Teranex Mini, the economical choice in front of FCP?

Question

My friend, the search function, did not have anything bad to say about Teranex. One poster said it was the best. In search of more information, I have gone to a review in Videography, suggested by Teranex. The reviewer has consulted for Teranex. Despite these cautions I raise the proposition that the Teranex Mini could save me money. What do you think?
I have legacy VHS material, various stills including half-toned scanned stuff, and three cheap consumer camcorders, doing card, DVD and DV tape. I am reluctant to upgrade to an HD camera given their myriad of formats, the rapid change and their cost. It seems that the Teranex Mini might let me hang in with my "junk" until Red arrives and settles down to save the day. The top cost I have seen is $7,000 for a Mini ($3,000 minimum price). Patrick guessed he might spend $7,000 for his fully-featured Mac Pro, so I guess $7,000 for a Teranex Mini is not out of the ball park. I was yearning for a Mac Pro + but now it seems more economical to yearn for a Teranex Mini.
You might want to look at the full review, but I have included a couple of excerpts. I did not include the part about a time lag problem, but they say that FCP will let you offset and get Teranex in sync with FCP.
The review excerpts follow:
"For the foreseeable future, video professionals
are going to live in a multiformat
and multi-standard world.
Although you may be upgrading to
high definition, it’s unlikely that you
will be working with HD footage exclusively.
Most producers will have a continuing
need to incorporate legacy
standard-definition footage from past
productions or stock image libraries.
For this reason, high-quality format
conversion equipment is an essential
ingredient at facilities."
and
"most converters offer
little to improve the image or even to
keep it intact during scaling. If you are
supplying HD programming that
includes a large amount of upconverted
SD material, a dedicated format converter
could mean the difference
between a program that passes a QC
check and one that doesn’t."
LM
most converters offer
little to improve the image or even to
keep it intact during scaling. If you are
supplying HD programming that
includes a large amount of upconverted
SD material, a dedicated format converter
could mean the difference
between a program that passes a QC
check and one that doesn’t.

Answer 1

Shane,
The message I got from your post may not be the one you intended, but it is a good message and I again thank you.
You wrote, "Or rent cameras and avoid buying like most productions do."
Being as I am trying to find a way to live with my junk cameras until RED or equivalent is available and stable, I translated your message as:
"Or rent Teranex Mini and avoid buying like most productions do."
The net says I can rent it for $275 per day plus insurance and shipping.
I will not need it for a while, so that leaves me time to learn how to use it and develop a good work flow to FCP, so that I can get Teranex in and out quickly.
Regarding other points you made, I will probably have VHS only this one time and I think I can frame it to the audience as real, live, authentic action footage from 13 years ago, so that they will put up with it.
As to the footage from my DV consumer cameras, it will not be perfect but Teranex says it will pass the quality check. The rental will reveal whether that is true.
And, about RED, if Graeme Nattress is on the development team, and I think he is, then I am willing to bet on RED. I do not think he would associate himself with anything that will not be a success. Of course, it might slip schedule a teeney, but I trying to prepare to wait it out happily with Teranex.
Again, I appreciate your posting last night.
LM