn't it? Really that's a fault on the Sony.

Does anyone know what the true situation is re auto-switching of HDMI?
I know that it seems a backward step when I have to tell people that
they have to select their new HD box manually, when they've been used
to the old SD one appearing automatically.

Bob's post suggests that HDMI does include auto-switching and that his
Sony includes it, which makes me wonder if TV sets are simply ignoring
the signal. I've never seen one that auto-stiches, but most tellys
seems to come back on from a power-off or standby already on the HDMI
input they were last used on.

Incidentally, last week I installed two Humax Freesat HD boxes in the
same dwelling. One was for a soon-to-be replaced SD set; the other was
for a brand new HD set that actually didn't have a visible brand name,
and since I wasn't very interested I never found out what make it was.
However, it looked cheap and it performed cheap, and the customer
confirmed that it had been, indeed, exceeding cheap. She was pleased
at her bargain, but when I was showing her how to work the new box and
I landed on the BBC HD channel I could see very little difference in
the picture. I normally say, with a theatrical flourish, "And there's
your HD!" but this time I was stuck for words. My helper, stood
drinking his tea, caught my eye. His expression was inscrutable.
Picture quality on SD had that indefinable 'cheap' look, but the HD
simply wasn't much better! The customer must have sensed something
(that's the trouble with woman, they sense things) because she
suddenly said, "So is it alright then?"
"Err yes, fine."
She pressed on, "Is it what you'd call a good picture?" (this was in a
lousy area for terrestrial reception and she'd always had snowy
analogue reception.)
I chose my words carefully. "Well you see, as far as reception's
concerned, satellite either works or it doesn't. The thing with
digital TV is that the final picture quality depends quite a lot on
the TV set itself. Now if you'd spend more on the telly the fact is,
the picture would be better. When you buy the TV set for the bedroom,
if I were you I'd get a well-known make like Sony or Panasonic or
something."
"But that would mean that I'd have a better picture in the bedroom
than in the living room. That's ridiculous! I'll just get another
cheap one I think." Well you can't argue with logic of that calibre.
She had one final question. "Can I get Channel Five now?"

The last time I was at that little group of dwellings was years ago,
and the customer had a telly with satellite built in. The only thing
was, the satellite appeared on the screen as composite rather than
RGB. No amount of fiddling about would alter this.

Bill

Component vs SCART
 

On Oct 4, 9:08*am, "Graham." wrote:
"Paul Heslop" wrote in ...
" wrote:

On Oct 3, 9:06 pm, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:
"Graham." wrote in message
A 1m RGB shielded cable from CPC is er one pound (£1).http://cpc.farnell.com/pro-signal/ps...-lead-1m/dp/AV...

Scarts from under 50p, but that is 100+, 0.75m and might not be shielded.

As a matter of interest I wanted some compartmentalised dado trunking
t'other day and CPC's price was double that of QVS.

Bill

did it hurt?

Is it legal?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

'Dado' not 'dildo' you fools!

You'd be all right shoving a 3m length of trunking up your arse! Ohh,
I saw that film about Vlad the Impaler a while ago and I still think
about it sometimes!

Bill

Component vs SCART
 

" wrote in message
...
On Oct 4, 7:51 am, Bob Latham wrote:
In article
,
wrote:


Despite a number of people saying that HDMI doesn't suffer this fate, I
have actually got a Sony DVD/HD recorder that whilst it is in standby and
starts a recording sends a signal via HDMI to my 5 in 2 out HDMI switch
box and would you believe it, it switches. So I'm watching Sky via HDMI
and the Sony starts a timed recording and the HDMI switch box responds
and
flips my TV to the Sony box which because its in standby gives no picture
or sound. In effect, my tv goes blank suddenly and for no obvious reason
at the time. Utterly, utterly ridiculous.

Well that is just stupid isn't it? Really that's a fault on the Sony.

Does anyone know what the true situation is re auto-switching of HDMI?
I know that it seems a backward step when I have to tell people that
they have to select their new HD box manually, when they've been used
to the old SD one appearing automatically.

Bob's post suggests that HDMI does include auto-switching and that his
Sony includes it, which makes me wonder if TV sets are simply ignoring
the signal. I've never seen one that auto-stiches, but most tellys
seems to come back on from a power-off or standby already on the HDMI
input they were last used on.

