[Recovered Thread: 80294]

[fishycomics]

I agree

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"but I rather purchase a camcorder for tht price of a sanyo and I still would have money left over for a nice dinner out of town and video shots/

[Cresho]

even aiptek looks as good as the sanyo. I did alot of searching. Video, pictures, if done right, they look all the same.

sanyo over digilife is optical zoom.
digilife over aiptek is stereo record.

I just did a comparison on my fujifilm 3800 vs the digilife. overall, both pretty much have the same quality of picture but its just that the optical gives the image a "better focus" compared to a "fixed focus". The picture quality non the less is the same. It really depends on the photographer in this case.

what i did in some of the pictures, i raised sharpness levels even higher. gaved me superior pictures. but the problem with my digilife is it will not save that particular setting. reverts back to normal. So what i do everytime i start up the camers, i bump up the sharpness to max and take pictures. then all come out great

[fishycomics]

correct all the user, 99% of the time i rush through snapping shots. I still take in an account to use the 3 second rule of a fixed lens . you cannot hear the lens adjusting you must listen for the electronics of the camera a distentive click. or beep. i count 1,2,3, snap 1,2,3 as well in record

a few hint about recording pann real slow, take steady still vids. and never worry bout getting that full 3 0minutes in can always edit and make a film more fun doing that.

[Caelum]

Cresho wrote:

the only thing i can see the sanyo being better at over the digilife is the optical zoom. Other than that, pictures are all the same and even video looks the same.

even aiptek looks as good as the sanyo. I did alot of searching. Video, pictures, if done right, they look all the same.[...]

Well the C6 can actually focus, the other ones can't. I musn't be seeing the same samples as you, or your software/PC musn't be displaying them correctly because I see significant differences. The C6 also hasa technology called "9 pixel mixture", which basicallyuses 3x3pixel matrix on the sensorfor eachpixel in video,which enhances the quality of the video and provides better low light video recording (up to ISO 3600 sensitivity!).

For example, look at this video from the C6 (<- right-click, save), it actually focuses onit's subjects, and has depth of field (DOF), therefore your subject is in focus and the background is out of focus, something the other cameras cannot do. And for photos, the pixel detail is significantly different, for this 6MP photo (first thumbnail, again notice subject is in focus):

[align=center][/align]
Look at the full pixel detail:

[align=center][/align]
The other hybrids' videos and photos appear blurry and less defined to me. But hey, it's fine, I respect your opinion.

[fishycomics]

Cal. :|

picture perfect. I plead the 5th

just have to say I hate quicktime (lol)

Pic of the person was excellent right down to the tear drop. the vid was smooth but when viewed bigger then the normal size shown some distortion. but very hard to notice.

I am picky, and that said The sanyo/fisher blows the compition away. colour. of the still and vid.

[Caelum]

fishycomics wrote:

[...]just have to say I hate quicktime (lol)[...]

So do I really hate it, I don't use it, it's too big and sluggish (edit: and it actually washes out the videos for some reason and can't play them full screen smoothly). I'm using Media Player Classic to view MP4s, plays them smoothly, with full contrast and full screen. Also VLC Player works well. Thanks.

[Cresho]

Im gona be using the ddv1000 for recording school lectures and an occasional recording of instructors demonstrations. NOthing big but its good enough for it.

here is a link with a flower dop and a small video clip of a rim.

http://www.zaurusthemes.org/oddpics/ddv1000.zip

The sanyo shows alot of potential. I thought the video is very good especially for that price. Still, it would of been overkill since i just need something for school. I hate the mp4 format as well. I preffer opensource avi files. wav or mp3 audio. I am not sure if its my computer or what, when ever i view these mp4 files, my quicktime showes lots of refresh rate problems like broken images when image is in motion such as up down left right. zooming or still video on quicktime looks excellent. my avi files shows no problems displaying video like this. I liked the zoom into the ducks seen. showes what optical is all about. I only use the zoom feature to adjust the sharpness on the ddv and zoom out. I also need to bump up the sharpness before i take a video or picture or it il come out looking a bit sharpless.

Since i always edit my pictures in photoshop, as long as the image looks good, i can always enhance. My older brother has the nikon d2x or..i forget what the newer one was, anyway, he is never satisfied and always changes the look of his picture in photoshop. I guess this is where i picked up that habit and i say, if hes not happy, i will never be happy and ill just use my available resources.

when you mentioned about the white wash look of the video and the picture, that is exactly how i felt. I do not understand why they look so white washed like if it was bleached. Until the technology improves, i'll probably be more happier to purchase a smaller, more compact, higher performing hybrid. This model will keep me happy for another few months till something comes around.

[Caelum]

Cresho wrote:

[...]I hate the mp4 format as well. I preffer opensource avi files. wav or mp3 audio. I am not sure if its my computer or what, when ever i view these mp4 files, my quicktime showes lots of refresh rate problems like broken images when image is in motion such as up down left right. zooming or still video on quicktime looks excellent. my avi files shows no problems displaying video like this.[...]

You hate the standard MPEG-4 file format? Or are you confusing Quicktimewith MP4? Don't use crappy Quicktime. Use proper open source software like Media Player Classic or VLCPlayer. The MP4container is the new ISO standard MPEG-4 container, it's modern, versatile and efficient. The .AVI container is old, inneficient,has many limitations and contrary to what you think, is not open source, let alone an open standard, it's Microsoft's.If an.AVI file contained the exact same MPEG-4 video and audio streams as an .MP4 file, it would consume more space, just because it's inneficient. You can easilytransfer the contents (streams) ofan .MP4 directly into an .AVI file if you like simply by using the open sourceMP4Cam2AVI utility. Because MP4 and AVI files are simply containers after all.

By the way, nice samples you provided. For dop, you mean DOF? But for the photos, that's a fixeddistance "macro" mode, theDDV can't actually focus ona subject at any distance. But I agree these are perfectly acceptable cameras and you get a lot of bang for the price, that's for sure.

[Cresho]

Yep! You are absolutely correct. avi, mp4, asf, wma, etc are file extensions which hold infirmation. The codec mp4 is what i dislike. xvid, divx, mp4, aac: since these are new to me, i am not to comfortable with them. I'm still old school with mp2 mpeg, mp3, jpeg compressions. For some reason, i just can't shake the idea that mpeg4 is a bad codec even though it is a superior codec.

thanks for the reminder.... I re-read my post and i kinda skipped around some facts.

and yes i ment to say depth of field.... for dop which is another typo. I type on a black keyboard in total darkness.

Media Player Classic-im gona try it. winamp playes videos okay but will not work on the ones needing a specific codec (or probably another problem). quicktime is just too yucky!

[mpgxsvcd]

What about the new Sanyo Xacti HD1? Isn't that a great choice as a camcorder because it records at 720p for only $800? I want to do some testing with the video but I think I am going to replace my Canon S1-IS with the HD1 this week.