5 ms·

> The latter was never available in the US of A (an apparently poor and technologically backwards nation), which means Americans will simply have to take my wor

> The latter was never available in the US of A (an apparently poor and technologically backwards nation), which means Americans will simply have to take my word when I say that RGB SCART on a good TV is nearly as sharp as an actual RGB computer monitor - but just nearly. No, the US didn't have SCART (well, they did, it just wasn't common). Instead, they had VGA (by far superior to SCART for RGB signals) and component (better for native YPbPr/YCbCr, such as most consoles used). This "SCART is superior" BS is just a weird anachronism from retroheads and europhiles. PS2, GameCube, Xbox, etc all benefit more from component due to 480p support, everything before that generation benefits equally from SCART or Component (it just comes down to what you can get out of your console, SCART tends to be easiest), and everything after benefits best from HDMI (or DisplayPort, if it's supported).

Rinzler89 2y ago
>Instead, they had VGA (by far superior to SCART for RGB signals) and component (better for native YPbPr/YCbCr, such as most consoles used). Couple of issue with your ranty statement from an European: 1) Vast majority of CRT TVs(not monitors) didn't have VGA input, neither component, the cheaper ones at least. The more premium and higher end CRT TVs did have component but almost nobody had them here where I grew up in the 90's and early 2000s. 2) Even in the EU SCART, while being present on most devices, was rarely used, and by far the most used video connector on TVs here and worldwide was the famous yellow RCA Composite video connector which was crap and SCART was definitely way better than that. But Americans shouldn't feel bad they missed out on SCART since there they mostly used the S-Video alternative which was relatively similar to SCART in quality.
- deaddodo 2y ago
  > Vast majority of CRT TVs(not monitors) didn't have VGA input, neither component, the cheaper ones at least. Correct, because most devices going into a television didn't operate on RGB (outside of game consoles). Thus the preference for Component. It was certainly available, but exceedingly rare. And the rare people who did have them and a Dreamcast got the absolute best quality. > The more premium and higher end CRT TVs did have component but almost nobody had them here where I grew up in the 90's and early 2000s. I'm assuming you grew up in Europe, which is kind of the whole point, isn't it? Component was widely available on non-budget television brands/lines in the US. You could grab a component cable for anything from PS2/GameCube/Xbox on, and S-Video for the majority before that (common with PSX and Saturn). Obviously the majority of Americans ran it through RF or composite, since that was just simpler and cheaper. But if you wanted high quality configurations, the options were all there for you outside of "superior" SCART.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  > Even in the EU SCART, while being present on most devices, was rarely used Funny, that's not what I remember at all. Anything I've ever seen plugged into a TV as a kid used a scart connector, in some cases through an RCA-to-scart converter (like video cameras and such). All VHS and DVD players I've seen hooked up definitely outputed over SCART, although they may very well have used the composite pins that were present within the SCART connector. I've never seen a CRT with a VGA input, just monitors.
- roelschroeven 2y ago
  Your experience with SCART doesn't match mine: in my experience before the arrival of HDMI, SCART was used almost exclusively for connecting VHS recorders and DVD players.
Nursie 2y ago
SCART was an absolute pain in the backside. Technical merit aside, its sockets and cables absolutely defied any attempts to line up and insert by touch. Want to plug in a new device? You'd damn well better move the tv out because otherwise you're going to spend at least ten minutes with your arm round the back of the tv, fruitlessly wiggling the plug around the general area of the socket, and then you're going to pull the tv out and look anyway. Even if you were exactly on target with the cable, you weren't getting it in without sub-millimetre precision and there was no real way to tell when to apply the force. They were such a bad design.
- nottorp 2y ago
  Frankly I don't see how HDMI is much better. You need to rotate it 180 degrees at least thrice, just like USB-A.
  - Nursie 2y ago
    I wouldn’t say it’s great, but both of those are minor league compared to SCART.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      I remember it took a lot of force to insert. Not sure if i always moved the TV.
- pezezin 2y ago
  SCART is the worst connector ever designed, that is true. Not only it is difficult to plug in, it is also super flimsy and it will unplug if you glance at it wrong. But on the other hand it provided the best possible picture quality (on consumer TVs) until the arrival of HDMI. Compared to composite video, it was marvellous.
  - deaddodo 2y ago
    > But on the other hand it provided the best possible picture quality (on consumer TVs) until the arrival of HDMI Consumer televisions had component for a decade+ before HDMI.

