![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
re: SCART (from [[Syndicat des Constructeurs d'Appareils Radiorécepteurs et Téléviseurs]] )
This had been represented in the redlink above by a prior editor... which I'd made into a softredirect page to the French wikipedia...
but! this is not even a article on the French wiki, so am removing as a link reference. I'd even had a French capable editor look for alternative spellings, etc. and it fails that the same, so am {db-authoring} the linkpage. Submit restoring same would be ill advised. //
Fra
nkB
17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The pin-out diagram used on the page almost makes the slot for the 21st connection look like it accepts a pin the same as the other 20, whereas in fact it accepts the sheath which surrounds all of the pins. Should the diagram be amended to reflect this? LaFoiblesse 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Should a 'Superseded by HDMI' thingie like Peripheral Component Interconnect has? And also, was there any kind of AV combined connector before or was SCART the first? -- AnY FOUR! 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In Criticisms:
Comparing an older standard with a modern one is absurd, no? -- AnY FOUR! 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
To whoever wrote the part about removing pin 19 to prevent crosstalk, THANK YOU! Ever since I bought a DVD Recorder, I've had ghost images on the screen. Turns out the recorder is outpouting comp video on both SCART sockets. So it's sending the cable tv signal BACK to the cable box on the same SCART cable as it recieves it. I removed pin 19 at the recorder end of the cable, and the ghosts are gone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.141.107 ( talk) 20:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I notice the tag on the section about giving practical advice. I don't think the content of the section is giving much advice, most of it is simply factual information. Maybe simply renaming the section would be a good idea? 194.9.188.21 ( talk) 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
in Critisicms:
Correct me if wrong, but I thought flat SCART leads were supposed to reduce crosstalk compared to round ones?
This site says:
...kind of akin to why some people advise against round PATA IDE leads, compared to flat ones?
This issue has thoroughly confused me. I assume it all hinges on the configuration of the shielding in the cable?
Cheers. 87.194.223.183 ( talk) 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: "In Europe, SCART is the most common method of connecting audio-visual equipment together, and has become a standard connector for such devices (even more so than the phono plug),[citation needed] however it is far less common elsewhere in the world.[citation needed]"
OK, I know officially speaking these things need to be referenced, but where the hell are we supposed to get information like that? It's just a known thing. AV equipment in Europe tends to be SCARTed together, most major items of TV/Video equipment come with the sockets as standard main and sometimes even their only non-RF connectors, and the shelves are full of the cables, to the extent that it can be difficult to get an affordable RCA or S-Vid cable (much under £10/€12.50 for S-Vid) unless you go online or use a specialist supplier, but a very basic RF or a SCART can cost £2 / €2.50 or less in common supermarkets. Outside of Europe, the emphasis is on Composite/Component RCA and mini-DIN S-Video, and if you want a SCART lead you may well have to deliberately import it.
It's just a thing, one that's obvious if you spend any time living in either place, going to their electronics stores, or talking to anyone from the respective areas about connecting up equipment. How do you cite something that's an everyday experience? It's like citing that British and Japanese cars are driven on the left side of the road and have their controls on the right side, and that Britain and the USA use miles & MPH as distance and speed measurements on said roads, but most other countries do it differently (drive on the right and/or use metric). It's just a widely but not universally known thing, that's worthy of inclusion for completeness, context, and informing the few people who weren't already aware, but isn't a scientifically proven fact. Something that if you had actually made up false details for would cause you to be readily shot down by a great many people who know otherwise because they've actually had direct experience of the things.
Come on, give it up, citation obsessives. Cite for it's date of introduction and who was behind it, that's fair enough... 193.63.174.210 ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Which is actually correct? Pinouts found on the Web seem to be almost evenly divided on this. -- 92.229.133.202 ( talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
is there any mechanism to indicate to the TV that s-video is being transmitted or does the TV just have to guess from what signals are active? Plugwash ( talk) 02:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
is the Japanese SCART wiring standard mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.187.133 ( talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that this sentence refers to the complicated nature of previous connection methods, however with the duration of time that has passed since the introduction of SCART, and the fact that the sentence suggests that SCART is easier than other methods (besides the methods predating SCART), I think the sentence needs clarification or rewording. Jo7hs2 ( talk) 18:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the preceding discussion, I have replaced:
This change reflects the removal of informal, non-encyclopedic language, in favor of a more formal and clear statement. Jo7hs2 ( talk) 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Has it been confirmed that an EIA Multiport is indeed nothing more then a SCART standard connector with a different name? I have a manual from a circa 1989 RCA Colortrek 2000 TV that states it was a standard for connecting external cable descramblers. It specifically notes the connector does not support RGB. The manual does not state the pin-out however. Basically it needs to be confirmed that the pin-out is the same as SCART and that plugging in a SCART device will work without modification (a reference to the actual EIA standard governing this specific port would be best). Otherwise the EIA Multiport likely shouldn't be called an "NTSC" version of SCART and removed from this article. NJRoadfan ( talk) 05:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a chunk of the article relating to galvanic corrosion that could use some work. I don't know much about the topic, so I'll refrain from making an attempt unless others fail to do so. Can somebody take a look at it? Jo7hs2 ( talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
So, when using RGB, which pin carries sync? This isn't mentioned in the pinout table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.66.167 ( talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The introduction explaining SCART and it's origins compared to HDMI are mis-leading and innaccurate. It attemps to compare and justify two technologies which were designed with different goals in mind. One for high-quality Analogue TV, and one for Digital TV
For example: 1. "SCART is fast becoming obsolete with the development of newer standards for digital and high-definition television such as HDMI."
