Sega Saturn - 480i component video cable possible?

[eastbayarb]

Is it possible to build a 480i component video cable? If so, I would like someone to do this for me!

[NFG]

You're a poor, confused boy.  A component video cable is just a cable.  You can make one out of tinfoil if you like, the resolution doesn't enter into it.

Remember that you can't magically create resolution.  No amount of cable wrangling will make a 256x256 SNES game suddenly become 1080i.

[Darklegion]

Well it could be argued that a cable with a rgb-to-component circuit integrated is still a cable  

But seriously, its possible but if you can't do it yourself I doubt it would be cheaper to get someone to make it for you than buying a retail rgb-to-component converter.

[NFG]

Darklegion, did you miss the point where he said he wanted 1080i?  He's going to need an RGB -> component cable, and an upscan convertor to increase the resolution.  This 'cable' has just become a series of signal processing boxes, with a $300 price tag.

[acem77]

look for a rgb to component board  made by neobitz. its around $100
i had one but i upgraded to a xrgb2 plus when i got my hd tv with a vga input.
i did not test the saturn on the neobitz but it work good with the duo, super grafx, sega genesis(after some work), neo-geo(what it was made for), and some jamma boards.

[Vertigo]

Lawrence, he says 480i, not 1080i, unless the post was edited.
The Saturn does output 480i as standard, coz that's telly resolution innit. So what does he want? A component cable for the Saturn? Well the Saturn doesn't output component, but it does output RGB so he could make/get a cable for that... depends what he wants to connect it to of course.
Poor, misguided boy.

He also says he'd like someone to do it for him though. Methinks he's in the wrong place

[NFG]

Maybe it was edited!!  Yeah!!  I sure don't make mistakes!  NEVAR!

<cough>

[Darklegion]

LOL, I figured you had missed that point when you started rambling about resolution and the SNES

[Midori]

The Saturn does output 480i as standard, coz that's telly resolution innit.

Isn't the saturn able to output 240p?(sorry, hit me hard if this term doesn't exist) Or at least non interlaced low-resolution graphics? I can clearly see that games like Fighters Mega mix is interlaced(which causes the graphics to flicker... which causes pain my eyes and headache) while games like Mega Man X4 produces a clear non flickering picture, is this progressive low-resolution och just flicker free interlaced? I have also noticed that one of my other TVs has awful flickering in MMX4 just like the interlacing in Fighters MM, so I asume that if my theory above is correct then this TV isn't able to produce low-res progressive and produces interlaced graphics instead?

[NFG]

Umm, 240p would simply be an uninterlaced, low-res image.  For examples of this, see any Megadrive, SNES, NES, TG-16 game.

[viletim!]

Midori,
Most 2D games use a low res, non interlaced modes (about 240 lines max). There's no flicker at all on these modes and they're twice as fast as interlaced ones. Your TV is just a passive display device, unless the TV does some sort of digital processing to the signal or a special high persistance phosphor CRT is used, what looks flickery on one TV should look the same on another.

btw...
As I understand it, '480i' is just used to mean 'TV fequencies' by most people. It's only used to differentiate between video of non-tv compatible fequency video that is often uses the same connectors/component format. 480i, 720p, 1080i, etc are digital tv terms that actualy specifes the ammount of (vertical) pixels and whether or not the video is interlaced. It's got little to do with analog TV which is limited by horizontal/vertical scan rates and doesn't know what a pixel is. So video games don't have to use 'set in stone' resoultions like digital TV has to.

[Midori]

Thanks for your answers, they cleared my mind. About that other TV we have I think it does do som digital processing to the signal which produces the flicker. Perhaps it can be turned of...

[Endymion]

The only way to really get what you want is to get an RGB cable, an X-RGB2+, and a VGA to Component transcoder. That's a lot of equipment to use just for one console, and if you will look back a bit to one of acem's threads, you may still wind up with post-processing issues from your particular television.

You should probably live with s-video, as it is not terrible, and tweak a custom profile for your Saturn on your TV settings.

[Dr.Wily]

For presision :

Saturn ouput 480p, and componment video (RVB). I never see game who support progressive scan. But in fact Saturn has a resolution of 720x576 and support TVHD. But non dev Saturn have a Sony CX... chip who does not support progressive ouput. For this, you must use a Navi Saturn or Saturn devkit (old and new).

