Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   General Discussion (
-   -   Please help to clear my doubt about resolution (

salu Sep 20, 2004 11:35 AM

Many digital still cameras with 4 and above million mixels have a feature to shoot 30frames/second SVGA movie. Price of these cameras are cheaper than a 2 megapixel DV video camera. Does the quality of movies of these cameras better than a DV camera? How come they are cheaper than a 2 megapixel DV camera? Why is that only very top end Dv cameras have 3 and above megapixels when these cheap Digtal still camera can shoot movies in 4 megapixels?

SalBolzano Sep 20, 2004 12:50 PM

Salu! Most of the still digicams can do movies, but there is no zoom during movie taking and if you need zoom you are out of luck! Second - most stil ldigicams are for taking strill pictures and a movie is limited to the size of your memory stick or other media in the camera.... A movie takes a lot of storage space and does not have stabilization , like the videocameras do... So, if you want a movie - take a camcorder.... Most manufacturers add the movie taking to a still camera as a gimmick and most of the people i know dont use it for movie taking.. Hopew it answers your question... If not - browse thru the forum and there are tons of answers there !!!

Mikefellh Sep 23, 2004 12:00 PM

Also is the issue of video standards. Most still cameras take videos in the 640x480 or 320x240 resolutions...these don't correspond to any standard video resolution (these are computer resolutions).

If what you need is a device that will do NTSC, PAL, or any of the high definition resolutions, then you should buy a dedicated camcorder or DV camera.

Video on still cameras is an afterthought, and if you asked everyone here, I think most would say they don't bother with it, or they may have tried it once or twice. Personally I only used it when I took my first helicopter ride to film the takeoff to take my mind off my nervousness (so I had something else to concentrate on)...once in the air I only used the still mode.

MrPogo Oct 1, 2004 2:55 AM

I'm not sure of the exact resoultions involved, but I can assure you that the still cameras certainly are not using their full resolution to capture video. The most obvious way of telling this is simply to wonder how they'd manage to record 30 "photos" a second plus sound for as long as there's space on the memory card when they're in video mode, but can only manage take 2 or 3 shots a second for 4 seconds when in still mode.
To put it another way: a two minute clip shot on my three year old digital camcorder is currently taking up over 500mb of hard drive space (straight from the video camera, the equivalent of it's "RAW file" - it obviously gets compressed a lot, with no noticeable loss in quality before being burnt to disc, as a bit of maths tells you that at that rate you'd only get 18 minutes of footage on a DVD-R), so you can see there's definitely a difference in quality compared the hour of footage you get on a similarly sized memory card and a still camera.
The other thing to take into account is the fact that as said before, the zoom is usually locked once you've started filming on a digicam, but more importantly so is the focus, white balance, and everything else about the image.
Finally is the issue of sound. It might just be on my Fuji S602 - touted as the best still camera for video at it's launch - but to me it's never been any better than awful, even in "easy" situations like picking up one person's voice in a quiet, indoor environment.
Basically, video cameras are far better for shooting video, as that's what they specialise in, whereas still cameras are better for stills, so if you're serious about both you really should own both.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:24 AM.