# No s-video on Roamio?



## dochawk (Aug 1, 2002)

Am I missing something, or does the Roamio not have an s-video output?

I have a new Roamio, and an old Mitsubishi rear-projection 50+ inch screen--which is too old for hdmi. Composite gives a horrible picture on this; I'll have to see what component does . . .

I'd been planning on a really big screen come the superbowl sales.

hawk


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

Roamio are all digital now and about the only output viable is HDMI, everything else is analog.You can perhaps get a converter for HDMI-to-Composite/Svideo and audio.

Why wait until SuperBowl, when its getting closer to Christmas and the sales should be coming up after Halloween or Thanksgiving.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

No s-video. The Plus and Pro models have component and composite outputs, but the base Roamio can only do composite (with breakout cables). If you just have the base Roamio, then you are out of luck.

Component video is superior to s-video, so you should be using that anyway if you can. Since they are both analog, I'm sure you can get a component to s-video cable if the TV has no component inputs.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

The TiVo Mini supports component output (though you need to buy the breakout cable for it... about $15), so you could use a base model Roamio via a TiVo Mini.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

There's not even any s-video on the Premiere. It's the first output everybody started dropping, around that time (2010). I guess the thinking was, if you wanted a _good_ picture, use one of the HD-capable outputs (component or HDMI/DVI). Composite was kept around as the lowest common denominator. S-video was apparently seen as lacking an important niche -- as something you could eliminate to cut costs. I'm just guessing here -- I've never seen any manufacturers explaining their decision. But it really was a trend, that spread rapidly.

Personally, I still have a few (admittedly, old) displays whose best input is s-video, and it's considerably better than composite on those sets, so I wish it were still available on modern devices.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

S-Video so much better than composite. I think it was the cost and every device had composite, but not S-video, so they stopped providing them on devices figuring as wmcbrine states the people can use their digital output for the best picture with not many people using the analog outputs anyway.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

You can find convertors that will convert HDMI to S-Vid but they would cost as much as the Roamio Basic. Not worth it in my opinion.


----------



## --Scott-- (Feb 24, 2014)

Amazon has HDMI to S-Video converters. I'm not sure what quality you'll get, but it's around $55. I used something similar years ago to transfer many old VHS home movies to digital MPEG on my computer and it worked fairly well.

http://www.amazon.com/Tmvel-Composi...id=1413379682&sr=8-1&keywords=hdmi+to+s-video


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> You can find convertors that will convert HDMI to S-Vid but they would cost as much as the Roamio Basic. Not worth it in my opinion.


I think they are also technically illegal.


----------



## L David Matheny (Jan 29, 2011)

Series3Sub said:


> S-Video so much better than composite. I think it was the cost and every device had composite, but not S-video, so they stopped providing them on devices figuring as wmcbrine states the people can use their digital output for the best picture with not many people using the analog outputs anyway.


I think S-Video was dropped mostly because all the better equipment started using component I/O, and S-Video then provided an intermediate quality level that seemed obsolete except for backwards compatibility. Once equipment started having digital I/O ports that could be crippled, entertainment industry lawyers essentially forced the elimination of component outputs, but nobody bothered to add back their S-Video outputs.


----------



## dochawk (Aug 1, 2002)

In past years, the very best sales have generally been for the supergbowl--and I"m after a 72" screen . . .

I'll see how the component input works; it might have been adequate.


This thing has three CRTs bouncing off a mirror, and I think a large number of extrapolated lines rather than standard NTSC. The first things we connected were, well, horrible.

The small screen that the mini will use actually has HDMI . . .

thanks

hawk


----------



## elborak (Jul 15, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I think they are also technically illegal.


Why would they be illegal? Even if you accept that defeating HDCP is illegal (which I don't if it's for personal use), that's only for digital->digital setups. You'd need a really extreme interpretation of the DMCA to believe that HDMI->analog for connecting to a viewing (as opposed to recording) device is in any way illegal.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

elborak said:


> Why would they be illegal? Even if you accept that defeating HDCP is illegal (which I don't if it's for personal use), that's only for digital->digital setups. You'd need a really extreme interpretation of the DMCA to believe that HDMI->analog for connecting to a viewing (as opposed to recording) device is in any way illegal.


Just the act of using them probably isn't illegal, but manufacturing them and selling them probably is. So if you buy and use them, you are buying and using an illegally produced and illegally sold product.


