# ASK DBSTalk: Movie transfer from 921 to DVD , composite was better than s-video??



## Gary Swanson (Feb 1, 2004)

I recorded Gladiator in HD on the 921 and transfered it to my Panasonic 80 using s-video. After reviewing the copy it was full of artifacts all across the screen. I tried swapping different s-cables with no difference. So I tried composite cables and the picture went from a 5 to a 10, I couldn't believe it. I don't understand, s-video is supposed to be better.
Before I had the 921 I recorded a pay for view on my replay unit and transfered it to my Panasonic 80 using s-video and the picture was excellent. So I'm wondering if there is something wrong with the s-video output on my 921. 
Would like to know if anyone else has had these results.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

You have the sharpness up too high. The Svideo transfers so good that you see the pixel blocks. The composite just blurred the boxes together better.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

Mike123abc said:


> You have the sharpness up too high. The Svideo transfers so good that you see the pixel blocks. The composite just blurred the boxes together better.


I agree with you that composite does some smearing, however, he said that he recorded Gladiator HD. You would think it would downconvert better, thus producing a better picture with S-Video. Pixelation happens when it has to fill in information that isn't there. If the source is HD, then the information is definetly there.


----------



## Gary Swanson (Feb 1, 2004)

In my HD recording of Gladiator adjusting the sharpness from one end to the other the difference is hardly perceivable. In the recording with s-video I could not clean up the artifacts with the sharpness control.


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

with my 6000u and a panasonic dmr e30 I get good results, with my replay 5040 slightly worse results(going to ram disc and replay on highest quality).


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

What you are comparing is the relative quality of the comb filters in the two devices. When you use the S-Video cable, the 921 does the combing, to separate the chroma from the luma. When you are using the composite cable, whichever device is on the other end is doing the combing. Since the 921 has a sub-standard de-interlacer, it might be reasonable to expect that it would also have a poor comb filter.


----------



## Richard Chalk (Jan 4, 2004)

Slordak said:


> What you are comparing is the relative quality of the comb filters in the two devices. When you use the S-Video cable, the 921 does the combing, to separate the chroma from the luma. When you are using the composite cable, whichever device is on the other end is doing the combing. Since the 921 has a sub-standard de-interlacer, it might be reasonable to expect that it would also have a poor comb filter.


If he recorded the movie in HD, and is down-scaling for SD, and using S-Video, at what point in that chain would a Composite signal exist? I know there has to be an NTSC Encoder for the composite and RF outputs, but surely the S-Video would be taken before the encoder, and not after, wouldn't you think?

Richard


----------



## Kagato (Jul 1, 2002)

Reminds me of the old Laser Disc days. It used to be that if the TV had a better comb filter than the LD player then you'd use composite video. My guess is the video hardware is set up in a way that the S-Video is taken from a combined 480i.


----------