If you see VDPs documentation, you will be able to read that Saturn support 31Khz signal at 320x240. Ok, I see what you will say 320x240 is not 480p. This graphic mode is for standard display, it is converted in interlaced by Cx chip.

But true progressive scan mode exists :

- 320x480 at 31Khz (VGA monitor or progressive scan capable monitor)
- 352x480 at 31Khz (VGA or Hi-Vision Monitor)
- 640x480 at 31Khz (VGA monitor or progressive scan capable monitor)
- 704x480 at 31Khz (VGA or Hi-Vision Monitor)

But unfortunately Sega as never released cable for componment progressive out for commercial models.

[NFG]

Dr.Wily may be right.
First, he's French.  RVB = RGB for the rest of us (Vert = Green).

While these modes MAY exist, no software supports them, and the chip connected to the video port - the sony CXA encoder - doesn't output component.

So if you hacked it and played with the internals, you might be able to get component (I'd be surprised), but you won't get VGA 'cause no games support it.

[Dr.Wily]

RGB is componement not composite. All Saturn are in interlaced componment.

[NFG]

There seems to be some confusion here.  "Component video", in this modern age, only refers to the video signal type seen on DVD players: a red, green and blue cable which are NOT RGB.  

While RGB can be technically considered a component video signal, in that the red, green and blue components of the signal are separated, any time someone says 'component video' you can be assured they're talking about the DVD kind, YPrPb, not RGB.

Knowing that, the following statement makes no sense:

RGB is componement not composite. All Saturn are in interlaced componment.

[Dr.Wily]

I don't agreed !

RGB is componment red, green, bleu and separate synchro. This is the exact definition of "componment".

The "word" componment (in video) does not change with age. YPrPb is composite signal RGB is componment.

Saturn (commercial models) support componment (RGB) in interlaced mode (15Khz). Dev Saturn and Navi Saturn support componment RGB in interlaced (15Khz) and progressive (31Khz) vid�o mode. Where is the "no sense" ?

[acem77]

YPrPb is composite

then what is composite....the yellow all colors in one video cable called.
in that case s-video is composite all so.
in the end is it all really just multi channel RF.....

just like dolby was 1st used for noise reduction but in the modern day people think of surround sound not noise reduction.
we just have to evolve to live with todays ever growing terminology

[NFG]

Sorry Dr.Wily.  As much as I'd agree with you, you're outvoted.  You can't force the rest of the world to change.  I've tried.

YPrPb is NOT composite, it's separated video, like Svideo.

And, now that component video is called component, we've stopped calling RGB 'component'.

[Dr.Wily]

Analog composite signal :

- RCA composite
- S-video
- YUV

"composite" is for video signals (RVB+Sync) who are combined.

When signals is separate is componment (no more 3 signals in one carrier or wire). All componment is not depending of any video standard. This is why, RGB is not PAL, NTSC or SECAM. RGB is RGB not need to look at TV standars.

But composite is depend of video standart (NTSC, PAL...) :

- PAL is composite
- NTSC is composite
- SECAM is composite
- RF use PAL, SECAM or NTSC.

is the difference between comercial word and technical word.

in comparison :
S-ATA is composite because data is transmitted in serial.
P-ATA is "componment" because data is tansmitted in parallel (on diferent channel).

Is the same thing for video (analog)

[NFG]

What do you think the S in S-video means?

It means SEPARATED.

You don't get to make your own rules, Dr.Wily.  Sorry.  =/

[Aidan]

The phrase "Component Video" has an explicit meaning - the Y,Pr, Pb signals. Do not confuse with YUV, which is something subtly different!

Component Video is a video signal that is sent as Y, Pr, Pb for specific reasons. The image sent as video is made up of a black and white image and a colour overlay. The colour overlay is lower resolution than the black and white image, using the fact that the human eye has a lower colour resolution. This ties in neatly with the fact that originally all TV transmission was black and white. The colour image had to be fitted in after broadcasting standards were decided, and hence had to be compatible with existing black and white receivers.