Incorrect. ALL (European) A/V equipment still comes with SCART connectors.
2. "Modern digital televisions have built-in processors to convert the lossless digital signals provided over HDMI connections to the television screen"
Incorrect. No conversion occurs, but rather a decoding of the HDMI data. This line attempts to suggest that HDMI is somehow "better" and converting tv signals.
3. "SCART on the other hand introduces significant losses in picture quality through the earlier conversion to analogue and a relatively limited bandwidth this older standard is capable of providing."
Again, woefully incorrect and biased, written by someone who doesn't actually know what SCART is for. This line assumes that a digital picture is being used, then converted to analogue "for SCART" before being sent to a digital television. It completely misses/ignores the point that before Digitial TV's and HDMI, all picture sources (tv, vhs) were analogue sources!! SCART itself has not "introduced significant loss", but if a digital source has been converted to Analogue for transmission over a SCART cable, then that conversion process has introduced these losses, not the SCART connector
Someone's tried to add detail to the matter with talk about set top boxes and how it can cause misunderstanding... with the net result that the section itself is now less clear. Is this really necessary? Particularly that I don't think I've ever SEEN an actual "Set Top Box" that lives up to its name anywhere around europe, apart from VERY occasional small decoder things in hotels (and largely those were BUILT IN to the top of the TV). Round these parts, our kit lives UNDER the television - even the miniature freeview decoders that seem indended to rest on top of it (quite how that's going to work with an early analogue-only LCD or Plasma is anyone's guess).
Not quite sure why it's the other way around in the USA (and japan?), or we've ended up inheriting the nomenclature. Possibly that our sets were always smaller, and less boxy with a nod towards potential portability - at least once we got into an era where VCRs became common. Certainly a typical 80s tape player (or laserdisc, or early satellite/cable receiver) would have been very precariously balanced on top of a 12 ~ 19" UK set, and made getting at the carry handle difficult where one was integrated. The TV however sat nicely atop the very solid VCR (possibly itself a reason that we largely didn't "get" top-loader decks)... Maybe in the states the sets were always bigger and boxier, and unlike the Simpsons didn't have aerials that poked up from or near the top surface, so the large equipment could sit on them more easily. And such informal standards then carry over to the furniture used to put TVs and their related devices into as we moved into an age where they were sold without legs, or their own bespoke cabinet... and off we go. The misnomer being absorbed into our language through the great prevalence of American television in the world.
Ahem. Anyway. This would be one reasoning for the FRENCH-originated standard being firm in having the TV as "up" and the VCR (and other kit, say an even chunkier Satellite/Cable/Laserdisc box) as "down". No need to further confuse the issue by bringing in unneccessary discussion of that loanword that has so curiously arisen in east-of-the-atlantic culture (heck, even I use it as shorthand for all those miscellaneous devices clustered in the Ikea cabinet our TV sits upon) - it's nothing to do with the SCART and its own definitions, particularly as the very idea of arranging your equipment that way unless you had the appropriate furniture to support it (not that likely) was absurd at the time the standard was drawn up. 193.63.174.10 ( talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
In theese technical issues I think a complete explination of "how to do" and true advices are much more approtiate then only wrighting som short facts. Wikipedia is not like an encyklopedia in many other cases aswell. Such as theese improvements discussions f.i. And as Jimbo Wales say "There is enough space for all knowlidge in the world". In this example someone wants to erase knowlidge for no good reason. Let the explinations and instructions be. They have just helped me a lot. Reguards Pontus Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.38.247 ( talk) 00:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
re: SCART (from [[Syndicat des Constructeurs d'Appareils Radiorécepteurs et Téléviseurs]] )
This had been represented in the redlink above by a prior editor... which I'd made into a softredirect page to the French wikipedia...
