From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Under USE it states "In many European Union countries, S-Video is less common because of the dominance of SCART" This is factually incorrect, almost all SVHS machines were supplied equipped with S-Video sockets in addition to SCART. In fact I have never seen an SVHS machine without s-video socket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


"no console ever came with an RGB SCART cable packed in (it had to be purchased separately) generally coming with RF adapters at first"

French guy here - my consoles definitely nearly always came with a SCART cable as the default in the box (I bought an Atari 7600, Sega SC3000, Nintendo NES, Sega Master System, Sega Mega Drive, Sega Saturn, and Sega Dreamcast; all of those came with a SCART cables outputting true RGB (sidenote, the NES is an odd one, but that's another story)). Exceptions I bought were the PS1 (composite, w/ scart "adapter" (composite over the comp scart pin)), N64 (composite, don't remember if there was an adapter) and Xbox (composite cable w/ scart "adapter"). I still have these pieces of hardware at home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I'd say we request a lock. Please don't violate the 3 revert rule!

Page protection isn't necessary as I've temporarily blocked the user committing the vandalism. The three-revert rule doesn't apply to simple vandalism. --David Iberri | Talk 23:47, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I made a bet with my friend - in S-video the S stands for Super video, or Serial video??

I've never heard it called serial video, though the term super video is pretty common. However, both are incorrect, I believe. Some googling reveals that the S stands for separated [1] [2] [3] [4]. You might have better luck asking the folks at the reference desk. --David Iberri | Talk 00:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

S-Video certainly does stand for "separated video". Y/C is not a "serial" or packet transmission protocol. The erroneous term "super video" came from S-Video's early association with "Super VHS" (S-VHS), though S-Video and S-VHS really have nothing to do with each other. --Mark Rizo 07:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Y/C ?[edit]


Does anybody know what Y/C stands for in terms of SVHS? I was asked the question in an interview for a job at a Film and Video Archive today. I thought it was a trick question. Any ideas?

Y/C stands for Luminance and Chrominance. S-VHS is super VHS, a higher resolution compared to standard VHS. A S-VHS device will have an S-Video connector (separated video) where the normally composite (combined) video signal is split into its luminance and chrominance portions - hence the Y/C terminology. Luminance is the monochrome parts of the video signal, and chrominance is the color parts. Separating them reduces crosstalk, especially in the chrominance. For example if you see a "rainbow" in a striped pattern on-screen in composite video signal - switching to s-video should significantly reduce this effect.
A few corrections-- First off, the "normal" state of a video signal inside a (S)VHS VCR is separated out of necessity. The signal is split prior to recording. The S-video connector keeps the Y and C portions separate, which is desirable when dubbing to another S-VHS machine. Second, "luminance" is not interchangeable with "monochrome". Monochrome is "black and white" that never had the capacity for color. Any "rainbow" or other undesirable effects aren't necessarily a function of the connector either. I'd suspect the signal processing circuits first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

S Video output from laptop to Coaxial port TV input[edit]

Can it be possible to have an S Video output from the laptop and send the signal to Coaxial Cable input port of a TV. Can it help solve the proble of B&W signals being recieved on TV from the laptop in case of normal S Video connection that is done?


Quick answer = Yes. is the definitive source for everything S-Video. The solution is at

Long Explantion: Co-ax is composite (or combined) video whereas S-Video is separated video (loosely referred to as component video by some - though not true component video like RGB connections). S-Video is a 4-wire connection with Luminance and Chrominance on 2 separate wires. Composite (standard coax) is single conductor carrying both luminance and chrominance.

But you can mix the svideo signals with a small capacitor to get a composite output

If you mean coax as in cable tv coax, you'd need a RF modulator, as in the packaged referenced above. If you see a b&w picture with normal S-Video, either the cable's broken or your laptop settings are incorrect. - mako 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete image (now in Commons)[edit]


I copied the image: SVideoConnector.jpg to Commons to use it in other languages, so the one hosted in this Wikipedia can be deleted, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemente (talkcontribs) Revision as of 22:09, 21 October 2005

Procedure for deleting is to place Template:Redundant image on wikiP image file. Then will get deleted in due course. I fixed up the licensing as was {PD}, which is NOT GOOD enough by itself. // FrankB 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is s-video hot swapable?[edit]

I am looking to buy a DVD player (Philips DVP642), and while I don't have component on my TV I do have an S-video in. I've been playing things via my video card which has an S-video output as well. Will playing a DVD be as simple as swapping the cable from the computer to the DVD player? Can I hot swap it, or will that be a problem?

Thanks, JoeSmack [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, video is inherently hot-swappable. It's just a signal. - mako 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Be careful with that advice. The fact that the cable carries just a signal does not necessarily make it hot swappable. In the case of S-Video, the operating voltages are low enough that it is hot swapable. However, there are many examples of signal carrying connectors that are not hot swapable. The parallel printer interface is certianly not. RS-232 is alleged to be, but practice dictates otherwise. The serial bus interface on the Commodore 64 range of computers was guaranteed to be damaged if you even though about hot swaping it (well almost!). I B Wright 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


1) Can you provide an pinout of the s-video cable pins? Every article on cable standards should be required to have a pinout. 2) Who developed the s-video standard? Thanks. 3. Is there any audio going through a S-Video connection? Or is it only video. Thanks

Can you connect the Laptop to the TV using the S-Video[edit]

I have a s-video cable a TV s-video compatible and a laptop which has a S-Video port. I tried connecting the laptop to the TV using the svideo cable, but it doesnt seem to work! Am I missing out on something?

See the instructional video and information at

Depending on your video card drivers, you may need to enable TV-out. Detailed instructions are at

On some laptops there is an fn-key to toggle it (see detailed instructions). In general, you should be able to find it in your computer's display settings. If you are unable to find it, look at your video card's manual. -- 17:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RCA to S-Video[edit]

Does anyone know how to convert the standard RCA audio and video into an s-video connection that would go into a computer video card or digital video recorder (for instance)? rollerdad

Which standard? Y/C? CVBS? RGB? RGBS? RBGHV? YCbCr? Or something more exotic? :-) Note that S-Video does not carry audio, so the audio adaptor will be usually be seperate (although the C64 had a DIN connector which carried CVBS, S-Video (Y/C) and audio simultaneously).
There are also multiple connectro standards for S-Video, although the mini DIN (Hosiden) connector is most popular nowadays. S-Video via two RCA connectors was popular (sort of) in the late 70s. --Klaws 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Erm, I forgot to ask about the audio standard. Analog audio typically uses one RCA plug per channel, while the different digital audio standards allow for mutiple audio channels per RCA plug. I also have some devices here which use analog frequency multiplexed audio to transport 100+ channels of audio over a single RCA connector. --Klaws 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

S-Video widescreen laptop output[edit]

I want to play 4:3 video off a widescreen laptop through the S-Video output. What will the output dimension of the video be?

