1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Scan Converters?

Discussion in 'Desktop & Laptop Computers Forum' started by jameson_uk, Apr 4, 2005.

  1. jameson_uk

    jameson_uk
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,707
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +579
    I have a Radeon 9200 and plugged everything in via a VGA => RGB scart cable but whilst the PQ was great in general, there was something wrong with the refresh rate and this makes it unusable on my TV. I have tried about 10k setting in powerstrip and now have to admit defeat that my TV (old 4:3 29" Sony CRT) is not up to the job. I can't afford a plasma or LCS screen :( but I am not happy with the quality of the S-Video connection.

    I was therefore considering two options:
    1 - Getting a scan converter. This seems to be about £180 and do the conversion between VGA and RGBS and has RGB Scart option. (I was looking ar the Corioscan CS-320 Connect)
    2 - Getting an x-card for RGB output to TV of MPEG files and then getting a tiny monitor to act as control for the rest of HTPC. I have seen a 7" touchscreen for about £180 which looks like it would do the job.

    As for (1) I have been told I can get one on a 7 day sale or return basis so I guess I have nothing to loose in trying it. With (2) I guess I loose the ability to output my shared pics on the TV (on of my reasons for having HTPC) so not ideal but if PQ is signigicantly improved then I suppose it would do.

    Any comments / experiences of scan converters ??
     
  2. JonMace

    JonMace
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +207
    Can't understand why you would want to spend £180 on getting a old 4:3 screen working it would not take a lot more cash to get a cheaper make WS 28" that should work with your system, worth looking onto anyway.
     
  3. jameson_uk

    jameson_uk
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,707
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +579
    When I had a DVD or cable box via RGB the actual PQ of the screen was great.

    Also a 28" 16:9 screen is a lot smaller than the current screen and I would not really want to go much smaller. If my maths is right, to get the same size 4:3 picture I would actually need a 35" 16:9 TV.

    I only really have max £250 to play with so a new TV is not an option
     
  4. JonMace

    JonMace
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +207
    It depends on if you are watching WS (a lot of TV is broadcast that way now and in the end it will all be). Your 4:3 27" has more area than a 28" WS but not veiwable area in WS
     
  5. JonMace

    JonMace
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +207
    I've been sitting trying to work out suare roots (stupidly) and just remembered the shere facts the size of a TV is the diaganale therefore by going to a 28" WS form a 27" 3:4 you will get a longer but shorter TV. It will give you a better and BIGGER picture the only time this is different can be with PJ screens
     
  6. SeanT

    SeanT
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    6,126
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Coventry
    Ratings:
    +371
    Not true, the further you go from a square image the less screen area (and therefore size) you get for a given diagonal.
    In the example you have used, the 28 inch widescreen has an area of 335 sq inches, and the 27 inch 4:3 350 :oops:

    P.S. a 27 inch square grows to 365, and a 27 inch widescreen would be only 311! - ergo, more than happy with my 26 inch 15:9 set once it is setup and scaled properly - you are right about everyone going widescreen though as it is more watchable :)
     
  7. MikeFish

    MikeFish
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    He actually said his old TV was 29" not 27".
     
  8. jameson_uk

    jameson_uk
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,707
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +579
    Yeah spent a while trying to figure it out but I think a 29" 4:3 which is what I have has 403 sq inches which is about 20% more screen area that a 28" WS set (the actual true dimensions are all going to be less this is about right)

    Point taken about most stuff being in WS though as I guess I loose a load of the screen anyway. I have just sat down and worked it out I think :confused: and I reckon @ 16:9 my actual picture size would be 302 sq inches so yes a 28" WS set would actual give me a bigger picture for WS stuff.

    This however does not address the issue that I only have max £250 to spend and in order to even get a 28" WS TV with as good PQ as my current TV, I am going to have to spend more than this.

    :lease: anyone actually got a respone to the original question :lease:
     
  9. JonMace

    JonMace
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +207

    Sorry that what I was trying to say in my round about way
     

Share This Page

Loading...