someone explain VGA to me please?

[Soviet Conscript]

ok, i'm sure that sounds like an idiots question so i'll start with what i know

VGA is simply how computers hoook up to Computer monitirs which can give much better resolutions then an average TV, so there kinda like HDTV's

now i know the connection quality of A/C connections goes like this

1) coaxel
2) composite (r/w/y)
3) S-video
4) componant (r/b/g)

but where does VGA come in? is it better then R/B/G? is it the same? does it mearly offer better resolution choices where RBG just outputs whats standard?

if you had a dreamcast and all the hookups and a HDTV how would you hook it up? through a R/B/G connection or VGA?

[boatofcar]

You know, I've thought about where VGA fits into the video quality pyramid myself.

[Damaniel]

The short answer to the question is that I'd use either VGA or component video if they were available, depending on the capabilities of the console -- VGA would produce a more 'correct' image since VGA transmits RGB color data, but component video is pretty good too (and is the easier option out of the box for modern systems). Resolution-wise, either method can support high-definition resolutions, assuming the console (and your TV/monitor) can.

** WARNING!! Boring technical details follow!! Feel free to correct me where I get it wrong **

Out of the formats that you listed, none of them except for VGA are actually RGB -- even though component video has red, green, and blue cables, the cables themselves don't carry separate red, green, and blue components.

There are a few different ways to transmit video data. One is to send color values as a set of red, green, and blue components, which, when combined, describe the color to be displayed. This is how the VGA connector (and the European SCART, if I recall) carry picture data. The other way is to describe it as a combination of a 'light/dark' level and one or more color components, which is called luminance/chrominance. Most TV connections (composite, S-Video, component) use this method to transmit the video data.

In the case of RF, the video signal (usually luminance/chrominance, but it could in theory be RGB), has to be converted into the radio frequency format that is used to broadcast TV over an antenna, through a process called modulation. This process can heavily distort the video data, causing color bleeding and smearing, and a poor image overall.

In composite video (the yellow video connector), the luminance and chrominance data are combined together, so one cable has to carry all of the video data.

In S-Video, the luminance and one channel of chrominance data are separated (carried over different wires on the same cable), so more detailed video data can be sent over the same cable.

With component video, luminance and two chrominance channels are split over three cables. The extra chrominance channel allows extra color precision, and therefore a better picture.

The VGA connector transmits RGB directly (over multiple wires in the same cable), so no color conversion needs to be done, which maintains the highest picture quality. However, in my case, my TV's VGA connector only supports a maximum resolution of 800x600. The TV itself will do 1080i resolution, but only through the component video connection. In my case, I'd use VGA for consoles that don't do above 800x600 resolution (like the Dreamcast), and component for my other modern systems (PS2, XBox 360).

[Trebuken]

I've come to the conclusion that the VGA connector has very little purpose since the sets resolution is limited through the connection.

Without investigating I would sya that the primary differences in VGA/RGB/Component/ and HDMI are bandwidth, namely how much data and how fast it can be pushed through the connection.

I get the impression that VGA and Component are about the same, RGB slightly better, and HDMI the creme of the crop (it also carries audio).

Hope this helps.

Later,
Trebuken

[-hellvin-]

Hint: Don't bother unless you have to hook something up to a monitor and don't have component readily available. Although when HDMI picks up with gaming.....

;)

[Soviet Conscript]

arn't Component and R/B/G the same thing?

i'm still slightly confused, so VGA is better on paper but depending on your TV R/B/G may be better?

[njiska]

Originally Posted by Soviet Conscript

arn't Component and R/B/G the same thing?

i'm still slightly confused, so VGA is better on paper but depending on your TV R/B/G may be better?

No RGB is colourstreams, Red-Green-Blue. Component it chromenince and Luminence. Check wikipedia for their definitions.

Oh and since you're a soviet conscript are you the one with the rifle or the ammo?

[GaijinPunch]

To add some more confusion from someone that only mildly understands this, there is digital RGB and analogue RGB. The "really good one" that is a bitch to get in the US is analogue RGB. Some old Amiga and C64 monitors and Sony PVMs support it, but very little else, other than arcade monitors. Most PAL TVs support it in the form of a SCART cable.

[Wavelflack]

I guess I always thought VGA was a resolution &/ color depth standard, and RGB was an output mode.

[Soviet Conscript]

hmmmm

so is lower cost the reason R/B/G and S-video is becomeing more standard on Tv's now if the technology has been around some time?