The Y is a seperate channel, as it represents the black and white image. This way a high quality black and white signal is present in it's own domain, and does not have any other information transmitted.

Pr and Pb represent the deviation between the Y and the Red, and the Y and the Blue respectively. You may notice that green is not present, but can be deduced from three signals. Effectively this increases the bandwidth available for green. Of all the colours, the human eye is most sensitive to green.

RGB, on the other hand, mixes both the colour and the black and white signals together on the same cables. However, neither the eye, nor the display unit are designed to handle a high resolution colour overlay, but are designed to handle a (relatively) high resolution black and white image. Thus, RGB effectively treats the colour image as the same resolution as the black and white signal. This results in less bandwidth being available for black and white!

[NFG]

RGB, on the other hand, mixes both the colour and the black and white signals together on the same cables.

This is factually incorrect.  RGB uses three equal signals, one for each of the Red, Green and Blue channels.  There is no 'black and white' or 'colour' signal involved in an RGB signal.  

(four paragraphs of random, rambling technical crap removed 'cause I couldn't stop typing)

[Aidan]

Bad phrasing on my behalf. Component video handles the higher resolution B&W signal seperately to the lower resolution colour signal. RGB, on the other hand, does not seperate the two, hence both chromiance and luminance is present. That can lead to bandwidth limitations on the higher resolution B&W signal, depending on the processing being done.

[atom]

RGB, on the other hand, does not seperate the two, hence both chromiance and luminance is present. That can lead to bandwidth limitations on the higher resolution B&W signal, depending on the processing being done.

No not really, as lawrence said RGB is different from any other type of signal. Other signals seem to relate to the old transmissions standards of black and white tv as you said. RGB simply has analogue strengths that are sent to the 3 individual light guns that determines their brightness as they draw a line across the screen. I wouldnt call this chrominance and luminance at all, as there is never color applied to the picture nor signal, color is the picture and signal.

And Dr. Wily, while what you say may not be exactly false... when a committe of the largest electronics manufacturers in the world get together and say something is component video, its component video. Thats like telling Canadians hockey should be called stick-puck.

And a question I honestly dont know, will my ntsc dvd player work on a pal tv with component video?

[dj898]

FWIIW

personally I have DVD player which is NTSC/PAL and when used on my PDP that supports NTSC/PAL it works fine - the problem is I'm not sure whether I'm wathing DVD NTSC on PDP in PAL or  DVD NTSC on PDP in NTSC or DVD NTSC converted into PAL and then on PDP as PAL.. O_x

[Aidan]

No not really, as lawrence said RGB is different from any other type of signal. Other signals seem to relate to the old transmissions standards of black and white tv as you said.

The only issue here is that the Mk1 human eyeball is more sensitive to luminance than to chromiance. Thus, the end sensor picks up more on the B&W image for detail than it does for the colour image for detail. Going any further would require discussion of rods vs cones in vision.

[NFG]

Aidan: What's going on here?

If you're talking about RGB when you say 'end sensor' and 'B&W image', you're way, way crazy.  Perhaps you're just choosing your words poorly, or perhaps I'm just not smart enough to see what you're saying (though, honestly, I'm fucking brilliant </lie>)

SO:

If you take a simple, black-and-white video signal, you've got what can be called an RS-170 signal.  A black and while monitor basically just takes this signal and sprays it over the white phosphors, and changes in the strength of the signal affect the strength of the electron beam, creating different levels of grey.  

That's how black and white TVs work.

RGB is basically three RS-170 signals, one each for the red, blue and green electron guns at the back of the TV.  Now these electron guns don't actually spray coloured electrons, and if you took any of these signals and hooked it up to a B/W TV you'd get a B/W image.

Each fo these guns is physically prevented (by the aperture grille or shadow mask) from hitting any other coloured phosphors.  As they travel across the screen they hit only the red, blue or green phosphores they're supposed to hit.

The display doesn't have to process or decode these signals, they're just channeled through the guns.  There's no chrominance or luminance, that's just what the eye sees after these three black and white signals are, metaphorically, run through coloured filters.

This is why RGB is the best.  It's not mucked with at either end of the transmission, and unlike YPrPb each signal is given the full complement of bandwidth.  (component video typically uses half the bandwidth for the Y-R and Y-B signals, so only the Y (which ends up being green) is full-resolution).

