Composite to VGA converter Circuit
jdenn...@gmail.com
build a circuit that will convert a composite signal to a VGA signal.
what I want to do is be able to watch TV on a LCD monitor, with out
buying an expensive converter or expensive monitor with a composite in.
I was wondering if someone could point me to a schematic for a circuit
to make this conversion. I've found many circuits that convert VGA to
composite, but I want to go the other way.
Thanks
krw
jdenn...@gmail.com says...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16815153003
--
Keith
a7yvm1...@netzero.com
Build??? Forget it, just buy one. And they're not expensive. They're
like 99$, you can't even buy a good soldering iron for that. And you'll
need a lot more than basic knowledge to pull this project off anyways.
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
> Hey guys, I have pretty basic electronics knowledge, but I'm looking to
> build a circuit that will convert a composite signal to a VGA signal.
Good Luck!
Just find a good school, sign up for whatever courses you need, and
Go For It!
Cheers!
Rich
Christopher Ott
news:1165242908.7...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
I've been looking for something similar, with no luck so far. I have a pick
& place machine which uses a B&W composite monitor (it has a single BNC
connector) for the vision system. My suspicion is that this is only the "Y"
portion of the composite. I've been wanting to replace this clunky old
monitor with a standard flat panel, but most of the cheaper monitors only
have SVGA.
I'm not sure if a standard composite to VGA adapter box will work.
Any thoughts?
Chris
linnix
I have an old PC (233 MHz) with the SAA7114 video capture card hooking
up to a video camera. It capture approx. 3 frames per second and store
them in a file server. I am using a standard SVGA monitor (flat panel
can certainly work). I don't see why you can't do the same.
>
> Chris
JoeBloe
<eatmy...@doubleclick.net> Gave us:
What he needs is an LCD TV, NOT an LCD PC display.
Joe G (Home)
apart the composite signal then reconstructing it in to VGA (which is a
form of RGB format).
The most popular way is to digitise the composite video in to a video frame
buffer... and the reconstruct the VGA (RGB) analogue signal.
So you are going from analogue (composite) --> digital -->digital
process-->analogue (VGA).
This is a very high speed process and surface mount IC's with 100's of pins
or more.
Not recommended for Newbies!
Now that I have steered you away from the design have a look at Averlogic
AL251
http://www.averlogic.com/product_last.asp?ID=66&proname=AL251+Video+Scan+Doubler&protype=Video+Conversion+ICs
Averlogic wont talk to anyone unless the Volume is 10,000 pcs or more.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Joe
<jdenn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165242908.7...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
sp_mc...@yahoo.com
> <jdenn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165242908.7...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> > Hey guys, I have pretty basic electronics knowledge, but I'm looking to
> > build a circuit that will convert a composite signal to a VGA signal.
> > what I want to do is be able to watch TV on a LCD monitor, with out
> > buying an expensive converter or expensive monitor with a composite in.
> > I was wondering if someone could point me to a schematic for a circuit
> > to make this conversion. I've found many circuits that convert VGA to
> > composite, but I want to go the other way.
> >
> > Thanks
If you're still interested, read my post "Digital processing of analog
TV broadcast". I should have a working prototype in about two weeks (I
better, or I'm in trouble...). The first posts lists all the "blocks"
you would need to build/buy. You wouldn't necessarily have to do it the
way I am (digitally). But if you want to, you'll have to do a lot of
surface mounting (plus make a PCB), or buy a starter board with the
FPGA already hooked up. Either way would cost considerably more than
buying something off-the-shelf, unless you have surface mount and PCB
equipment already.
Or, you could read some of the posts by other people (in the thread I
mentioned), who suggest analog chips to get the job done. There might
be some hope in doing that cheaply, but you'll have to do some design
work on your own. I don't think many people have published a complete
"guide" to doing it that way.
But unless you are interested in this for the challenge, just check
eBay. I think there are devices under $50 to do this. However, make
sure they have a good comb filter - 2d/3d adaptive. You will actually
notice the difference if they simply use a notch filter etc. No TV's
nowadays do that (that I know), but some converter boxes and cheap PC
tuner cards still do.
The BEST solution would just be to buy a better cable tuner box. You'll
need one anyway, of course. Might as well try to find one with VGA or
DVI output instead of just composite. I don't have digital cable, but I
think you can find digital cable boxes like this. Some modern TV's
actually come with such inputs.