Incidentally, last week I installed two Humax Freesat HD boxes in the
same dwelling. One was for a soon-to-be replaced SD set; the other was
for a brand new HD set that actually didn't have a visible brand name,
and since I wasn't very interested I never found out what make it was.
However, it looked cheap and it performed cheap, and the customer
confirmed that it had been, indeed, exceeding cheap. She was pleased
at her bargain, but when I was showing her how to work the new box and
I landed on the BBC HD channel I could see very little difference in
the picture. I normally say, with a theatrical flourish, "And there's
your HD!" but this time I was stuck for words. My helper, stood
drinking his tea, caught my eye. His expression was inscrutable.
Picture quality on SD had that indefinable 'cheap' look, but the HD
simply wasn't much better! The customer must have sensed something
(that's the trouble with woman, they sense things) because she
suddenly said, "So is it alright then?"
"Err yes, fine."
She pressed on, "Is it what you'd call a good picture?" (this was in a
lousy area for terrestrial reception and she'd always had snowy
analogue reception.)
I chose my words carefully. "Well you see, as far as reception's
concerned, satellite either works or it doesn't. The thing with
digital TV is that the final picture quality depends quite a lot on
the TV set itself. Now if you'd spend more on the telly the fact is,
the picture would be better. When you buy the TV set for the bedroom,
if I were you I'd get a well-known make like Sony or Panasonic or
something."
"But that would mean that I'd have a better picture in the bedroom
than in the living room. That's ridiculous! I'll just get another
cheap one I think." Well you can't argue with logic of that calibre.
She had one final question. "Can I get Channel Five now?"

The last time I was at that little group of dwellings was years ago,
and the customer had a telly with satellite built in. The only thing
was, the satellite appeared on the screen as composite rather than
RGB. No amount of fiddling about would alter this.

Bill

There is a projector on eBay that insisted it is HD and it is cheap but the
display is 470x whatever it is pixels BUT it has HDMI input and will handle
1080P signal.

If you read the description it insists it is HD Viewing and uses the HD
logo etc.
I did report it to eBay but nothing happened.

The point is people will happily buy anything .Just tell them what they want
to hear.

Gary

Component vs SCART
 

"Graham." 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.

It'd probably be a waste to put the VHS on the Component input.

How would you do that without signal conversion?
I've never seen anything but composite on a VHS, and additionally Y/C (or
S-Video) on an S-VHS machine

The PVR has somewhat unknown status, it depends exactly what source(s) it
records and, maybe, how it's connected to them.
I'd probably go for the DVD on the composite input myself.

Surely you mean component not composite

Yes sorry.


Also do you know if the two SCARTS are identical, I've known TV's that
only accept RGB via SCART on one of the SCART sockets; the other only
accepting Composite. (You don't necessarily notice this unless you
inspect the display closely since most devices output both Composite and
RGB on the SCART when set to output RGB)



--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Component vs SCART
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.myzen.co.uk...

The last time I had any
involvement with the making of television programmes, the Floor
Managers (sorry, "Assistant Directors") were calling things like "turn
over", or "roll up", or occasionally "roll tape", even though by that
time it was mostly being recorded by ethernet straight into a central
server and there was no tape involved.

Ethernet? I'm guessing the 100mbps variety, in which case it can't have been
uncompressed SD video you were recording, as this requires more bandwidth.
What sort of compression scheme was in use, out of interest?

jamie.
--

Component vs SCART
 

On 4 Oct, 17:53, "j r powell" wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message

.myzen.co.uk...



The last time I had any
involvement with the making of television programmes, the Floor
Managers (sorry, "Assistant Directors") were calling things like "turn
over", or "roll up", or occasionally "roll tape", even though by that
time it was mostly being recorded by ethernet straight into a central
server and there was no tape involved.

Ethernet? I'm guessing the 100mbps variety, in which case it can't have been
uncompressed SD video you were recording, as this requires more bandwidth.
What sort of compression scheme was in use, out of interest?

Gigabit more likely. Given that it's more or less a consumer item now
with decent home routers having it......

Component vs SCART
 

In article , J r powell wrote:
The last time I had any
involvement with the making of television programmes, the Floor
Managers (sorry, "Assistant Directors") were calling things like "turn
over", or "roll up", or occasionally "roll tape", even though by that
time it was mostly being recorded by ethernet straight into a central
server and there was no tape involved.

Ethernet? I'm guessing the 100mbps variety, in which case it can't have been
uncompressed SD video you were recording, as this requires more bandwidth.
What sort of compression scheme was in use, out of interest?

I think it ended up as AVI files with a bit rate of 48Mb/s, which is
approximately the same rate as Digital Betacam. Presumably they're now working
in HD, so goodness knows how they're handling that, and frankly I no longer
need to care. As a "civilian", I no longer watch waveforms, but programmes, and
precious few of those.

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