New to S video

[domino123]

Hello! I am interested in buying my first s-video cable and don't know where to start. I hooked my laptop up to a friends tv using his cable but the picture quality was poor. Does a higher priced cable mean better picture quality? Will a non-hd tv always look like crap? Are there any better alternatives to an s-video (a single cable or a setup involving many adapters/converters) ? What price should I look for when buying one? I've seen them go for 6$-40$. Any other relevant advice you can give a newbie is appreciated! Thanks!

[redwudz]

S-video is only a small step up from composite, not really great video quality, especially with a larger video display. You may not notice it too much on video, but text will usually be fuzzy, such as if you display your PC desktop on the TV. Next higher resolutions for newer LCD TVs are VGA, Component, DVI, HDMI. If you don't have those options available for your TV, then S-video is probably OK, at least better than composite.

The quality of a S-video cable isn't likely to have much bearing on the video quality, unless you make a long cable run or you are getting RF interference with a cheaper cable. Better cables may have larger conductors for the longer cables and maybe better quality connectors, but I wouldn't spend much money on one.

If you need longer cables, you might check out Monoprice for good quality and reasonable prices: http://www.monoprice.com/home/index.asp

And welcome to our forums.

[domino123]

So if I'm using an s video on a non hd-tv, there's nothing I can do to increase picture quality (say for text)?

[JohnnyBob]

Hello! I am interested in buying my first s-video cable and don't know where to start. I hooked my laptop up to a friends tv using his cable but the picture quality was poor. Does a higher priced cable mean better picture quality? Will a non-hd tv always look like crap? Are there any better alternatives to an s-video (a single cable or a setup involving many adapters/converters) ? What price should I look for when buying one? I've seen them go for 6$-40$. Any other relevant advice you can give a newbie is appreciated! Thanks!

I've bought S-Video cables from different sources and haven't noticed any difference, except some of the connectors fit more snugly than others. Big Lots had them on sale awhile back so I stocked up, and they work fine. So I would look for the best bargains, and they shouldn't cost over $5-$10 unless you want an extra-long one. I believe Walmart and Kmart sell them too, but their in-store stocking of electronics items is becoming problematical (you might have to buy it from them online).

I hear that there are different kinds of S-Video connectors but I guess I was lucky and have only encountered the kind I use, such as comes with my dishnetwork receiver. So check to make sure you're getting the kind you need.

As for why the picture quality was poor with your laptop connected to a friend's TV via his S-Video cable, I would bet it's some kind of compatibility problem between the TV and your laptop. I doubt a different S-Video cable will make any difference, but it's possible. For example maybe your laptop doesn't produce a strong enough signal.

[domino123]

Is there any troubleshooting I can do to see if my laptop's signal isn't strong enough? It's a hp dv9000, with a 7 prong outlet.

[JohnnyBob]

Is there any troubleshooting I can do to see if my laptop's signal isn't strong enough? It's a hp dv9000, with a 7 prong outlet.

Not that I know of, but I'm not an expert, nor have I tried to search/google it. I responded mostly because I use S-Video cables and have bought a lot of them over the years, so am familiar with them.

It's not clear to me exactly what you mean by "poor picture quality" without seeing it myself. As redwudz describes there is a gradation of quality as you go up the connector tree. At the bottom (worst quality) is the old RF connection where video and audio are combined in a single-wire cable. Next up the line is a composite RCA cable where the video and audio are separated, one connection for video, two for stereo audio. Then S-Video is the next step above that, because the black & white signal is separated from the color signal, which are separate from the audio signal, using a S-Video connector along with two stereo audio connectors. The latter (S-Video) is also known as DVD quality, because all of the old DVD players had a S-Video socket connection available, producing significantly better quality than VHS tapes. If you're familiar with these three levels of quality, which one of them describes the quality in your "poor picture quality"?

