Unsatisfying output to TV

[I discuss]

Anybody else find that ATI video cards' TV output ability unsatisfying?

Smyptom:
- image does not fill the whole screen of TV,
- image greyish, color not vivid
- subtle rolling bars moving cyclically from bottom of TV screen to the top

Video cards: AIW9000 pro, 9800 pro. (NOT used at the same time)

OS: WINDOWS XP SP2

TV: SONY WEGA FS-100

CONNECTION : S-VIDEO

 

[Barry Watzman]

This probably has as much to do with your TV and with the "nature of the
beast" as with the video card.

A normal NTSC tv set has a fixed video format. That format is about 450
pixels horiz. by 480 vertical (there is no "fixed" horizontal
resolution, but a composite input can only pass about 320 lines ABSOLUTE
TOPS, and an S-video input is 450 OR LESS (sometimes a LOT less)).

Now you are coming in with 640x480, or 800x600 or 1024x768 that gets
"resampled" down. Don't be surprised if it looks like crap.

The size and centering can be adjusted in a window burried fairly deeply
in the ATI control panel applet, but it's not going to look really good.
Now if you have an HDTV monitor with DVI input, well, that's another
story, but going into an NTSC set with composite or S-Video, it won't be
that great.

 

[Conor]

Anybody else find that ATI video cards' TV output ability unsatisfying?

Actually, the problem is trying to use a graphics card designed to work
on monitors with high resolution on a clunker with low resolution. PC
Monitors are far superior to TVs in terms of resolution and image
quality. Even the old original VGA 640x480 were better than a TV.

 

[J.]

Anybody else find that ATI video cards' TV output ability unsatisfying?

Smyptom:
- image does not fill the whole screen of TV,
- image greyish, color not vivid
- subtle rolling bars moving cyclically from bottom of TV screen to the top

Video cards: AIW9000 pro, 9800 pro. (NOT used at the same time)

OS: WINDOWS XP SP2

TV: SONY WEGA FS-100

CONNECTION : S-VIDEO

Except for the thrid issue which I don't really notice, I have the same
problems. This with an old AIW7500. Good to see the ATI idiots have fixed
these problems. The image size problem is particularly annoying. I've
moved the image down to its lowest position and still there's a black bar at
screen bottom. And of course screen-filling output *is* possible, since
the "Overscan" button works, but "overscans" way too much! Morons.

The replies to your post so far are just stupid rationalizations. If my
minidv camcorder can produce spectacular-looking, properly-sized images thru
s-video, so can a goddamned video card.

 

[I discuss]

Thanks everyone who has replied so far.
- Barry, as you pointed out, I suspect too that HDTV set may works better
with computer video cards, but I would not know since I don't have one. Do
you? Can you confirm the results on a HDTV?

- J. I agree with you, if a camcorder, or a $50 dollar DVD player can output
perfect signals to ordinary TV set, so should a $200 video card be able to.

- I am wondering though, with this kind of performance, how can all the
media center PC coming on the market gain acceptance from ordinary
consumers? What kind of video cards do those Media Center PC use?

 

[JLC]

Anybody else find that ATI video cards' TV output ability unsatisfying?

Smyptom:
- image does not fill the whole screen of TV,
- image greyish, color not vivid
- subtle rolling bars moving cyclically from bottom of TV screen to the top

Video cards: AIW9000 pro, 9800 pro. (NOT used at the same time)

OS: WINDOWS XP SP2

TV: SONY WEGA FS-100

CONNECTION : S-VIDEO

I use my 9800pro to output to my new Philips "20 Flat Screen TV using the
S-Video adapter and a component cable. I'm amazed on how great it looks! I
watch DVD's played on my PC and recorded TV through a VCR and it looks as
good as when I watch TV or a DVD plugged into straight into the TV using the
same type of cable.
I always change my desktop resolution to 800x600 before switching over to
the TV. I've had to do a slight adjustment in the ATI TV control panel to
make the screen fit perfect, and I don't use overscan. I've plugged an
S-Video cable straight from my card to the TV and it looks even better (of
course) JLC

 

[I discuss]

JLC, your TV is not a LCD flat panel TV, is it?

Why do you use "S-Video adapter and a component cable"?
I thought you just need either one of them.

 

[mudz]

The replies to your post so far are just stupid rationalizations. If my
minidv camcorder can produce spectacular-looking, properly-sized images
thru
s-video, so can a goddamned video card.

I agree...and the proof is in the pudding as they say..a Matrox G400 will
output video to a TV that can only be described as 100%. If they can do
it...so can other manufacturers. That is the one thing I sorely miss, since
upgrading to my 9800 pro...

M

 

[vellu]

Points 1&2 well covered in earlier posts, that's just a way it is on
some TV sets.

Point 3: Propably caused by "ground loop" from your tv-aerial.
Disconnect the RF-cable (from your TV) and the scan lines should go
away. If this works, you can purchase a ground separator for RF at a
local radio shack (or equivalent).

 

[JLC]

JLC, your TV is not a LCD flat panel TV, is it?

Why do you use "S-Video adapter and a component cable"?
I thought you just need either one of them.

No my TV is a plain old TV and the reason I don't use a S-Video cable is I
have only one S-Video input on my TV and I'm using that for my Xbox. I
haven't had a chance to go out and get a video switchbox yet. JLC

 

[Barry Watzman]

Re: "I agree with you, if a camcorder, or a $50 dollar DVD player can
output perfect signals to ordinary TV set, so should a $200 video card
be able to."

Not true, and this response suggests a lack of understanding of the
processes and technologies involved.

The camcorder IS A TV DEVICE. All of the signals that it uses ARE TV
signals. TV resolution, tv aspect ratio, tv scan (refresh) frequencies.
It was designed to produce and capture a TV picture, and that's all
that it does.

Conversely, a computer display is NOT a TV device, and you are
converting a signal into something totally, and I meant totally,
different (and, in this case, inferior).

Consider for example:

Computer horizontal resolution = 800 to 1280 pixels
TV horizontal resolution = 240 to 450 pixels

Computer vertical resolution = 600 to 1024 pixels
TV vertical resolution = 480 INTERLACED pixels

(note the implied total pixel count:
TV = 115,200 to 216,000 pixels
Computer = 480,000 to 1,310,720 pixels]

Computer horizontal scan rate = 38 to 70 KHz
TV horizontal resolution = 15,764 Hz (15.764 KHz)

When you try to display a computer screen on a TV set, you are trying to
stuff "10 pounds of xxxx into a 2 pound bag". It should be obvious that
trying to display a 1,310,720 pixel image on a 115,200 pixel display
isn't going to look very good. But even that's not the entire
"picture". You are trying to do it via (typically) a composite or
S-Video interface, that "merges" red, blue, green, luminance, horizontal
sync and vertical sync into a single signal (or two for S-video), in a
way totally foreign to all computer interfaces, both analog and digital,
and using a technology that seriously degrades and compromises all of
the individual components.

 

[trippy123]

AVOID the ati 9600xt video card at all costs!
Doesnot work properly, installs poorly, NON existant help, tv out
doesnt work, did i mention how damn loud the thing is? oh and the
drivers are so badly designed and the user interfaces are so obtuse.

im sticking with nvidia

z

 

[tk]

The AIW 9600 XT I have looks sweet, the rolling bars may be a
ground issue. I had that on the capture signal from the cable HD box I use.
I am far from the cable feed and the ground from the cable wire apparently
doesn't match my house ground. (difference in potential I'm told)
So I use a ground loop isolator on the audio feeds and grounded my
catv box to a house ground and the lines are gone now.