Rinzler89 2y ago

>Instead, they had VGA (by far superior to SCART for RGB signals) and component (better for native YPbPr/YCbCr, such as most consoles used). Couple of issue with your ranty statement from an European: 1) Vast majority of CRT TVs(not monitors) didn't have VGA input, neither component, the cheaper ones at least. The more premium and higher end CRT TVs did have component but almost nobody had them here where I grew up in the 90's and early 2000s. 2) Even in the EU SCART, while being present on most devices, was rarely used, and by far the most used video connector on TVs here and worldwide was the famous yellow RCA Composite video connector which was crap and SCART was definitely way better than that. But Americans shouldn't feel bad they missed out on SCART since there they mostly used the S-Video alternative which was relatively similar to SCART in quality.

deaddodo 2y ago
> Vast majority of CRT TVs(not monitors) didn't have VGA input, neither component, the cheaper ones at least. Correct, because most devices going into a television didn't operate on RGB (outside of game consoles). Thus the preference for Component. It was certainly available, but exceedingly rare. And the rare people who did have them and a Dreamcast got the absolute best quality. > The more premium and higher end CRT TVs did have component but almost nobody had them here where I grew up in the 90's and early 2000s. I'm assuming you grew up in Europe, which is kind of the whole point, isn't it? Component was widely available on non-budget television brands/lines in the US. You could grab a component cable for anything from PS2/GameCube/Xbox on, and S-Video for the majority before that (common with PSX and Saturn). Obviously the majority of Americans ran it through RF or composite, since that was just simpler and cheaper. But if you wanted high quality configurations, the options were all there for you outside of "superior" SCART.
jeroenhd 2y ago
> Even in the EU SCART, while being present on most devices, was rarely used Funny, that's not what I remember at all. Anything I've ever seen plugged into a TV as a kid used a scart connector, in some cases through an RCA-to-scart converter (like video cameras and such). All VHS and DVD players I've seen hooked up definitely outputed over SCART, although they may very well have used the composite pins that were present within the SCART connector. I've never seen a CRT with a VGA input, just monitors.
roelschroeven 2y ago
Your experience with SCART doesn't match mine: in my experience before the arrival of HDMI, SCART was used almost exclusively for connecting VHS recorders and DVD players.

Nursie 2y ago

SCART was an absolute pain in the backside. Technical merit aside, its sockets and cables absolutely defied any attempts to line up and insert by touch. Want to plug in a new device? You'd damn well better move the tv out because otherwise you're going to spend at least ten minutes with your arm round the back of the tv, fruitlessly wiggling the plug around the general area of the socket, and then you're going to pull the tv out and look anyway. Even if you were exactly on target with the cable, you weren't getting it in without sub-millimetre precision and there was no real way to tell when to apply the force. They were such a bad design.

nottorp 2y ago
Frankly I don't see how HDMI is much better. You need to rotate it 180 degrees at least thrice, just like USB-A.
- Nursie 2y ago
  I wouldn’t say it’s great, but both of those are minor league compared to SCART.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    I remember it took a lot of force to insert. Not sure if i always moved the TV.
pezezin 2y ago
SCART is the worst connector ever designed, that is true. Not only it is difficult to plug in, it is also super flimsy and it will unplug if you glance at it wrong. But on the other hand it provided the best possible picture quality (on consumer TVs) until the arrival of HDMI. Compared to composite video, it was marvellous.
- deaddodo 2y ago
  > But on the other hand it provided the best possible picture quality (on consumer TVs) until the arrival of HDMI Consumer televisions had component for a decade+ before HDMI.