Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Casio

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 19, 2005, 9:49 AM   #41
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6
Default

big_potato wrote:
Quote:
What about adding the Samsung V800 to your choices? Althoughit looks a bit bulkier than those on your list, it's full of manual controls, in addition to mpeg-4 movie, and it's also using the Shneider lens same as those in Kodak. The problem is, same as the Casio s500, I don't see a firm release schedule and a detailed spec yet

i had a look at the v800 and it does seem nice but steves exampleof thev700vid quality seems quite poor and like yourself i value vid quality quite highly. the casio ex-s500 seems to have amazing vid quality if their website is anything to go by - http://www.exilim.co.uk/exilimcard/e...y/highquality/its the best i have ever seen on a digicam but i havnt seen any examples from the other cams on my list. i would really appreciate if peope in the know (like big potato) could comment on how good he vid quality is in comparison. also the casio will be available in the uk from july 1st here http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/1136...500-silve.html

cheers guys

gateshead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2005, 1:16 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
big_potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 487
Default

On further testing the video quality of V550 for a week, I withdraw my rather conservative comment about it "...Movie quality worse than in Casio EXZ-750's official website sample movies, especially indoor...." As long as you hold you DC smoothly (no sudden movement of the photographer), and no sudden changes in lighting conditions, the movies taken are just the best of all mpeg-4 I've seen. I heard mpeg-4 is also a lossy block-encoding compression, meaning that it's trying to applied previous block patterns in the previous frame to encode the incoming frames. Sudden big movements of the objects will resulted in "blocks" in the video, as the previous encoded block patterns cannot be applied again to new objects. (FYI the bit rate is the same as Z750 ~ 500KB/s)

Having said that, I noticed that the sample movies in Casio website for Z750 that I initially compared with, were taken with the Z750 ***steadily_on_a_tripod*** (horizonal co-planar movements), while my first few shots were taken on my bare hands holding the V550. And the Casio subjects also just stayed all the way in outdoor under good natural sunlight.

I have taken a few movies along the shore of Hong Kong island at night time, and they are just perfect (the taxi drivers didn't brake suddenly).

But again, the movies are over-exposed as the still-pics. Neon lights were as bright as the sun, making the contents unreadable.

I hope Kodak will fix it in their next firmware release, along with memorizing more freq-used settings. I wish they were simply neglecting them due to being too rush to release the model on sched (June).

Sorry I wish, but I can't post any pics or movies in StevesForum (220K size limit) for your reviews. Even setting it to 1.8MP, the min file size is still at about 400KB, not to mention normal movie sizes of at least a few MB.


Questions:

1. Anybody knows how to edit mpeg-4 movies? I mean stripping away unwanted frames, and re-align them together. I haven't explored the s/w bundled by Kodak, and I don't expect it can perform such function.

2. How to turn-off the harmful AF green beam?

big_potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2005, 11:15 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
big_potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 487
Default

So here attaches a sample pic. Original 5MP at 668KB. Now reduced to 1.25MP at 240KB, fitting nicely into the 250KB limit by Steve. I think all settings were auto. The metadata of the original jpeg file shows: ISO=80, shutter=0.02s, aperture f2.8. ... etc.
Attached Images
 
big_potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 12:00 AM   #44
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 10
Default

SO you think that a 5MP shot should have bigger size than 668KB? is that a problem with picture quality you think?
jimboy435 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 3:29 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
big_potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 487
Default

I meant compared to my previous Pentax Optio 430RS [email protected], and the latest Casio Z750 [email protected] (average 1:5 compression ratio), the Kodak [email protected] (average 1:15 compression ratio) was over-compressed. The raw data size of 4MP should be 4MB x 3 (for 24-bit RGB) = 12MB.

I know Pentax CCDs are noisier and the JPEG might well take such noise pixels as real info and compress them as well, thus making the files larger.

For my sample pic above, it's quite monotonous: a single pink flower, all green leaves, and a dull/blurred out-of-focus grey background. So I would expect JPEG to compress it very well, but down to 668KB is too good.

So I guess:

1. Kodak's version of JPEG is more efficient than others, given the same amount of image info to be compressed.
OR
2. Kodak noise control is better than Casio & Pentax
OR
3. Kodak is stripping away the details before compression (low-pass filter).

big_potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 1:02 PM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8
Default

Hi there,
I'm new to this forum, and have just ordered the V550 myself.

I notice you're talking about the JPEG compression. If I remember rightly, you can check what compression ratio is used in various software packages. I think I have used Paintshop Pro in the past to open, then re-save the image immediately, where it shows the current ratio of compression in the save dialog prior to saving. Other JPEG utilities can also show it.

That way, you can get an exact figure rather than relying on just the file size. The images I've seen so far from V550's look fairly free of nasty JPEG artifacts.
ldjagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 2:07 PM   #47
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1
Default

Just wanted to let you know that the V550 does have a viewfinder. It's the v530 that does not.
jbjcfi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2005, 11:57 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
big_potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 487
Default

ldjagger wrote:
Quote:
used Paintshop Pro in the past to open, then re-save the image immediately, where it shows the current ratio of compression in the save dialog prior to saving. Other JPEG utilities can also show it.

That way, you can get an exact figure rather than relying on just the file size.
Sorry, we were NOT talking about the compression ratio of the ***image_editor*** i.e. PaintShop, we were talking about the compresssion performed by the camera itself i.e. the GPU of the V550. You may simply tell that the raw file size a 5MP camera would have taken is simply 5MP x (1(R) + 1(G) + 1(B)) = 15MB (assuming 24-bit RGB color space), if w/o any compression. You may not need the image editor to tell you so, unless you crop/resize the image to make it diff from 5MP. So I am concerned about the 15MB vs 668KB. The above attached filesize 240KB is insignificant - it's only to conform to Steve's limit.

Also, a too much compressed image need NOT to be worse looking than an appropriately-compressed image. Sometimes, squeezing away some unwanted details may even make the picture look more "pleasing" to human eyes. But after all it's not a faithful reproduction of the original image - the details are lost forever, no matter you like it or not.
big_potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2005, 9:34 AM   #49
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8
Default

What do you mean by 'harmful green beam'

What makes you think it is harmful?
ldjagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2005, 9:51 AM   #50
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 10
Default

Ok well tell us at 5MP what is the picture size? IN megs?...
jimboy435 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:06 PM.