The aspect ratio (such as standard 4:3 and wide-screen 16:9) of the video played is not changed merely by playing the video on a screen with a different aspect ratio. If you play a video that has a 4:3 aspect ratio on a TV that has a 4:3 aspect ratio you will get a video in 4:3 aspect ratio that fills the same space as the original video. However, some edges of the original video may not be completely visible on the TV due to the way the TV may display the original video.

If you play a video that was recorded on a 4:3 aspect ratio (such as with non-widescreen camcorders) on a wide-screen (16:9 aspect ratio) TV, LCD or HDTV the video will play in a "pillar-box"; that is, there will be two vertical bars on the edges of the video. The video may also look a little stretched on the vertical axis (top/down) giving people a slight cone-head appearance. This can usually be compensated if the TV has manual adjustments for the aspect ratio. If it does, then the video will play on a "window-box" - that is, there will be two vertical and two horizontal boxes around the video.

If you play a wide-screen (16:9 aspect ratio) video on a 4:3 aspect ratio TV the people will look stretched on the horizontal axis; basically, they will look fatter than they would normally appear; circles will be stretched on the horizontal plane and will look like ovals. This may also be able to be somewhat compensated by the changing the settings on the TV or projector, though not all TVs or projectors allow you to compensate for the aspect ratio of the incoming signal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svideo (talkcontribs) 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

S-VIDEO is there any version like PAL NTSC or SECAM?[edit]

I would like to know if any standards are there for S-VIDEO specific to PAL, NTSC or SECAM? Can I connect S-video output of any DVD player into TVs with S-Video input of TVs that support any of the standards (NTSC, PAL or SECAM)

Looking for an answer

Sridhar S

In general, it is not possible to connect devices with different color standards via a S-Video cable (and have it working). For example, an NTSC video player will not produce a usable picture on a PAL TV. However, there are a few models of both players and TVs which can perform color standard converion on the fly. --Klaws 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hosiden AV connector MERGEINTO S-Video proposal[edit]

Nomination w/o comment by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeyhagedorn (talkcontribs) Revision as of 07:46, 10 May 2006 .

Oppose — an A/V connector type used in a video transmission protocol, even the one that birthed it, is mixing apples with oranges. While S-video is the normal use of the Hosiden connector, I have also seen it used in other four pin low power applications (e.g. An optomitrists lamp for examining the retina, X-ray security equipment in airports) simply because it is small, compact, and easily obtainable in a variety of PCB edge mounted configurations. FrankB 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this S-Video article is not the correct article to merge the Hosiden connector with, but I feel there is some confusion among what should belong in each of the DIN_Connector, S-Video, and Hosiden articles. It appears that the content of the Hosiden article speaks specifically about the connector's application to the S-Video protocol, (except for the links section), while it should contain information about the physical connector and it's possible application. I have personally seen this connector type on many devices for a variety of applications, including the Apple_Desktop_Bus, power, and A/V applications--and feel there should be a clear explanation of this, connector vs. protocols commonly carried on the connector. Would it be reasonable to merge the Hosiden article in to the mini-DIN section of the DIN_Connector article? Or should the content of that section be moved to the Hosiden article? It is not clear to me what is the proper name for the connector, personally I have found mini-DIN to be the "correct" and popular name for the connector, though this could be specific to my geographic location in the United States—. Joeyhagedorn (talk) May 29, 2006, 21:23 (UTC)

  • Okay -- see your point; assuming you can find a DIN standard, and cite that and apply it to the Hosiden article, it would be fine to move into the DIN article. But! Then you create a case for a disambigulation about the Hosiden use. The connector was initially introduced and used for s-video on the old laser disk and early cam-corders and intermediate high definition televisions in the USA market at least; I believe the PAL video standard in Europe is closer to THAT IHDTV resolution aimed at here in the US in the later 80's, but don't know that for sure. I've been away from that area of tech for a while, and would have to research to be sure, but the IHDTV's, iirc, were about 150% denser, or about 330-380 scanlines is IHDTV, which is nothing compared to today's plasma screen tech, etcetera. The US standard is archaic because of the need to maintain backwards compatibility to the original 1920's broadcast standard.
OTHO, I'm not really happy with this statement from the Hosiden article: It may also be referred to as a mini DIN. It's either a DIN, covered by one of the DIN standards, or it isn't. My objections to the merge were twofold: (1) The Japanese certainly used the connector first (2) is that I see no problem with short articles, especially on something specific. I'm very unmergest, in the belief the more keywords we have, and more articles we have with content, the better in this day and age of pre-parsed, keyword driven search engines like google. Note the engine may also find the sought for keyword in the article, not just the title as in a redirect; so I merge less than many.
In the end, the folks updating and interested in these articles need to do the research and pull together the right thing to do. I just sort of happened by, and now that I've relooked at the Hoisden article, I have to admit it's pretty sparce. Perhaps the thing would be to add more 'meat' there as to other uses you've seen for the connector. I can tell you after thirty years in electronics, a connector that meets space and power requirements and is widely used will tend to become even wider used (e.g. RCA jack), solely on the basis, that it's mass produced and cheaper, therefore specified even more... A positive feedback effect of sorts, within limits because of economics fact. Listing all such protocol's used for such is a daunting task, you'd have to start with the DC task I cited (Optician's headlamp), and are bound to miss proprietary uses. I'd stick to a handful of widely produced, and focus on the versatility, vice the specifics. Best regards, FrankB 00:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support — As it stands, with the exception of the 1st sentence, Hosiden talks only about the connector's application in S-Video. And so, content-wise, these two articles are duplicates.

compromise proposed[edit]

That said, the physical Hosiden connectors are equivalent to mini-DIN connectors and "Hosiden" is the name of a Japanese manufacturer.

So my take is that the Hosiden article is completely wrong. Instead the content of the Hosiden article (as it is now) should be merged with S-Video (though aside from the graphic I don't see any new information), a Hosiden Connector article should be created and redirected to mini-DIN and Hosiden should be either deleted, or changed to an stub on the company.

