Steve,
Gerhard's question is good. Right now I'm designing a product with
HDMI interface.
AFIK there is no HDMI connection on copper being able for kilometers link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
Assuming a resonable HDMI  say for max 1080p, the bandwith will be around 4Gbps.
The equipment transferring from copper to fiber must encode everything
from HDMI including the I2C and I guess there are already available
such transcievers isn't it ?

thx,
Vasile

On 8/18/07, Steve Rapinchuk <steve@oakvalley.com> wrote:
> I2C is not necessarily attractive for long range comms; however, all
> HDMI, DVI, and computer monitor connections include an I2C interface,
> called DDC:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_data_channel
>
> Without a working DDC, you won't get any video (or audio in the case
> of HDMI) on your HDTV/monitor. And since there is a demand for these
> connections to be increasingly longer for home theaters and
> commercial/industrial applications, there is a demand for a long
> range I2C comms. "Deep Color" (48-bit color in HDMI 1.3) increases
> the needed bandwidth, which reduces the effective length of regular
> copper HDMI cables to something like 20 ft, IIRC. And no, it's not
> going to be cheap, at least until they start mass producing it. But
> those that "gotta have it" will pay the price.
>
> -Steve Rapinchuk
>
> Gerhard Fiedler  says:
> >What I'm wondering is what the applications for such long-distance
> >I2C interfaces are. It seems this comes up every now and then.
> >My thinking is like this: The main advantage that comes to mind is
> >being able to use simple (and inexpensive) I2C chip solutions at the
> >remote end without spending additional effort on the interface. But
> >by the time you add such a solution, which probably is not cheap at
> >all, you probably have blown the budget way out there anyway, and
> >the advantage of being able to use a simple I2C chip in the remote
> >end is pretty much irrelevant -- and a solution using a bus and
> >protocol that actually was designed for long range comms seems to
> >make more sense.
> >What am I missing here? What's so attractive in using I2C for long
> >range comms?
> >Thanks, Gerhard
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist