Brian Wells Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Brian, the problem with building an Rx into a monitor is obsolescence. I love the idea but the pace of monitor technology is outpacing transmitters significantly. I also don't want to be locked into one monitor, what if I want an odyssey? I'd be very interested in a smaller Rx. The 300 Rx is much smaller than the 2000 and I dont see much need for lots of very large receivers. Having a smaller one for the director/Ac monitor would probably make me consider buying one. It's convenience and portability. Directors already whinge with carrying a simple monitor. 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Jess Haas SOC Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Its a great idea and when I get around to upgrading from my bolt pro (which has never had any issues and only seems to lose signal when ACs refuse to put the receiver up high) I would definitely get one. ~Jess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Alan Rencher Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 The reason why the original Bolt was so small is because it was a rehouse of the ubiquitous WHDI "stick" that we are all familiar with. It's crazy to me that when Amimon created the new boards so many years later, they couldn't manage to make them smaller, or even the same size! Hopefully they are working on getting the size of the boards down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Alec Jarnagin SOC Posted February 11, 2015 Author Moderators Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Hey guys. Little error on my part when describing what I want. I did not realize that the 300 was bigger than the older Bolt PRO. I thought it was just a renamed product (albeit with HDMI & SDI) because of the increased line of products. My concept is still the same though. A smaller, lighter, shorter range (and cheaper) receiver to augment the main 2000 receiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Mike Gailing Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 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? ;-) Brian, That is incorrect. DFS was enabled on Bolt 300 from day one. Im not trying to be sly with words, the product literally could be put into Broadcast or Unicast Mode, with Unicast giving you DFS channels. The drawback to Unicast Most was that the reconnect times were longer than Broadcast Mode. When we merged the two Modes, you now get DFS with quick reconnect times - best of both worlds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Wells Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Brian, That is incorrect. DFS was enabled on Bolt 300 from day one. Im not trying to be sly with words, the product literally could be put into Broadcast or Unicast Mode, with Unicast giving you DFS channels. The drawback to Unicast Most was that the reconnect times were longer than Broadcast Mode. When we merged the two Modes, you now get DFS with quick reconnect times - best of both worlds! 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Alec Jarnagin SOC Posted February 11, 2015 Author Moderators Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Guys, we are getting off topic. This is a thread about "who is interested in a 2000 (and it also seems 600) receiver lite". Nothing else. And Brian, please find that time to get to a computer and change your display name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Mike Gailing Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 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 It looks I am mistaken with the Unicast/Broadcast Mode for Bolt 300. However, I have asked every engineer here that has worked on Bolt and they have all told me the same thing: Bolt 300 (2nd gen) has always supported DFS channels and always was capable of transmitting over them. The reason why those frequencies may have been greyed out for you on Bolt Manager is due to the fact that the 300 cannot manually select frequencies; its all automatic based on the least used channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Daniel Stilling DFF Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I for one think it's a great idea. Usually a handheld monitor is used a few feet away from the camera, so long range for those is not necessary. A smaller size for a handheld rig would be optimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Victor Lazaro Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Back to the subject: I don't own a Teradeck... yet. But I like the idea of a all in one monitor/receiver SmallHD/Teradeck OLED system with SDI out of the monitor. That would make a lot of sense, allow for the director/AC/everybody else to have a streamlined system with no wires hanging make it compatible across your line of Bolts and you got a winning product! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Jens Piotrowski SOC Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Transvideo is currently developing a handheld monitor with built-in receiver for their HD-SDI transmitter to be released this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Walter F. Rodriguez Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Will the Transvideo product be zero delay or will it be like the one they currently offer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Walter F. Rodriguez Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Mike : what is different about the current Bolt Pro 600 receiver that it won't work with the 2000 Transmitters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Lawrence Karman Posted February 11, 2015 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I remember when we used to use regular, cheap small TV's with built in receivers as director's monitors in conjunction with Modulus/Canatrans/ or Titan transmitter. Why can't we have an HD transmitter that uses the digital broadcast spectrum so we can use off the shelf consumer TV's? It was illegal back then and we all used it just fine. Sell them for "export" only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Wells Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I remember when we used to use regular, cheap small TV's with built in receivers as director's monitors in conjunction with Modulus/Canatrans/ or Titan transmitter. Why can't we have an HD transmitter that uses the digital broadcast spectrum so we can use off the shelf consumer TV's? It was illegal back then and we all used it just fine. Sell them for "export" only. 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. :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.