[Aidan]

Basically, the human eye is more sensitive to the luminance information than the chromiance information. Hence, the YPrPb signal is better suited to the eye than an RGB signal that does not take into account the fact that the eye has different sensitivities to different intensities and colours.

For further details on the sensitivity of the eye, see this page. Now, tell me why dedicating so much bandwidth to green is important!

[kendrick]

Aidan, I agree that the component video signal is likely to be more suited for viewing than straight RGB, albeit by a very slim margin. The benefit for DVD players is plainly obvious, as the natively stored data on disc happens to be in that component format. However, I challenge anybody to identify a digital, wholly artificial video source that is produced in YPrPb rather than in RGB. The Gamecube digital video output doesn't count, as it's a conversion of the original RGB signal.

As it relates to games, RGB is how a machine produces video. It's how the math works, it's how the artists and developers generate images, and it's the source signal for all other types of video output a game console could possibly produce. We're creating a video image out of bits and formulas, not replaying pre-recorded footage. If we were general video enthusiasts, component would probably win out overall. But since we're gamers first, RGB is our way.

-KKC, who prepares two pitchers of Kool-Aid, one for each cult. :)

[NFG]

Aidan's a bit confused.  Actually, I think he's a lot confused.  Let's go over it, shall we?

1. You're correct when you say the human eye is most sensitive to light, not colour.  It's also true though that the eye tends to treat green in the same way - we see green essentially as well as we see grey.  Grey is, after all, green + red + blue.  THAT is why the bandwidth is devoted to green, we need that detail.  If it's missing, we notice.  When red or blue are not detailed, we don't notice.

2. Your idea that component is the best because that's how we see is flawed.  Component is lesser quality than RGB, this is inescapable.  It doesn't make sense in any way to say a lesser quality signal is the best.  It might be all we need, but that's like cleaning your room so your parents don't complain - it's not the BEST, it's GOOD ENOUGH.

Don't forget that not all people have the same capabilities.  I hear way higher frequencies than most people, (which might explain why I hate MP3 so much, but I digress).  I want the best, because I can often see the difference.

Finally, just because it's good enough for YOU doesn't mean it's the BEST.  Remember, don't confuse your opinion for fact.  ;)

As for you, kendrick, it's true that most modern game systems use RGB internally (8 bits, or 256 shades, for each R, G or B channel) but it wasn't always this way.  Older systems like the Atari 800 series computers used a Y/C system, where colours were determined by brightness and hue.  Programmers would select a Y value and a C value, and the hardware was geared to produce video this way.  RGB never entered into it (The system only output composite video, tho Svideo hacks can be added).

[-Martin-]

2. Your idea that component is the best because that's how we see is flawed.  Component is lesser quality than RGB, this is inescapable.  It doesn't make sense in any way to say a lesser quality signal is the best.  It might be all we need, but that's like cleaning your room so your parents don't complain - it's not the BEST, it's GOOD ENOUGH.

It depends what you're talking about.

Yes RGB is the "BEST" - if you are watching an RGB format through RGB cabling on an RGB monitor.

Remember that you *can* have full resolution component which IS indestinguishable from RGB as the resolution is not changed at all despite the fact that it is still sent as a colour difference signle. So effectivly this is compoenent in its losless form.

Also for compressed component sources such as DVD you're usually better off using a component lead or digital RGB. When using a component lead the conversion from digital component to analogue RGB takes place last in the conversion chain, and the signle also remains digital right up untill it get's to the TV's processor. (And as you know binary digital code is usually less susseptable to interference because of the way it reads voltages). Idealy if you're using an entirly digital display such as a DLP or LCD then it would only be a conversion from Component to digital RGB which is even easier.

But yes, as far as Saturn goes RGB is the best there is for that console as it is an RGB device that outputs an RGB signal.

[-Matin (again) haha-]

However, I challenge anybody to identify a digital, wholly artificial video source that is produced in YPrPb rather than in RGB. The Gamecube digital video output doesn't count, as it's a conversion of the original RGB signal.

Most new movies are shot in component video on HD Betacam.
Titles include Star Wars Episodes I, II and III!

