TV over LAN - advice please

In our new office building we are planning on having a few flat screens
scattered about the building and need a way of distributing a video feed to
them.

As far as I can see we have a number of options.

1) Coax feeds to all locations - needs RF output from video source , not
easy to move screens.
2) Composite video/RGB + audio feeds to all locations - easier to connect to
multiple sources , same problem with moving screens if we need to , and lots
of cables.
3) devices like the slingbox or Sony equivalent that feed a video signal
over the LAN http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php
No need for any extra cabling above the normal cat6 , but it would require a
PC connected to every screen. On the upside , PCs and screens could easily
be moved to different locations as everywhere will be cabled for cat 5.
4) converters that send audio and video signals over cat5 cable - no need
for PCs with the screens , but will the quality be any good?

Has anyone had practical experience of options 3 or 4?

--
Alex

Piece by piece the penguins have taken my sanity
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!
!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes
> In our new office building we are planning on having a few flat screens
>scattered about the building and need a way of distributing a video feed to
>them.
>
>As far as I can see we have a number of options.
>
>1) Coax feeds to all locations - needs RF output from video source , not
>easy to move screens.
>2) Composite video/RGB + audio feeds to all locations - easier to connect to
>multiple sources , same problem with moving screens if we need to , and lots
>of cables.
>3) devices like the slingbox or Sony equivalent that feed a video signal
>over the LAN http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php
>No need for any extra cabling above the normal cat6 , but it would require a
>PC connected to every screen. On the upside , PCs and screens could easily
>be moved to different locations as everywhere will be cabled for cat 5.
>4) converters that send audio and video signals over cat5 cable - no need
>for PCs with the screens , but will the quality be any good?
>
>Has anyone had practical experience of options 3 or 4?
>

CAT5 cables with Baluns are sometimes used in CCTV systems and provided
the line length isn't too long they can and do look quite good....
--
Tony Sayer

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In our new office building we are planning on having a few flat screens
> scattered about the building and need a way of distributing a video feed
> to them.
>
> As far as I can see we have a number of options.
>
> 1) Coax feeds to all locations - needs RF output from video source , not
> easy to move screens.
> 2) Composite video/RGB + audio feeds to all locations - easier to connect
> to multiple sources , same problem with moving screens if we need to , and
> lots of cables.
> 3) devices like the slingbox or Sony equivalent that feed a video signal
> over the LAN http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php
> No need for any extra cabling above the normal cat6 , but it would require
> a PC connected to every screen. On the upside , PCs and screens could
> easily be moved to different locations as everywhere will be cabled for
> cat 5.
> 4) converters that send audio and video signals over cat5 cable - no need
> for PCs with the screens , but will the quality be any good?
>
> Has anyone had practical experience of options 3 or 4?
>

Is this your normal LAN or a dedicated LAN? Video requires quite a lot of
bandwidth.

Paul DS.

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In our new office building we are planning on having a few flat screens
> scattered about the building and need a way of distributing a video feed
> to them.
>
> As far as I can see we have a number of options.
>
> 1) Coax feeds to all locations - needs RF output from video source , not
> easy to move screens.
> 2) Composite video/RGB + audio feeds to all locations - easier to connect
> to multiple sources , same problem with moving screens if we need to , and
> lots of cables.
> 3) devices like the slingbox or Sony equivalent that feed a video signal
> over the LAN http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php
> No need for any extra cabling above the normal cat6 , but it would require
> a PC connected to every screen. On the upside , PCs and screens could
> easily be moved to different locations as everywhere will be cabled for
> cat 5.
> 4) converters that send audio and video signals over cat5 cable - no need
> for PCs with the screens , but will the quality be any good?
>
> Has anyone had practical experience of options 3 or 4?

Use the PCs.
They aren't expensive and you can run PowerPoint presentations with the
video embedded (assuming the viewer is anygood).
You can get better screens for your money if they only have DVI/VGA and no
tuner too.
Make sure you have a switched LAN (nearly all are these days) or your video
feeds may swamp them.
I assume you are not multicasting the streams BTW.

dennis@home wrote:
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In our new office building we are planning on having a few flat
>> screens scattered about the building and need a way of distributing
>> a video feed to them.
>>
>> As far as I can see we have a number of options.
>>
>> 1) Coax feeds to all locations - needs RF output from video source ,
>> not easy to move screens.
>> 2) Composite video/RGB + audio feeds to all locations - easier to
>> connect to multiple sources , same problem with moving screens if we
>> need to , and lots of cables.
>> 3) devices like the slingbox or Sony equivalent that feed a video
>> signal over the LAN http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php
>> No need for any extra cabling above the normal cat6 , but it would
>> require a PC connected to every screen. On the upside , PCs and
>> screens could easily be moved to different locations as everywhere
>> will be cabled for cat 5.
>> 4) converters that send audio and video signals over cat5 cable - no
>> need for PCs with the screens , but will the quality be any good?
>>
>> Has anyone had practical experience of options 3 or 4?
>
> Use the PCs.
> They aren't expensive and you can run PowerPoint presentations with
> the video embedded (assuming the viewer is anygood).
> You can get better screens for your money if they only have DVI/VGA
> and no tuner too.
> Make sure you have a switched LAN (nearly all are these days) or your
> video feeds may swamp them.
> I assume you are not multicasting the streams BTW.

