[mythtv-users] HDMI-to-CAT5 Converter
Brian Wood
beww at beww.org
Mon Feb 4 18:59:03 UTC 2008
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
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list