S-Video

[avanteproject]

lol

[richg101]

my lcd projector is not picking up anything when i connect my jag using s-video or composite. anyone know why this might be? tried all the different video formats including auto sense...

 

a side note:

when using the same lead to connect my jag to my lcd tv it works but the signal is only detected once the red and white audio phonos are also used. plugging the s-video or the yellow composite on their own without any audio wires means the tv wont accept the signal and doesnt even register it..

 

I need to get the jaguar onto projection using s-video for nye (for Jag CD VLM projection effects)

 

any help very would be great:)

[busterm]

my lcd projector is not picking up anything when i connect my jag using s-video or composite. anyone know why this might be? tried all the different video formats including auto sense...

 

a side note:

when using the same lead to connect my jag to my lcd tv it works but the signal is only detected once the red and white audio phonos are also used. plugging the s-video or the yellow composite on their own without any audio wires means the tv wont accept the signal and doesnt even register it..

 

I need to get the jaguar onto projection using s-video for nye (for Jag CD VLM projection effects)

 

any help very would be great:)

 

Some LCD tvs are just that way unfortunelty. An option for you would be to use a Y cables to split the signal provide the image/audio to the tv and the projector just mute the tv if you want the audio to route through a sound system.

[richg101]

thanks for the fast reply:) i dont need the audio - i just need the vlm visuals projected onto a dancefloor.

 

is there any particular reason why the lcd projector wont recognise the jaguar s-video or composite leads when i plug them in?

 

the projector s-video/composite inputs work fine on other products...

[richg101]

just been reading some of the previous topics on here. sounds like an interleaving problem? wondering if the projector has an option to select a non interleaved signal....

[+Stephen]

my lcd projector is not picking up anything when i connect my jag using s-video or composite. anyone know why this might be? tried all the different video formats including auto sense...

 

a side note:

when using the same lead to connect my jag to my lcd tv it works but the signal is only detected once the red and white audio phonos are also used. plugging the s-video or the yellow composite on their own without any audio wires means the tv wont accept the signal and doesnt even register it..

 

I need to get the jaguar onto projection using s-video for nye (for Jag CD VLM projection effects)

 

any help very would be great:)

Just a guess, but maybe the ground pin is bad on the s-vid cable? That's my only guess for why it would work when the audio leads are plugged in.

[Gunstar]

EDIT: I think I may have figured out were some confusion lies in this discussion; I did not mention that my VGA monitor is a CRT monitor (I don't recall brand or model, but it's good. Not at home right now to see.), I only mentioned the LCD projector specifically. I didn't think of it, and you may have assumed I was referring to a LCD monitor. I'm telling everyone, that with the Ambery RGB>VGA converter the 480p CRT VGA screen is much better looking than 240p RGB on a 480i Commodore 1084S monitor, commonly known to be one of the best. Of course the end quality of any monitor or TV is dependent on how good the final image is, that is always assumed, by me, to be understood. Continuing my specificity, The BEST video image for the Jaguar, that I know of that is superior to RGB to a quality 480i CRT monitor is RGB to VGA via an Ambery converter and a quality VGA compatible TV or monitor, CRT, LCD, LED, Plasma or other, depending on your personal preference. I promise to no longer be so vague and assume complete specificity is not required, assuming people know I know what I'm talking about, else I don't get involved except with questions. audio/videophile enthusiast, with 2 year electronics degree and experience spanning almost 4 decades. No, I don't know everything but I only give answers about what I do know. Thank you and have a nice day.

 

Perhaps "BEST" is simply a subjective term. No need for apology.

 

I can't see how you can think that 240p vs. 480p screen refresh can be drummed up as "subjective." Seems obviously factual to me, but whatever makes you feel better.

Anyhow, there was one other thing I didn't get too; earlier you wrote this: "Atari did not release 2 different Scart cables, one with only the wires necessary for S-Video and a second with the wires necessary for RGB. In fact, I know of no such Scart cable for any game consoles with wires missing for formats the console supports."

 

You can't assume anything with Atari and the Jaguar, they cut corners wherever possible, and creating SCART cables that don't use RGB signals from the Jag certainly isn't out of the range of possibility with Atari. I could see them not making an RGB SCART at all, to save a few pennies per cable, but only using S-video lines. I'm just saying don't assume ANYTHING with Atari and the Jaguar. Maybe you know for sure, I can't say, but heed my words on this matter if you haven't actually seen proof of RGB lines running through the cable.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Gunstar

[kgenthe]

 

I can't see how you can think that 240p vs. 480p screen refresh can be drummed up as "subjective." Seems obviously factual to me, but whatever makes you feel better.

