Did you now Commodore 64 has S-video?

[kevin_psx]

Wow. I never knew. Does explain why the C64 Monitor looked so much clearer than my old TV connection.

Before the mini-DIN plug became standard, S-Video signals were often carried through different types of plugs. For example, the Commodore 64 home computer of the 1980s, one of the first widely available devices to feature S-Video output, used an 8-pin standard size DIN plug on the computer end and a pair of RCA plugs on the monitor end.

[googlefest1]

too bad - the connection is made with rca plugs

[vulcanjedi]

Hey

The Atari 800XL is also the same. So grab yourself a Commodore 1702 monitor the next time you see one

VJ

[googlefest1]

does the atari 800 use the same cable?

[SNKFan75]

I have a Commodore 64 just sitting in the box that I will have to try this on. I have seen S-Video cables on Ebay for the C64 and now will have to buy one.

Is the picture that much better with S-Video as compared to the computer monitor?

SNKFan75

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Interestingly enough, the C64 actually didn't have separate Y (luminance) and C (color) outputs. It had the luma, but used the composite video signal for chroma. The C128 and also the C64c had a separate chroma for true s-video. I know I've tested before whether using composite video on a Y/C connection leads to a slightly worse picture than pure chroma, but saddly I can't remember what my test showed.

In addition to the 1702 monitors vulcanjedi mentioned, there's also the famous 1084s, which also have RGB inputs as well as composite and Y/C and stereo audio. I still have mine (actually a clone made by Magnavox) and I plan to keep it even though it's terribly small. I just love it. It's a very good monitor on top of the various inputs, great clear colorful picture.

You can get a cable at Radio Shack (or probably on eBay) that adapts an s-video plug to two RCA plugs for either using normal s-video inputs on a Commodore monitor or else using a C64/128 on a normal s-video screen. The one I have is intended for use with certain old camcorders that I guess had RCA plugs instead of an s-video plug.


...word is bondage...

[Mayhem]

Is the picture that much better with S-Video as compared to the computer monitor?

Same quality, but seeing as I only have a TV and no monitor, then outputing S-video to it does me fine

(after god knows how many years of RF hell, it was great to finally get a good picture on my C64!)

[Anthony1]

In your sig it says that component looks just as good as RGB. Not true. I can prove it for you if you like. Come over to my house and I will show you San Andreas on a TV in component, and I'll also show you it on a RGB monitor. The difference is striking!

[LucidDefender]

In your sig it says that component looks just as good as RGB. Not true. I can prove it for you if you like. Come over to my house and I will show you San Andreas on a TV in component, and I'll also show you it on a RGB monitor. The difference is striking!

Not a valid comparison as you'd be displaying on two different monitors. How about RGB vs progressive scan component video?

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Not a valid comparison as you'd be displaying on two different monitors. How about RGB vs progressive scan component video?

Definitely not a valid comparison. More like progressive scan component vs VGA.

Anyway, trying to figure out whether RGB or component is better is pretty pointless, in my opinion (should be obvious since as you said the comparison is bound to be invalid since what monitor you're displaying the image on makes more of a difference). Use whichever, they're both great, we should all just be glad we don't need to use RF anymore.


...word is bondage...

[Anthony1]

Not a valid comparison as you'd be displaying on two different monitors. How about RGB vs progressive scan component video?

Definitely not a valid comparison. More like progressive scan component vs VGA.

Anyway, trying to figure out whether RGB or component is better is pretty pointless, in my opinion (should be obvious since as you said the comparison is bound to be invalid since what monitor you're displaying the image on makes more of a difference). Use whichever, they're both great, we should all just be glad we don't need to use RF anymore.


...word is bondage...

Technically, RGB really shouldn't be better than component, should it? I mean, it's component just a newer version of RGB? Or does RGB contain additional information in picture or something? I'm not a technical guy, and I can't really explain why RGB is better than component, but I can tell you that it is. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've played Killzone and San Andreas extensively in both component and RGB, and RGB was significantly better.


Now, again, maybe this shouldn't be the case, and their shouldn't be any discernable difference between RGB and Component, but from all my observations there is definitely an improvement with RGB.

[Anthony1]

does the atari 800 use the same cable?

I have an Atari 800XL, and I actually got that special cable to use with my Commodore 1084S monitor. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate a 800XL power supply, so I still haven't seen it in action. But from what I understand, it is basically S-Video for the 800XL. I've gotta find one of those damn power bricks!!!

[kedawa]

I was wondering about this myself.
I have a C1802 monitor and I want to change the pins in my N64/GC AV cable so that instead of having Composite, left audio, and right audio, it would have left audio(mono), chroma, and luma.
I wasn't sure if it would work, but now I'd like to take a crack at it.
I'm just not too sure how easy it will be to move the pins in the connector around.

