Video via mic cable

I'm surprised the idea of running video over CAT5 wasn't mentioned before the immediately above post. We did a lot of that back in highschool, since my building was new enough that every room had many CAT5 jacks. It wasn't bad quality wise considering some of the insane runs we did, mostly for monitoring purposes.

Sometimes we'd have to run video all the way from the gym or theatre up to the television studio on the other end of the building on the 3rd floor. The CAT5 link was decent for monitoring but nowhere near broadcast quality, so we often employed a Scientific Atlanta broadband cable modulator designed for "iNet" use (institutional network) that used to throw modulated video on a specially designed cable-company loop from school building to school building, sometimes distances of over 2 miles. With some o'scope and waveform monitor tweaking it drove a 750' run of RG-6 quad shield very nicely with broadcast quality results at the other end (broadcast quality relative to 7 years ago). We used an agile demodulator from Blonder Tongue at the other end to bring it back to a composite signal that was then run into a time base corrector to sync it to the outbound system.

Regarding running video signals on other lengths of cable not designed for it, been there, done that with very limited success. The box boom positions in my highschool theatre made excellent interest-angle camera positions but had absolutely no installed cable other than a/c and 4 wire speakon even close to them - like the ONE room in the school with no CAT5. In my experimenting days I decided to try and run y/c over the speakon figuring it had 4 poles and would be of decent quality considering the gauge of the speaker wire...nada - they only connected 2 out of the 4 poles...hmm 2 poles, sounds suitable for composite video...nope, couldn't even sync, not even with a gen lock return. FAIL. So I ended up pulling RG6 quad through a spare conduit run back to the booth and throwing compression BNC connectors on the end of it...and the camera position lived happily ever after!
 
Just a heads-up for those who might consider using an existing CAT5 data network structure within their building. If you have access to your data racks, I would suggest you patch your video devices directly; that is, unpatch from the data network hub or switch so that your video travels from wall jack to wall jack. I'd guess your IT people wouldn't like you running other signals over their data network; it probably wouldn't work anyway & would likely screw up video and data. If you need to route to multiple locations, all the companies like Magenta make CAT5 hubs designed specifically to amplify and split an AV feed from their CAT5 transmitters.
 
Just a heads-up for those who might consider using an existing CAT5 data network structure within their building. If you have access to your data racks, I would suggest you patch your video devices directly; that is, unpatch from the data network hub or switch so that your video travels from wall jack to wall jack. I'd guess your IT people wouldn't like you running other signals over their data network; it probably wouldn't work anyway & would likely screw up video and data. If you need to route to multiple locations, all the companies like Magenta make CAT5 hubs designed specifically to amplify and split an AV feed from their CAT5 transmitters.

Yes, video running over CAT5 WILL NOT pass through data switching equipment. You need a direct electrical connection. Streaming, packet switched video is an entirely separate, much more expensive topic...

Also +1 for Magenta products with skew correction, they work very nicely.
 
It does not work over a network as video (or audio or control or...) over UTP is not network data or streaming media, it is simply using the twisted pair CAT cabling as the physical cable path and it will not pass through routers or switches. It is also not subject to the 100m distance limitation common to data networks, sometimes a real problem with IT people involved or IT people pulling cable as they often try to tell you it won't work or will modify the cable routing to go through MDF/IDF/data closet locations to keep any run under 100m (but instead just making the actual run much longer than required and potentially causing problems).

When addressing longer runs or critical video, consider active interfaces that have gain and/or EQ adjustment rather than simple passive baluns. This allows you to compensate for overall (gain) and high frequency (EQ) signal loss over long runs.

When dealing with long runs of component video or RGBHV/VGA, also consider interfaces with skew compensation or using skew free cable. In CAT cable the pairs are twisted, but not necessarily with the same twist rate. Over long runs, this looser or tighter twisting for different pairs can actually result in the physical cabling path being different between pairs. The difference in the arrival of the signals due to this path length difference is skew and enough skew can affect the image quality. Exactly the opposite of what one might expect, CAT6 is the least preferred for this type of application as it has the greatest differences in twist rates between pairs while CAT5 is typically a much better choice with lower skew. "Skew free" UTP cable is made just for this application and uses the same twist rate for all pairs, however it is not EIA CAT5/5e/6 compliant.
 
Has anyone experimented / theorized about using STP instead of UTP and what difference it would make in terms of baseband video quality?
 
Seems like it should be pretty insignificant unless you have tons of EMI/RFI issues.
Agreed! For one thing, typical cable shielding is fairly ineffective for interference sources such as 60Hz EMI, that usually takes a barrier with greater loss at low frequencies such as metallic conduit. For another, much of the benefit actually comes from the twisted pair aspect. The signal is the voltage difference between the two conductors so any common mode interference introduced to both conductors does not affect the resulting difference. Twisting the conductors makes both conductors more equally exposed to any interference.

Shielding does have potential benefits (along with potential drawbacks such as Shield Current Induced Noise), but many people seem to attribute all of the EMI/RFI resistance to the shielding and do not understand the importance of the twisted pair aspect.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back