[Ty]

I think the confusion Dr.Wily is having is just the terminology. What we call Component Video is "Composante" in french, where as while technically RVB is a component video source we don't call it that, it's just RGB.

[kendrick]

However, I challenge anybody to identify a digital, wholly artificial video source that is produced in YPrPb rather than in RGB. The Gamecube digital video output doesn't count, as it's a conversion of the original RGB signal.

Most new movies are shot in component video on HD Betacam.
;) Titles include Star Wars Episodes I, II and III!

Your statement doesn't meet the requirements of the challenge. While the film footage of actors and green-screen sets is filmed in a digital format and via component video, it's not artificial since we're talking about video that's actually photography and not CGI. And while the final film components are most likely component video being composited in an editing tool, said CGI character models and animation are almost certainly being produced on workstations that output RGB to the animator's model. And the final product is light being shined through film, which is definitely not a wholly artificial video source since the celluloid is, by itself, static and not generated in real time.

When I say wholly artificial, I mean digitally generated right there, on the fly, by a graphics processor. Pumping previously filmed or edited footage through a codec doesn't count either.

Wow, we're way off the originally stated topic now, aren't we?

-KKC, who wants to teach himself to weld things.

[atom]

Remember, don't confuse your opinion for fact.

You throw it in other peoples faces and act like it doesnt apply to your own self. Flame me all you want, ban me I dont care im really starting to hate these forums. Everyone is such an elitist and holds themself on such a high pedestal, and no lawrence you are definitley not the only one.

The world is full of evidence. "Facts" are often what we draw from this evidence by pieceing it together in our mind. As well all know, people often have very different outlooks. I dont think Aidans interpretation was neccescarily wrong, nor was yours. But when you start flaming someone because they think differently you hurt the community. Perhaps I should give another go on my modding site.

[NFG]

Atom, no one's abusing you, slamming you, or calling you names.  This is a discussion about the facts of video signals.  It's not a personal attack, and if you should eventually be proven wrong it doesn't mean you're an idiot, it means you were wrong.  Learn from it and move on.

If you're not willing to carry on a discussion when other points of view disagree with your own, perhaps you SHOULD go to another forum.  We'll be sad to see you go.

"Facts" are often what we draw from this evidence by pieceing it together in our mind. As well all know, people often have very different outlooks.

"Facts" are inviolable, they are not subject to interpretation.  

Finally, I gotta say, if you think a gentle reminder that your opinion doesn't always qualify as fact, followed by a winkie smilie (The universal symbol of fun and merriment) is 'flaming' then I gots to wonder if you're not really in need of a day off.  Talk to the boss.

[size=9]Tangent:  I've started a discussion on elitism:  linkie[/size]

[NFG]

Martin said:

Remember that you *can* have full resolution component which IS indestinguishable from RGB as the resolution is not changed at all despite the fact that it is still sent as a colour difference signle. So effectivly this is compoenent in its losless form.

Actually even when a component signal is 4:4:4 (instead of the normal 4:2:2) the Pr and Pb signals still have a lower P-P Voltage, (.3V instead of .7V) reducing their bandwidth and increasing the odds of lowered signal quality at the receiver.  

[Guest_Martin]

The lower voltage isn't as important though, as component is digital, and when disruption occurs in digital image signling, you know about it The majority of component recievers handle errors pretty well, so even if there wer any errors they usually aren't noticable. Unless you're using utterly craptastic cabling therre shouldn't really be a difference.
Anyway as it stands, compoenent and digital RGB are still the best way to watch DVD, and RGB is still the best way to play Saturn.  While in fact noise distorts both digital and anaogue signles, it is often less noticable on digital.

Anywho about the whole 'comopnent is better because it's the way the eye sees' type stuff,I agree with Lawrence - that's nonsense

You may ask why it's nonsense? Because there are NO images you can create using component that you can't create using RGB. Compoenent remember, is just a compressed, colour space converted form of RGB. And remember just because your eye doesn't see blue as well as green, it doesn't mean that it can't tell when blue is lower resolution,  as you can see from the gamesx wiki you can still see a difference between the versions of the image with the lowered blue and normal resolution.