Best type of Cable?

[Marquis Dynamo]

Well, I mean for capturing. I did a quick search and seen nothing about it. What type of cable for Composite should I use? Do the Gold ones actually wield better results? Should I get any kind of amplifyer?

By the way, I'd also love help in this topic as tho I read up on capturing uncompressed Video (Hence the dual HD setup that's fairly fast), I have no clue as to what card would be good for it, and the makers pages do NOT help.

[Nelson37]

Best suggestion for cable is SHORT, the shorter, the better. Well-insulated, quality cable helps. S-Video is better than composite. Differing opinions on gold connectors, but for a few bucks difference, why not?

I use and get excellent results with ATI capture cards.

Also, the amplifier may help deliver a cleaner signal, I use one as well.

[Fozzee]

Yes s-video is marginally better. But be careful because your TV or Video may not be compatible. You could end up with picture problems like black and white etc. Composite offers more compatibilty.


To Nelson how do you amplify svhs or composite??

Cheers

Fozzee

[BJ_M]

generally using an amplifier is NOT a good idea but if it works for you - go ahead i guess but we dont use them in a studio..

in order of best to worse :

SDI
RGBHV
RGB
DV
component
s-video
composite
RF

make sure cable is true 75ohm and as well the conectors the same as this is one of the worse areas ..

best cable is generally Belden 8281 or like it (Canare or Belden Brillance) or any of the better video cables sold around ...

good quality cable like dual runs of Belden or Canare for s-video can be run 100+ feet or more with out problems but we use line matching amps (boost HF and match cable) for runs over 75feet . under 10-15 feet any amps can accually cause worse picture.

[Nelson37]

I use a signal amplifier on the coax prior to the Digital Cable box, all viewers say noticeable improvement.

I have never heard of an issue with S-Video compatiblity as long as the connector is present. Black and white picture usually indicates a PAL to NTSC issue.

All information I have seen here and elsewhere states that signal degradation directly correlates with length of cable.

I realize that professional studio equipment is different, and while I find that some of the techniques and information concerning such equipment useful, such hardware is not available to most of us. I don't wish to offend or call you a snob, it's just that most of the tuning techniques that make a Lamborghini go faster simply do not apply to my VW.

[BJ_M]

I use a signal amplifier on the coax prior to the Digital Cable box, all viewers say noticeable improvement.

thats a RF amplifier which is completly different thing from a composite or s-video line equalizing amp.

RF amps just boost the RF sgnal primarly ..


good practises in a studio carry foward to home and semi pro .. much of the same methods are used just with different equipment.

plus i see a lot of people here using a lot of the same software we use (and purchase) anyway as it seems access to most any software, no mater the cost, is not a problem .

[Fozzee]

Actually if u search the forum u will see SVHS compatibilty issues. If your TV or Video does not have a SVHS socket and u use a scart adapter u may have signal issues (such as b&w picture) .
I am not an expert but my problem which was similar to this was solved on this forum and the answer was that my VCR was not fully SVHS compatible. Once I changed to composite the b&w went and the picture improved.

Fozzee

[coda304]

Using a well-made cable can make subtitle too HUGE differences in picture quality!

I don’t care what anyone says, cable characteristics can make a difference. Take an el-cheapo “Throw Away” S-Video cable and compare it too a Monster (overpriced) cable and you will notice huge differences. The cheap throw away cables have weak contrast and bad color representation while a good cable will pass the picture without altering the picture in anyway what so ever.

Cables that I have tried and had great results:

Monster Cable- Good entry level cable, a bit pricey though.

Audio Quest Cable-Great entry level/high end cable but defiantly overpriced.

Kimber Kable- The best of the best, have gotten rave reviews all over the world but will defiantly break the bank. Be prepared to spend in the upwards of $200 for a entry level S-Video cable around 20 ft.

[coda304]

People crack me up with how cheap they can be sometimes.