"

 

It would be obviously factual if the Jaguar outputted 480 vertical lines of resolution But as you stated earlier, the Jaguar outputs just 240 vertical lines of resolution.

 

Anyhow, there was one other thing I didn't get too; earlier you wrote this: "Atari did not release 2 different Scart cables, one with only the wires necessary for S-Video and a second with the wires necessary for RGB. In fact, I know of no such Scart cable for any game consoles with wires missing for formats the console supports."You can't assume anything with Atari and the Jaguar, they cut corners wherever possible, and creating SCART cables that don't use RGB signals from the Jag certainly isn't out of the range of possibility with Atari. I could see them not making an RGB SCART at all, to save a few pennies per cable, but only using S-video lines. I'm just saying don't assume ANYTHING with Atari and the Jaguar. Maybe you know for sure, I can't say, but heed my words on this matter if you haven't actually seen proof of RGB lines running through the cable.

 

I'm not going to take the bait.

[Gunstar]

 

I can't see how you can think that 240p vs. 480p screen refresh can be drummed up as "subjective." Seems obviously factual to me, but whatever makes you feel better.

"

 

It would be obviously factual if the Jaguar outputted 480 vertical lines of resolution But as you stated earlier, the Jaguar outputs just 240 vertical lines of resolution.

 

Anyhow, there was one other thing I didn't get too; earlier you wrote this: "Atari did not release 2 different Scart cables, one with only the wires necessary for S-Video and a second with the wires necessary for RGB. In fact, I know of no such Scart cable for any game consoles with wires missing for formats the console supports."You can't assume anything with Atari and the Jaguar, they cut corners wherever possible, and creating SCART cables that don't use RGB signals from the Jag certainly isn't out of the range of possibility with Atari. I could see them not making an RGB SCART at all, to save a few pennies per cable, but only using S-video lines. I'm just saying don't assume ANYTHING with Atari and the Jaguar. Maybe you know for sure, I can't say, but heed my words on this matter if you haven't actually seen proof of RGB lines running through the cable.

 

I'm not going to take the bait.

 

I'm sorry, I don't know why you have this mind block of understanding how the screen is better when displaying a full 480p, with 240p data repeated in the other 240 empty scan lines that are normally there in a 240p screen displayed on a standard 480i NTSC RGB monitor. By filling in those empty scan lines on a 480p screen, the color is richer and mor vibrant because half the screen is no longer black every other scan line, and that this also makes the image twice as sharp, regardless of the game screen resolution of 240p within that 480p screen. If you have ever played the 3DO, that is an example of a 240p resolution displayed in 480i, though still not as sharp as doing it in 480p.

 

It wasn't intended as bait, but to make you question only yourself and what you truly know.

 

But just the fact that you can't understand the improvement of 480p screen over a 240p screen, using the same 240p data, but doubling it, filling in scan lines, proves to me that you, in fact, hardly have more than a clue on video display technologies. You have a cliff notes education in these matters it appears to me. Sorry to offend, but facts are facts, whether you choose to believe or admit them to yourself or anyone else. You continue to completely ignore that I have told you of first hand experience on several occasions. I know I'm right, both academically and practically because I have done and seen it first hand (I have both a CRT RGB monitor and VGA CRT monitor currently hooked up to two Jaguars and can see them side-by-side, both of the best quality) and I have a proper understanding of displaying lower resolutions on higher resolution* screens, regardless of type of screen.

 

I've tried and tried to explain and be civil, but you have continued to prove to be thick-headed, knowing but part of the big picture, yet continue to insist you know it all. Or, I could be wrong and your problem is a lack of reading comprehension.

 

*or maybe I should be saying "high-definition" for your sake, resolution is probably something you think only refers to having resolve.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Gunstar

[Jag_Slave]

I bought S-video cables from Busterm- very good quality! I highly recommend. He packages and ships this very fast A+

[kgenthe]

 

I'm sorry, I don't know why you have this mind block of understanding how the screen is better when displaying a full 480p, with 240p data repeated in the other 240 empty scan lines that are normally there in a 240p screen displayed on a standard 480i NTSC RGB monitor. By filling in those empty scan lines on a 480p screen, the color is richer and mor vibrant because half the screen is no longer black every other scan line, and that this also makes the image twice as sharp, regardless of the game screen resolution of 240p within that 480p screen. If you have ever played the 3DO, that is an example of a 240p resolution displayed in 480i, though still not as sharp as doing it in 480p.

