x68000 said:
Maybe he is getting composite mixed up with component as Nubie is spot on when he stated that s-video cannot output anything higher than 480i.
I think I know what he's talking about. If you have a computer with S-video out and set the computer resolution to 1024x768, you
will get a picture on a SD TV. I believe the TV-out hardware on the PC automatically downconverts the signal.
I know about the TV output on a PC, I have had a dozen different PC's hooked to a few different TV's. They do offer up to 1024x768 resolution with scaling, and since they underscan heavily (down to 500x400 something actual resolution) there is absolutely no chance of making out any text in windows at standard DPI settings. Even if you can suss it out you will have a headache if you try to watch it for very long. I remove the underscan on the output, and the overscan on the TV, and the result still isn't stellar. For watching movies it is very nice though. (I play mostly racing games, and low resolution makes it very hard to clearly see the next corner or apex, or avoid obstacles, perhaps in games where the resolution is not so important there is less of a problem.)
As for gaming, I have found it smarter to use a super-sampling AA mode (4x4 resolution, 16 pixels are down-sampled to one) or a multisampling mode (2x2 SuperSample + 2x AA), and 16x anisotropic filtering, the anisotropic filtering is responsible for a very great increase in quality for me.
The upshot is that a TV is not a good computing output, and a passable gaming output. It is probably great for movies though.
The main problem is the interlaced output because it causes text and details to flicker violently (most TV output cards offer, or enable natively, a blurring mode to reduce flickering, it doesn't make it any easier to read text, your choice is too blurry to read, too flickering to read, or so low resolution that you can't reach the "OK" button in any dialog box)