Im thinking of buying a S-Video or RGB cable for my PS2 to enjoy a better picture on my Tv. I just wanted to know if you can actualy tell the difference between these cables and the cables you get when you buy it (the red, white and yellow ones). I have the slim version of PS2 (SCPH-70000)
Heres some info about my TV.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Oct 1 2007, 3:26 pm by Nintendo_Confed.

For a PS2, not really. For some of the ultra high resolutions (1080p, 1920x1200, 2560x1600), you could probably tell an image quality difference among DisplayPort, HDMI, DVI, etc. I believe that DisplayPort is expected to become the standard for HD content in the following years.

HDMI... hm... its great lets stick with that...

I cant acess your TV infor for sumreason, so Ill just write something here

S-Video- OLD
RBG- Meh...
Fibre - Oooh!
HDMI -
This other cable I keep forgeting, I think its DVI or super HDMI (Or blu-ray)

However, a PS2 doesnt need a good cable, its not nearly as good to its predecessor, the PS 3 or its arch enimy, the Xbox 360, I'd stick with a RBG, mainly for the price

OK, and what about a digital optical audio cable to hook it up to the home theater system i have?

You think you're going to get cinematic audio on a PS2? Do those old consoles even support real surround sound?

My opinion is that if you already have the system, you may want to at least try out using the proper cables for it. Just make sure your console has the connection for it first. Not all PS2 games support surround sound, but there are many that do. Check the information on the game's case. Some support Dolby Pro Logic II Surround, some even support Dolby Digital Surround. I don't know about Pro Logic II, but the latter of those I mentioned would need the digital connection to take full advantage of it.

As far as composite video, S-video and the component video, there are differences in the quality of the color and possibly the resolution as well. I have seen a difference between the 3 when using my PS2 on a TV supporting all 3 types. For the color, composite video stores all of the color space information together and the colors aren't as good. S-video separates it into two channels for the color space, which makes the picture/color quality better. Component video separates it into three channels, which is enough to properly represent the colors the TV supports and improves the picture/color quality further.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 2 2007, 4:45 am by ShadowFlare.

the game i have has dolby pro logic 2

How is this even remotely relevant to the question he asked?

S-Video doesn't really look any better. Presumably this is why it never took off in the US.

Thanks for actually reading my post. I pointed out that higher resolutions would probably have more differences among cables (making cables for a PS2 alike enough in quality to not warrant an upgrade), and then contributed another piece of information relevant to HD users of today.

Is there anything even remotely intelligent that you type?

Also, feel free to reply, which I'm guessing is an offer you'll take full advantage of; just know that I'll not reply to your pissy comments in this thread.

It really just depends on what you are hooking it up to. If you are connecting it to a good quality TV or a video capture card on a computer, the difference between composite video and S-Video is obvious. Same between S-Video and component video, if you connect it to a good quality TV, the difference is fairly obvious.

Are you mad at me or (U)Esponeo?
I posted a link to my tv model in the first post. Is that one considered a good quality tv?

I haven't personally seen that TV, but you would probably notice the difference on that TV. Size is probably one of the factors that determines whether you can see the difference in picture quality or not. Also, I think that type of picture tube is one I've heard is pretty good.