----------



## --Scott-- (Feb 24, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Just the act of using them probably isn't illegal, but manufacturing them and selling them probably is. So if you buy and use them, you are buying and using an illegally produced and illegally sold product.


I think the legality only comes into question for HDCP content and only if it is then copied and sold vs used for displaying content to a personal TV for non-commercial/non-rebroadcasting purposes.

The device itself is not illegal...however there are some that will use it for illegal purposes as with many things. In the OP's situation I don't believe that to be the case. Having said that, I'm neither a copyright lawyer nor a digital rights expert.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

dochawk said:


> Am I missing something, or does the Roamio not have an s-video output?
> 
> I have a new Roamio, and an old Mitsubishi rear-projection 50+ inch screen--which is too old for hdmi. Composite gives a horrible picture on this; I'll have to see what component does . . .
> 
> ...


Component is far superior to s-video. Given your Mits supports component, by all means use it.


----------



## --Scott-- (Feb 24, 2014)

kokishin said:


> Component is far superior to s-video. Given your Mits supports component, by all means use it.


Agreed. I think S-Video is rated for 480i whereas component is 1080i capable. Major, major improvement.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I'm using Component right now with my old 3 CRT rear projection Mitsubishi and Roamio Pro. Sounds like they are similar vintage TVs. I purchased mine in 2004. Yours sounds like a year or 2 earlier. My set does have DVI and I use that with an HDMI to DVI cable for something else, but if you have DVI you could use that for the picture with audio cables.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

--Scott-- said:


> I think the legality only comes into question for HDCP content and only if it is then copied and sold vs used for displaying content to a personal TV for non-commercial/non-rebroadcasting purposes.
> 
> The device itself is not illegal...however there are some that will use it for illegal purposes as with many things. In the OP's situation I don't believe that to be the case. Having said that, I'm neither a copyright lawyer nor a digital rights expert.


Okay, so I did a little digging and have found sources that say that HDCP bans compliant products from converting HDCP-protected content to full-resolution analog form. So, I guess HDMI to s-video would be okay, but HDMI to component would not be.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Okay, so I did a little digging and have found sources that say that HDCP bans compliant products from converting HDCP-protected content to full-resolution analog form. So, I guess HDMI to s-video would be okay, but HDMI to component would not be.


Not true, there are converters that Convert HDMI to both component and S-vid. HDCP only regulates* digital duplication*, which is neither S-Vid, Component, or Video, which are all analog. http://www.amazon.com/E-More®-Component-Video-Converter-Supporting/dp/B00J22LGYG


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> Not true, there are converters that Convert HDMI to both component and S-vid. HDCP only regulates* digital duplication*, which is neither S-Vid, Component, or Video, which are all analog. http://www.amazon.com/E-More®-Component-Video-Converter-Supporting/dp/B00J22LGYG


Based on what I have read, if the converter box is stripping HDCP off a digital signal and converting it to an HD component analog signal, then that is illegal to do. If the box respects the HDCP, then it would not send through an HD component signal if the HDCP is present.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Based on what I have read, if the converter box is stripping HDCP off a digital signal and converting it to an HD component analog signal, then that is illegal to do. If the box respects the HDCP, then it would not send through an HD component signal if the HDCP is present.


Well you can see the add I posted on Amazon, and there is no way to trace HDCP compliance via a component or S-Video signal, so you tell me how they are selling it if it is illegal.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> Well you can see the add I posted on Amazon, and there is no way to trace HDCP compliance via a component or S-Video signal, so you tell me how they are selling it if it is illegal.


If it is HDCP complaint, then it would either downgrade the component output signal to SD quality when HDCP is present, or it would just go blank and not output anything at all. If it still outputs HD quality when HDCP is present, then it is not HDCP compliant and is technically illegal.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> There's not even any s-video on the Premiere. It's the first output everybody started dropping, around that time (2010).


I found an article about the phenomenon from February 2009, although it doesn't really add any insight:

http://www.cnet.com/news/s-video-is-dead-on-av-receivers-do-you-care/

(Plus this article based on that one.)


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> If it is HDCP complaint, then it would either downgrade the component output signal to SD quality when HDCP is present, or it would just go blank and not output anything at all. If it still outputs HD quality when HDCP is present, then it is not HDCP compliant and is technically illegal.


