Same again, mine was a 100Hz model (CRT, obviously). Probably the only time I've ever felt I was in genuine danger moving a TV, even with two of us moving it. Being underneath that big bastard going upstairs was no fun. Pet hate: the way CRT sets always have sharp plastic edges on the underside that cut into your hands when you're trying to move them. You'd think someone would've thought during the design phase about where the TV would be held whilst being moved.
Well, I suppose people in the states didn't have much in the way of alternatives (S-Video aside, but I'm guessing not every TV had an S-Video socket?). For us in the UK, Composite was the horrible cable pretenting to be Scart because it always came with a Scart adaptor (few TVs had a dedicated Composite port at the time), convinced the average Joe that it was RGB Scart, when the rest of us knew better Pretty much every Scart-capable TV (read - almost any TV made in the past 20 years) had RGB-capable Scart, yet companies would always insist of forcing Composite on us because it was cheaper! We call it Composhite for a reason
S-Video is pretty decent on a nice CRT, actually. I play my Wondermega on my 27 or 30-something inch (I forget exactly how large it is) Daewoo CRT and it looks pretty much crystal clear. Probably not quite as good as RGB, but then I've never seen RGB on a screen this large, except maybe on a rear-projection arcade machine. I've played some other machines with S-Video and they didn't look quite as good. It must just be the Wondermega's magic.
In the US, for a long time you were lucky to even have Composite input. I remember only having RF input for a long time. Then only having RF or Composite. I never had a TV with S-Video. The first time I could use it was on a Gateway monitor that had TV inputs. Towards the end of the CRT era or maybe sooner on bigger TVs I do recall seeing Composite, S-Video, and Component. It's a real shame the European SCART standard wasn't adopted over here.
I think we all had RF only TVs for a while. Portables (e.g. 14"), even with SCART getting more popular mid-90s, still didn't have anything but RF often. You guys had the worst RF connector, though - those screw terminal things!
in the united states in the mid 90's to early 2000's the high end CRT tvs and expencive early flat screen tvs had RGB inputs knowen as " Component video " since the early 2000's when LCD tvs became popular Component video has been very very common
Continuing your streak of being wrong about everything, I see. RGB (as in SCART RGB) and component (YPbPr) are two different video signals and are not compatible - conversion needs to take place between the two.
the question was if we had a RGB input system in the americas not over witch is better component is still RGB just different then scart
if component doesn't provide a RGB signal then why are they labeled by having RED GREEN BLUE connector colors?
Since you're too fucking lazy to go to Wikipedia yourself: "YPBPR is converted from the RGB video signal, which is split into three components, Y, PB, and PR. * Y carries luma (brightness or luminance) and synchonization (sync) information. * PB carries the difference between blue and luma (B − Y). * PR carries the difference between red and luma (R − Y)." The colours of the cables are mostly irrelevant - simply there to indicate which cable goes where.
i NEVER said it was a direct RGB but this is intersting and stil means its RGB because it builds the green https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/YPbPr
It's not RGB, any more than RF is RGB because it "builds" green video. You were wrong, just be a man and admit it.
its uses the 3 primary colors to complete the color of the picture thats RGB how its dose it is just schematics unlike composite and s-video and RF where the video is sent all at once or already complete
It doesn't send green. It's not RGB, in either the technical or colloquial sense. I don't know of any more simplistic way of breaking this down for you.
it builds the green and then uses it to complete the color of the picture how is that not a technical sense?
your just arguing semantics it needs green to complete the picture it already has red and blue so it builds green and then uses the green to build and finish the color picture it uses the 3 primary colors to complete a picture thats RGB