Oh and since you're a soviet conscript are you the one with the rifle or the ammo?

neither comrade, i am a memeber of the elite red Lenin people's gameing brigade, i carry a console and somewhere out on the battlefield a conscript is carring a controller

[Ed Oscuro]

Originally Posted by Soviet Conscript

hmmmm

so is lower cost the reason R/B/G and S-video is becomeing more standard on Tv's now if the technology has been around some time?

neither comrade, i am a memeber of the elite red Lenin people's gameing brigade, i carry a console and somewhere out on the battlefield a conscript is carring a controller

Shouldn't the skeleton in your inventory be a red one, then? That works on more than one level

Anyway, to confuse matters a bit more, RGB is definitely component. The definition here is between composite - where all the information is sent in a single signal (all NTSC and PAL) - and component where the signal is sent as two or more signals (for example, one channel for brightness/luminosity, and two for colors).

Of course component usually is meant to refer to YUV (Y = luminosity, U = blue - Y, then scaled, V = red - Y, then scaled), or the more modern YCbCr (aka YCC) system for digital video. But RGB is actually a very simple form of component video; it's just not used for long-range transmission because it's not an especially efficient way of getting information across. Human eyes see green more strongly (and in more shades) than we do red or blue; thus if you've got limited bandwidth (i.e. old-fashioned UHF television sets here in the states) it makes sense to weight the information towards green instead of blue or red.

For computer and arcade monitors that is obviously not a concern, but even so there are advantages to using DVI or HDMI (which we don't need to get into).

[jono]

Originally Posted by GaijinPunch

To add some more confusion from someone that only mildly understands this, there is digital RGB and analogue RGB. The "really good one" that is a bitch to get in the US is analogue RGB. Some old Amiga and C64 monitors and Sony PVMs support it, but very little else, other than arcade monitors. Most PAL TVs support it in the form of a SCART cable.

And i can testify as i live in PAL Land, RGB through Scart is quality. It *really* is the best SD picture you can get via analogue connections.

Almost every TV, DVD Player, Digital TV Reciever supports it here. For me at least i wouldn't buy an AV component that doesn't support it.

[GaijinPunch]

Originally Posted by jono

And i can testify as i live in PAL Land, RGB through Scart is quality. It *really* is the best SD picture you can get via analogue connections.

Almost every TV, DVD Player, Digital TV Reciever supports it here. For me at least i wouldn't buy an AV component that doesn't support it.

Some of our UK peeps should help the yanks find some shops that import good TVs. I was looking into getting a Euro TV. 25" Sony's run about $600-$700 after importing. For most people concerned w/ quality here, that's not a bad investment. I have a PVM, and am happy with it for now. If I move anywhere, it'll be Japan, where I can get an older Sony w/ AV-Multi, which is RGB... you just have to make the cables, or have them made for you.

[Soviet Conscript]

Shouldn't the skeleton in your inventory be a red one, then?

yes, yes it should

also thanks for the help, so through reading this i'm going to put together a new chart here and tell me if its about right

for all around picture quality for gameing overall, not factoring the TV the connection quality would go like this?

1) coaxel
2) composite (yellow)
3) S-video
4) digital componont (usually seen as RED/BLUE/GREEN)
5) analog componant R/B/G (on some older monitors but common on european monitors?)
6) VGA * (improvment over componont is negligible, and depends heavily on the monitor/TV in use)
7) HDMI/DVI ( have yet to see anyone use this to hook up a console)

i'm assumeing gameing has yet to catch up with the HDMI connection. so fpr someone wanting the best picture quality in a A/V connection one would want to buy a European HDTV with analog componant (r/b/g) connections?
and do you need some kind of power converter to play a european TV in the US?

[Trebuken]

I would separate HDMI and DVI, though I suppose you could potentially get the same picture over both. DVI is being discontinued and can have HDCP (copy protection) issues on some sets. Also HDMI carries Audio, I do not believe DVI does?

The Xbox 360 is expexted to have an HDMI cable eventually, possibly with the HD-DVD drive.

The PS3 will almost certainly have HDMI available at launch.

I do believe you will need a convertor for a European TV, I believe the voltage is different as well as the form of the outlets...

Later,
Trebuken

[SkiDragon]

What is "digital component". I have never heard of such a thing.

[Trebuken]

Digital vs. Analog...

http://www.pbs.org/opb/crashcourse/digital_v_analog/

Cables appear the same, data transfer is different...generally speaking...

Later,
Trebuken