>
> Is there a metric for video clarity regarding the 4 primary video cables?
>
> My initial assumption is that the clarity goes in this order (1 is the
best)
>
>     1. Component
>     2. S-Video
>     3. Composite
>     4. Coaxial
>
> Is this right?
>
> Secondly, I doubt that the clarities of the cables are plotted linearly,
so
> do any of these 4 stand out?  Do any pair of these produce quality so
nearly
> identical so as to be considered a toss up?
>
> I'm really at a loss here, and am sick of the hype I get from salesmen.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Onedoctortoanother:"Ifthisismyrectalthermometer,wherethehell'smypen???"
>
>
>

> "Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpo***@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com>
> writes:
>
>> Is there a metric for video clarity regarding the 4 primary video cables?
>> My initial assumption is that the clarity goes in this order (1 is the best)
>
>>    1. Component
>>    2. S-Video
>>    3. Composite
>>    4. Coaxial
>
> Coaxial doesn't belong in that list.  Coaxial simply refers to a cable
> constructed with a centre conductor surrounded by a shield conductor.
> The three methods listed *all* use coaxial cables to carry signal.
>
> The rest of the list is correct.
>
> Component video sends 3 separate signals on 3 (coaxial) cables, which
> can provide colour information that has the same resolution as the
> luminance information.  (Though typical practice is for colour to have
> 1/2 to 1/4 the resolution of luminance).  There is no unwanted crosstalk
> between colour and luminance.  It could be as good as separate RGB.
>
> Composite video is worst, though there is good and bad composite video.
> The problem is that the colour information is carried on a subcarrier,
> which limits colour resolution to about 1/10 the luminance resolution
> (in NTSC; PAL is somewhat better).  You can also get problems with
> colour information being mistaken for luminance (hanging dots) and
> luminance patterns generating false colour.
>
> S-video is mostly useful between consumer VCRs and TV sets.  The signal
> uses the same encoding as composite, so it has all the same limitations.
> But consumer VCRs separate luminance and colour and record them using
> separate mechanisms, and they can create additional problems if the two
> signals are re-combined into a composite signal to send to the TV.
> S-video uses two separate (coaxial) cables between VCR and TV, avoiding
> the additional problems.
>
> S-video doesn't make that much sense for connecting a DV camera or DVD
> player to a TV, since those record component video internally.
> Sometimes a TV has S-video input but no component input, and in that
> case the S-video is probably better than composite.
>
>     Dave

>
> I would count S-Video as one coaxial cable, since that's all I see when
> I look at one. I guess it's possible that the luminance and the
> chrominance are wrapped in separate shields inside the insulation, but
> I don't want to wreck my S-Video cable trying to find out :-)
>
> Gino
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
> letters617blochg3251
> (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
>

> Yes they separately shielded unless you buy a really bad cable.
>>
>> I would count S-Video as one coaxial cable, since that's all I see
>> when I look at one. I guess it's possible that the luminance and the
>> chrominance are wrapped in separate shields inside the insulation,
>> but I don't want to wreck my S-Video cable trying to find out :-)
>>
>> Gino
>>
>> --
>> Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
>> letters617blochg3251
>> (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

"Dave Martindale" <da***@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:d7e4pg$3oh$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpo***@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Is that just an "of course", or have you actually /seen/ an svid cable
>>that
>>has the internal cables unshielded?  Yikes.
>
> Coaxial video cable is not just "shielded"; it has a characteristic
> impedance that needs to be matched to the source and termination
> impedance.  Video signals are virtually always carried by 75 ohm coaxial
> cable, while most other RF used 50 ohm coax.  So a proper Svideo cable
> needs to contain two separate 75 ohm coax cables.
>
> Dave

> try this:
>
> http://www.maland.com/extron/download/files/specs/S-video_cable_111501.pdf
>
>
> Bob
>
> "Dave Martindale" <da***@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:d7e4pg$3oh$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
>> "Thomas G. Marshall"
>> <tgm2tothe10thpo***@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Is that just an "of course", or have you actually /seen/ an svid
>>> cable that
>>> has the internal cables unshielded?  Yikes.
>>
>> Coaxial video cable is not just "shielded"; it has a characteristic
>> impedance that needs to be matched to the source and termination
>> impedance.  Video signals are virtually always carried by 75 ohm
>> coaxial cable, while most other RF used 50 ohm coax.  So a proper
>> Svideo cable needs to contain two separate 75 ohm coax cables.
>>
>> Dave

> Coaxial simply refers to a cable
> constructed with a centre conductor surrounded by a shield conductor.
> The three methods listed *all* use coaxial cables to carry signal.
>
> The rest of the list is correct.
>
> Component video sends 3 separate signals on 3 (coaxial) cables, which
> can provide colour information that has the same resolution as the
> luminance information.  (Though typical practice is for colour to have
> 1/2 to 1/4 the resolution of luminance).  There is no unwanted
> crosstalk
> between colour and luminance.  It could be as good as separate RGB.
>
> Composite video is worst, though there is good and bad composite
> video.
> The problem is that the colour information is carried on a subcarrier,
> which limits colour resolution to about 1/10 the luminance resolution
> (in NTSC; PAL is somewhat better).  You can also get problems with
> colour information being mistaken for luminance (hanging dots) and
> luminance patterns generating false colour.
>
> S-video is mostly useful between consumer VCRs and TV sets.  The
> signal
> uses the same encoding as composite, so it has all the same
> limitations.
> But consumer VCRs separate luminance and colour and record them using
> separate mechanisms, and they can create additional problems if the
> two
> signals are re-combined into a composite signal to send to the TV.
> S-video uses two separate (coaxial) cables between VCR and TV,
> avoiding
> the additional problems.
>
> S-video doesn't make that much sense for connecting a DV camera or DVD
> player to a TV, since those record component video internally.
> Sometimes a TV has S-video input but no component input, and in that
> case the S-video is probably better than composite.
>
> Dave

> Dave Martindale coughed up:
>> "Thomas G. Marshall"
>> <tgm2tothe10thpo***@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Is there a metric for video clarity regarding the 4 primary video
>>> cables? My initial assumption is that the clarity goes in this order
>>> (1 is the best)
>>
>>>    1. Component
>>>    2. S-Video
>>>    3. Composite
>>>    4. Coaxial
>>
>> Coaxial doesn't belong in that list.
>
> {shrug}.  I hear the term coaxial or "coax" all the time referring to
> specifically radio frequency coax.  In my case, I use mostly RG6.