Brian Wells

They exist. The reason we don't use them is latency. Check out the DVB-T transmitters on HiDes.com Oh, and they're also currently pretty bulky. But, I attribute that more to their specific use case of amateur TV broadcasting. I am sure if there were demand for 200ms latency video transmissions from cameras, manufacturers would be happy to modify the form factor for us. But, 200ms is simply far too much for our world, obviously!!! There IS however a "low latency" model coming out from the same company. But, it's "still" 100ms end to end latency. :-(

From your own product's manual, on page 2, Table Of Contents: "Transmission Mode (Bolt Pro 2000 Only)" and also on page 5, "Transmission Mode (Bolt Pro 2000 Only)" http://cdn.teradek.com/Public/Bolt2/Docs/Teradek_Bolt_Manager_Guide_v1_0714.pdf

Yep. I agree with you. Monitors change all the time. But, if the goal here is to make a lightweight compact handheld monitor that a director doesn't hate to use, then why do we think saving 6 ounces on a receiver and 2" x 3" of space is going to get us there? Why not apply the same integrated approach Apple took with the iPhone to a space saving, power saving, lightweight handheld monitor? I realize the market for this is super small, and that's why it will never happen. Also, pricing is a major obstacle on this type of highly customized, low volume product. Just take a look at the $10k Microview monitor for the Microlite Xmitter..... My point is that instead of wasting a lot of metal on an enclosure for a receiver, and full size BNC connectors, and battery connectors, and brackets to mount this thing to that thing, an integrated approach would provide a solution to what we ALL want: a lightweight director handheld. Is there enough demand for a $5,000 OLED wireless handheld? Considering there are only around 500 Teradek Bolt Pro 2000's (based on serial numbers anyway) in the entire world, and maybe only 20% of them would buy a director's handheld, is $500k enough of a market to address? NO one knows. But, I can tell you this sort of thing would be very useful and cool to have. Especially if you can change cameras from it. Or have more than one "built-in" receiver... This, to me, a guy who's dropped over 30 grand on Teradek products in the past, is something I love the idea of. If this is the place to tell them my wish list, well, Dream Big, I say...

I believe you. What threw me off, was that in September 2014, on the second generation Bolt Pro 300, in the Bolt Manager, I was only able to manually select 5190, 5230, 5755, and 5795 and the DFS channels were greyed out, because obviously DFS channels were only available in Unicast mode, and the Bolt Pro 300 has never had a Unicast Mode! Only since December 2014 has the Bolt Pro 300 had DFS Channels. So, while you would technically say that the Bolt Pro 300 may have "always been capable..." of DFS Channels, a more accurate depiction of the product's capabilities would be to say that, "prior to December 2014, the Bolt Pro 300 only worked with 4 channels and after December 2014, it works with 9 channels" right? ;-)

I have the December 2014 firmware on my 2000's... I agree it is a substantial upgrade and I am grateful. But, are you saying the second generation Bolt Pro 300, the version that sells for around 3 Grand all-in, now has access to all 9 channels, including the DFS ones, in broadcast mode? That's news to me. I previously owned two of these systems and sent them back and got the 2000's instead cause I needed the range. Back when I owned them, a month or so after they started shipping last year, in September I think, they were only using 4 channels. And, if someone wanted 9 channels, you had to get the 600 or the 2000. Can you confirm this has changed?

For what it's worth, even more than a half baked midget RX, I would much rather see them direct their finite development resources to combining their efforts with the newly Vitek acquired Small HD and give us a handheld OLED with built in receiver(s). Possibly with a dual RX, split screen or toggle, ability to receive at least two cameras, on a single battery. That category of product is a whole lot more interesting...... And also sets them apart from competitors offering (IMHO) inferior solutions......

My last name is Wells. I'm on an iPhone at the moment. When I can get a chance to access this site from my MacBook Pro I am happy to change my login appearance. My only point was that the device you're seeking essentially already exists.. I have owned the 2nd gen 300 and 2000. They're physically the same size. I rarely use HDMI either. I suspect Teradek would simply re tune the existing 300 2nd gen RX to hear the 2000 TX and call it a day. If that's all that's in the pipeline, then no I'm not interested. However, if what they're considering is shrinking the 2000 (2nd gen) RX by half, making it plastic with internal antennas, killing the grab engine, and the format conversion, their proprietary FPGA, and all the stuff that makes it bigger, then yeah, sign me up for two of them! Otherwise, a 300 2nd gen sized RX that only does 4 channels, and isn't much smaller, doesn't really offer a compelling reason to buy that instead of another 2000 SDI RX.

I have two Bolt Pro 2000 systems and here are my thoughts: Yes this situation comes up from time to time. But let's look at the cost.... A Bolt Pro 300 extra RX is 1690.00. It does not do DFS Channels-- which limits you to four channels instead of nine. But it is a little bit cheaper. The cheapest extra receiver for the 2000 system is now the HDMI only model for 3490.00. Works fine with HDMI monitors like the Sonys everybody uses nowadays..... Is it worth a $1700 savings to lose half your channels? To me, no it is not.

From the official spec sheet... Channel List: 1: 5150 MHz 2: 5190 MHz 3: 5210 MHz 4: 5230 MHz 5: 5735 MHz 6: 5755 MHz 7: 5775 MHz 8: 5795 MHz This is very intriguing, to me. Curious what's going on here. This kind of wireless technology (Amimon) in every other released product uses a 40MHz channel width. And, all similar systems (from Paralinx, Teradek, IDX, etc.) only have four non overlapping channels in that same band, not eight. In other products, they use: 1: 5190 MHz 2: 5230 MHz 3: 5755 MHz 4: 5795 MHz So, what's the deal? It raises many questions: 1) Is this a 40MHz or 20MHz transmission? 2) Is the increased range (450' vs 300') achieved by using only a 20MHz channel width? 3) Is the increased range (450' vs 300)' achieved by increasing the power transmission in dBm's? 4) Can you actually use eight of these systems on different channels at a time? Or still just "up to" four? 5) If this is indeed a modified version of Amimon's tech, is there a difference in the transmission quality in terms of range, multipath reflections, etc. compared to other systems using 40MHz channel width? Is it a "worse" image, but one with better range? Anyone know? B