As far as RGB vs component goes, there are a few considerations that have to be made.
Firstly, you would have to compare them on the same display and at the same resolution.
It's also worth noting that there are different types of analog RGB connections, some have H/V sync, some have composite sync, and some have sync on green. There doesn't seem to be much difference in terms of performance between the different types at lower resolutions, but it's worth pointing out since it affects the number of wires needed.
Lastly, you have to consider how human vision works, and how component addresses this. Component doesn't break the signal up into red, green, and blue data, it breaks it up into one channel that determines luminance, and two the determine color. Now, you could argue that having three color channels is better than two, but the reality of human vision is that we are more sensitive to the brightness of something than we are to its color, at least as far as fine detail goes.(This is why color data on DVDs is encoded at a quarter the resolution of luminance data) Component has a channel devoted solely to brightness, while RGB achieves it through the interaction of the three color channels.
The thinking behind component is that it gives more accurate luminance than RGB and slightly less accurate color, but ends up looking better because we don't perceive colors accurately enough to notice.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Technically, RGB really shouldn't be better than component, should it? I mean, it's component just a newer version of RGB? Or does RGB contain additional information in picture or something? I'm not a technical guy, and I can't really explain why RGB is better than component, but I can tell you that it is. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've played Killzone and San Andreas extensively in both component and RGB, and RGB was significantly better.

Now, again, maybe this shouldn't be the case, and their shouldn't be any discernable difference between RGB and Component, but from all my observations there is definitely an improvement with RGB.

The reason any one video format looks superior to any other is generally because it requires less encoding and subsequent decoding between its creation and eventual display. All video game systems that I know of produce their video in RGB and all monitors that I know of display their video in RGB (there may be video game system or display types that I don't know of, I'm no expert on this stuff). So simply carrying that RGB+sync signal from the video game system to the monitor is definitely the most "pure" assuming the signals are suffiently shielded against interference.

Now, component video is made up of three signals: a Y or luminance signal identical to the one used in s-video and two "color difference" signals that are really complicated amalgams of the RGB color signals designed in such a way that they require less bandwidth than simple RGB signals. As you can see, component video is actually more like an advanced version of s-video than it is like RGB (I think it's the fact that consumer component video cables have ends colored red, green and blue that make people think they're similar).

So, in fact, RGB should technically be superior to component, but do to the psycho-optical theory stuff involved in component video that kedawa mentioned and just the general quality of both component and RGB signals, I don't think the improvement is large enough to really be noticed. It would absolutely be less noticeable than the change in quality between any of the other commonly used formats like RF to composite or composite to s-video or s-video to either component or RGB.

This is for video game systems. DVDs actually store their video in component form, so things would be reversed on DVD players with RGB actually being the format that requires a bit of conversion and component being the most "pure," though actually, I guess the component needs to be converted to RGB in order to be displayed either way, so it's just a matter of which decoder is better, the one in your TV or the one in your RGB-enabled DVD player. Which is the real crux of this whole question. A superbly decoded s-video or possibly even composite signal could easily look better than even RGB on a shitty screen.


...word is bondage...

[Kid Ice]

This is news to me. I always thought the S-video standard was developed for use with Super VHS players (which came out in the 90s). I could be wrong on one or both of these points.

[kedawa]

S-VHS decks were the first devices to make use of s-video, so you may be right.
For years, the only other device that could make use of s-video was the SFC/SNES.

[SNKFan75]

So, with this newly aquired information, I can go on Ebay and buy one of those C64 S-Video cables and connect my C64 to my WEGA? Is there a special S-Video cable I will need in order to make this work? The back of my C64 has a mini DIN plug.

Any help would be awesome as I really want to see this is S-Video!

SNKFan75

[LocalH]

If your C64 has a 5-pin video port, then it will only generate composite. If your C64 has an 8-pin video port, then it will output Y/C. All C64C and C128(D) machines have the 8-pin port.

I myself have one of the S-Video cables and the image is absolutely awesome. There's only the slight amount of color bleeding that you get with any Y/C source, and it's definitely the closest to RGB that you'll ever get from a C64.

[mario2butts]

In your sig it says that component looks just as good as RGB. Not true. I can prove it for you if you like. Come over to my house and I will show you San Andreas on a TV in component, and I'll also show you it on a RGB monitor. The difference is striking!

Interesting. What are the brands/ models of the screens you're using? I'd like to see this; would you be able to post screenshots? It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious.

I've never seen any games played in RGB, but I have a small-ish SDTV with component and 480i-only (Non-HD) PS2 Xbox and GC games look fantastic, a noticable step up (to my eyes) from S-video on the same set. I'm hesitant to get a RGB monitor since (to my knowledge, please correct me on this if I'm wrong) it would be pretty hard to find one that a) is new and not on ebay with high shipping charges b) has 16:9 compression, which I think is important and c) has component inputs for Gamecube, since NTSC GCs lack RGB through the analog out. I was thinking about getting a RGB-SCART to Component converter to graduate my older consoles up from S-Video but if RGB really is as much of an improvement over 480i component as you say it is I just might have to reconsider...

[Anthony1]

The thinking behind component is that it gives more accurate luminance than RGB and slightly less accurate color, but ends up looking better because we don't perceive colors accurately enough to notice.

Well, you might not perceive colors accurately enough, but I sure as hell do. And again, I could give you a 1 minute demonstration of San Andreas in component and San Andreas in RGB, and you would know immediately that your statement is incorrect. For old video game machines, and even modern ones like the PS2, true color seperation is better. You can't get a pure signal of red, green and blue with two cords. You get their best estimate. Not good enough. You can have all the luminance that you want, all I know is that my Commodore 1084 and Sony PVM's are bright as can be, and I see so many colors my eyes start to water. I played San Andreas and Killzone in RGB. I played them both in component, and RGB wins, no contest.

A superbly decoded s-video or possibly even composite signal could easily look better than even RGB on a shitty screen

Ummm, no.