[mythtv-users] HDMI-to-CAT5 Converter

[Brian Wood]

David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:10 AM, Jason Sullivan wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 4, 2008 11:58 AM, Josh White <jaw1959 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Or you could put the frontend near the video, and run long audio  
>>> cables...is
>>> that any easier?
>> I've thought about that, too.  Right now I don't do HD, so an S-video
>> cable is fine for now.  Currently I'm trying to see which
>> configuration (everything close to the projector / everything close to
>> the speakers) works better from a layout and usege perspective.   I
>> don't anticipate running video signals over the networking cable
>> already in the walls, though.  Even running a single HDMI cable (even
>> with the adapters) is cheaper and makes more sense than trying to run
>> it all over networking cable, but I can see situations where someone
>> might want to save the time and trouble with money.
> 
> Sure.  These devices are mainly aimed at businesses that have  
> buildings that already have CAT5 or CAT6 runs.  It's become common to  
> install lots of this stuff during construction and then parcel it out  
> to various services as needed.  NTSC video over CAT5 is becoming  
> particularly common in the video surveillance world, because it  
> greatly reduces the physical size and weight of the cables.  This  
> doesn't seem like a big deal until you see what a bundle of sixty  
> RG-59 cables going into a surveillance room looks like.  You can also  
> run video over longer distances this way than you can over coax,  
> especially if you use active baluns at each end.

True, to a point.

If you use modulated RF carriers you can carry a LOT more channels a LOT 
farther, on a single RG-59 or RG-6 cable, as any CATV operator knows.

But it does greatly increase the cost and complexity of the terminal gear.

beww