Good luck
Sean
sp_mc...@yahoo.com
sp_mcla...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The BEST solution would just be to buy a better cable tuner box. You'll
> need one anyway, of course. Might as well try to find one with VGA or
> DVI output instead of just composite. I don't have digital cable, but I
> think you can find digital cable boxes like this. Some modern TV's
> actually come with such inputs.
Just thought of one more thing. If you can even find a cable tuner box
with COMPONENT video out (instead of composite), preferably with
progressive output, then converting to VGA is a *lot* easier. I don't
really buy the newest-and-best entertainment systems, so I don't know
if this is common. You'll have to check or search google. If you find
one of these boxes and are willing to buy it, I'd recommend starting a
different post called "Composite video to VGA", and you might get more
responses.
(Reason: For component video to VGA, you don't need a comb filter,
chroma subcarrier lock, or QAM demodulator. You just need to extract
sync and properly weight R, G, and B. I'd be extremely surprised if
there weren't single-chip solutions to do that.)
Sean
lemonjuice
The fastest way
http://www.converters.tv/products/converters/video_to_vga_converters/43.html
This one is LCD suitable
http://www.converters.tv/news/32.html
Otherwise if you like building things.
I have a circuit somewhere which we used that converts NTCS to VGA.
If you don't want to buy anything all ready then I'll send it to you
at your gmail address.
The circuit we used decombines the horizontal and vertical sync
signals and doubles the horizontal scan rate to the standard 31.47KHz
or something like that, VGA standard by a reading process of a PLL
at twice the write frequency of the A/D converter into a buffer
memory. We used 3 6 bit converters for the RGB digital output and
another 3 for the digital to analog conversion at the monitor input
end but later discovered that 8 bit ones worked much better.
Care has to be ensured in keeping noise between the modules down.
The more space you can get between them the better they work.
BTW 17" LCD monitors that work as TV's in my area cost only 50 bucks
more then the 17" LCD monitors. Is it worth all the hassle building
this stuff?
And they cost only a bit more then 100 bucks the converter modules
given above.
The modules I gave above are not proffesional level equipment because
the prices will be well above those levels but a lot depends on
whether your eyesight can tell the difference!
IMO your image still looks better on your TV or get the LCD/TV
combo.
lemonjuice
Jan Panteltje
<boun...@thekill.com> wrote in <f93dn2572ib3f38bb...@4ax.com>:
Seems that only has RGB out, that would be 15625Hz and VGA wants double that H.
that is jus ta NTSC / PAL decoeer, analog (note what looks like the delay line).
Hell for that money here you can but a small color TV with teletext and SCART
(RGB ?) out.
>This one is LCD suitable
>http://www.converters.tv/news/32.html
That one is indeed VGA out, a lot more complex.
lemonjuice
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:57:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje happened to say out :
>On a sunny day (Wed, 06 Dec 2006 )
Lucky you that you got sun there.
> it happened lemonjuice
><boun...@thekill.com> wrote in <f93dn2572ib3f38bb...@4ax.com>:
>
>
>>The fastest way
>>http://www.converters.tv/products/converters/video_to_vga_converters/43.html
>
>Hell for that money
They are quite cheap here
> here you can but a small color TV with teletext and SCART
>(RGB ?) out.
>
Assuming you don't mean butt but buy. A scart signal usually has
combined Horizontal and Vertical scan signal. You need to seperate
those for monitors.
>
>>This one is LCD suitable
>>http://www.converters.tv/news/32.html
>
>That one is indeed VGA out
Maybe you like this one
http://www.converters.tv/products/converters/video_to_vga_converters/7.html
lemonjuice
Jan Panteltje
<boun...@thekill.com> wrote in <ar9dn2h4smrirbnbr...@4ax.com>:
>On a rainy and wet day
>On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:57:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje happened to say out :
>
>>On a sunny day (Wed, 06 Dec 2006 )
>
>Lucky you that you got sun there.
It comes and goes, now comes, I am up the roof fixing it.
Last week wind force 8, now they predict it again.... weather radar
show showers generating upwind.....
But 10 degrees C in December, I love it (could be -10 for that matter,
for the US guys: 0 C means freezing).