How's that for a solution? Mobius 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this proposed solution makes more sense than a merge. The first step is creating a good mini-DIN article (I think we should examine the DIN standards on the connector-- I've yet to find them). Is it agreed that it will be best to remove the Merge template and instead rectify the matter in a way similar to what Mobius suggested above? -- Joeyhagedorn (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I can endorse that plan. T'would be a good idea to tie both DIN articles with a cross-reference or three on IEEE standards that overlap these connectors here in the USA and maybe drop a note on the Japan Projects page that you're doing this, so their information can be cross correlated as well. Educational all around, and could turn out to be a decently useful reference to someone doing a design in a hurry— or someone like myself that tinkers and wants to modify something.
I left a coresponding note on that Talk:Hosiden. One caveat... someone needs to check the naming conventions on things like Mini-DIN connector, Hosiden connector. I've a feeling the guidelines suggested name may well be Hosiden (connector) like 1632 (novel) or Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan (fictional character) and many other such examples. Best of luck! // FrankB 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

7-pin S-video[edit]

Can we have some description about the 7-pin s-Video?

There are many different configurations of a 7-pin connector that can fit in a circular "mini-DIN" connector. On laptops, and on many graphic cards on desktop computers, the most common configuration of the 7-pins is three pins on top, 4-pins in the middle and a rectangular "key" on the bottom, as illustrated at

There is some information on the net that states that the 7 pin s-video connector is not a 'standard' mini DIN connector; however, there is an "accepted" 7-pin mini-DIN connector and many other different configurations, among them the most common configuration mentioned above. The 7-pin S-Video output connector on laptops provides many different ways of sending the S-Video signal and/or the composite video signal and/or the digital audio signal. The actual signal or signals that may be output through the 7-pin mini-DIN connector will depend on the what the graphics card supports; some just support S-video, others S-Video and Composite Video, others just composite video and others all three, S-Video, composite video and digital audio.

The 7-pin is deliberately designed to accept the standard 4 mini pin DIN connector as commonly used for S-Video connections; however, since there is some slight variation in the manufacture of a 4-pin S-Video connector, the pins may not line-up exactly to match the 7-pin connectors, resulting in bent and broken pins. In addition, there are many 4-pin S-Video connectors that have a rectangular "key" that will not properly fit the 7-pin connector, thus resulting in broken keys and thus a flimsy connection. The ideal connection is to use a 7-pin to 4-pin adapter, as illustrated at The advantage of using this adapter is that the outer mold of the adapter that mates to a laptop's 7-pin socket is just wide enough to fit into the 7-pin socket. Another advantage of using a 7 to 4-pin adapter is that is serves as a "port-saver."

In addition composite (CVBS) video is available from one of the other 3 pins and can be accessed by a suitable mating connector.  The key in the 7 pin socket is designed to accept both 4 and 7 pin plugs.  However, the key in the 7 pin plug is designed to prevent the plug from being inserted in a 4 pin socket (though as ever, extreme force will override the key) and will also result in breaking some of the pins.   The presence of a 7 pin socket on a graphic card (or laptop) does not guarantee that CVBS video is, in fact, available. (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC).  However, there are adapters that take the 7-pin S-Video connector and convert the signal to Composite Video on an RCA connector, usually color-coded yellow.  Such adapters are illustrated at

Max/Recommended Length?[edit]

What about the max/recommended length of cable to carry a S-video ? Jeff schiller 00:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues that can develop when running long lengths of cable. A safe length for S-Video is 150ft. This length is subject to signal strength from the source unit and being run in an area that is relatively free from interference.

If you need to increase this length, you can use a device called an S-Video Balun. The S-Video Balun is a stand alone device that transforms a single S-Video channel to and from CAT-5 twisted pair cabling. CAT-5 cable is much cheaper than S-Video and can be run up to a maximum of 500 ft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact the useable maximum length depends very much on the quality of the cabling used. The type of cable found on S-video cables included with most consumer equipment is good for a few metres at most. The series inductance and shunt capacitance (mainly the latter) soon causes the video signal to 'drag' and results in a display where the details appear to tail to the right. If you were able to fit a plug onto a pair of ultra low loss 75 ohm co-axial cables (which are each about 4 centimetres in diameter!) the signal could easily be transmitted over several hundred metres. (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Monochrome - color missing[edit]

There have been questions about laptops but I have a S-Video output on my PC and an input on my TV so I tried connecting them but it doesn't work. What do I need to do to make it work?

Never mind about that. I got it to work but it's not in color. What should I do to fix it?

RTFM. This is an article discussion board not a help desk. 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of this question deserve to be clearly delineated in the article (in a way that non-tech readers are likely to understand). The basic S-Video cable carries two signals. If only one is working, for whatever reason, you may see a monochrome image. Apparently, some people sometimes use this odd possibility on purpose, when they WANT to convert an image to black-and-white greyscale. *** Beyond that basic matter, there is 4-pin vs. 7-pin S-Video. It is apparently usually OK to plug a 4-pin male into a 7-pin female, but not vice-versa. However, it seems that many laptops have "proprietary" non-standard S-Video-ish sockets, that may look completely normal -- but produce unpredictable results. So, only studying the tech specs for the laptop will answer. - (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Connector picture?[edit]

What happened to the picture of the connector? It seems to have been removed. - 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Who made s-video and when did it become a standard?[edit]

Who made s-video and when did it become a standard? 04:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 10:21 pm 3-2-07.