 

Mind block? How rude. Giddy up

 

1. "By filling in those empty scan lines on a 480p screen".. I'll finish the sentence. By filling in those empty scan lines you can do 1 of two things, a) line doubling (simply repeat each scan line twice) which offers no additional detail. Or b) scaling. Scaling introduces, or guesses, at detail that does not exist. This creates either artifacts, or softens the image, by picking a color between two adjacent pixels. So your options are either a) make the image more pixelated or b) reduce the sharpness.

 

2. "By filling in those empty scan lines on a 480p screen, the color is richer and mor vibrant because half the screen is no longer black." Black is the absence of color. When the phosphors of a CRT television are not glowing, they are not shining light into your eyes. If every other scan line is blue, then blue light is shining into your eyes. If every scan line is blue, then you are still seeing the same blue in your eyes. It is not more vibrant nor is the color richer. The same color information is being displayed. Also worth noting, regardless of wether the display is interlaced, or progressive, there is still a black space between the glowing phosphors. This is measured as Dot Pitch. Even on an LCD there is space between each pixel. Lastly, the black space between the phosphors is noticeably smaller than the glowing phosphors on an interlaced television.

 

After a certain distance, your eyes will no longer be able to see the space between the scan lines. (the "Retina Display" on the iPhone 4 really brought this into the mainstream)

 

I'm going to continue on here. So by your logic, if I have a interlaced display and a progressive display (CRTs) side by side, the interlaced display will be half as bright as the progressive display? So the entirety of the world has been watching television programming at half brightness for the better part of the last century?

 

It wasn't intended as bait, but to make you question only yourself and what you truly know.

 

Thanks for the quiz. I'm feeling good.

 

But just the fact that you can't understand the improvement of 480p screen over a 240p screen, using the same 240p data, but doubling it, filling in scan lines, proves to me that you, in fact, hardly have more than a clue on video display technologies.

 

Doubling pixels both horizontally and vertically to fill a 480p screen does not make the picture better. See above for scan lines and color theory.

 

You have a cliff notes education in these matters it appears to me. Sorry to offend, but facts are facts, whether you choose to believe or admit them to yourself or anyone else. You continue to completely ignore that I have told you of first hand experience on several occasions.

 

This will be the second time I ask you not to question my knowledge. I have provided you no falsehoods, I have not misrepresented any facts. I have provided nothing but coherent reasoning. I assure you, your Jaguar hooked up to your VGA CRT display looks better than your Jaguar hooked to your RGB display.

 

I know I'm right, both academically and practically because I have done and seen it first hand (I have both a CRT RGB monitor and VGA CRT monitor currently hooked up to two Jaguars and can see them side-by-side, both of the best quality) and I have a proper understanding of displaying lower resolutions on higher resolution* screens, regardless of type of screen.

 

In a perfect world, all things being equal, a 15kHz CRT monitor will produce the most accurate picture. In the real world, performance WILL vary.

 

I've tried and tried to explain and be civil, but you have continued to prove to be thick-headed, knowing but part of the big picture, yet continue to insist you know it all.

 

*or maybe I should be saying "high-definition" for your sake, resolution is probably something you think only refers to having resolve.

 

Calling me thickheaded, questioning by understanding of the word "resolution," and telling me I have mind block, is hardly being civil. I will continue to not call you names

 

Edit: You edited your post so I was not able to respond directly to your second comment about Jaguar scart cables with missing lines. The burden of proof is on yourself. I cannot prove they don't exist. Only you can prove they do exist.

 

Edit 2: Preferring the Jaguar displayed with an RGB cable with a 15kHz display over a line-doubled/scaled image on a progressive display (or vice versa) would be subjective. I prefer the first, as it offers the most accurate representation of what the Jaguar is producing internally. There is nothing wrong with preferring additionally processing and displaying it on a progressive display. Thus, subjective.

