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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 9, 2006, 12:10 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5
Default

Hi guys. All i can say, is that, this is really a great forum. And this wouldn't be great if you guys are not here. Anyways, i need help from you guys, coz i really plan on buying a digital camera, and i like casio for its quality and price. now, i'm having trouble deciding on which camera to buy, the ex-z120, or the ex-z750.



style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"from what i've read, only slight diffrences occur. I just needa confirmation, would i get a better VIDEO quality from z120 since it doesn't use compressed mpeg4?

If i would really get a better video quality in z120, then what can you sayabout it(z120)having only 28fps, instead of 30fps from z750? would i really notice the difference in terms of fps between those two cameras?



please help me on this. z120 sounds and looks really nice, esp the price. but if you guys can reassure me that z750 is better in terms of video quality and overall , then i would go for that. my concern is really on video, if you can tell me that z120 is way way way way too better in terms of video quality, that you can really notice the difference, then i'd go for that. is mjpeg really better than mpeg4?



do you have any sample videos of z120 and z750 so thati can see the differences?


thanks, please reply to this.
Nikkobengco is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 9, 2006, 1:59 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I doubt you would notice the difference in the frame rate. From what I have read by people who tried both there isn't much difference between them for quality. The Z750 does very good movies.

There are some advantages to MPEG4. You are probably aware it takes about a quarter the space on the card. It will also record with a standard speed card without skipping frames. The biggest advantage to me is the past movie mode. You can aim the camera and wait for something worth filming to happen. When it does and you start recording it records the previous five seconds from the buffer and continues recording. So you don't have to grind away waiting for the fish to jump or the toddler to do the cute thing again. You wait until it happens and then start recording. It saves a lot of editing and wasted footage. I shoot almost all of my movies in that mode and would sorely miss it. Casio cameras without MPEG4 don't have that mode because the buffer won't hold enough of the movie to make it worthwhile.

If you don't already have NiMH AAs and a charger you will have to buy them for the Z120. With the stand the Z750 is always fully charged when you grab it, and the battery will fill a 1Gb card with power left over. None of my other cameras have cradles and I thought I wouldn't like it, but I do. Some people claim it isn't good for travel, but it isn't any larger or heavier than either of my NiMH chargers and I find lithium batteries to be easier to live with since you don't have to rotate them or be concerned about self-discharge.

The prices on the Z750 seem to have crept up a little. But it is still a bargain IMO: http://www50.shopping.com/xPC-Exilim_EX_Z750~S-P~OR-0

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2006, 9:55 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 49
Default

The framrate won't make a bit of difference. I believe TV is only 27. As for quality, there are motion jpg cameras that are lousy and some that are good. It's more about the perticular camera because even tho MPEG4 is compressed more, it's better than many Mjpeg videos i've seen. The only way you'll surely get better video is to forget about a given brand and just look for whatever camera has the best. The canon IS series is supposed to be really good. But it's not a pocket cam. I have a Z750 and i think the video is very good, and the bonus is the ability to get an hour on a 1 gig card at normal quality, which is only very very slightly less quality. Or 1/2 hour at high quality. A typical Mjpeg camera will do from 8 to 12 minutes on a 1 gig card at best. So you gotta consider that even if Mjpeg were always better, it would have to be a lot better than MPEG4 to make it worth giving up 5 to 6 times the recording time ! And since it isn't generally a lot better if at all, i'd go for a Z750. And as an added bonus the still are exceptional when you learn the manual controls well.
dazco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2006, 11:34 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5
Default

Thanks for the reply guys.



So do you really think that the 10mbps mjpeg quality of z120 is better but not really that super dooper better than what you can get in 4mpbs mpeg4 quality of z750?



If so, can you please give me a freeware application that will let me edit the videos from z750, and add few effects like what you can have in WINDOWS MOVIE MAKER?

I just wonder, if i will edit the videos from z750, then i will compress the compressed mpeg4 again, and it means that the videos will have poor quality then? Is there a way to edit the videos from that without compressing it since it is already compressed? If i will use windows movie maker, it will convert the mpeg4 of z750 to wmv, and i have done that using a sample video, and how i hate the quality i got by using the windows movie maker.



Can someone please show me also a sample video from z120?



thanks, hoping for someone to reply again. thanks.
Nikkobengco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 10:24 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 49
Default

Like i said before, there will be Mjpeg cameras that look better, and those that don't look as good as the 750. It depends on the make/model. Compared to the Z120, i don't know what to tell you. I haven't seen video from that. But of all the videos i've seen from digital camera's, the only ones i've seen that were better were from cameras that were not tiny pocket cams. Not that the fact they're tiny has anything to do with it, but just that the 1 or 2 exceptional videos i have seen were from mid size cameras. Anyways, from all i've seen the 750 videos are right up there in quality and i doubt you'll find anything in a pocket cam thats enough better to make it worth the trade-off of 8 minutes per 1 gig verses 1 hour at normal and 1/2 hour at high.

Virtual dub will do all the video editing work you could need. It's a tiny free program thats been praised by professionals. But it isn't all that intuitive so it takes some learning. It comes with a few filters that are all but useless, but there are tons of great 3rd party filters available for all the basic stuff like sharpness/hue/saturation, contrast, noise reduction, all that good stuff. Plus a lot of less common ones like filters to add subtitles and such. Great program, but again it takes some learning.
dazco 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 6:32 AM.