The issue is that most of the wireless systems only take one of the fields in stead of the two frames, using this as the first part of the compression, and then compress the
image. As images get dark the grain
level increases, and the problem with this is that grain is random enough that it is difficult to compress, so the compression does not produce a good
image.
You could go with an analog transmission
system but it is expensive, and they are quite large, there are professional systems but they are very expensive.
IMO over a short distance, there is little difference in the quality of the lower
level video transmitters, the cheap home units and the more expensive units like you are looking at are all about the same in
image quality, it is more distance and flexibility.
It is also not that obvious, but the
s video connection makes more of a difference when the signal is RECORDED, THAN WHEN IT IS DISPLAYED. This is an over simplification, but if you look at pro cameras, for transmission, the typical choices was composit OR component of
SDI but rarely
s video. If you go to any of the shows where the pro broadcast cameras are being displayed and quality is being shown, they either use the composite ( analog
coax) or the
Sdi link. It does make a big difference on recording .(an interesting side note is that a number of the manufacturers of VCR's now way after the fact have said off the record that the difference in the cost to make a VCR with standard vs
S Video is only a few dollars, but they insisted in keeping the price differential high)
Another option is to take the camera, and use a modulator and then use standard cable tv broadcast, and just have multiple jacks around where you can connect your
monitor to. If you troll ebay there are a number of Blonder Tongue frequency agile modulators that come up pretty cheap.
Sharyn