If you read the reviews, buyers have hooked Blu Ray players with 1080i to their component input HDTV projectors and got a perfect picture in 1080i.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> If you read the reviews, buyers have hooked Blu Ray players with 1080i to their component input HDTV projectors and got a perfect picture in 1080i.


Then it's an illegal device.


----------



## elborak (Jul 15, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Then it's an illegal device.


By your (and some others) interpretation of the DMCA. But that is far from a universal opinion.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

elborak said:


> By your (and some others) interpretation of the DMCA. But that is far from a universal opinion.


Might possibly be illegal but there are many of the same type in use. Guess the HDCP police have to get a search warrant.


----------



## naich (Mar 29, 2010)

S video never really took off. the 5 wire component cables and then HDMI killed it.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

naich said:


> S video never really took off. the 5 wire component cables and then HDMI killed it.


You do mean 3 wire component cables, don't you. Y, R-y and B-y ? The other two cables would be for audio.


----------



## naich (Mar 29, 2010)

Captainbob said:


> You do mean 3 wire component cables, don't you. Y, R-y and B-y ? The other two cables would be for audio.


Yeah, that would be correct.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

elborak said:


> Why would they be illegal? Even if you accept that defeating HDCP is illegal (which I don't if it's for personal use),


Umm, you can choose to break the law, but you can't decide what is legal and what is not legal.

Breaking HDCP is by definition breaking the DMCA law.


----------



## 8bitbarbarian (Jul 4, 2004)

I am an s-video lover and always appreciated it's slightly overblown colors and saturation. 

Mourned for a minute when I went Roamio + HDMI and gave up the S but you get over it.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mattack said:


> Umm, you can choose to break the law, but you can't decide what is legal and what is not legal.
> 
> Breaking HDCP is by definition breaking the DMCA law.


+1


----------



## elborak (Jul 15, 2014)

mattack said:


> Breaking HDCP is by definition breaking the DMCA law.


If you really feel that the DMCA is that black and white, I'm guessing you've never read it. It's not.

Circumventing HDCP for the purpose of watching content on an analog-only device (which is what started this discussion) has, to the best of my knowledge, never been challenged in court. So with an ambiguous law and no court precedent, my interpretation is that it's legal. Yours may differ.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

elborak said:


> If you really feel that the DMCA is that black and white, I'm guessing you've never read it. It's not.
> 
> Circumventing HDCP for the purpose of watching content on an analog-only device (which is what started this discussion) has, to the best of my knowledge, never been challenged in court. So with an ambiguous law and no court precedent, my interpretation is that it's legal. Yours may differ.


People have been doing it for years and I have never heard of anyone getting arrested for it. Probably the same arrest potential that people face when they rip those labels off their mattresses.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> People have been doing it for years and I have never heard of anyone getting arrested for it. Probably the same arrest potential that people face when they rip those labels off their mattresses.


A significant reason behind HDCP is to prevent making bit-for-bit digital copies of source material because each copy would be a perfect copy of the original. IOW, no degradation from the original no matter which generation from the original the copies are produced from. However, analog copies cannot be bit-for-bit perfect copies because they are analog (no bits, no error correction). Therefore there is much less concern by the content providers regarding digital to analog conversion.

I replied to your post but what I wrote above was intended for those that have concerns about the illegality or immorality of utilizing these content protected digital to analog converter boxes.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

kokishin said:


> A significant reason behind HDCP is to prevent making bit-for-bit digital copies of source material because each copy would be a perfect copy of the original. IOW, no degradation from the original no matter which generation from the original the copies are produced from. However, analog copies cannot be bit-for-bit perfect copies because they are analog (no bits, no error correction). Therefore there is much less concern by the content providers regarding digital to analog conversion.
> 
> I replied to your post but what I wrote above was intended for those that have concerns about the illegality or immorality of utilizing these content protected digital to analog converter boxes.


I totally agree with you. It's digital to digital that the HDCP rule was targeted on, so you could make a perfect copy of the original. Don't think they are worried at all about someone watching or copying for that matter the digital copy on an S-vid input.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> I totally agree with you. It's digital to digital that the HDCP rule was targeted on, so you could make a perfect copy of the original. Don't think they are worried at all about someone watching or copying for that matter the digital copy on an S-vid input.


