Is this shens?

[Philippine Mango]

Text

In that it improves video quality and there is little to no difference between native S-Video ports on the back of the TV compared to the Composite ports? What it does is allow you to run an S-Video cable from your outputting device into this converter jack which then changes it from S-Video into composite, improving picture quality because it's outputted S-Video picture and is S-Video for the majority of the transmission..

 

[Matthias99]

On an SDTV, or with a lower-quality output source like a VCR, I doubt there would be any meaningful difference between RCA/Composite and S-Video to begin with.

With a high-quality display and something that can actually max out the bandwidth of S-Video, you could probably see more of a difference. But Composite to S-Video isn't exactly night and day to begin with.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Well for example if I hook up my S-VHS VCR with S-Video out (It's a pretty damn good JVC, excellent picture) to a TV with composite only (So I have an S-video cable running to the TV, then convert to composite) I should see an improvement in picture, right?

Personally I think the difference between composite and S-Video is a world of difference compared to component and S-Video, IMO. Composite signals I see are just so grainy and look like ass while S-video picture I've seen just looks so amazingly good.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Well for example if I hook up my S-VHS VCR with S-Video out (It's a pretty damn good JVC, excellent picture) to a TV with composite only (So I have an S-video cable running to the TV, then convert to composite) I should see an improvement in picture, right?

It might be somewhat better than running composite output. Haven't done any real testing myself.

Personally I think the difference between composite and S-Video is a world of difference compared to component and S-Video, IMO.

Comparing component to S-Video (but still displaying SD) is not a huge difference. HD Component is so much better than S-Video that it's not even comparable.

Composite signals I see are just so grainy and look like ass while S-video picture I've seen just looks so amazingly good.

With a good source on a good display there is a difference. But they both look pretty bad compared to HD.

 

[xtknight]

Composite vs. S-Video is fairly negligible but there's enough difference that I'd rather use S-Video. S-Video is luma and chroma (Y/C) separated into 2 pins while composite combines them into one wire, reducing quality a bit. Component is still analog but separates them further into Y (luminance), Pb (B-Y blue color difference), and Pr (R-y red color difference).

I don't see where it says it improves anything, you can't improve the signal going from S-Video to composite. It's just a converter that separates or combines the Y/C depending on what output you desire.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: xtknight
I don't see where it says it improves anything, you can't improve the signal going from S-Video to composite. It's just a converter that separates or combines the Y/C depending on what output you desire.

"get the high-resolution S-Video picture quality.......device that converts S-Video signals into composite (and vice versa), with virtually no signal loss! Now you can connect your DVD player, satellite TV receiver and advanced gaming system to your existing TV, without having to downgrade any of the signals."

"The picture using the converted signal looked as sharp, clear and in-focus as the direct S-video connection."

What I was saying is that you'd be getting a better picture with the S-Video connection over the composite connection, so you'd be effectively improving the video quality by using S-Video over composite.. It's possible though (I'm not sure about this) that the device COULD output better S-Video picture than Composite picture..

 

[xtknight]

changes it from S-Video into composite, improving picture quality

That's what confused me.