Edited December 30, 2010 by kgenthe

[Zerosquare]

You can't assume anything with Atari and the Jaguar, they cut corners wherever possible, and creating SCART cables that don't use RGB signals from the Jag certainly isn't out of the range of possibility with Atari. I could see them not making an RGB SCART at all, to save a few pennies per cable, but only using S-video lines. I'm just saying don't assume ANYTHING with Atari and the Jaguar. Maybe you know for sure, I can't say, but heed my words on this matter if you haven't actually seen proof of RGB lines running through the cable.

To my knowledge, there's only one kind of official SCART cable, and it's RGB. A S-video SCART cable would have been a bad idea, since not all TVs support S-video over SCART. They probably could have made a SCART composite cable, but didn't bother, because :

- an easier option would have been to use a composite cable and include a composite-to-SCART adapter, like Sony did for the PS1

- it wouldn't have worked for old SECAM-only TV sets, which is probably why they used SCART in the first place.

[ZylonBane]

Perhaps "BEST" is simply a subjective term.

And perhaps some day Gunstar will learn how to trim his quotes.

 

But I don't really see that happening.

Edited December 30, 2010 by ZylonBane

[+LS650]

Did anyone actually answer the OP question?

[kgenthe]

Did anyone actually answer the OP question?

 

Yes, on page 1.

 

This will be my last post on the matter. Gunstar, you state:

 

on average, the mind can't process more than 24fps

 

And then you state:

 

By filling in those empty scan lines

 

If a television is refreshing at 60 frames per second, then every 1/30 of a second you would see the whole picture (odd field and even field), then at your theoretical limit of vision at 1/24 of a second, you would not be able to see any scan lines, as the TV is refreshing faster than human vision.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Peace.

[ZylonBane]

...at your theoretical limit of vision at 1/24 of a second, you would not be able to see any scan lines, as the TV is refreshing faster than human vision.

This misconception is posted so often, I seriously want to smack people when I see it now. A simple web search reveals many, many articles discussing how the human eye is able to distinguish well into the 100FPS range.

[+Stephen]

...at your theoretical limit of vision at 1/24 of a second, you would not be able to see any scan lines, as the TV is refreshing faster than human vision.

This misconception is posted so often, I seriously want to smack people when I see it now. A simple web search reveals many, many articles discussing how the human eye is able to distinguish well into the 100FPS range.

Correct - PC monitors at 60Hz and fluorescent bulbs look like a strobe light to me. Especially when viewed with my peripheral vision.

[+Stephen]

1. "By filling in those empty scan lines on a 480p screen".. I'll finish the sentence. By filling in those empty scan lines you can do 1 of two things, a) line doubling (simply repeat each scan line twice) which offers no additional detail. Or b) scaling. Scaling introduces, or guesses, at detail that does not exist. This creates either artifacts, or softens the image, by picking a color between two adjacent pixels. So your options are either a) make the image more pixelated or b) reduce the sharpness.

 

2. "By filling in those empty scan lines on a 480p screen, the color is richer and mor vibrant because half the screen is no longer black." Black is the absence of color. When the phosphors of a CRT television are not glowing, they are not shining light into your eyes. If every other scan line is blue, then blue light is shining into your eyes. If every scan line is blue, then you are still seeing the same blue in your eyes. It is not more vibrant nor is the color richer. The same color information is being displayed. Also worth noting, regardless of wether the display is interlaced, or progressive, there is still a black space between the glowing phosphors. This is measured as Dot Pitch. Even on an LCD there is space between each pixel. Lastly, the black space between the phosphors is noticeably smaller than the glowing phosphors on an interlaced television.

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I have to disagree. Having every other scanline filled in makes a massive difference in how the colors appear. I will post two screenshots to illustrate my point. They are from a pretty bad ass new demo for the Atari 8-bit. They use a "software" graphics mode where every other scanline is blank. Compare the colors with the picture next to it, where the blank lines have simply been filled in with data from above (which is exactly what Gunstar was describing). The difference is drastic.

 

[Zerosquare]

Except that 240p on a CRT monitor doesn't look that way, because the beam is larger than one scanline.

[ZylonBane]

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I have to disagree. Having every other scanline filled in makes a massive difference in how the colors appear.

This effect has been discussed in the 2600 Ballblazer thread. Leaving blank lines actually enhances the perceived resolution of a low-resolution scene, by forcing the viewer to mentally fill in the empty space.

