Searching \ for '[OT] Composite Video on SVGA Computer Monitors?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: piclist.com/techref/displays.htm?key=vga
Search entire site for: 'Composite Video on SVGA Computer Monitors?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Composite Video on SVGA Computer Monitors?'
1999\08\08@231337 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
With the actual very low price you can acquire a 14" SVGA monitor, does
anybody already made a video decomposition / separation (colors, syncs,
lum, chrom, and whatever it needs) to connect a composite video image
(from a VCR for example) directly to a SVGA computer monitor?

Or probably we will find it ready at the market, huh?

I know that a SVGA monitor has a very nice image (think about 1024 x 768
compared with a TV screen), so why not use it?

--------------------------------------------------------
Wagner Lipnharski - UST Research Inc. - Orlando, Florida
Forum and microcontroller web site:  http://www.ustr.net
Microcontrollers Survey:  http://www.ustr.net/tellme.htm

1999\08\09@020545 by Eric Schlaepfer

picon face
--- Wagner Lipnharski <spam_OUTwagnerlTakeThisOuTspamEARTHLINK.NET> wrote:
> With the actual very low price you can acquire a 14"
> SVGA monitor, does
> anybody already made a video decomposition /
> separation (colors, syncs,
> lum, chrom, and whatever it needs) to connect a
> composite video image
> (from a VCR for example) directly to a SVGA computer
> monitor?

Most modern SVGA moniters will not accept the low
frequency horizontal sync rate used in NTSC
television. Older multisyncs will; I have an old NEC
Multisync 3DS that supports the 15kHz NTSC scan rate.

> Or probably we will find it ready at the market,
> huh?

There are scan conversion devices but they usually
convert VGA video to NTSC video.

I think your best bet is to find a surplus multisync
moniter. You could connect it to an LM1881 to split
out the sync. As for color conversion chips, try
Analog Devices (http://www.analog.com/)

An easier alternative would be to obtain a Commodore
64 or Amiga moniter; these have a composite video
input as well as an RGB video input. I have one of
these set up, and it works perfectly.

Later,

Eric

_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

1999\08\09@094014 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
Eric, in real the idea is just to store one or two frames and resync it
by the actual SVGA monitors frequencies.
Today's technology allows to do it pretty easily and by low cost. High
speed memories, 8 bits MegaHertz speed adc's + dac's and processors are
cheap right now.

The actual $30 by a *pretty good* used Samsung or NEC multisync monitor,
allows to build nice high quality video monitors for less than $80, I
guess.

The only problem with SVGA monitors is the fact that they are produced
to offer a high quality focus balanced against high brightness, at the
TV's this is reversed, high brightness with a poor focus.  It means that
this "SVGA Video Monitor" should not be used in bright Florida Keys's
beach Sun... :)

I already saw a device 8 years ago, IBM made, a small box (it was a TV
tunner for sure), but they resync it programmable by the PS/2 keyboard.
This unit has a keyborad "Y" cable as well the PS/2 SVGA output enters
this box and then goes to the monitor.  By this way, this box has
nothing much to do with the PS/2, just use keyboard keys to select
channel and monitor definition, and the signal to the monitor just goes
directly from its circuit, overlapping the PS/2 original SVGA signal.
They use to decompose the TV signal, store it by frames and resync it at
the actual frequency the PS/2 is driving the monitor. It was
interesting, somehow one of the first TV at PC solution I saw, later on
the TV cards for PC appeared at the market.  Remember that at that time,
those PS/2 were just 386's... 20MHz or more.... so lazy machines, could
not afford TV PC cards.

Wagner.

Eric Schlaepfer wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1999\08\09@150215 by Eric Schlaepfer

picon face
--- Wagner Lipnharski <wagnerlspamKILLspamEARTHLINK.NET> wrote:
> Eric, in real the idea is just to store one or two
> frames and resync it
> by the actual SVGA monitors frequencies.

I saw a scan conversion device in a catalog somewhere
(I can't remember exactly where...) that does exactly
what you describe.

> Today's technology allows to do it pretty easily and
> by low cost. High
> speed memories, 8 bits MegaHertz speed adc's + dac's
> and processors are
> cheap right now.

That would actually be an interesting project, for
someone with lots of time...

{Quote hidden}

Television picture tubes also use rectangular picture
elements. The dot pitch is also very large under the
assumption that people will not be 1 foot away from
the screen.

It will be interesting to see what HDTVs will look
like. I know that one of the HDTV resolutions is over
1900 pixels wide. Most computer moniters only go up to
1600 pixels. In contrast, TV's absolute maximum
horizontal resolution is 640 pixels.

{Quote hidden}

Yeah, PCs have never been really good at handling
video until recently. Computers like the Amiga had no
problem because they had built in graphics accelerator
chips. PCs had simple frame buffer graphics.

Later,

Eric
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

1999\08\09@150826 by Harrison Cooper

flavicon
face
> Eric, in real the idea is just to store one or two
> frames and resync it
> by the actual SVGA monitors frequencies.

