Understood.

Agreed. The filmmakers either. Including the north american filmmakers. 60i is irrelevant.

1920x1080 is present and future. . .lower than that? It's past.

Rant mode on:
I would have to disagree and say that is somewhat of an ignorant statement. Correct, eventually consumer displays will settle on 1080p but we are far from that now, and of new TVset sales, very few are even now true 1080p. With that in mind, one has to separate capture format resolution from the actual resolution captured by the cam. For example many films have/are shot on 720p, by such cameras as a Pana Varicam, which shoots DVCproHD at a capture resolution of only 960x720. Yet few would argue that it doesn't produces an image superior to any sub $10,000 cam regardless if those cams were to capture 1080p. As another example in the Texas shoot-outs, the JVC HD100-250, series despite recording to 720p scored the highest resolution of all under $10,000 HD cams shooting in P or F modes and second only to the Canon XL-H1 when in interlaced mode. Of the two prosumer cams that shoot 1080p (HVX200/HVR-V1) both score lower in resolutions tests then the JVC 720p series. True progressive footage down rez'es and up-rez'es very nicely, especially if it is uncompressed. And in this modern day where you rarely, if ever deliver on what you capture, it is simply best to start out with the best image you can get, and deliver on what they want. Regardless of resolution and format.
Bottom line is that uncompressed 720p, as in what is being discussed in this thread, is in NO way a disadvantage to the filmmaker. What is possible with uncompressed 720p derived from a quality cam head (especially one with removable lens for proper 35mm lens mount) is truly phenomenal, and would literally wipe the floor with any compressed cam regardless of its capture resolution. So the bottom line is all HD formats are the present and the future given they derive from a quality cam. Go shoot with a $1000 consumer cam at 1080i if you think it is all in the "numbers". I'll take 720p uncompressed any day.
Rant mode off ;>)

That makes sense up to a point, but if we could (for example) capture the HD-SDI output from a Canon XL-H1 to something like Prospect HD format at 1920x1080 resolution, that should give most 720p cameras a run for their money...or leave them in the dust. As DSE has noted in some of his posts around the internet, he's finding that 720p source upsampled for playback on the best 1080p displays leaves something to be desired.

In any case, if the goal is to have a portable recording solution which can connect to cameras delivering 1080p data from the sensor, it makes sense to design with 1080p capture in mind. 720p capture also makes sense for cameras delivering that resolution.

Uggg! Slaps head. Uncompressed capture IS what we are talking about. Did you miss read my post? Of course a XL-h1 would give a HD250 a run for its money if they both were recording uncompressed.
As for 720p source lacking upon upscaling, it all depends on how it is upscaled, and what is the source. If your talking about a highly compressed HDTV singal sure. If your talking uncompressed JVC250 vs XL-h1 F mode, uhh, it would be very, very close.

Wow I think this is an amazing idea and I can't believe I am just seeing it. 2 hours of slightly compressed 1080p24 on the go for under 4k would be amazing. I have been asking why wafian hadn't done this for months in fact I even emailed them about this very idea. Even if it isn't battery operated it will be looked at as a low cost wafian box. I think you should go with your original idea of using black magics codec as it doesn't add anything to the price. Also I don't know if I could afford one but I would definitely rent one for any pro work I would have to do. I would prefer it be battery operated with the battery located inside but it should last at least 2 hours. IDEA---- If you could make it so it uses dvx batteries or something like that then you could charge it with a dvx charger.

I don't know what your costs are so
xxxxx+$249 = Price $3000
xxxxx+$999 = Price $4000

You should be able to get a slight discount from Black Magic and your setup costs $2000 or less (adjust price accordingly) you will make $750 from each sale. Not bad if you sell 1,000 of these. that gives you $750,000. And that is possible because it works on analog, hdsdi, and hdmi hd cameras. I think that is a hell of a market.

I think this is an incredible idea and if you need some help with web design or promotional material design let me know I got you. Maranda Mobile HD or Maranda BlackHD. Peace

It is indeed a good idea, something I've been searching for. Blackmagic cards, of course, could be obtained much cheaper in volume. Their cost is probably only a 10th of the card...

Anyway, portable HDMI that you could put on your hip that captures direct from the A1 or HV20 would be beautiful. Seems if a company did it, it shouldn't cost more that a harddrive/enclosure plus conversion card outlet.

However, I wouldn't pay 4k for it. I think the 999.00 price point is when someone would actually buy one.

Not to mention that the camera manufacturers need to fully support 10-bit HDMI. HDMI 1.3 is great, but if all that is pumped through is effectively 8-bit, the inconvenience of even a so-called portable solution makes the idea less compelling.

Can these cams actually output more than 8bit uncompressed?

Fair enough: I wasn't familiar with the HD250 specs with the HD-SDI outputs, so that makes more sense now. :-)

No. All the JVC and Canon cameras only output 8-bit over HDSDI. I think only the GrassValley Infinity and the SI camera offer more than 8-bit for under $20K. Some of the XDCAM HD units may do it, but for market reasons probably not. However most 1/3" cameras have a noise floor that wouldn't make 10-bit all that meaningful, the two bottom bit would contain mostly noise.

Well that really wasn't the point of my post to compare the two. I was only trying to respond to Mathieu's comment "1920x1080 is present and future. . .lower than that? It's past." Uncompressed 720p is immensely capable and I just wanted to illustrate how misguided a statement like that is.

Again, fair enough. But note that in the Texas HD shootout, the Panasonic cameras (including Varicam) didn't score very well in terms of resolution, at least not according to the basic numbers. Only the JVC models showed the full potential of 720p.

http://www.adamwilt.com/HD/4cams-part2.html

Of course resolution isn't everything and not all cameras/lenses are created equal, so let's leave it at that. Most consumers seem to be happy enough with SD images on their HDTVs, so anything we can give them beyond that is gravy.

They are all quite a bit closer then farther apart. The Varicam shoots very close to the detail level of the XL-H1, but of course it has other advantages that make it a superior cam all around.
Of all the sub $20,000 cams, when shot in a progressive mode, the HD-100 has the highest resolution of them all. Which again was my point as to not discount the 720p format. As a side note the tests were done on the older HD100 through component out as opposed to the newer HD-250 through SDI.

There are different levels of demand. And a distinguishing difference between past and present, present/future and future/past. Et bien sûr, different levels of demand. :-)