I love it when I see someone who spent 1,000 on a pair of speakers, a thousand on a decent receiver and another 400-500 on a decent DVD player but hook it up with the absolutely cheapest cable they can find. I have seen people with 20ft runs of #22 gauge with zero insulation and wonder why there 3,000 + rig lacks warm bass or any bass for that matter.

Then there are the people who will hook up a DSS receiver or DVD player with an RF cable…not realizing the maximum lines displayed for this type of connection will max out at 352x240…why bother.

Component Video = 1280x1024

S-Video= 720x480

Composite= 640x480

RF=352x240




If I owned a Porsche I would never take it to SEARS to have tires put on it, so why would I amp a pair of thousand dollar speakers with Radio Shack zip cord.

[Nelson37]

Fozzee - you are confusing SVHS and S-Video. They are completely different and unrelated. SVHS is a video format and tape standard, S-Video is a type of cable. There is no such thing as an SVHS socket.

Coda304 - what is your source for the resolution keyed to cable type? In previous discussions on these forums, my understanding was that there is NO relationship between cable type and resolution. Yes, better cable = better picture, particularly at higher resolution, but you can certainly get a 720x480 signal over coax or composite. I have done it with both.

[fmctm1sw]

Best suggestion for cable is SHORT, the shorter, the better. Well-insulated, quality cable helps. S-Video is better than composite. Differing opinions on gold connectors, but for a few bucks difference, why not?

I use and get excellent results with ATI capture cards.

Also, the amplifier may help deliver a cleaner signal, I use one as well.

gold is one of the best conductors known to man. An s-video cable is good since the luminance and chrominance signals are separate. shorter the better I heard too.

[BJ_M]

Best suggestion for cable is SHORT, the shorter, the better. Well-insulated, quality cable helps. S-Video is better than composite. Differing opinions on gold connectors, but for a few bucks difference, why not?

I use and get excellent results with ATI capture cards.

Also, the amplifier may help deliver a cleaner signal, I use one as well.

gold is one of the best conductors known to man. An s-video cable is good since the luminance and chrominance signals are separate. shorter the better I heard too.

The metal with the best conductance is silver, followed directly by copper.
Gold is accualy down the list some but good for connectors because it doesnt oxidize.

Any center conductor made of braded or indivigual wires are better than solid because almost all the current flows at the outside of the conductor. Thats why high power/high frequency applications use metal pipes, metal foil or litze-wire in stead of a single wire.

the same hold true for applications like speaker wires and even video cables ..

[coda304]

Nelson37

I can’t pinpoint where I got my information from but I can say that I have not just read it in one place. I read most of the Audio/Video mags on a regular basis and have picked up tons of facts (opinion’s). Hopefully someone can back me on this.

If you are using RF and capping with a computer @720x480 then the card is making up the difference in lines when capping. RF is an incredibly noisy method of transferring video/audio. The cable shares both the audio/video over one cable therefore introducing tons of excessive noise and reducing the bandwidth for the higher resolution(s).

DSS uses RF for the incoming satellite feed, but yet still produces lines at about 640x480 when converted from the receiver. This is an easy one to explain: The incoming feed from the RF wire is Digital (1’s & 0’s) it then gets converted too Analog by the DA converter in the satellite box pumping out the analog signal via Component, S-Vid, Composite or RF.

[Fozzee]

Hi Nelson
Yes I am confusing the names LOL
But not the concept.

Fozzee

[BJ_M]

Nelson37

I can’t pinpoint where I got my information from but I can say that I have not just read it in one place. I read most of the Audio/Video mags on a regular basis and have picked up tons of facts (opinion’s). Hopefully someone can back me on this.

If you are using RF and capping with a computer @720x480 then the card is making up the difference in lines when capping. RF is an incredibly noisy method of transferring video/audio. The cable shares both the audio/video over one cable therefore introducing tons of excessive noise and reducing the bandwidth for the higher resolution(s).