The following comment is wrong: "S-video has always existed. S-video signals must exist before the signals are combined to transmit composite video. So the answer must be whowever developed the original NTSC colour system. 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)"

S-video as a connector came out in 1987-88 when JVC S-VHS machines were launched as it became apparent that the composite video signal was inadequate in resolution to allow the full 420 lines of S-VHS to be transferred from one machine to another. --Quatermass (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Note, the preceding comment is also wrong. It is not correct to state that "the composite video signal was inadequate in resolution." In fact, composite video and S-Video have the same resolution, the difference is that in S-Video, the brightness and color signals are delivered separately to a TV that supports S-Video. When the brightness and color information is delivered separately, the TV does not have to separate the composite (combined brightness and color signals) and thus it reduces a processing step that the TV has to do when it has to separate the brightness and color signals from "composite" signal. When the TV separates the brightness and color signals on the composite video signal, there are some video artifacts that may be visible on the TV screen. Those video artifacts may be in the form of a little dots that appear to be crawling on the edges of contrasting colors and are commonly known as "dot-crawl". Dot-crawl was really not a big deal for about 40 years - most baby-boomers grew up with your regular standard definition "square" TV and probably never noticed the dot-crawl. The main reason that they never noticed the dot-crawl is that our eyes are part of the "resolution equation" and the dot-crawl is really not visible when the TV is seen at about the distance that it was meant to be seen, at a 4-to-1 ratio, the one (1) being about the horizontal size of the screen and the four (4) about four times the horizontal size. At that distance, most people will not notice the dot-crawl, and if they did notice it, our brain can quickly adjust to the dot-crawl and thus basically ignore it. The advantage of S-video is that the TV that supports S-Video will not have the "dot-crawl" video artifacts and thus the TV will look "sharper" and "brighter" than comparing it with just a composite video signal.

The S-Video connector was developed by Mogami and JVC for the JVC video equipment that began to support S-Video.

S-video connectors existed long before S-VHS. We used them when we were developing the educational variant of the Philips N-1500 VCR video system. (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The Philips N1500 was a 3/4" U-matic machine. It did not have a S-video in any way, shape or form!
The N1500 was not a U-matic machine. It was a VCR system machine. Neither the N1500, nor any of its Philips derivatives' featured an S-Video input or output. However as stated: Thorn-AEI under its Ferguson branding marketed a version of the N1500 that did not feature any of the RF circuitry (it was actually built around a N1500 chassis - though the supplied Philips chassis was heavily modified by Thorn). This machine was available only to the education market and had to be used in conjunction with a companion Ferguson 'school' television set. The connection between the TV and the video recorder was S-video (using 270° 5-pin DIN connectors). Exactly why Thorn chose to use S-video connection is a minor mystery as the very restricted bandwidth of these early machines would completely fail to take advantage of it. (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

S-Video is not a connector[edit]

The second paragraph in the introduction starts: "S-Video is only one of several types of Y/C video connectors, but it is, by far, the most common." This implies that S-Video is a connector, which is false. S-Video is a video format. The most common type of connector that is being referred to is a 4-pin mini-DIN connector. I will change the text to reflect this. Snottywong 12:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ: S-Video is only one type of connector for Y/C signal transmission, though it is certainly the most popular. It would be more appropriate if the article was titled "Y/C" or "component Y/C". I have used Y/C for nearly 20 years, and I assure you there is no electrical signal difference between Y/C via S-Video and Y/C via dual BNC, dual RCA, 7-pin "dub", or any other Y/C variant. S-Video is just one type of connector for Y/C signals, just as composite video signals are transmitted via different connectors, e.g. BNC, RCA, 1/4 inch patch cables, etc. --Mark Rizo 06:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The mini 4 pin connector is almost universally refered to as a 'S-Video' connector, regardless of any technical irregularity in the nomenclature. You are strictly correct that it is not the only way of connecting a S-Video signal, but there you go. 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The first contributor was in fact entirely correct. S-video is a signal format. Although the connector is frequently referred to a S-video connector, this is in fact incorrect as the connector format is just one of a series available in mini-DIN format. It is used for numerous other purposes entirely unrelated to video. (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

midi-DIN 9??[edit]

I just came across an ati Radeon 9200 graphics adapter that has a miniDIN 9 s-video connector. Can someone add info on that to this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Are you sure there are 9 pins? I have a Radeon 9200 video card and mine only has 7 pins. 7 pin connectors are discussed in the article. 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a Radeon 9200 and a GeForce 6800 and an ATI TV Wonder Pro, all of which have a miniDIN 9 female port (only the cables for the 6800 actually have a male 9-pin connector, the rest use a 7 pin which is compatible with the female miniDIN 9) (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The pinout diagrams for the 9-pin connector are confusing because there are no numbers shown next to the pins. Are better diagrams available? Also, does ATI use the first or second example? The text is confusing because it talks about the first example twice and doesn't refer to the second. I now see there is mention of this issue under the "nVidia 9-pin" topic below. Thanks Stuart H. Alden (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not impossible that the card manufacturers use 9 pin connectors when they can't source the 7 pin version. As both are actually non standard (but officially sanctioned) mini-DIN connectors, they may be harder to source. (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

S-video no picture[edit]

I connected my home theater to my TV using s-video connector. Now my satellite decoder is connected to my Home theater with regular composite cables. I've not tried watching a dvd but I want to know why I can only get satellite audio and no video. I had to connect a video out from Home theatre to TV to get a picture.

Saris limited 09:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Sari

This is not a support board, it's for discussing the article --I hate to register 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

S-Video resolution[edit]

The article says "carries high-bandwidth 480i or 576i resolution video, i.e. standard definition video" but the S-Video signal only contains 120 lines (as it said in the article "For NTSC S-video's color resolution is typically 120 lines"). What's right? Can it be explained more clearly? --I hate to register 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on this one. I think the contributor is actually trying to make two points but has confused the two. I aim to reword it. 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The S-video signal carries 525 or 625 lines, exactly the same as composite (CVBS) video. However, because the colour and luminance are separated, the luminance channel is able to have a greater bandwidth as no filter is required to eliminate the chrominance signal. Thus S-video is a higher definition than composite (though nowhere near what we now term 'High Definition'!) (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You're mixing dimensions. 486i is the up-and-down resolution (there are 486 visible scanlines). The 120 number is the left-right resolution (how many chroma pixels can fit inside an imaginary square, counting left to right). The reason they are called lines instead of pixels is because the eyechart that is used for testing is a series of black lines on a white background. - Theaveng 20:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in the analog domain, they are called 'line pairs'. Each pair consisting of a black and white line of equal width. A pair corresponds to one cycle of a sine wave, which is how the line pair will be resolved when they correspond to the limit of the video bandwidth. Since S-video is an analog signal, the chrominance component (or indeed the luminance) does not consist of 'pixels'. (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The 120 lines is referring to the the Chroma or colour aspect of the S-video signal which is much lower in resolution that the Luminance which is 420 lines. --Quatermass (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Technical error re Luminance Bandwidth[edit]