but! this is not even a article on the French wiki, so am removing as a link reference. I'd even had a French capable editor look for alternative spellings, etc. and it fails that the same, so am {db-authoring} the linkpage. Submit restoring same would be ill advised. //
Fra
nkB
17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The pin-out diagram used on the page almost makes the slot for the 21st connection look like it accepts a pin the same as the other 20, whereas in fact it accepts the sheath which surrounds all of the pins. Should the diagram be amended to reflect this? LaFoiblesse 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Should a 'Superseded by HDMI' thingie like Peripheral Component Interconnect has? And also, was there any kind of AV combined connector before or was SCART the first? -- AnY FOUR! 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In Criticisms:
Comparing an older standard with a modern one is absurd, no? -- AnY FOUR! 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
To whoever wrote the part about removing pin 19 to prevent crosstalk, THANK YOU! Ever since I bought a DVD Recorder, I've had ghost images on the screen. Turns out the recorder is outpouting comp video on both SCART sockets. So it's sending the cable tv signal BACK to the cable box on the same SCART cable as it recieves it. I removed pin 19 at the recorder end of the cable, and the ghosts are gone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.141.107 ( talk) 20:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I notice the tag on the section about giving practical advice. I don't think the content of the section is giving much advice, most of it is simply factual information. Maybe simply renaming the section would be a good idea? 194.9.188.21 ( talk) 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
in Critisicms:
Correct me if wrong, but I thought flat SCART leads were supposed to reduce crosstalk compared to round ones?
This site says:
...kind of akin to why some people advise against round PATA IDE leads, compared to flat ones?
This issue has thoroughly confused me. I assume it all hinges on the configuration of the shielding in the cable?
Cheers. 87.194.223.183 ( talk) 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: "In Europe, SCART is the most common method of connecting audio-visual equipment together, and has become a standard connector for such devices (even more so than the phono plug),[citation needed] however it is far less common elsewhere in the world.[citation needed]"
OK, I know officially speaking these things need to be referenced, but where the hell are we supposed to get information like that? It's just a known thing. AV equipment in Europe tends to be SCARTed together, most major items of TV/Video equipment come with the sockets as standard main and sometimes even their only non-RF connectors, and the shelves are full of the cables, to the extent that it can be difficult to get an affordable RCA or S-Vid cable (much under £10/€12.50 for S-Vid) unless you go online or use a specialist supplier, but a very basic RF or a SCART can cost £2 / €2.50 or less in common supermarkets. Outside of Europe, the emphasis is on Composite/Component RCA and mini-DIN S-Video, and if you want a SCART lead you may well have to deliberately import it.
It's just a thing, one that's obvious if you spend any time living in either place, going to their electronics stores, or talking to anyone from the respective areas about connecting up equipment. How do you cite something that's an everyday experience? It's like citing that British and Japanese cars are driven on the left side of the road and have their controls on the right side, and that Britain and the USA use miles & MPH as distance and speed measurements on said roads, but most other countries do it differently (drive on the right and/or use metric). It's just a widely but not universally known thing, that's worthy of inclusion for completeness, context, and informing the few people who weren't already aware, but isn't a scientifically proven fact. Something that if you had actually made up false details for would cause you to be readily shot down by a great many people who know otherwise because they've actually had direct experience of the things.
Come on, give it up, citation obsessives. Cite for it's date of introduction and who was behind it, that's fair enough... 193.63.174.210 ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Which is actually correct? Pinouts found on the Web seem to be almost evenly divided on this. -- 92.229.133.202 ( talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
is there any mechanism to indicate to the TV that s-video is being transmitted or does the TV just have to guess from what signals are active? Plugwash ( talk) 02:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
is the Japanese SCART wiring standard mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.187.133 ( talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that this sentence refers to the complicated nature of previous connection methods, however with the duration of time that has passed since the introduction of SCART, and the fact that the sentence suggests that SCART is easier than other methods (besides the methods predating SCART), I think the sentence needs clarification or rewording. Jo7hs2 ( talk) 18:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the preceding discussion, I have replaced:
This change reflects the removal of informal, non-encyclopedic language, in favor of a more formal and clear statement. Jo7hs2 ( talk) 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Has it been confirmed that an EIA Multiport is indeed nothing more then a SCART standard connector with a different name? I have a manual from a circa 1989 RCA Colortrek 2000 TV that states it was a standard for connecting external cable descramblers. It specifically notes the connector does not support RGB. The manual does not state the pin-out however. Basically it needs to be confirmed that the pin-out is the same as SCART and that plugging in a SCART device will work without modification (a reference to the actual EIA standard governing this specific port would be best). Otherwise the EIA Multiport likely shouldn't be called an "NTSC" version of SCART and removed from this article. NJRoadfan ( talk) 05:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a chunk of the article relating to galvanic corrosion that could use some work. I don't know much about the topic, so I'll refrain from making an attempt unless others fail to do so. Can somebody take a look at it? Jo7hs2 ( talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
So, when using RGB, which pin carries sync? This isn't mentioned in the pinout table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.66.167 ( talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The introduction explaining SCART and it's origins compared to HDMI are mis-leading and innaccurate. It attemps to compare and justify two technologies which were designed with different goals in mind. One for high-quality Analogue TV, and one for Digital TV
For example: 1. "SCART is fast becoming obsolete with the development of newer standards for digital and high-definition television such as HDMI."