I saw a scan conversion device in a catalog somewhere
(I can't remember exactly where...) that does exactly
what you describe.

> Today's technology allows to do it pretty easily and
> by low cost. High
> speed memories, 8 bits MegaHertz speed adc's + dac's
> and processors are
> cheap right now.


THIS is a scan converter.  They take in a frame of data, and convert
typically to NTSC from whatever you
put into it.  I've run 1280x1024 non-interlaced thru em.  Some work well,
others...well, you get what you pay for.
Basically, they do a fast flash conversion of the data, typically 8 but
sometimes 10 bits, write it to memory, and then swap buffers, where they
read out, do some filtering, run it thru a DAC (typically 8 bits, we use 10
or 12), then drive it out.


>
> The actual $30 by a *pretty good* used Samsung or NEC multisync monitor,
> allows to build nice high quality video monitors for less than $80, I
guess.
{Quote hidden}

Television picture tubes also use rectangular picture
elements. The dot pitch is also very large under the
assumption that people will not be 1 foot away from
the screen.

It will be interesting to see what HDTVs will look
like. I know that one of the HDTV resolutions is over
1900 pixels wide. Most computer moniters only go up to
1600 pixels. In contrast, TV's absolute maximum
horizontal resolution is 640 pixels.


and....we've been doing HDTV walls for a number of years. Remember, they
have a tri-level sync tho, just in case you want to play around with it.

1999\08\09@154338 by Eric Schlaepfer

picon face
--- Harrison Cooper <.....hcooperKILLspamspam.....ES.COM> wrote:

<snip>
>
> THIS is a scan converter.  They take in a frame of
> data, and convert
> typically to NTSC from whatever you
> put into it.  I've run 1280x1024 non-interlaced thru
> em.  Some work well,
> others...well, you get what you pay for.
> Basically, they do a fast flash conversion of the
> data, typically 8 but
> sometimes 10 bits, write it to memory, and then swap
> buffers, where they
> read out, do some filtering, run it thru a DAC
> (typically 8 bits, we use 10
> or 12), then drive it out.

Right. I've been looking into those things for a
while. Both for NTSC -> VGA and VGA -> NTSC. Great for
video titling.

<snip>

> and....we've been doing HDTV walls for a number of
> years. Remember, they
> have a tri-level sync tho, just in case you want to
> play around with it.
>

What exactly is tri-level sync? I've been playing
around with a PIC generating monochrome NTSC video. It
follows the standard pretty closely, but I double the
lines to avoid interlace jitter.

Later,

Eric
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

1999\08\09@155549 by Harrison Cooper

flavicon
face
Right. I've been looking into those things for a
while. Both for NTSC -> VGA and VGA -> NTSC. Great for
video titling.


You do get what you pay for.  I've played with sub-$1000 units, and those
priced more than most pay for a car.  It does make a difference.


<snip>

> and....we've been doing HDTV walls for a number of
> years. Remember, they
> have a tri-level sync tho, just in case you want to
> play around with it.
>

What exactly is tri-level sync? I've been playing
around with a PIC generating monochrome NTSC video. It
follows the standard pretty closely, but I double the
lines to avoid interlace jitter.


I'd have to dig up my specs on HDTV, its been about 5 years since I was
messing with this.  But it has 3 distinct voltage levels for the sync
period, I just can't recall the actual levels.  Talk about a pain to do
tho...

1999\08\09@164408 by Nigel Goodwin

flavicon
picon face
In message <EraseME37AE472B.EB1CE217spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTearthlink.net>, Wagner Lipnharski
<wagnerlspamspam_OUTEARTHLINK.NET> writes
>With the actual very low price you can acquire a 14" SVGA monitor, does
>anybody already made a video decomposition / separation (colors, syncs,
>lum, chrom, and whatever it needs) to connect a composite video image
>(from a VCR for example) directly to a SVGA computer monitor?

It's not just a question of decoding the signal (you need RGB to feed a
VGA monitor), it also needs standards conversion, a VGA monitor runs at
twice the line and field speed of a TV (or higher).

>Or probably we will find it ready at the market, huh?

I have seen units available, but I can't vouch for the quality of them,
one solution if to use your PC with a TV card fitted?.

>I know that a SVGA monitor has a very nice image (think about 1024 x 768
>compared with a TV screen), so why not use it?

Because the TV signal doesn't have that much resolution, a TV tube has
the required resolution to match the signal, although a monitor may give
slightly improved pictures.
--

Nigel.

       /--------------------------------------------------------------\
       | Nigel Goodwin   | Internet : @spam@nigelgKILLspamspamlpilsley.demon.co.uk     |
       | Lower Pilsley   | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.demon.co.uk |
       | Chesterfield    | Official site for Shin Ki and New Spirit   |
       | England         |                 Ju Jitsu                   |
       \--------------------------------------------------------------/

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...