In the Overview section it says "In composite video, the luminance signal is low-pass filtered to prevent crosstalk between high-frequency luminance information and the color subcarrier" which I believe is factually wrong. In all three broadcast systems (NTSC, PAL, SECAM) the color (burst) signal is multiplexed in time with the luminance signal so that there is no reason the luminance signal cannot use the full bandwidth of the channel. (VCR recording is a totally different issue.) GS3 08:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is filtered. The colour burst may well occupy a non visible part of the video timing, but the chrominance information for the colour of the actual picture is time coincident with the luminance information and thus within the visible picture (otherwise there would be no colour!). The filtering is not perfect and the roll off does encroach into the chrominance space, so pronounced high frequency patterns (such as patterns on a presenter's suit) still produce a visible colour fringing effect, however it is not as serious as it would be if the filtering wasn't present. 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur that the notion that some sort of frequency division multiplexing is used for composite video is false and baseless. This is no doubt based on a poor understanding of how chrominance information is quadrature modulated with luminance information. Claims about "quality" and the assertion that "luminance and chrominance information in composite video therefore have to be low-pass filtered else crosstalk between high-frequency luminance information and the colour subcarrier will lead to unwanted video artifacts patterning when viewed" and the claim about "dot crawl" are patently false.
In truth there is no continuous wave chroma subcarrier signal in composite video. Only an 8-11 cycle "color burst" that occurs just prior to the "front porch" portion of each video line for NTSC (I can only speak authoritatively about NTSC).
The only limitation to bandwidth (in the frequency domain) is that of the electrical circuitry. At the time when S-video was created, baseband video bandwidths of 10MHz from the camera was not uncommon. And the highest quality video recorders were 1" Type C "direct color" (meaning that the recorder uses a composite video signal throughout) units. However the FCC rules governing NTSC television broadcasting in the US limited the visual bandwidth to 4.2 MHz (about 330 TV lines) in order to fit into the 6MHz allotted channel space.
There are a variety of technical reasons for why component video was used between 3-tube cameras and recording or broadcasting, and for editing. None of those reasons are germane to the S-video page however.
The S-video system was designed specifically for the VHS system of "color-under" video recording. Its only true benefit was for dubbing between S-VHS machines, especially for editing. Although some television monitors were equipped with S-video ports for the sake of convenience, the monitors themselves received no intrinsic benefit from getting input video in S-video form. But because the luminance and chrominance signals must be separated as part of the chain that reconverts the signal to its RGB components for display, adding a S-video port was cheap to implement.
S-video is predicated by the necessity of color-under (a.k.a. heterodyne) recording in inexpensive video tape recording technologies such as VHS, Betamax, U-matic and Hi-8. The name "color-under" comes from the fact that in order to record color video, the chroma portion must be relocated onto a subcarrier that is lower in frequency, or "beneath" the luminance carrier frequency, when the baseband video is RF modulated for recording. (Analog video signals require periods of direct current, which precludes the recording of a raw baseband signal to tape directly.) Because the subcarrier was bandwidth-limited, this severely cut down on chrominance bandwidth, and therefore resolution.
Long before S-video ever existed, certain 3/4" U-matic machines featured a port officially called "Y/C 688" (but better known simply as "DUB"), with a 7-pin full-sized DIN connector and specialized cable. Dub connectors did not demodulate the chroma from its RF subcarrier, and therefore was not compatible with S-video. It also carried other signals that were useful for dubbing and editing. S-video is undoubtedly based on the Sony Y/C 688 interconnect.

[1] (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Speed Daemon


7 pin mini-DIN[edit]

The 7-pin drawing shows uneven pin hole spacing. The row of 3 holes is evenly spaced, the row of 4 holes is asymmetrical. The 7-pin socket photo matches this, but is left-right reversed. This visual mis-match leads to confusion, although if one is male and one is female it is correct. It would be less confusing to get matching images, or add more images. - (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The photo is of a socket (female), the diagram is supposed to be the connector on a cable (male). The images themselves aren't wrong, confusion stems from there being no caption on the diagram. Gh5046 (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The diagram was originally created for the Mini-DIN connector article, where there were already a series of diagrams, all of the male connector as viewed when unplugged. A caption has now been added I see, similar to the note I put on the connector article, which should make this plain.
But it is confusing... if you look at the image history, I got it wrong myself first time around. It was only when I looked at my own laptop that I realised my mistake. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

S means Super or Separate?[edit]

The article used to be telling it means 'separate video (erroneously super video)'. The parenthetical remark was removed here, and now an anon changed 'separate' into 'super'. Some quick googling did not give any support for the claim it means 'Separate', so I'll leave it at the present state and add a reference. Han-Kwang (t) 09:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, back when the ONLY product that used an "S-Video" jack was an S-VHS VCR, it (in the JVC S-VHS decks manuals) referred (as well as many products around the late 80's/early 90's) to the jack as a S-VHS jack, not S-video. S-video came into play once S-VHS failed to gain popularity and DVD, videogames and other devices started using the S-VHS jack since it was the best until component. The "S" in S-video stood for super as in SUPER-VHS, originally.

I hate revisionist history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Back in the late Eighties in the UK all S-video connectors were referred to as S-VHS connectors or Super-video plugs. They were never called Separate-video. Composite video was too poor in quality and RGB too expensive to implement so JVC invented a compromise. --Quatermass (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Both S-video and the term 'S-video' existed long before S-VHS. However, I will grant that the term 'S-video' was less comonly applied. (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No, S-video coincided with the release of S-VHS, and was not available on standard (not even "HQ") VHS machines. Although Sony's Y/C system for U-matic predated S-video, it was not S-video itself. (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Speed Daemon
Not correct. S-Video existed long before S-VHS. Indeed the British Radio Corporation under its Ferguson brand manufactured VCR video recorders in 1974 (based on the chassis of the Philips N1500 machine) for the educational market. The interface between the recorder (which did not have a tuner) and the television set was via an S-Video link even though there was no technical advantage to using it. (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Y/C picture is WRONG[edit]

It shows that the subcarrier for Y shares a portion of the band with C. The frequency band of Y should not interfere with the one for C, as they are separate signals.

The rayed orange grey shading is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


There's presumably sync signals in amongst all this, like there is in AFAIK every other video signal format; I had originally been under the impression that S-Video has a dedicated sync line (or lines!) due to the 4 pins+shell, but then seeing the pinout there, it appears the only signal lines are luminance and chrominance. So where's the sync signals? I can see no mention in the article. Mixed with Y? With C? Copies in both? Separated with H in one and V in the other? Something else entirely? (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for structure of these type of Topics[edit]

It may be helpful to users if the main function of the described item was stated first.

eg. S-Video is used mainly as a connection between a computer and a television for the transmission of a video signal.