>>Hell for that money
>They are quite cheap here
>> here you can but a small color TV with teletext and SCART
>>(RGB ?) out.
>>
>Assuming you don't mean butt but buy.
Yea sure, I type this between other things, never look at the screen....
(ahum).
>A scart signal usually has
>combined Horizontal and Vertical scan signal. You need to seperate
>those for monitors.
Eh....
The VGA monitors will not work on SCART anyways, because the H freq range
does not allow down to 15625 Hz.
>http://www.converters.tv/products/converters/video_to_vga_converters/7.html
I like it, it is what the OP wants to make, but he wants it as exercise in FPGA.
Sure cannot beat that price.
JoeBloe
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> Gave us:
I noticed it doesn't mention what the output res is. Also, it just
says "high resolution output picture".
So it would be 640 by 480 or a 720 by something array size.
Hopefully the latter.
sp_mc...@yahoo.com
TV on LCD (or any monitor):
http://www.buy.com/prod/KWorld_XPERT_TV_LCD_TV_Tuner/q/loc/101/10405691.html
it's $37, including shipping, if you pay with google checkout.
sean
Jan Panteltje
wrote in <1165560971.3...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Impressive.
I was arguing against PAL in FPGA elsewhere in the discussion with the OP.
(against doing PAL / NTSC demod digital), and I just found a warning in a
German TV station (Vox) news bulletin that states:
'Test HDTV receivers before you buy these on a normal PAL transmission,
as those are still the majority you will view, and many of these new
receivers show horrible PAL pictures'.
It did not say if it was due to rescaling errrors from PAL to 1920x1080,
or decoding errors, but clearly even these high end manufacturers
either had no full size clue, or did cut corners.
That probably can be traced down to chipsets used......
But now they can say: 'See how bad analog PAL was compared with HDTV?'
Chances are that if they ever looked at analog PAL in the studio they would
think it was HDTV :-)
Video is all f*cked up, nobody has a clue, like audio, speakers with 1000W on
a 12V 2A AC (or DC if you must) adapter, mp3 audio, soundblasters EMU10k1.....
TUBE AMPS.
And 400 000 gates FPGA PAL decoders while you can do it _better_ with 5
transistors.
People are afraid of tuned circuits and inductors and trimpots.
But OK mpeg2 rules..... makes little differerence, never did..... looks
bad but they tell me it is better, so and I payed for it so it must be.
It is a bit like buying a Volkswagen, and then reading all the Volkswagen
adds that show you how great Volkswagen is, to stabilize your self respect
so you convince yourself you made the right choice.
Even every time the Mercedes overtakes you .
jasen
> What probably hasn't been explained to you is the complexity of pulling
> apart the composite signal then reconstructing it in to VGA (which is a
> form of RGB format).
>
> The most popular way is to digitise the composite video in to a video frame
> buffer... and the reconstruct the VGA (RGB) analogue signal.
>
> So you are going from analogue (composite) --> digital -->digital
> process-->analogue (VGA).
>
> This is a very high speed process and surface mount IC's with 100's of pins
> or more.
>
> Not recommended for Newbies!
ISTM if you have a monochrome input you only need a sync detector
something might be salvagable from an old TV....
--
Bye.
Jasen
Jan Panteltje
wrote in <eld2g5$8i9$2...@jasen.is-a-geek.org>:
No, the VGA monitor will not work with TV line frequences (15625 Hz),
check you moniotor specs.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> What probably hasn't been explained to you is the complexity of pulling
> apart the composite signal then reconstructing it in to VGA (which is a
> form of RGB format).
>
> The most popular way is to digitise the composite video in to a video frame
> buffer... and the reconstruct the VGA (RGB) analogue signal.
>
> So you are going from analogue (composite) --> digital -->digital
> process-->analogue (VGA).
>
> This is a very high speed process and surface mount IC's with 100's of pins
> or more.
>
> Not recommended for Newbies!
That might be a bit of an overkill. Think about how a color TV set
works. The demodulated signal is essentially in composite format. The
set's internal circuitry has to separate the individual color signals
and extract sync signals from that.
There are probably some one chip (plus a few discretes) solution for
that suitable for sub $100 analog color TV sets.
