Ever tried this???

swimtech · Mar 18, 2005, 10:25 PM

I just hooked up the video output of my Dell laptop to the composite video input of my main computer at work, just to see (it has an All-In-Wonder 128). Upon reboot of the laptop, the laptop booted into XP at 1024x768 resolution (it was set to native 1400x12XX before I shut it down for the reboot) all by itself and initialized the video output to the All-in-Wonder. I clicked Extended Desktop mode and it worked fine, but...

It looked awful - as I suspected it would. Even with a Rage Theatre chip processing the incoming video, everthing was just blurry as all get out - even setting the resolutions to match at a level of 800x600. I imagine the only thing I would want to see displayed on the second display (the ATI TV app, selecting the composite input) would be a video or a game, never a desktop or application screen.

This is normal - right?

Judas · Mar 19, 2005, 01:36 AM

S-Video is terrible.. in comparison yes..... it's interlaced source..... and it usually doesn't hold definition to well. plus... if the LCD's native resolution isn't 1024x768... or doesn't officially support 1024x768.... then the 2 combined = nastyness...

However, i did setup a Computer Projector using S-Video with a 1024x768 resolution (officially supported by the projector) and although the applications themselves weren't exactly readable... playing back visualizations are.

Interlacing imo, sucks, not to mention the most noticable negative effects that deinterlacing has on text....

swimtech · Mar 20, 2005, 02:26 AM

Yeah,

I was referring to the blurriness on the TV display window in the MMC app on the desktop being fed by the laptop (which was set to 800x600 resolution to hopefully provide the most "compatible" video output). The laptop display looked ok, what I expected, even though it was not set to its native resolution.

As it turned out, UT2004, set to 800x600 within the game as well, looked passable on the desktop's TV display window - but not great. It really was just worse than I thought it would be and wanted some confirmation that others were seeing the same result. I hadn't fiddled with that setup in awhile.

I was giving myself a "refresher encounter" in order to assist others with that setup in this forum too.

I guess I wouldn't use a TV as a secondary display unless I really had to, or just for kicks.

Thanks for the reply Judas...

Judas · Mar 20, 2005, 03:04 AM

yeah..... i do everything in my power to stay away from it.. the blurryness is most likely due to attempting to deinterlace the source.... so basically your sending a progressive source down a interlaced source which cuts the quality serverily.... then trying to deinterlace it which, on a decent monitor..... not to mention an LCD, will make it look terrible...

(hope i'm not repeating myself)....

imo, rule of thumb, play made for TV stuff through a TV

..... it's kinda interesting though, when hooked up the tv out to a monitor like you... you can't read anything.. looks terrible.... but hook it to an actual TV.. and it looks miles high better.....

also.... i'd also assume that running it through to a TV.. (60hz NTCS) mixed with a monitor running a little higher.. or PAL 50hz would be worse.... would produce some artifacts.. you think?

swimtech · Mar 20, 2005, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

yeah..... i do everything in my power to stay away from it.. the blurryness is most likely due to attempting to deinterlace the source.... so basically your sending a progressive source down a interlaced source which cuts the quality serverily.... then trying to deinterlace it which, on a decent monitor..... not to mention an LCD, will make it look terrible...

(hope i'm not repeating myself)....

imo, rule of thumb, play made for TV stuff through a TV

..... it's kinda interesting though, when hooked up the tv out to a monitor like you... you can't read anything.. looks terrible.... but hook it to an actual TV.. and it looks miles high better.....

also.... i'd also assume that running it through to a TV.. (60hz NTCS) mixed with a monitor running a little higher.. or PAL 50hz would be worse.... would produce some artifacts.. you think?

Yes, actually, I do - it had to be worse being shown in a TV window on the computer monitor (set to 75hz refresh rate, actually) than it would have been on a real TV. I knew I was really just "simulating" watching on a TV, but had overlooked all the conversion issues involved. The video in the window on the monitor shouldn't show any artifacting though as long as the MMC's PAL/NTSC/SECAM settings were the same as the format of the video being output from the laptop - regardless of the monitor refresh rate. The video overlay is independent of the main monitor display - thank the Lord - or we'd have so many more headaches - from eye fatigue and from shooting through problems for folks!

Now I have to go back and hook it up to real TV to see the difference - you've piqued my interest...

Judas · Mar 20, 2005, 05:42 AM

er... yeah.. forgot the whole MMC automatically adjusting the video conversion from ntsc to something a computer could use

do try it on a tv..... all i can say is it looks great

pr0digal jenius · Mar 20, 2005, 05:46 AM

computers use square pixels

Judas · Mar 20, 2005, 05:49 AM

need n-patches

Mar 18, 2005, 10:25 PM	#1
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	Ever tried this??? I just hooked up the video output of my Dell laptop to the composite video input of my main computer at work, just to see (it has an All-In-Wonder 128). Upon reboot of the laptop, the laptop booted into XP at 1024x768 resolution (it was set to native 1400x12XX before I shut it down for the reboot) all by itself and initialized the video output to the All-in-Wonder. I clicked Extended Desktop mode and it worked fine, but... It looked awful - as I suspected it would. Even with a Rage Theatre chip processing the incoming video, everthing was just blurry as all get out - even setting the resolutions to match at a level of 800x600. I imagine the only thing I would want to see displayed on the second display (the ATI TV app, selecting the composite input) would be a video or a game, never a desktop or application screen. This is normal - right? __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Mar 20, 2005, 02:26 AM	Thread Starter #3
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	Yeah, I was referring to the blurriness on the TV display window in the MMC app on the desktop being fed by the laptop (which was set to 800x600 resolution to hopefully provide the most "compatible" video output). The laptop display looked ok, what I expected, even though it was not set to its native resolution. As it turned out, UT2004, set to 800x600 within the game as well, looked passable on the desktop's TV display window - but not great. It really was just worse than I thought it would be and wanted some confirmation that others were seeing the same result. I hadn't fiddled with that setup in awhile. I was giving myself a "refresher encounter" in order to assist others with that setup in this forum too. I guess I wouldn't use a TV as a secondary display unless I really had to, or just for kicks. Thanks for the reply Judas... __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Mar 20, 2005, 05:46 AM	#7
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	computers use square pixels