ktilak
running on a laptop nvidia card (no problems with either and disregarding the matter of VGA's superior quality)..
what's easier on my computer's resources to output to a projector? S-video or VGA?
what's easier on my computer's resources to output to a projector? S-video or VGA?
Posté Sat 17 Mar 07 @ 12:44 am
sbangs
id personaly use the vga :)
Posté Sat 17 Mar 07 @ 12:51 am
ktilak
nobody else has an opinion?
My computer works well, but hangs for a second sometimes just with general load- big videos, visualizations, etc.
what's easier for my computer to output? S-video or VGA?
just looking to get a mini poll of answers!
thanks
My computer works well, but hangs for a second sometimes just with general load- big videos, visualizations, etc.
what's easier for my computer to output? S-video or VGA?
just looking to get a mini poll of answers!
thanks
Posté Mon 19 Mar 07 @ 8:53 am
andytaylor125
Hi,
seems nodbody knows (or nobody wants to say anyways!)
I know VGA is better quality, but whether that means s-video uses less resources I'm not sure.
I guess the easiest thing to do woould be try both and see what you prefer. If you work out an answer, let us know. :)
seems nodbody knows (or nobody wants to say anyways!)
I know VGA is better quality, but whether that means s-video uses less resources I'm not sure.
I guess the easiest thing to do woould be try both and see what you prefer. If you work out an answer, let us know. :)
Posté Mon 19 Mar 07 @ 10:02 am
andytaylor125
oh, i remember somebody saying that you can reduce the screen colours from 32bit to 16bit on both screens to get a bit extra performance out of your system. How much difference that makes, I'm not sure. :)
Posté Mon 19 Mar 07 @ 10:04 am
ktilak
thank you sir!
i shall take a looksie at your idea and report back asap! lol
i shall take a looksie at your idea and report back asap! lol
Posté Mon 19 Mar 07 @ 11:23 am
Manquín
Definetely vga quality is much better than rca or s-video, most projectors have vga input and new video cards have dvi to vga connector included, try it and you'll see the difference.
Posté Mon 19 Mar 07 @ 8:03 pm
DJPflumph
Ktilak,
You seem to clearly understand the difference in quality between VGA and composite signals, so I won't go into that (much)...
The videos we all play are recorded in 480p and line-doubled to VGA. This has to happen so you can see it on your monitor. This means that at 1024x768, your video image is comprised of ~75% "guessed" pixels. Because of this, if you convert it back to composite 480p (Video or s-video), you will actually have less of the origional video's information than you had at 1024x768.
Computers are natively non-interlaced high definition devices. For your computer to output composite video or S-Video, the new 1024x768 image must be transcoded to standard defination, and interlaced. I would hope that this processing is done on your video card's GPU, because it's going to take a lot of processor power away from your Windows apps if it's offloaded to the computer's processor.
I can't really speak as to how your machine will handle it, but I would stick to VGA.
The best test is really going to be for you to A-B the 2 setups and watch your CPU utilization playing the same videos with the same FX and see which works best!
I can give a full technical explaination if somebody needs a good sedative...
You seem to clearly understand the difference in quality between VGA and composite signals, so I won't go into that (much)...
The videos we all play are recorded in 480p and line-doubled to VGA. This has to happen so you can see it on your monitor. This means that at 1024x768, your video image is comprised of ~75% "guessed" pixels. Because of this, if you convert it back to composite 480p (Video or s-video), you will actually have less of the origional video's information than you had at 1024x768.
Computers are natively non-interlaced high definition devices. For your computer to output composite video or S-Video, the new 1024x768 image must be transcoded to standard defination, and interlaced. I would hope that this processing is done on your video card's GPU, because it's going to take a lot of processor power away from your Windows apps if it's offloaded to the computer's processor.
I can't really speak as to how your machine will handle it, but I would stick to VGA.
The best test is really going to be for you to A-B the 2 setups and watch your CPU utilization playing the same videos with the same FX and see which works best!
I can give a full technical explaination if somebody needs a good sedative...
Posté Wed 21 Mar 07 @ 2:41 am
ktilak
yahoooooo!
thanks everyone, with special emphasis to DJPflumph.... great feedback!
thanks everyone, with special emphasis to DJPflumph.... great feedback!
Posté Wed 21 Mar 07 @ 3:36 am
yk23
Since music videos are "made for TV" 4:3 and at 29.97fps vs. 24 fps like a DVD movie, I would think they would still be 480i instead of 480p. I have some old 80's videos on DVD that look pretty bad(compared to something recorded in the last few years. They look bad because the source when they were recorded was old technology. I don't think it would of been worth the time they would of be encoded at 480p. I'm not sure about newer videos. Anyone for sure on this one? Example, I run my DVD to TV at 480p when in low def mode, but I know those channels are still interlaced 480i. On the resolution -personal exp,, we changing to 16bit on my system, my videos start micro blocking. 32bit looks smooth when running s-video. Tried VGA, but on those older videos, it just brings out the garbage better.
Posté Wed 21 Mar 07 @ 4:26 pm
DJPflumph
Great catch... I meant 480i for Composite and S-Video. Thats what I get for trying to type it as fast as I was thinking it.
This is why the video must be scaled back to 480 lines from 768, and reinterlaced.
This is why the video must be scaled back to 480 lines from 768, and reinterlaced.
Posté Thu 22 Mar 07 @ 1:21 am
Manquín
good to know that :)
Posté Thu 22 Mar 07 @ 8:35 pm