Hi folks,
wonder if anyone could say what the better way to transmit a composite video signal over a few hundred feet would be ? Normally I would use a piece of RG59 co-axial cable but I have been reading of claims that using Cat 5 UTP cable with a passive balun at each end is the better way in terms of signal loss and interference. I'm guessing the balun is only to change cable impedances from 75 ohm (RG59) to 100 ohm (Cat 5).
thanks, Coda
On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:20:38 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Colin MacDougall wrote in :
I would not say it is better, but I do have a small PAL camera via cat5 and power too, with a local 7805 to regulate at the camera end. Picture is OK, for such a small camera, never measured amplitudes or freq response. It is about 20 meters only... I must say, FORGET ABOUT COMPOSITE VIDEO, go digital, or in case of ethernet cable get a camera with ethernet interface. In a few years you will haldly be able to find a digitiser or even something with composite in. Your balun will reduce signal level, sucks. Just use coax if you need the correct impedances, or you will need a video amp.
I use one of these with about 100' of CAT5, sending composite video, and it works really well. 300'? You're going to have to try it and see if the picture sharpness will be okay. I suspect it'll be just fine.
Bob
-- == All google group posts are automatically deleted due to spam ==
Yup, it has been done for many years. Cat 5 should work ok up to about 200 feet. More than 50 feet you start considering equalization networks / amplifiers.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.