I was well into this article - with eyes starting to glaze - before this information was given. (The main reason I looked up S-Video was that I did not know what it was!)

I guess this artice was written by a Techie - Thats OK, but the readers are not all Techies. Simple stuff first please - more involved explanations later in article.

Now I am going to look up Brain Surgery and maybe Rocket Science too.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nvidia (Geforce)9 pin Video In Video Out[edit]

This article states there are two PIN layouts then only lists one. Personally I am trying to determine Nvidia is different from ATI. There should at least be a blurb about the second layout. I.e. It is different and is used by X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Most Common on Laptops?[edit]

"The S-Video connector is the most common video-out connector on laptop computers; however, many devices with S-Video outputs also have composite outputs."

If this was ever true, it was in the past. This should be updated as I would say VGA is the most common nowadays, although even that is becoming a little aged. Certainly having inspected around 15 laptops today, everyone of them has VGA and none have S-Video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this user-- the article also says:
"however S-Video keeps being a very popular choice in mid range models and the most common "TV-out" in Laptop computers."
This information is likely outdated, however I don't have the sources to support changing the article. I think it is more common for modern laptops to have HDMI or DisplayPort. Perhaps it could be worded differently? I still have many machines in production environments with s-video outputs, but (for example) I haven't seen a new business HP laptop with an s-video output since about 2005. Any suggestions? Kedickey (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Info Purge[edit]

I've removed the below section, as none of it was sourced and the article has been tagged for months. Doniago (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And I've reverted it because, as you may look at the bottom where their is refrences, it has the sources. Just not in an obvious way. Thank you. BTW, the refrences in question are in the dictionary, as you can see. Hinata talk 13:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I've added an inline tag to the article, as the sourcing should be made more clear. Doniago (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
And I have removed the inline tag. In spite of your persistent vandalism (See WP:BLANKING), material is permitted to stand without citation if it is common knowledge or is generally accepted by concensus (i.e. if nobody challenges it). Persistent tag bombing has become a particular nuisance in Wikipedia with editors tagging anything that is otherwise uncited (even if it plain obvious). Generally, only if you find something that is contentious, or that you believe may be inaccurate, should a 'citation needed' tag be added. It is courtesy to add a suitable comment to the discussion page so that others may voice an opinion and a concensus be arrived at as to whether the material stands. The author may, of course, head off a concensus by providing an acceptable citaion. The tag at the head of an article is generally to be used for articles where the entire material is contentious or dubious.
There is countless material on Wikipedia that is uncited (and even the odd entire article), however, the material in this article has been accepted by all that have read it. Wikipedia allows such material to stand.
I notice that another editor removed the entire section on the 7 pin (and 9 pin) connector used on computer graphic systems claiming it was unsourced. Whilst it was becoming clear that that the pin out for the composite signal was far from standard, the existence of the connectors is common knowledge and it was thus wrong to delete the section in toto. The section may well have benefited from a re-write to highlight the non existence of a standard pin out. Without a citation, such a section would be most likely accepted by concensus, at least by the serious readers and editors. (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
An inline tag was perfectly appropriate in this case, and no other editor has contested it to this point. It is highly inappropriate to refer to an editor's contributions as Vandalism without clear evidence that they are intentionally being disruptive; please review WP:AGF. Removing material is challenging it by default; I'm unclear on why you are claiming the material is unchallenged at that point. For the record, I personally don't generally remove information unless it has already been tagged for lacking sourcing for at least 30 days and generally much longer.
Because something is "obvious" or "common knowledge" does not mean it doesn't require sourcing. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Given the technical nature of this article it would seem material here is especially prone to requiring verification from a reliable source.
I would like more information regarding how you have determined that "the material in this article has been accepted by all that have read it."
Additionally, WP:BLANKING does not apply here; that policy is for User Talk pages, not articles.
Then you have not read all of the policy. It certainly does apply to articles which is why Wikipedia has a template to cover the point for placing on user talk pages. In case you missed it it looks like this:

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to S-video, you will be blocked from editing.

Please do not remove tags that remain applicable to an article nor accuse editors of vandalism for removing unsourced information from an article that has been marked for needing sourcing for several months - they are within their rights to do this. Please -do- make more of an effort to assume good faith. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You do not have the right remove content that was present in the article unchallenged (and virtually altered apart from the periodic addition of yet another variation of the pin out. (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


The luminance (Y; gray-scale) signal and modulated chrominance (C; color) information are carried on separate, synchronised signal and ground pairs.

In composite video, the luminance signal is low-pass filtered to prevent crosstalk between high-frequency luminance information and the color subcarrier. S-Video maintains the two as separate signals, so that detrimental low-pass filtering is unnecessary. This increases bandwidth for the luminance information, and also subdues the color crosstalk problem. The infamous dot crawl is eliminated. This means that S-Video leaves more information from the original video intact; thus, it offers an improved image reproduction compared to composite video.

Due to the separation of the video into brightness and color components, S-Video is sometimes considered a type of component video signal; however, it is also the poorest, quality-wise, being far surpassed by the more complex component video schemes, such as RGB. What distinguishes S-Video from these better component-video schemes is that S-Video carries the color information as one signal. This means that the color has to be encoded in some way, and as such, NTSC, PAL, and SECAM signals are all decidedly different through S-Video. Thus, for full compatibility, the connected devices not only have to be S-Video compatible, but also compatible in terms of color encoding. In addition, S-Video suffers from reduced color resolution. NTSC S-Video color resolution is typically 120 lines horizontal (approximately 160 pixels edge-to-edge)[citation needed], versus 250 lines horizontal for the Rec. 601-encoded signal of a DVD, or 30 lines horizontal for standard VCRs. One very prominent fact about S-Video, is that the cable can carry a signal longer with out degrading the quality as in other cables, which is why it is still fairly popular today. For example, in theory a 400 foot S-video cable will have a better quality than a 400 foot hdmi cable.

When used for connecting a video source to a video display that supports both 4:3 and 16:9 display formats, the PAL television standard provides for signaling pulses that will automatically switch the display from one format to the other. The S-Video connection transparently supports this operation. The S-Video connection also has general provision for widescreen signaling through a DC offset applied to the chrominance signal; however, this is a more recent development, and is not widely supported.