All this assumes the use of a multisync VGA monitor so as not to have to
fiddle with scan frequency shifting.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
God doesn't play dice. However, He does play a mean game of
3 card monte.
sp_mc...@yahoo.com
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> It did not say if it was due to rescaling errrors from PAL to 1920x1080,
> or decoding errors, but clearly even these high end manufacturers
> either had no full size clue, or did cut corners.
Like I said in one of the previous posts, some of the PC TV tuners
still use notch filters to seperate luminance and chrominance ! For
HDTV, it would seem to almost be advantagous for them to include poor
analog broadcast circuitry. If the customers get very dissapointed
whenever they have to tune to an analog channel, it only hastens the
transition to 100% digital. Not that I'm opposed to that. Like you
said, MPEG-2 might not be perfect, but I think it's pretty good,
especially for a 10-20 Mbps stream. Consider that raw NTSC is like 166
Mbps, and raw HDTV (without MPEG-2) would be in the Gbps range.
> People are afraid of tuned circuits and inductors and trimpots.
I'm an EE, and I'm still afraid of some of the analog video circuits!
Perhaps not trimpots, but hsync PLL's with analog timebase correction,
glass delay-line analog comb filters, and the like certainly scare me.
For me (and most of the coming generation of EE's), it's more likely
that we've been taught about various digital algorithms, VHDL, DSP,
sampling, etc, than it is that we've had rigorous/advanced analog
design courses. We get a couple basic circuit analayis and transistor
analysis courses, sure, but that wouldn't be nearly enough to prepare
us to process any *useful* signal using analog devices. So the trend
might continue to move away from analog processing (in our generation).
Either that, or the few who are well-trained with analog processing
will get very nice paychecks.
Sean
Jim Thompson
[snip]
> So the trend
>might continue to move away from analog processing (in our generation).
>Either that, or the few who are well-trained with analog processing
>will get very nice paychecks.
>
>Sean
YES !-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jan Panteltje
wrote in <1165691375.3...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>> People are afraid of tuned circuits and inductors and trimpots.
>
>I'm an EE, and I'm still afraid of some of the analog video circuits!
>
>Perhaps not trimpots, but hsync PLL's with analog timebase correction,
>glass delay-line analog comb filters, and the like certainly scare me.
>For me (and most of the coming generation of EE's), it's more likely
>that we've been taught about various digital algorithms, VHDL, DSP,
>sampling, etc, than it is that we've had rigorous/advanced analog
>design courses. We get a couple basic circuit analayis and transistor
>analysis courses, sure, but that wouldn't be nearly enough to prepare
>us to process any *useful* signal using analog devices. So the trend
>might continue to move away from analog processing (in our generation).
>Either that, or the few who are well-trained with analog processing
>will get very nice paychecks.
>
>Sean
I think we must set priorities somewhere.
We should not forget industry needs to sell.
We should also not forget we create a 'need', we paint an image, the consumer,
who often has no clue, is seduced to buy.
The craziness we see with golden mains outlets described here recently shows
you can make believe people anything.
So is it to the government to set rules that protect against snake oil?
Or just the market forces will do it?
Funny thing I did read that now mpeg, with less bandwidth, allows for many more channels,
some German university did some research how many hours people watched TV when i twas
still analog, and then how many hours when they had all these digital channels with
digital program guides.
They found people watched _less_ TV now it was digital, because now people made a choice.
This is significant because the tech was selling to advertisers!!!
So the people now watch less adds!.
People get selective, and the youth wanted internet and not TV IIRC.
nevertheless we now see DVB-S2 start in Europe (mpeg4 is on several stations now) with
_more_channels with _less_quality, but in higher resolution.....
I do not know where it will stabilise, but big LCD TV need to sell.....
The old TV system lasted 50 years or so? The DVB-S digital system now 8 and
is being replaced... settop boxes and encryption systems change every year.
How much is a consumer willing to spend for something that is 'outdated' in 1 or 2 years?
So maybe it is a government task to stabilise this wild electronics hunt for sales a bit,
and make sure _real_ quality data is made available (some seal?).
Consumer organisations are sometimes bought,. sometimes have no clue, maybe market forces
alone is not enough.
Maybe we will get videophiles with field emision displays, uncompressed digital 10x
oversampled streams on tera byte harddisks.
This is no illusion, I have started storing some music CDs in wave format on the PC,
after all what is 700MB these days....
Sounds much better then mp3 (if you use a decent soundcard).