Pete McCrea Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Try running the laptop output closer to PAL resolution of 720x576 pixels - maybe 800x600, to see if that helps. There's little to no point putting the extra PIxels into the converter as it will have to sample them down to PAL anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Any more suggestions on what I could do / check to improve quality ? BUMP x Have you tried the suggestion given by several different people already?Which higher quality scan converter did you try? Cheers, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmatthill Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share Posted February 23, 2014 Any more suggestions on what I could do / check to improve quality ? BUMP x Have you tried the suggestion given by several different people already?Which higher quality scan converter did you try? Cheers, Peter Hi Pete I did indeed borrow an old Sony Scan Converter it was a very early 1024... My mate was using one at his 4D scanning clinic. Quality no different though :unsure: Still confused.com about this one ? Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmatthill Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share Posted February 23, 2014 Any more suggestions on what I could do / check to improve quality ? BUMP x Have you tried the suggestion given by several different people already?Which higher quality scan converter did you try? Cheers, Peter Hi Pete I did indeed borrow an old Sony Scan Converter it was a very early 1024... My mate was using one at his 4D scanning clinic. Quality no different though :unsure: Still confused.com about this one ? Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsabre Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It can be done, but you need to spend a bit of money. That SD broadcast TV was using pro standard equipment such as the Barco or Kramer devices suggested above. A £20 converter off ebay is not going to give the best quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 First generation composite video is, contrary to what people seem to think, capable of stunning quality pictures. The moment you stick it through a modulator you throw away 80% of that quality. The moment you display it on a screen which requires a pile of internal processing (scanline conversion/frame rate conversion) you throw away quality. The moment you originate from a source that requires processing to make a PAL signal (scanline conversion/frame rate conversion) you throw away quality. Cascade all three and you stand no chance of decent pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsabre Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 ...so following on from what Brian said, you need to get a good quality composite video monitor for testing. Only then will you be able to work out where the quality losses are occuring in your system. Proper broadcast (CRT) monitors can be bought on ebay for silly money at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleah Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I suspect the only solution that will get the most out of a composite video system is going to be a PC with a spec similar to the KL2.For the benefit of those who are wondering what KL2 is...... it is essentially a media server.Think of a computer producing promotional graphics, it can also play out video and has built-in software switching to switch between graphics playback and video.They one I have used had two (at least) composite outputs by way of dedicated adaptor cards on board the PC. It would output just graphics on one output and switch between graphics and video on the other (or it may have just output video on the second card and controlled an external switcher). Hence it effectively played out the video and graphics as native video rather than any kind of conversion from VGA/SVGA etc, as it was all processed by dedicated video hardware direct from the computers PCI bus. Matt will be familiar with KL2 and it's capability and quality. Despite how some DJs used to moan about it, it's actually a fatastic bit of kit! With the right software, it's also possible to output via firewire, which can then be converted 'properly' to composite. I've only had Adobe Premiere do that so I don't know if any other software would be capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsabre Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 You don't need a special PC, I used to have a CorioScan Pro SG scan converter box made by Vine Micros, before they became Tv-One, which was about the size of a paperback book but gave beautiful composite video from a VGA input. It looked like this http://www.tvone.com/hires/corioscan-pro-sg.gif I do not know if you can still buy them, but it was a very useful little box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Pearce Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I've always found I get far higher quality by using a good graphics card that has a native composite or S Vid output, and can set the screen resolution to 720x576, so that graphics are natively rendered in the correct resolution. Using this setup I have had some very good quality outputs, that at event viewing distances look quite smart.The second step is probably the most significant, 1024x768 squashed down is never going to look good as none of the pixel lines match, much the same as non native resolutions always look rubbish on computer screens. You may find outputting 1440x1080 is a slightly better match, but with PAL video the vertical height is the most significant as that matches the scan lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.