DSS uses RF for the incoming satellite feed, but yet still produces lines at about 640x480 when converted from the receiver. This is an easy one to explain: The incoming feed from the RF wire is Digital (1’s & 0’s) it then gets converted too Analog by the DA converter in the satellite box pumping out the analog signal via Component, S-Vid, Composite or RF.

you are correct - though in fact you can get higher resolutions with RF -- but not the stuff you see comming into homes ... your explanation of DSS is correct about that type of RF transmission .

Component cable will carry a 1920 x 1080 signal just fine (1080 HD in fact is prtetty common on Component) and even much higher ,,,
with RGB types even higher quality ..

[coda304]

BJ_M


Thanks for clearing that up for me; I knew I was close though

[Nelson37]

When I cap at x240, the video is non-interlaced. At x480, the video IS interlaced. Particularly when the interlacing is from Telecining, the interlaced fields are visually different. Thus, these "extra" lines are NOT being produced by my card, but are present in the video stream originally, and are captured at x480. The vertical difference could be explained if the limitation is FIELDS rather than FRAMES, but then similar differences are visible capping at 720x rather than 352x, with horizontal resolution unaffected by field interlacing.

I believe the numbers you are referencing are "recommended" maximums, not limitations of the cable. While high resolutions will have more noticeable noise on the lower grades of cable, and the HDTV resolutions may be limited to certain cables, if you are stating that nothing over 352x240 can be transmitted over coax, I must emphatically disagree.

[coda304]

Nelson37 Posted: Sep 04 16:13 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I cap at x240, the video is non-interlaced. At x480, the video IS interlaced. Particularly when the interlacing is from Telecining, the interlaced fields are visually different. Thus, these "extra" lines are NOT being produced by my card, but are present in the video stream originally, and are captured at x480. The vertical difference could be explained if the limitation is FIELDS rather than FRAMES, but then similar differences are visible capping at 720x rather than 352x, with horizontal resolution unaffected by field interlacing.

I believe the numbers you are referencing are "recommended" maximums, not limitations of the cable. While high resolutions will have more noticeable noise on the lower grades of cable, and the HDTV resolutions may be limited to certain cables, if you are stating that nothing over 352x240 can be transmitted over coax, I must emphatically disagree.






Nelson37

I am telling you I have read these facts more than once in different places. However I don’t think it’s the actual cable that has the limitations, it’s the interface (standard), or should I say the connector’s limitation. Sure you could probably construct an composite cable out of coax by soldering on RCA jacks on both ends and get more lines, but instead of hooking it up to the RF input you would have to connect it the composite input therefore changing the interface.

I would imagine that you may squeeze out a tad bit more lines with RF than 352x240, but I will never agree that RF can do 720x480 or not even close for that matter. Again remember it’s not the cable but the standard.

[kinneera]

All of these cable types being discussed transmit analogue signals, so digital resolutions (352x240, 720x480, etc...) are actually meaningless and are only used as reference points. RF can definitely do better than 352x240 equivalency in image detail, but overall image quality will certainly suffer compared to better connection methods, in particular color integrity... not to mention it even has to carry the audio signal on the same line.

[SatStorm]

Use a short (less than a metter), good quality composite cable.
S-Video is needed in praxis only for Laserdisc.

For DV, DVD and DVB sources, there are others, much better, inexpensive and faster, ways to convert to any format than grabbing the analogue way...

[Nelson37]

Yes, I understand we are talking about an analog equivalent, not an actual resolution. I also understand coax is the worst of the three cable types.

My concern is that 99% of my captures come from the cable which comes from the pole to my house, and that cable is coax. Now, perhaps that coax is different than what I connect to my cable box. Perhaps there is a difference when the signal is Digital Cable???

The statement was made that Max coax resolution (equivalent) is 352x240, which contradicts NTSC and advertised Cable res of 720x480, or 720x240 allowing for interlaced frames. Also, observed clarity improvement capping at 720x versus 352x.

Now the limitation is being clarified with "perhaps a tad more" and "Definitely do better", although the second qualifier did not come from the original poster of the limitation.

