The in-camera processing power for that would have to be pretty stout, Luke. You think anyone will be able to pull it off?
Will the quality of video processed in that way really make a big difference? When you consider that Hollywood is already using VDSLRs for mainstream production, does the quality need to be improved significantly? And there really isn't a need in video for the same quality as in a still image due to the moving nature of video and the fact that with current TVs we're spreading 1280 or 1920 pixels over screens that are significantly larger than our computer screens; many of which now have HD resolution. Arguably, quality is already on par with broadcast quality cameras (not cinema cameras).
The central R&D in the digital imaging industry is going into the still camera, which embodies the generalized digital imaging pipeline. As you increase the speed and bandwidth of this pipeline, you increase the capability for video. The video market inherits this research, first as the daemon spawn of the still camera. But since it comes virtually for free, few are complaining.
Inevitably, still camera capture rates will approach 30 FPS at full resolution. And if you think about it, without the mechanicals (shutter, mirror box, and auto diaphragm) as the rate-limiting steps, that goal is not so far off. It's not that stills shooter demand it, it is that there is pressure on the industry to deliver video breakthroughs. But the still camera manufacturers will likely be the first to bring it to the mass manufacturing level.
[Aside, wouldn't you or I like to have an autobracketing step completed in 1/30th sec (1/60, 1/250, 1/1000th let's say), all told?]
Yes, I think it will make a big difference. 14 bits of RAW capture, no decimation artifacts, improved high ISO noise from downsampling. Add a full frame chip. You can see how good these time-lapse movies are. Imagine in your video if every frame was as eye popping as your best still in every sense of the word.
I think that an entire generation of art students, film/video departments, and young video professionals would run headlong for it the minute it becomes available. Every one of them could have the capability of producing real archival video of more than cinematic super-35 quality. Never mind for the moment that they need rigging, lighting, lenses, monitors, editors, grips, sound recording, mixing, and everything else. It is just being able to take down the images with a good lens that holds the magic, and the rest they will deal with later.
And that will do until 4k becomes mainstream...this might take a while.