Incorrect. ALL (European) A/V equipment still comes with SCART connectors.
2. "Modern digital televisions have built-in processors to convert the lossless digital signals provided over HDMI connections to the television screen"
Incorrect. No conversion occurs, but rather a decoding of the HDMI data. This line attempts to suggest that HDMI is somehow "better" and converting tv signals.
3. "SCART on the other hand introduces significant losses in picture quality through the earlier conversion to analogue and a relatively limited bandwidth this older standard is capable of providing."
Again, woefully incorrect and biased, written by someone who doesn't actually know what SCART is for. This line assumes that a digital picture is being used, then converted to analogue "for SCART" before being sent to a digital television. It completely misses/ignores the point that before Digitial TV's and HDMI, all picture sources (tv, vhs) were analogue sources!! SCART itself has not "introduced significant loss", but if a digital source has been converted to Analogue for transmission over a SCART cable, then that conversion process has introduced these losses, not the SCART connector
Someone's tried to add detail to the matter with talk about set top boxes and how it can cause misunderstanding... with the net result that the section itself is now less clear. Is this really necessary? Particularly that I don't think I've ever SEEN an actual "Set Top Box" that lives up to its name anywhere around europe, apart from VERY occasional small decoder things in hotels (and largely those were BUILT IN to the top of the TV). Round these parts, our kit lives UNDER the television - even the miniature freeview decoders that seem indended to rest on top of it (quite how that's going to work with an early analogue-only LCD or Plasma is anyone's guess).
Not quite sure why it's the other way around in the USA (and japan?), or we've ended up inheriting the nomenclature. Possibly that our sets were always smaller, and less boxy with a nod towards potential portability - at least once we got into an era where VCRs became common. Certainly a typical 80s tape player (or laserdisc, or early satellite/cable receiver) would have been very precariously balanced on top of a 12 ~ 19" UK set, and made getting at the carry handle difficult where one was integrated. The TV however sat nicely atop the very solid VCR (possibly itself a reason that we largely didn't "get" top-loader decks)... Maybe in the states the sets were always bigger and boxier, and unlike the Simpsons didn't have aerials that poked up from or near the top surface, so the large equipment could sit on them more easily. And such informal standards then carry over to the furniture used to put TVs and their related devices into as we moved into an age where they were sold without legs, or their own bespoke cabinet... and off we go. The misnomer being absorbed into our language through the great prevalence of American television in the world.
Ahem. Anyway. This would be one reasoning for the FRENCH-originated standard being firm in having the TV as "up" and the VCR (and other kit, say an even chunkier Satellite/Cable/Laserdisc box) as "down". No need to further confuse the issue by bringing in unneccessary discussion of that loanword that has so curiously arisen in east-of-the-atlantic culture (heck, even I use it as shorthand for all those miscellaneous devices clustered in the Ikea cabinet our TV sits upon) - it's nothing to do with the SCART and its own definitions, particularly as the very idea of arranging your equipment that way unless you had the appropriate furniture to support it (not that likely) was absurd at the time the standard was drawn up. 193.63.174.10 ( talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
In theese technical issues I think a complete explination of "how to do" and true advices are much more approtiate then only wrighting som short facts. Wikipedia is not like an encyklopedia in many other cases aswell. Such as theese improvements discussions f.i. And as Jimbo Wales say "There is enough space for all knowlidge in the world". In this example someone wants to erase knowlidge for no good reason. Let the explinations and instructions be. They have just helped me a lot. Reguards Pontus Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.38.247 ( talk) 00:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)