Perhaps the limitation refers only to coax OUTPUT from a VCR? If my S-video OUT from the Digital Cable box carries a 720x480 signal, how is that possible as the signal arrived in my home thru "limited" coax?

Now, I'm not here to pointlessly argue. However, we already seem to have some agreement (including from the original poster) that the 352x240 "limitation" is NOT absolute. IF there is a limitation, I want to know what it is. If the limitation refers only to certain types of equipment which just happen to use coax - much like the invalid association of S-Video and SVHS - then that is information that I and many others can put to good use.

From what I have read and been told, the 352x240 is more likely referring to a "typical" coax connection, but NOT an absolute limitation.
This would be a major factor in deciding between Satellite and Digital Cable, for instance - My understanding was that resolution was very similar, and the balance was swayed because I live in a major thunderstorm area. However, if satellite is TWICE the horizontal res, or better, that would lean me the other way.

[BJ_M]

the resolution of DIGITAL CABLE (which is carried on a RF coax) and the resolution of DSS - at max , is 1080 lines , though most of the time they are really outputing only 480p (a lot of broadcasters are somehwhat cheating) .. the BEST cable type for the RF COAX portion of this system is triple shielded RG6 75ohm .. which is what most (better) cable suppliers use up to your house. the avaibility of this max resolution is limited (or not limited) by your equipment downstream.

the MAX resolution (capibilities of trasmission media) of ANALOG RF transmission is very very high (i dont think there really is a limit) **BUT** what is outputed by the cable company is 1. dependent on the company and what signal they are recieving 2. downstream cable company equipment.
- this is ussually 330 lines or close to this , but this is not an absolute ..

now i am using both lines and Horz. pixel resolutions in the above info and there is a lot of confusion over the differance when there is also scan lines mentioned sometimes:

Lines of horizontal resolution are often confused with scan lines. The two are totally different things. Lines of horizontal resolution refers to visually resolvable vertical lines per picture height. In other words, it's measured by counting the number of vertical black and white lines that can be distinguished an area that is as wide as the picture is high. Lines of horizontal resolution applies both to television displays and to signal formats such as that produced by a DVD player. Since DVD has 720 horizontal pixels (on both NTSC and PAL discs), the horizontal resolution can be calculated by dividing 720 by 1.33 (for a 4:3 aspect ratio) to get 540 lines. On a 1.78 (16:9) display, you get 405 lines. In practice, most DVD players provide about 500 lines instead of 540 because of filtering and low-quality digital-to-analog converters. VHS has about 230 (172 widescreen) lines, broadcast TV has about 330 (248 widescreen), and laserdisc has about 425 (318 widescreen). Scan lines, on the other hand, measure resolution along the y axis. DVD produces 480 scan lines of active picture for NTSC and 576 for PAL. The NTSC standard has 525 total scan lines, but only 480 to 483 or so are visible. (The extra lines are black and are encoded with other information). Since all video formats (VHS, LD, broadcast, etc.) have the same number of scan lines, it's the horizontal resolution that makes the big difference in picture quality.

also pixels of resolution (often expressed as 720 x 480 or some such example) can be converted to lines roughly by multipling by .75 -> so 720 pixels = 540 lines
(inverse of above example for 4:3 aspect ratio)


so the end result of this is that your accual resulution you are to cap at is determed by your weakest link - no mater if some device interpolates a higher resolution in your chain of equipment.


i hope this helps some ..

[Nelson37]

I think I understand most of that, although I'm still re-reading the scan line bit.

If I am correct, the "limitation" of 352x240 on coax is not a limit of the cable type at all, only a typical resolution which happens to be transmitted on that type of cable. And in fact, the number is not accurate even in the typical sense, as the real numbers are slightly higher.

The numbers BJ_M quoted agree with what I have seen before; this just points out how many uninformed and inaccurate "sources" there are out there.

[Marquis Dynamo]

Thank you all very much for the info!!