gaming RGB vs. Component. Your preference and why?

[RetroSonicHero]

In general since pretty much none of my TVs have component, using RGB through my Retrotink works well.

Edited May 25, 2023 by RetroSonicHero

[RetroSonicHero]

I guess I'll start off with a console-specific answer.

 

According to RetroRGB.com, the PS2 actually has an easier time switching resolutions with component over RGB. What does this look like in practice? Couldn't tell ya.

[Razzie.P]

Component.   The "why" is simple, it just looks so much better to me.    I'm not really sure what you mean by "switching resolutions," so nothing to add there, but I've always used Component on my PS2 from day 1, since my TV supported it, and it always bothered me a bit to use any sort of connection that made it look than 100% of how I believed it should be

 

Even now, I've been playing Sega Genesis a LOT, and it looks so awesome connected my CRT with component cables.

[RetroSonicHero]

4 minutes ago, Razzie.P said:

Component.   The "why" is simple, it just looks so much better to me.    I'm not really sure what you mean by "switching resolutions," so nothing to add there, but I've always used Component on my PS2 from day 1, since my TV supported it, and it always bothered me a bit to use any sort of connection that made it look than 100% of how I believed it should be

 

Even now, I've been playing Sega Genesis a LOT, and it looks so awesome connected my CRT with component cables.

"Switching resolutions" refers to how some PS2 games would swap the resolution being displayed when in the menu, and then when you enter the actual game it would change again. I'm sure there are more examples of this, but that's just what comes to mind.

 

I know the original Gran Turismo did this on the PS1, for sure. It had a high resolution mode, and that gets activated when navigating the menus.

 

 

But I digress, appreciate the two cents.

Edited May 25, 2023 by RetroSonicHero

[Austin]

Visual quality is basically the same between component and RGB SCART, so neither has an advantage there.

 

The major con for SCART is there are more potential points of failure. For instance, the shell for the connector may crack and come loose (I've had this happen), the wiring to the connector itself is more complicated and prone to defect (I.e., solder joints coming loose, I've had this happen too), and if you don't get the right type of cable for your region of equipment, they can also be prone to frying something in your setup, so you need to be more careful when it comes to shopping for cables. And of course, if you're in the States and just using a consumer television, you will need a conversion box of some sort (I have a RetroTINK SCART to Component box, for instance).

 

The major positive for SCART is that when you've got a solid working cable, there's only one thing to connect, whereas with component, you've got your three separate video connectors and two audio.

 

A major con of component is if the connectors are too tight in a socket, when it comes time to pull them loose you can potentially rip the cables apart. I recall a lot of Monster cables in particular having this issue. Then there's the opposite effect--sometimes the connectors can be too loose, and if you have them plugged into a CRT horizontally (which is expected), a slight tug can cause them to fall out of the ports on the TV (that happens for me when I rotate a smaller set of mine for TATE gameplay). High quality component cables for retro consoles might also be more expensive these days, so it might actually be more cost effective to use Euro SCART. 

 

The major positive for us in the States is component inputs are common and so I have to buy less equipment to get it to function on my TVs.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Austin

[+-^CrossBow^-]

I actually have the option to use both. To me visually, there isn't enough of a difference between them to call one better vs the other. That said, it is nice to use something like a mini din off my console where everything is all in one place instead of 5 dedicated RCAs for component output to run to the rest of my setup. So for the ease of console shell modifications, I voted RGB.

[dudeguy]

RGB *is* component. I assume you meant RGB versus YPbPr (yipper)

 

personally I dont see a huge difference but I suppose I like yipper slightly more

[+Black_Tiger]

On 5/25/2023 at 3:13 PM, RetroSonicHero said:

"Switching resolutions" refers to how some PS2 games would swap the resolution being displayed when in the menu, and then when you enter the actual game it would change again. I'm sure there are more examples of this, but that's just what comes to mind.

 

Genesis and TG-16 games often used different resolutions and a few Genesis games switch to interlace mode.

 

 

 

On 5/26/2023 at 9:12 AM, Austin said:

The major positive for SCART is that when you've got a solid working cable, there's only one thing to connect, whereas with component, you've got your three separate video connectors and two audio.

 

I have a couple RGB monitors and scart has become more of a pain in the ass because of finicky BNC adapters. I have a cheap one and a pricey one they both randomly have trouble every so often. Usually switching to the other solves the problem.

 

But when I was using a Triniton TV with component, I had similar problems with my two RGB to component transcoders.

 

I find composite to be fine for a lot of 240p consoles, when they have a good signal and nice color. Too often drawing RGB is the only way to get that without video mods.

[RetroSonicHero]

21 hours ago, dudeguy said:

RGB *is* component. I assume you meant RGB versus YPbPr (yipper)

 

personally I dont see a huge difference but I suppose I like yipper slightly more

Ah my mistake, that's indeed what I meant. Thanks for the clarification 

[dudeguy]

someone mentioner SCART being too tight. it actually did happen to me, pulled a scarr adapter apart accidently because it had a death grip. and yes Monster cables have the same problem.

 

i generally prefer using S-video Ive gotten really good at lining up the prongs without bending them. and I think the quality looks way better than composite, only slightly less sharp than RGB

[Atariboy]

Component video usually refers to analog YPbPr, not RGB.

[dudeguy]

12 minutes ago, Atariboy said:

Component video usually refers to analog YPbPr, not RGB.

In the same way that you can call a truck a car but you'd never call a car a truck. From the Wikipedia entry on component video:

 

"S-Video, RGB and YP_BP_R signals comprise two or more separate signals, and thus are all component-video signals."

[Atariboy]

That doesn't erase that when videogamers and home theater enthusiasts mention component video, it virtually always is in reference to YPbPr.

 

You can try to argue that everyone else is wrong, but it's just going to frustrate you even if strictly speaking what you've gleaned off Wikipedia is correct. Nobody is going to take to referring to something like S-Video as component video even though according to the professional definition within the electronics industry, it falls into that category.

 

In the classic gaming world, component video is a synonym for the analog YPbPr video standard.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Atariboy

[dudeguy]

k

[+-^CrossBow^-]

10 hours ago, Atariboy said:

In the classic gaming world, component video is a synonym for the analog YPbPr video standard.

Or just use YUV when talking about YPbPr... I use that pretty interchangeably.

[DJ Clae]

RGB is the native signal of most old consoles and arcade boards. YPbPr requires a conversion step in the chain, which with analog signals is inherently lossy. Therefore I voted RGB, and I'll stick with the native signal from the game.