Enter to Win: HDMI Fiber Optic Cable from DVIGear!

[Frankonwheels]

Um, huh?

That there is no loss of image quality despite the length of cable stands as the only apparent rationale for justifying an increased cost. 328 feet, though? Why would I be watching movies on my TV down the block from my house? Shouldst I also point out that I do not currently live in the White House? With the market price of copper being what it is these days, I'm not sure there should be a large differential between prices of the same length of HDMI cable with different core materials. But what do I know?

 

[westcott]

1,3, and 4

 

[korgoth]

i would like to be able to run something further away than 50 feet but because of the price of video cables i most likely will never do that.

i think by the time i would spend that much money on a 50 foot video cable, there will be wireless available.

 

[jim81labrie]

"No loss in signal quality" is more important than any of the other reasons.

 

[nooch14]

Contest Reply

I think the only reason would be the lack of image quality loss or the future proof concept although thats always a questionable reason to purchase anything.

 

[Slats]

1 and possibly 3

1)My soon to be situation is I will have to run the cable around a wall (concrete) and need the length.

3)I'm not positive what is in the walls I'm running around so the EMI benefits /might/ be important

 

[bearearz]

HDMI Fiber Optic Cable

I believe 1 and 2 are equal in importance.I like the idea of being as "future-proof" as possible. Fiber optic cable,while more expensive is currently the most engaging of options.We all have to measure the alternatives and choose the optimal,cost-effective of the current products.

 

[BobBart]

I think #1 is the most important. I personally don't need a run that long so the extra cost is not worth it for me.

 

[zildjian]

1. Supports long HDMI cable runs up to 100 meters (328 ft.) with no loss of image quality.
3. Optical cable is not susceptible ground loops, or RFI/ EMI interference.

Having no EM/RF interference and maintaining image quality in long run situations are the two reasons that when needed are what I believe to be the justification of the more expensive cabling solution. I think that such long runs are rare in the average set up, but when needed, a no quality loss solution should be available to those who want it.
Brad

 

[Don_T]

For me the first three reasons are most important but I think number one would be the deciding factor for me to purchase a more expensive fiber optic cable.

Personally I want the highest picture quality that my equipment is capable of producing and my projector is almost 50 ft. from the equipment room so that is why the fiber optic cable is a good choice.

 

[Tazmoj]

I'd say reasons one and three, although I don't forsee needeng a cable that long.

 

[Jutang]

Image quality would be my primary reason for spending more on a cable.

 

[bersik]

1 - because there is no substitute for quality.
3 - because ground loops are very annoying and difficult to troubleshoot.
4 - because longer runs have a greater chance of having to be run through tight places.

 

[ringbearer3791]

The availability of 1080p images and the ability to have long cable runs without losing image quality are the factors that make the fiber optic HDMI cables worth it.


Contest Questions:
For video runs over 50ft., fiber optic HDMI cables have distinct advantages over copper cables. Please explain which of these advantages would justify the increased cost of the cable and why:

1. Supports long HDMI cable runs up to 100 meters (328 ft.) with no loss of image quality.
2. Supports higher bit rates required for 1080p “deep color” (12-bit color) essentially making the fiber optic solution more “future proof” than copper cables.
3. Optical cable is not susceptible ground loops, or RFI/ EMI interference.
4. Narrow cable diameter; Possibility to pull cable through narrow conduit.
5. Elegant High-Tech solution.

Note this contest ends on May 31st, 2007. The winner will be drawn shortly thereafter.

Have fun and good luck![/QUOTE]

 

[evilkat]

# Supports long HDMI cable runs up to 100 meters (328 ft.) with no loss of image quality.

With PCs and other sources of video living all over the place in a home, I can totally see the need to have v. long cable runs to hook up to the HT center...

 

[Tomorrow]

Contest Questions:
For video runs over 50ft., fiber optic HDMI cables have distinct advantages over copper cables. Please explain which of these advantages would justify the increased cost of the cable and why:

Supports long HDMI cable runs up to 100 meters (328 ft.) with no loss of image quality.
This is a pretty long run, and top quality transmission is necessary.

Supports higher bit rates required for 1080p “deep color” (12-bit color) essentially making the fiber optic solution more “future proof” than copper cables.
This would certainly justify the costs...when more 1080P media becomes available.

Optical cable is not susceptible ground loops, or RFI/ EMI interference.
Narrow cable diameter; Possibility to pull cable through narrow conduit.
Elegant High-Tech solution.
Would not, generally speaking require much more in cost, in my opinion.

 

[tomahawktim]

1.With the rapid growth of HTPC, media centres and home automation, the increased lengths of optical hdmi will be a saviour.

2.Deep colour is the future of video and optical hdmi will be there. The 'future proof' aspect of optical hdmi that appeals most to me is the uses we haven't yet considered. We'll probably be piggybacking more than just our home entertainment on these cables.

3.Resistance to interference will become much more important to users as whole home automation becomes mainstream and home theatre expands throughout the house.

4.You cannot underscore the importance of 'ease of use' to the builder/installer/DIYer.

5.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Where one person sees 'wires', another sees an 'Elegant High-Tech Solution'. I'm more of the latter type; I like the orange with the glossy connectors.

 

[abracadabra1]

Fiber optic cable's increased cost can be justified by its insusceptibility to ground looping and its high resistance to RFI/EMI. Although the ability to run fiber optic HDMI cables over longer distances is a plus, it is for not without some sort of RFI/EMI protection. Running cable over greater distances increases the likelihood of encountering some sort of interference from either radio-frequency or electromagnetic signals of some sort. And without ground looping, the ability to run the cable over long distances would be moot, as well, since possible ground connections will lead to noise and signal degradation.

 

[aarond]

6) hopefully different connector than the piece of garbage hdmi standard

 

[brucewoodington]

For video runs over 50ft., fiber optic HDMI cables have distinct advantages over copper cables. Please explain which of these advantages would justify the increased cost of the cable and why:

1. Supports long HDMI cable runs up to 100 meters (328 ft.) with no loss of image quality.
2. Supports higher bit rates required for 1080p “deep color” (12-bit color) essentially making the fiber optic solution more “future proof” than copper cables.
3. Optical cable is not susceptible ground loops, or RFI/ EMI interference.
4. Narrow cable diameter; Possibility to pull cable through narrow conduit.
5. Elegant High-Tech solution.

Long cable run is important to me, we are adding on to our family room, and running a longer cable beats the heck out of re-locating all the gear, and i certainly don't want to give up the quality picture i am used to. Ground loops have been an issue, also. That would be a good reason to upgrade.