They probably don't care that much about S-video, but they probably do care about component since it is HD. It's why you can't buy a blu-ray player with component output anymore.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

dochawk said:


> In past years, the very best sales have generally been for the supergbowl--and I"m after a 72" screen . . . I'll see how the component input works; it might have been adequate. This thing has three CRTs bouncing off a mirror, and I think a large number of extrapolated lines rather than standard NTSC. The first things we connected were, well, horrible. The small screen that the mini will use actually has HDMI . . . thanks hawk


As has been stated many times already, component video, even the lowest form of it, 480i, is by FAR superior to lowly ole S-Video! S-Video is barely better quality than composite 480i. All it all it is is a tap off from the first/last stage of the video encoder/decoder, where the luminance (B&W signal) and chrominance (colors) are separated and sent down separate wires to avoid things such as dot crawl and give better chrominance performance.

Think of it like digital video compression of today. An analog color signal, say from a camera source, starts out as full RGBHV (red, green, blue, H sync, V sync), then the first stage of encoding is to take that signal to YPbPr component (Y is reference which is the luminance B&W signal, plus HV sync. This is why if all you hook up is the green Y cable, you get a B&W picture)(Pb and Pr are the red and blue color difference signals). The next stage of the encoder "compresses" the color signals into one chrominance signal, ("C" of the Y/C S-Video signal) and one luminance (Y channel w/ HV sync). The final stage, the one with the most "compression" is the composite signal where those last two signals are squashed together and bandwidth reduced even more to accommodate the old limits of broadcasting and transmission, composite 480i (interlaced) video.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

naich said:


> S video never really took off. the 5 wire component cables and then HDMI killed it.





Captainbob said:


> You do mean 3 wire component cables, don't you. Y, R-y and B-y ? The other two cables would be for audio.





naich said:


> Yeah, that would be correct.


There is indeed a 5 wire "component signal". It's called RGBHV and it's used in many forms such as PCs with VGA and DVI and many of the old original HD capable devices like the RCA DTC-100 used it before it became the norm to use 3 channel YCbCr/YPbPr/YUV/Y, R-Y, B-Y component.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

dswallow said:


> The TiVo Mini supports component output (though you need to buy the breakout cable for it... about $15), so you could use a base model Roamio via a TiVo Mini.





dochawk said:


> .......The small screen that the mini will use actually has HDMI . . . thanks hawk


 Why not swap which TVs use which device and put the mini that offers component video out at the old one with component video input and the base Roamio on the one with hdmi? I know you lose a little functionality with a mini, but it sure beats crapping out that nice HD picture in favor of smudgey old SD compressed S-Video any day!


----------



## elborak (Jul 15, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> They probably don't care that much about S-video, but they probably do care about component since it is HD. It's why you can't buy a blu-ray player with component output anymore.


Agree completely, but the fact that the media giants have been successful at convincing the electronics manufacturers to drop component doesn't mean it's illegal. After all, Samsung was still making players with component just a few years ago, and the DMCA has been (bad) law since 1998.

Of course it helps when dropping it makes the players a bit cheaper (margins are slim), and that some of the media giants and electronics companies are under the same umbrella.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

elborak said:


> If you really feel that the DMCA is that black and white, I'm guessing you've never read it. It's not.
> 
> Circumventing HDCP for the purpose of watching content on an analog-only device (which is what started this discussion) has, to the best of my knowledge, never been challenged in court. So with an ambiguous law and no court precedent, my interpretation is that it's legal. Yours may differ.


Where in the law does it say you can break HDCP for an analog only device? (BTW, I wouldn't mind having a macrovision stripper myself -- NOT for any permanent use -- just for dubbing to my hard drive DVD recorder TEMPORARILY to watch faster than realtime.. But I'm not claiming it's protected.)



Captainbob said:


> People have been doing it for years and I have never heard of anyone getting arrested for it. Probably the same arrest potential that people face when they rip those labels off their mattresses.


You are spreading a falsehood. There has NEVER been a law against the CONSUMER taking the label off. The labels in fact say something very close to "This label may not be removed except by the consumer". (I presume it's a "truth in labelling laws" kind of thing.)


----------



## elborak (Jul 15, 2014)

mattack said:


> Where in the law does it say you can break HDCP for an analog only device?


Where in my post did I claim that it stated that?


----------



## dochawk (Aug 1, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Why not swap which TVs use which device and put the mini that offers component video out at the old one with component video input and the base Roamio on the one with hdmi? I know you lose a little functionality with a mini, but it sure beats crapping out that nice HD picture in favor of smudgey old SD compressed S-Video any day!