Thanks all , I think we will be going for PCs with the screens - LAN
bandwidth is not an issue :0)
--
Alex

Piece by piece the penguins have taken my sanity
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

> In our new office building we are planning on having a few flat
> screens scattered about the building and need a way of distributing a
> video feed to them.
>
> As far as I can see we have a number of options.
>
> 1) Coax feeds to all locations - needs RF output from video source ,
> not easy to move screens. 2) Composite video/RGB + audio feeds to
> all locations - easier to connect to multiple sources , same problem
> with moving screens if we need to , and lots of cables. 3) devices
> like the slingbox or Sony equivalent that feed a video signal over
> the LAN http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php No need for any extra
> cabling above the normal cat6 , but it would require a PC connected
> to every screen. On the upside , PCs and screens could easily be
> moved to different locations as everywhere will be cabled for cat 5.
> 4) converters that send audio and video signals over cat5 cable - no
> need for PCs with the screens , but will the quality be any good?
>
> Has anyone had practical experience of options 3 or 4?

I assume by option 4 you mean something like kat5
(http://www.kat5.tv/modules.html). These have had good reviews on home
automation sites and the designer has a good reputation in this area.

--

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Dr Zoidberg
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes
>dennis@home wrote:
>> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In our new office building we are planning on having a few flat
>>> screens scattered about the building and need a way of distributing
>>> a video feed to them.
>>>
>>> As far as I can see we have a number of options.
>>>
>>> 1) Coax feeds to all locations - needs RF output from video source ,
>>> not easy to move screens.
>>> 2) Composite video/RGB + audio feeds to all locations - easier to
>>> connect to multiple sources , same problem with moving screens if we
>>> need to , and lots of cables.
>>> 3) devices like the slingbox or Sony equivalent that feed a video
>>> signal over the LAN http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php
>>> No need for any extra cabling above the normal cat6 , but it would
>>> require a PC connected to every screen. On the upside , PCs and
>>> screens could easily be moved to different locations as everywhere
>>> will be cabled for cat 5.
>>> 4) converters that send audio and video signals over cat5 cable - no
>>> need for PCs with the screens , but will the quality be any good?
>>>
>>> Has anyone had practical experience of options 3 or 4?
>>
>> Use the PCs.
>> They aren't expensive and you can run PowerPoint presentations with
>> the video embedded (assuming the viewer is anygood).
>> You can get better screens for your money if they only have DVI/VGA
>> and no tuner too.
>> Make sure you have a switched LAN (nearly all are these days) or your
>> video feeds may swamp them.
>> I assume you are not multicasting the streams BTW.
>
>Thanks all , I think we will be going for PCs with the screens - LAN
>bandwidth is not an issue :0)

You may find a Nebula TV card or USB box useful.

It has a LAN facility.
--
Ian

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> You may find a Nebula TV card or USB box useful.
>
> It has a LAN facility.

But only able to stream to a maximum of three clients without additinal
licences being purchased.

http://www.nebula-electronics.com/licensing/about.asp

Jim

--
Remove `spamtrapped` to reply off-list

http://jim-mason.fotopic.net/c162491.html

Andrew Chapman wrote:
> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>
>> In our new office building we are planning on having a few flat
>> screens scattered about the building and need a way of distributing a
>> video feed to them.
>>
>> As far as I can see we have a number of options.
>>
>> 1) Coax feeds to all locations - needs RF output from video source ,
>> not easy to move screens. 2) Composite video/RGB + audio feeds to
>> all locations - easier to connect to multiple sources , same problem
>> with moving screens if we need to , and lots of cables. 3) devices
>> like the slingbox or Sony equivalent that feed a video signal over
>> the LAN http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php No need for any extra
>> cabling above the normal cat6 , but it would require a PC connected
>> to every screen. On the upside , PCs and screens could easily be
>> moved to different locations as everywhere will be cabled for cat 5.
>> 4) converters that send audio and video signals over cat5 cable - no
>> need for PCs with the screens , but will the quality be any good?
>>
>> Has anyone had practical experience of options 3 or 4?
>
> I assume by option 4 you mean something like kat5
> (http://www.kat5.tv/modules.html). These have had good reviews on
> home automation sites and the designer has a good reputation in this
> area.

Yes , that's the sort of thing.
I'll add that to my list of ones to check out.
Thanks
--
Alex

Piece by piece the penguins have taken my sanity
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Jim Mason wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>> You may find a Nebula TV card or USB box useful.
>>
>> It has a LAN facility.
>
> But only able to stream to a maximum of three clients without additinal
> licences being purchased.
>
> http://www.nebula-electronics.com/licensing/about.asp
>
> Jim
>
Don't touch it with a bargepole, it's as buggy as hell. I ended up
selling mine on ebay they were that bad. They are taking the piss
asking you to stump up good money for licences for the extra clients. I
would not mind if it did what it was meant to!

Rob.