Also is it poorer quality than your friend ordinarily gets him/herself with his/her own system & connection? If he/she is getting better quality than your laptop provides, that implicates your laptop as a possible cause. Just guessing again, I'm not an expert, but maybe it has to do with the resolution produced by your laptop's video card vs the resolution(s) available on the TV. For example we know that 1024x768 is better quality than 800x600 on our computer monitors, and I suppose the same applies to TVs. The size of the TV's screen is also a factor, bigger screens are fuzzier to the naked eye than smaller screens with the same quality (resolution) signal input, depending also on how far away you are sitting from the screen, whether you have good 20:20 vision, are wearing your eyeglasses...

Offhand I can't imagine why a S-Video connection would degrade in quality unless there's some kind of special adapter in use, such as a S-Video-to-composite adapter. That wouldn't be the case if it's an ordinary S-Video cable, no adapters involved.

[jagabo]

NTSC S-video carries a signal that's roughly 640x480 resolution. It doesn't matter whether you're watching on a standard definition or high definition TV. Picture quality will be much worse than a computer monitor. If your computer is running at a higher resolution it will be downsized and low pass filtered before it travels over the s-video cable. About the best you can do is set the computer to at 640x480 resolution. The picture will still be fuzzy but you'll be able to read most text. A 320x240 desktop is perfectly readable but you can't really run any modern O/S with that low a resolution.

This post contains a rough sample of what a 1024x768 desktop will look like over a s-video cable:

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic345015.html#1849172

The next step up is standard definition component video. But that is only a slight improvement over s-video.

If you want a high quality picture you need to run high definition component, VGA, DVI, or HDMI. And those will generally only work with high definition TVs.

[domino123]

Jagabo that picture in the link is exactly what it looked like on my friends tv. I think my questions about the picture quality arise from not having an hd tv. Thanks for all the great help and advice guys!

[jagabo]

S-video will look about the same on both SD and HD TVs (unless the SD TV is very small, like 13 inches, the signal crossing over the s-video cable is the limiting factor). To get a clear picture on an HDTV will require HD component, VGA, DVI, or HDMI.

[JohnnyBob]

Thanks for the info jagabo, I'm interested too and have been thinking about running a S-Video cable from my computer to old standard 4x3 TV which has a S-Video connection. Do I understand correctly that the quality obtained thereby is going to be a lot less good than a standalone DVD player connected to the same TV via S-Video? If so I'll just forget about that notion til I get a HD TV someday.

[jagabo]

Do I understand correctly that the quality obtained thereby is going to be a lot less good than a standalone DVD player connected to the same TV via S-Video?

With the right setup s-video from the computer will be about the same as s-video from a DVD player (keep in mind NSTC DVDs are encoded at 720x480) . The issue here is that your typical desktop resolution is far higher than s-video is capable of carrying. A high resolution desktop has to first be digitally scaled down to a standard definition video frame size, then sent over the wire. So small text that's perfectly readable on a computer monitor is un, or barely, readable after going through an s-video cable.

[redwudz]

I think I mentioned it before, but watching a DVD or other video playback over S-Video to a SD TV, you may not notice the reduced resolution that much. It's only really noticeable on computer text. If it's all you have available, especially with a SD TV for viewing, give it a try. Even with text, there are a few 'tricks' you can use for text, such as using larger computer fonts if you really need to view text.

[olyteddy]

The early home computers (Apple II, C-64, Tandy, etc.) limited themselves to 40 (or less) character lines of text because of the limitations of displaying via composite or S-video.

[redwudz]

The early VIC 20, Commodore 64 and the Amiga computers all used composite or S-video for output. But they also used large fonts with a limited number of screen colors. I paid about $500US for my first 17" CRT monitor with decent resolution. Things have improved since then.

[olyteddy]

The early VIC 20, Commodore 64 and the Amiga computers all used composite or S-video for output. But they also used large fonts with a limited number of screen colors. I paid about $500US for my first 17" CRT monitor with decent resolution. Things have improved since then.

It's still NTSC (or Pal)...