Now _that_ is an interesting idea . . .

We've ended up with component to the big screen, which looks like I'm used to (it is _bad_ with composite due to the interpolation!). But this is also where the signal comes into the house, so it would take yet another wire run, or attic crawling to connect the old directv lines.

Of course, I've been used to svideo for this for a while . . .
Now I just need to rummage up another double or triple rca line for the sound in the back . . .

thanks

hawk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

L David Matheny said:


> I think S-Video was dropped mostly because all the better equipment started using component I/O, and S-Video then provided an intermediate quality level that seemed obsolete except for backwards compatibility. Once equipment started having digital I/O ports that could be crippled, entertainment industry lawyers essentially forced the elimination of component outputs, but nobody bothered to add back their S-Video outputs.


This. S-video was great back in the day. That day has long since passed, and HDMI is the standard today.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Captainbob said:


> Probably the same arrest potential that people face when they rip those labels off their mattresses.


BTW, nowadays mattress labels have clarified the language by including the phrase "except by the consumer", reflecting what was always true.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> As has been stated many times already, component video, even the lowest form of it, 480i, is by FAR superior to lowly ole S-Video! S-Video is barely better quality than composite 480i. All it all it is is a tap off from the first/last stage of the video encoder/decoder, where the luminance (B&W signal) and chrominance (colors) are separated and sent down separate wires to avoid things such as dot crawl and give better chrominance performance.
> 
> Think of it like digital video compression of today. An analog color signal, say from a camera source, starts out as full RGBHV (red, green, blue, H sync, V sync), then the first stage of encoding is to take that signal to YPbPr component (Y is reference which is the luminance B&W signal, plus HV sync. This is why if all you hook up is the green Y cable, you get a B&W picture)(Pb and Pr are the red and blue color difference signals). The next stage of the encoder "compresses" the color signals into one chrominance signal, ("C" of the Y/C S-Video signal) and one luminance (Y channel w/ HV sync). The final stage, the one with the most "compression" is the composite signal where those last two signals are squashed together and bandwidth reduced even more to accommodate the old limits of broadcasting and transmission, composite 480i (interlaced) video.


Actually, in order to fit the 3.58 chroma information in the luminance signal, they have to use a filter to eliminate any B & W video information around 3.58 mhz., which is where the fine detail of the black and white image is located. They aren't compressing it, they are chopping that area out of the B & W signal with a filter. If you let the luminance signal at that frequency, it would mix with the chroma signal causing problems with the color, such as crawl and crosstalk. When someone wore a striped shirt on TV, years ago, and the spacing of the stripes produced a pattern on the signal that was around 3.58 Mhz, you would see that "rainbow effect" on the stripes in the shirt. If that happened, the cameraman could actually move toward or away from the shirt, which would change the frequency of the signal away from 3.58. Of course studios frowned on someone wearing a shirt or dress with a pattern like that. S-VID was designed for the S-VHS machines, as a way to get a better luminance signal, by never combining the chroma and luminance signals in the VCR, which are already separate in the VCR, back together before sending it to the TV set. Therefore no filtering of the luminance was necessary, and the entire bandwidth of the luminance could be sent on the S-Vid cable, which added some fine detail to the picture that wouldn't have been there if chroma had to be inserted, therefore With S-Vid, they can allow the entire 4.5 Mhz of Luminance to pass, because the chroma information, (which has a very narrow bandwidth anyway), is on a separate cable.


----------



## dochawk (Aug 1, 2002)

Captainbob said:


> therefore With S-Vid, they can allow the entire 4.5 Mhz of Luminance to pass, because the chroma information, (which has a very narrow bandwidth anyway), is on a separate cable.


And 4.5 MHz was the sound trap. Take that out, and you can go even higher.

While I'm at it, the 3.58 was important in early home computers, and the reason most stayed at 32 or 40 characters/line.

The 40 character/240 pixels of the Apple ][ was right at the margin. Earlier versions of the ][ and ][+ tended to have a purplish tint to the text, until the Rev 7 motherboard suppressed the color carrier for text lines.

And as for color? Getting six colors out of 8 bits for 6 pixels? One of the 8 bits caused a half-pixel shift/delay, tickling the color carrier enough to produce additional colors . . .