 

Here's the new Project M video, for those who haven't seen it:

Edited December 30, 2010 by ZylonBane

[+Stephen]

Except that 240p on a CRT monitor doesn't look that way, because the beam is larger than one scanline.

Sorry, I should have stated that this was a screenshot (emulator) which means viewed as on an LCD type screen.

 

I know CRTs introduce their own "fuzziness". I don't want to stir the pot at all, especially since I do not have the hardware here to compare VGA and RGB CRTs. The pictures posted are an extreme case, but it does show the effect quit well.

[+Stephen]

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I have to disagree. Having every other scanline filled in makes a massive difference in how the colors appear.

This effect has been discussed in the 2600 Ballblazer thread. Leaving blank lines actually enhances the perceived resolution of a low-resolution scene, by forcing the viewer to mentally fill in the empty space.

 

Here's the new Project M video, for those who haven't seen it:

Masterful piece of code. Runs on a stock 64k machine. Sorry to hijack the thread.

[Gunstar]

1. "By filling in those empty scan lines on a 480p screen".. I'll finish the sentence. By filling in those empty scan lines you can do 1 of two things, a) line doubling (simply repeat each scan line twice) which offers no additional detail. Or b) scaling. Scaling introduces, or guesses, at detail that does not exist. This creates either artifacts, or softens the image, by picking a color between two adjacent pixels. So your options are either a) make the image more pixelated or b) reduce the sharpness.

 

2. "By filling in those empty scan lines on a 480p screen, the color is richer and mor vibrant because half the screen is no longer black." Black is the absence of color. When the phosphors of a CRT television are not glowing, they are not shining light into your eyes. If every other scan line is blue, then blue light is shining into your eyes. If every scan line is blue, then you are still seeing the same blue in your eyes. It is not more vibrant nor is the color richer. The same color information is being displayed. Also worth noting, regardless of wether the display is interlaced, or progressive, there is still a black space between the glowing phosphors. This is measured as Dot Pitch. Even on an LCD there is space between each pixel. Lastly, the black space between the phosphors is noticeably smaller than the glowing phosphors on an interlaced television.

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I have to disagree. Having every other scanline filled in makes a massive difference in how the colors appear. I will post two screenshots to illustrate my point. They are from a pretty bad ass new demo for the Atari 8-bit. They use a "software" graphics mode where every other scanline is blank. Compare the colors with the picture next to it, where the blank lines have simply been filled in with data from above (which is exactly what Gunstar was describing). The difference is drastic.

 

 

Thank you Stephen. Yes, the above simulated screen (the one with the skipped scan lines) is exaggerated compared to that of a CRT monitor (unless you see it on a large screen like 32-36", monitor size also has a drastic effect on the notice-ability of skipped scan lines), but I will continue to point to the fact that I have first-hand experience and can see the difference, in real life, right in front of my face. Until kgenthe actually sees first-hand, exactly what I see, he will not see that his argument is a house of cards. He, of course, has continued to either ignore, disregard out-of-hand, or completely disbelieve in this fact. Telling the blindfolded to see the light will accomplish nothing until they remove their blindfolds.

[Gunstar]

 

 

I'm going to continue on here. So by your logic, if I have a interlaced display and a progressive display (CRTs) side by side, the interlaced display will be half as bright as the progressive display? So the entirety of the world has been watching television programming at half brightness for the better part of the last century?

 

 

 

Really? this is an example of your logic?!? I'm only replying to this because everything in your 1 and 2 replies has absolutely no bearing what so ever on my argument.

This is not my logic, it is YOUR logic you are attempting to transpose onto me. I need say nothing more here as your ignorance shines through on my behalf all by itself in this part of your reply.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Gunstar

[Gunstar]

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I have to disagree. Having every other scanline filled in makes a massive difference in how the colors appear.

This effect has been discussed in the 2600 Ballblazer thread. Leaving blank lines actually enhances the perceived resolution of a low-resolution scene, by forcing the viewer to mentally fill in the empty space.

 

Here's the new Project M video, for those who haven't seen it:

 

I'm not going to disagree with you here, per se, It's all theoretically sound, and works until your mind gets a chance to see the difference side-by-side. In real life, I have both side-by-side, a 15khz RGB CRT 480i displaing a 240p image and a 30Khz SVGA CRT progressive monitor, and the difference is very distinct. All other details of how the Jag image is displayed on these monitors I have stated and repeated before, just put on your reading comprehension cap and read my previous posts.