I have reverted an edit by Special:Contributions/Doniago because it removed information. It is based on an dictionary, it has the sources. Thank you. Hinata talk 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Chroma bandwidth[edit]

The article states that the chroma signal consists of U and V (or equivalently I and Q) in quadrature amplitude modulation, whose carrier frequency in NTSC is 3.579545 MHz. The entire U and V resolution of Rec. 601 would fit in 0.20-6.96 MHz. So I see no fundamental reason why the C signal couldn't carry full res, making it theoretically equal in quality to 480i component. The article has a citation needed tag on the horizontal chroma resolution of S-Video, but according to one of the above talk sections, it's just a lack of inline citations. Does one of the sources define the bandwidth of Y and C in S-Video? Or is it just that devices restrict chroma to 3.0-4.2 MHz so that the composite signal path doesn't need a separate bandpass? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Chroma bandwidth is much narrower than that. In PAL the two signals are usually restricted to a bandwidth of 1.5 MHz each (and the Y-B can be narrower than that). There is no need for the bandwidth to be any greater than this as the eye is unable to resolve colour changes with any greater effect. It is the luminance changes that enable the eye to resolve detail. To demonstrate this try printing 10 point text in green on a magenta background. When recorded on an domestic analogue video recorder, the chroma bandwidth is further restricted by the carrier down conversion to around 500 kHz. (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation tags at head of article.[edit]

It is believed that the:

Are inappropriate to this article as most of the material included has been accepted by concensus (as little has been challenged - and what has has been altered or resolved). There seems to be a practice by some editors to just willy nilly add these tags to article that don't have many in line citations or footnotes.

It should be noted that well over 50% of the content of Wikipedia is uncited and if all this were to be removed, Wikipedia would be all the worse for it.

IMHO, these tags are appropriate for an article that is contentious or appears to contain original research, but wholly inappropriate for an article largely accepted by concensus.

Discuss. (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there policy-based reasons why these tags are inapplicable? Are there reasons why the sourcing for the article (sadly lacking at present in many instances) can't be improved? If there are no policy-based reasons why the tags are inapplicable and no reasons why the sourcing can't be improved, I don't see how the tags are inappropriate.
That nobody has challenged points made in an article doesn't mean it is "accepted". Consensus can change. The emphasis on sourcing, for instance, has generally increased over time.
That other articles do things in a certain way does not mean that way is appropriate.
Regarding your suggestion that those tags are only appropriate if an entire article has problems - I believe you are misinterpreting them. Doniago (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As you seem to be a principal offender for simply removing uncited material (See WP:BLANKING and several objections on your talk page), I don't regard your opinion as worth anything. (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Having just gone through the edit history of S-Video, it seem that the material was removed (granted not by you) without any justification despite the fact that it had been in the article unchallenged for over 2 years. That fact alone means there is a concensus of acceptance as peer review has not found fault with the content. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that 7-pin and 9-pin variants of the connector do not exist? If not, then you ae just being deliberately disruptive and using some pathetic excuse to justify it. (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
And having gone through your entire contribution history, it seems that you have seldom (if ever) contributed any encyclopeadic content whatsoever. Your entire edit history consists almost entirely of reverting other editors work and tag bombing articles (averaging around 50 such edits per day). You have obviously appointed yourself as some sort of arbiter as to what may or may not appear in articles (forbidden by Wikipedia policy). You clearly are a disruptive editor who has far too much time on his hands.
The tags at the head of the article should be removed on the grounds that they were placed there by a persistent tag bomber (namely Doniago). (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I looked for the info on 7 pin connectors last week. I was convinced it was in this article, but started to wonder.
I thought you were exagerating about Doniago, but when I looked at his edit history for myself, I found it is true. Granted, I only looked at 5 or 6 pages full, but I couldn't find any genuine contribution (and those pages covered less than a week's worth of deletions, reversions and adding citation boxes to articles) (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The responsibilty for raising the discussion rests with you before you delete content (and in this case there is nothing actually wrong with it). It is not a requirement or the responsibility of people adding content (or reverting its deletion) to seek permission on the discussion page first. Wikipedia does not require citations for the bleedin' obvious. (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Really. I recommend you review WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY, and forgive me if I don't take the opinions of two IP editors who are refusing to assume good faith particularly seriously, at least until they can cite policies supporting their perspectives. As I've already indicated WP:BLANKING doesn't even apply here, as this is an article, not a user talk page. Doniago (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Then you clearly didn't read the WP:VERIFY link you provided. It says, "... in practice not everything need actually be attributed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that applies to an article discussing technical information of this nature. It is not as though the assertion being challenged is, "The sky is blue", or, "Some cables have 7 pins, others have 9". Doniago (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The asertion you are challenging is in exactly the same league as "the sky is blue". Everyone knows 7-pin and 9-pin connectors exist, just as everyone knows that the sky is blue.
So where is your evidence that 7-pin and 9-pin S-video connectors don't exist as it is this that you are clearly challenging. Surely even you must be aware of their existence. Why, therefore, do you insist on a citation. Of course your editing history makes this all too clear.
Incidentally, including DieSwartzPunkt who kindly and unexpectedly reverted your deletion (and may have been unaware of this interchange - don't worry he (or she) is aware now), I now make that 3 other editors who disagree with your stand. That must form some kind of concencus even to you. (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another unnecessary tag has been added to the article courtesy of the resident Wikipedia tag bomber, Doniago. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it as that section tag is completely redundant seeing as the whole article is already so tagged. It is pointless littering an article with redundant tags. In my view the subject tag was clearly added to score points in an edit war.
The section concerned documents the existence of the relevant connectors which cannot possibly be in dispute. I very much doubt that (for example) the article Television contains any citation that televisions actually exist. The section in dispiute does not contain any real technical information on those connectors, for (very valid) reasons given in the article. If the section contained information such as pin useage or voltage levels etc. then suitable citations would very definitely and properly be required. In the event that they were not, the correct procedure would not be to delete the section, but to add a [citation needed|date] tag in the text inviting the supply of the appropriate citations. Better still is to actually provide them yourself (That is what Google is for). Simply deleting content is counter productive. Note also that tagging every sentence in any article is unlikely to endear you to other editors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The bit that SwartzPunkt forgot is that once content is tagged as above, if no citation is forthcoming, then after a reasonable period of time and if you yourself are unable to find a suitable citation, then the content can then be deleted. What constitutes 'reasonable' is not defined, but a month or two should be reasonable.
Since you (Doniago) keep going on about the discussion pages, I trust that you will acceed to the concesus, in that three editors have now told you that simply deleting the content in the way that you do, is unacceptable. So far, your attitude has been that you are right and everyone else wrong. Not so, sunshine. Get used to it. (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like one of the dissenting editors to explain how this is -not- original research beyond claiming "it's obvious" or "common knowledge" or "readily apparent", all of which could easily be challenged by an editor who wasn't familiar with s-video.