64 character liens were common for B&W displays (and could occasionally work on a good B&W television)


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> Actually, in order to fit the 3.58 chroma information in the luminance signal, they have to use a filter to eliminate any B & W video information around 3.58 mhz., which is where the fine detail of the black and white image is located. They aren't compressing it, they are chopping that area out of the B & W signal with a filter. If you let the luminance signal at that frequency, it would mix with the chroma signal causing problems with the color, such as crawl and crosstalk. When someone wore a striped shirt on TV, years ago, and the spacing of the stripes produced a pattern on the signal that was around 3.58 Mhz, you would see that "rainbow effect" on the stripes in the shirt. If that happened, the cameraman could actually move toward or away from the shirt, which would change the frequency of the signal away from 3.58. Of course studios frowned on someone wearing a shirt or dress with a pattern like that. S-VID was designed for the S-VHS machines, as a way to get a better luminance signal, by never combining the chroma and luminance signals in the VCR, which are already separate in the VCR, back together before sending it to the TV set. Therefore no filtering of the luminance was necessary, and the entire bandwidth of the luminance could be sent on the S-Vid cable, which added some fine detail to the picture that wouldn't have been there if chroma had to be inserted, therefore With S-Vid, they can allow the entire 4.5 Mhz of Luminance to pass, because the chroma information, (which has a very narrow bandwidth anyway), is on a separate cable.


I know. I was just making an analogy so others could understand the concept, but thanks for the added info! I'm sure it helps clarify even more.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

elborak said:


> Agree completely, but the fact that the media giants have been successful at convincing the electronics manufacturers to drop component doesn't mean it's illegal. After all, Samsung was still making players with component just a few years ago, and the DMCA has been (bad) law since 1998.
> 
> Of course it helps when dropping it makes the players a bit cheaper (margins are slim), and that some of the media giants and electronics companies are under the same umbrella.


The Blu-ray Disc Association required all BD players made after a certain date to omit component outputs. As long as a player was put into production prior to that date, it could continue being made with component outputs. But I think that date was at the end of 2011 or 2012.


----------



## elborak (Jul 15, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> The Blu-ray Disc Association required all BD players made after a certain date to omit component outputs.


Exactly. It was an industry agreement, not something mandated by law. Very similar to the restrictions CableLabs has forced on TiVo.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

elborak said:


> Exactly. It was an industry agreement, not something mandated by law. Very similar to the restrictions CableLabs has forced on TiVo.


But once the DRM is in place (however it gets there), selling devices that allow people to break it is a violation of the DMCA, at least as that law is interpreted in this court case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks,_Inc._v._DVD_Copy_Control_Association,_Inc.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

wmcbrine said:


> BTW, nowadays mattress labels have clarified the language by including the phrase "except by the consumer", reflecting what was always true.


Yes, that was added recently, but was not stated on the label years ago. http://mentalfloss.com/article/31227/it-really-illegal-remove-your-mattress-tag

Quote from the link above ...... "The move deterred dishonest mattress dealers, but also confused more than a few consumers, who dutifully left the tags on for fear of prosecution. In recent years, the feds and many state governments have eased the minds of law-abiding citizens by amending the mattress laws so the tags read "this tag shall not be removed* except by the consumer."*


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

mattack said:


> You are spreading a falsehood. There has NEVER been a law against the CONSUMER taking the label off. The labels in fact say something very close to "This label may not be removed except by the consumer". (I presume it's a "truth in labelling laws" kind of thing.)


"By the consumer" was a recent addition, see post #54.


----------



## elborak (Jul 15, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> But once the DRM is in place (however it gets there), selling devices that allow people to break it is a violation of the DMCA, at least as that law is interpreted in this court case:


The ruling was about _software_, not a _device_, but I agree; that is indeed roughly the precedent set by that case. But my (informed but inexpert) opinion is that the precedent is not broad enough to be applied directly to a case where the function of the device or software is specifically viewing as opposed to ripping/duplication.

But we're getting pretty far afield here. Probably time to drop this aside.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> There is indeed a 5 wire "component signal". It's called RGBHV and it's used in many forms such as PCs with VGA and DVI and many of the old original HD capable devices like the RCA DTC-100 used it before it became the norm to use 3 channel YCbCr/YPbPr/YUV/Y, R-Y, B-Y component.


