s-video vs vga

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodchar
  • Start date Start date
R

rodchar

hey all,
which one of the above has a better resolution? s-video or vga?
thanks,
rodchar
 
On Nov 19, 2:14 pm, rodchar <rodc...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> hey all,
> which one of the above has a better resolution? s-video or vga?
> thanks,
> rodchar

VGA is better than S-Video. S-Video has limited resolution because
most S-Video displays are TVs which have less resolution than regular
monitors.

BTW: Both VGA and S-Video are obsolete!! Most newer PCs can do DVI,
HDMI or the newer DisplayPort (??) VGA and S-Video will not display
HD content.
 
thank you for the info.
rod.

"rodchar" wrote:

> hey all,
> which one of the above has a better resolution? s-video or vga?
> thanks,
> rodchar
 
"smlunatick" <yveslec@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5179f1b4-e343-4e27-93ab-ab35a6ded057@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 2:14 pm, rodchar <rodc...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> hey all,
>> which one of the above has a better resolution? s-video or vga?
>> thanks,
>> rodchar
>
> VGA is better than S-Video. S-Video has limited resolution because
> most S-Video displays are TVs which have less resolution than regular
> monitors.
>

For all practical purposes, what you say is entirely correct, but from a
purely numerical standpoint it's the other way around. VGA has a 480x640
resolution in just 16 colours (4 bit colour). In it's NTSC variant, S-video
is the equivalent of 480x720* in 32 bit colour. The main issue that
clobbers the resolution is that the bandwidth of the connection is
substantially less than that of the VGA connection, with the colour channel
being very restricted indded.

*576x720 in the PAL variant.
 
Back
Top