Also, given that the dissenting editors all appear to be relatively new to WP and have not thus far cited any policy supporting their views, you'll have to forgive me if I remain concerned, unless and until they cite policy supporting their concerns, that their dissent may be a result of their inexperience with WP and unfamiliarity with its principles. Doniago (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How can you possibly know how long anyone has been here? Yes, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I have only been editing here for around 8 years. And in all that time nearly every editor has behaved in a courteous manner towards others. The procedure outlined above is the established manner in which we arrive at concenses and good articles. There has even been several occasions when we have learnt something new and the resultant article is all the better for it. I note from your discussion page that you are still continuing to piss off everyone you come into contact with. You are not enhancing Wikipedia one jot with your continued disruption. Your total contribution to the betterment of Wikipedia is bugger all.
I am still awaiting your proof that 7-pin and 9-pin plugs do not exist. Guess, you haven't got any. (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read - comment I understand some editors disgruntlement with having articles tagged - I will cover that below - however the above discussion has descended into what are actually personal attacks. Please don't continue along those lines. As for the issue of "Blanking" - I haven't looked at the history in detail -but in general when large removals are made (specifically of good faith edits, not vandalism) then it is good practice (eg Wikipedia:Etiquette) to leave a diff on the talk page with an explanation. Also note that adding a tag for improved references does not constitute an attack on the content of the article, there are plenty of other tags for that...Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

about 7 pin connectors - hoaxes do exist.. and 7pin din connectors do exist .. but it does seem not unreasonable to ask for proof that 7 pin din connectors have actually been used for S-video. It's not as trivial as it may seem to some - I have no idea what connectors have been used other than the standard connector. Old manuals and pinouts should be available online somewhere, I've got to repeat that the majority of this article is non-obvious to an average reader.Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment (on request from Doniago)[edit]

I've been asked to comment here about the tags. Please note Wikipedia:Verifiability. I see that some of the content has come from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing which I assume to be a good and reliable source. In short that material which comes from that source should be referenced inline (ie using <ref> tags). Any material that has been added which can be verified from that source can also be reference from that source. (however I only found this though there may be more)

Ultimately all statements should be referenced from reliable sources, the article is clearly not up standard in that respect. For an example of a page that is fully referenced see hdmi. The tag therefore is applicable - the article needs referencing, and the tags are appropriate eg this version [5] - some of the material covered is quite technical and needs to be properly cited. If unreference material is being "challenged and removed" is is fair to request that it be moved to this talk page so that editors can examine and possibly reference and re-add it.

In practice the solution is to solve the problem by referencing the article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another comment[edit]

A few points that have been mentioned that I would like to reiterate. The first is that Doniago is absolutely correct in asking if there are policy based reasons for the tags to be removed. There are of course none. As Sf5xeplus points out, the sources are available, and it is easy to fix the problem instead of complaining about the tags. The fact that the content has remained unchallenged for so long is a moot point, it says in an abundance of places around the wiki that unsourced content can be removed at anytime. The tags are no reason to take offense, they are not a reflection on any work done. The tags found on this page are very common and it is very unlikely they are effecting the experience of the readers of this page. The fact that large portions of Wikipedia are unsourced has no bearing on the content or tagging of this specific article. Lastly, to the IP editor, you may find editors here much more willing to work with you if you focus on article content and refrain from attacking them based on your perceptions. Beach drifter (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add if anyone has the time and interest to fix it - google books is often a help, for example it was trivial to find proof that "7 pin din s video" plugs exist, using search terms in quotes eg [6] [7] . There are also some sources of old manuals online, and various governmental websites are good on standards. I imagine it would not be that difficult to find a reliable source for the pinout. In fact here is one [8] fig 5.1 page 69 ... Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that very source states that the pin out varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. But it as good a cite as any for that very point, so I'll add it to the article. (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

article off topic[edit]

The main article contains too much waffle. It goes on to talk about the Nintendo 64 and how you can modify it to output RGB by a german company?

while this is vaguely tied to svideo wouldnt it be better to remove all of this and put it in the nintendo 64 article and focus on s-video isntead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material Archive[edit]

Archiving unsourced material here. Despite the discussions above this information has remained without sourcing. Please feel free to add this material back into the article with proper sourcing. Doniago (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no shortage of references to 9 pin video connectors, you could easily have added a reference yourself. That would have been more constructive than just deleting the material. (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is seriously factually wrong in the first paragraph.[edit]

"and sometimes incorrectly referred to as S-VHS or Super Video"

That statement is just wrong.

JVC, who introduced the 4-pin DIN connector pictured that is the de-facto standard for Y/C connectors on consumer A/V equipment in much of the world (outside of where SCART-only is mandated) uses the terms "S-VHS Plug", "S-VHS cable", and "Super Video" interchangeably with "S-Video" to refer to it to this day.

--Oregonerik (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cable type[edit]

The article mentions the cable should be twisted pair like CAT-5 so both luminance and chrominance signals are paired with ground. What is the source for this? S-Video is no different from any other analog video connection, so coaxial cable with 75 ohms impedance should be used, one for Y and one for C signal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

S-video and high fidelity[edit]

When I used a CRT TV I used an S-video link from the DVD player so that I could feed the sound to a stereo that offered far better sound fidelity. For someone who did not have surround sound, the stereo offered far better sound than did the TV set. The S-cable was adequate for the quality of the picture. But for the much-better picture with an HDTV, let alone a Blu-Ray player an S-cable is not so adequate. There may be other ways to get high-quality sound than a dedicated stereo system that one uses for music...

We are discussing an obsolete technology in the form of a TV cable. An HDMI cable does the job far better, but one can't hook one up to one of the old-fashioned analogue TVs. For people who still have an analogue TV in use it might still be adequate.

My observation on its use is my experience... I think that my ears are good enough to distinguish sound quality between an analogue 19" TV set and a stereo system and that my eyes can discern a difference between HDTV and the old CRT TVs. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)