The 5 wires you are mentioning is a standard RGB signal with either composite sync ( 4 wires) or separate sync 5 wires. Component is Y, R-Y, and B-Y. In order to get RGB out of component, you matrix the three signals. Y + R-y equals R since the +Y and -Y cancel each other. Y + B-Y equals B since again the Y's cancel. To get Green you add all the signals G=Y+(B-Y)+(R-Y) This matrix can be as simple as mixing the signals in a resistive matrix. You always have to decode the component or YUV signal into RGB, so that you have three signals to feed the R, B, and G sections of the monitor or TV display.

The best signal is RGB because it is the raw signal out of the camera unaltered for each color. Since the RGB signal doesn't have to be processed to drive the R,G, and B of the display, it can directly drive the display. The down side to RGB HV is that the RGB signal uses full bandwidth on each cable.

The pinout on a VGA connector include Red Video (R), Green Video(G) , and Blue Video(B) on pins 1,2,3 plus their associated grounds on pin 6,7, 8. Pin 13 and 14 are H and V sync.

DVI can either be digital RGB, or Analog RGB depending on the pins used. There is no component on a DVI connector. Usually it is used as a Digital cable ( DVI-D).


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> The 5 wires you are mentioning is a standard RGB signal with either composite sync ( 4 wires) or separate sync 5 wires. Component is Y, R-Y, and B-Y. In order to get RGB out of component, you matrix the three signals. Y + R-y equals R since the +Y and -Y cancel each other. Y + B-Y equals B since again the Y's cancel. To get Green you add all the signals G=Y+(B-Y)+(R-Y) This matrix can be as simple as mixing the signals in a resistive matrix. You always have to decode the component or YUV signal into RGB, so that you have three signals to feed the R, B, and G sections of the monitor or TV display. The best signal is RGB because it is the raw signal out of the camera unaltered for each color. Since the RGB signal doesn't have to be processed to drive the R,G, and B of the display, it can directly drive the display. The down side to RGB HV is that the RGB signal uses full bandwidth on each cable. The pinout on a VGA connector include Red Video (R), Green Video(G) , and Blue Video(B) on pins 1,2,3 plus their associated grounds on pin 6,7, 8. Pin 13 and 14 are H and V sync. DVI can either be digital RGB, or Analog RGB depending on the pins used. There is no component on a DVI connector. Usually it is used as a Digital cable ( DVI-D).


Gee, thanks. The choir is officially preached to! 

RGBHV is a form of component video. It's broken down into its 5 basic "components"' of red, green, blue, horizontal sync and vertical sync. Most people just think of and reference the color difference signal versions you mention when they say "component video".

There certainly can be analog component video on a DVI-I connector too, btw. It can be carried on the same 4 pins around the blade of the connector.

Thanks for the added info tho. Very informative for those who didn't know the details.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Gee, thanks. The choir is officially preached to!
> 
> RGBHV is a form of component video because it's broken down into its 5 basic "components"' of red, green, blue, horizontal sync and vertical sync. Most people just think of and reference the color difference signal versions you mention when they say "component video". There certainly can be analog component video on a DVI-I connector too, btw. It can be carried on the same 4 pins around the blade of the connector.
> 
> Thanks for the added info tho. Very informative for those who didn't know the details.


When techs in the video industry, which is where I have done most of my training, refer to "component", they are defining it as YUV or Y R-y and B-y. If you tell techs it is RGB signal , which is the output of the Red , Blue, and Green generators, unmodified, they never refer to it as component, but simply as RGB . In 50 years in this industry, I have never heard of technicians discussing RGB/sync referring to it as " component". The DVI I pins around the blade are R-G-B and sync.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> When techs in the video industry, which is where I have done most of my training, refer to "component", they are defining it as YUV or Y R-y and B-y. If you tell techs it is RGB signal , which is the output of the Red , Blue, and Green generators, unmodified, they never refer to it as component, but simply as RGB . In 50 years in this industry, I have never heard of technicians discussing RGB/sync referring to it as " component".


That doesn't change the fact that it's still "component video", and the original one at that.  I have quite a few years in the industry myself, btw.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Mattress Tag Ripping is a gateway crime.

It is known.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> That doesn't change the fact that it's still "component video", and the original one at that.  I have quite a few years in the industry myself, btw.


Well, I just called one of my Co-workers ( my boss actually) and you are correct, that the higher frequency displays, on an RGB cable are now referred to as component......  Guess I learned something new today... )


----------

