Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Hybrid Still/Movie/MP3 Digicams (
-   -   Panasonic SDR-S10 (

bgd73 Jan 30, 2008 7:57 PM


I searched this part of the forum and found only marginal talk of the sdr-s10. I just purchased and am waiting ...

Anticipation has aroused a few thoughts. I started off with still cameras, used the 320x240 30fps (I still like it, don;t laugh). Mpeg-2 does something very disciplined as large as some may think it records. I swore the day I saw one recording to sd and an actual tv standard bitrate (the s10 goes beyond that) I was gonna go for broke to get it.So I did.

My curiosity has got me. I have found some disciplined re-encoding samples on you tube, but by no means the mpeg-2 defintionI know. anybody have real samples not re-encoded?

I am familiar enough with mpeg-2 to do anyhting with it. different encodings and settings get what I want for all purposes of a single video. I did recently have the sanyo c40 and it was a terrible purchase. Not to mention I think mpeg 4 is a fragile lunatic tricking anyone with eyesight below 20/20. Anyway... thoughts? any dislikes?

I did spot the plastic cover up front for the protection and do not like the thought of it, but I do have other thoughts already on how to rid of it. From first glance and net seems so very correct at this point. will I be disappointed?

Private Idaho Jan 30, 2008 9:08 PM

Well, I bought two of them.

Video quality... not bad at all.

Construction... MADE IN JAPAN... quite good.

ZOOM MIC setting helps to make up for lack of a dedicated external microphone input and the audio pickup is decent.

I'm happy with mine.

I've had very good luck with Panasonic (and Sony).

The SDR-S10, as you mentioned, does MPEG-2.

Here's a neat promo video:

For MPEG-4, I'd say Sanyo offers decent value although Sanyo camcorders tend to be more expensive than is justified; wait for a good sale, I recommend.

The Chinese camcorder manufacturers aren't quite "there" yet; however, they keep inching closer and closer to producing something that will one day be truly competitive with the Japanese.

Private Idaho

bgd73 Jan 30, 2008 9:35 PM

hey thanks. I remember about sanyo tv's and radios years and years you stated in your comment, waiting for sales is the only way for my opinion. but mpeg 4 is for the net crowd, I am not that.

The panasonic and price is crazy. I have a webcam doing 640x480 for 40 bucks 4 years old now...

Anyway. I have found the you tube vids, they stink. As for the promo, i ignore most ofthem. The numbers written defining it, and a true warranty by a good brand name is all i look for now.Panasonic seems to stand well there.There are 100 dollar still cameras still raising my eyebrow with thier mpeg2 and basic 640x480.For my disgruntled background to be known,5 grand in 7 years for electronics of the pc world has snapped my version of value forever. ..and I just hobby most of the time.the s10 should be 100 less than what I paid, but it is a common sense vid gadget and sales know it.mpeg4 will drop lower than the mpeg2 (that is my futureguess). thanks for helpful reply. Getting two s10'smay not be a bad idea...

Private Idaho Jan 31, 2008 10:53 AM

The other nice thing about the SDR-S10 is the widescreen, flip-out LCD.

And you can shoot MPEG-2 in either 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratios.

Private Idaho

Private Idaho Jan 31, 2008 11:17 AM

Also, I edit on both Mac and PC.

Mac is way better; worth every penny.

Apple includes the "Apple Intermediate Codec" (AIC) on every Macintosh.

This allows one to edit all long GOP formats such as MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 as easily as one can edit I-Frame formats such as MiniDV.

On the PC, I have the Cineform "NeoHDV" codec, which cost me $250.

But it also works very, very well.

On that link I provided to the YouTube video about the Panasonic SDR-S10, you'll note the comments from purchasers who struggle to edit the MPEG-2 in Windows Movie Maker. What they completely fail to understand is that they should not be attempting to edit the MPEG-2 directly. Virtually all consumer PC video editing programs were designed initially to edit .avi files -- including MiniDV files -- directly. And they can handle .avi quite well. But Ulead, Magix, and other low-cost consumer programs all purchased their MPEG capabilities from MainConcept. And MainConcept's direct MPEG editing feature is not perfected. If you zoom in on directly edited MPEG files, you'll note tiny video "blips" at or near cut points. And, depending on the source of the MPEG file, you may also experience video/audio synchronization problems. So anybody who attempts to edit MPEG (long GOP) files directly is asking for trouble, in my view.

Better to transcode such files to an intermediate I-Frame format.

Then edit.

I've found the intermediate codecs do a great job of preserving quality.

Private Idaho

bgd73 Jan 31, 2008 3:49 PM

I have read up on mpeg-2 edit a long time ago. Reference frames being spaced out too farwas the big difference with that of mpeg4 . Hence mpeg4 became popular fast for the unknowing and internet people.I have taken mpeg-2 to h264 and could not believe it until I saw it with my own eyes. It took many trial and errors, and the stuff about reference frames was a huge helper (you casn literally change that to re-encode).Ihave several mp4 from the c40 and varified that I not only acheived the same has the mpeg2 appeal my eyes like to look at. Smooth, and not able for still photos (like a good movie blended ought to be to stay real)

Also, I am a pc fan. The mac is fantastic, but I am a car customizing mechanic.. if ya know what I mean.

Another mp4 and mpeg2 difference is the ability for still shots (as you have mentioned like so many). Mpeg2 is meant to be a movie dammit. I like it that way. every frame needs the other, and THAT is what a codec for movies should be. Mpeg4 is young and full of fast thinking laziness for (as I stated already) the internet chatters and photo/movie clip swappers. After all... DVDis mpeg2, the REAL and original disciplined movie codec. The widescreen stuff has thrown me a bit, I have never worked with it. It ought to be interesting. I have always asscoiated it with high definition (and there is way more losers there than winners). but, it does show panasonic is confident to throw some clips at the same tv design that plays HD.

I do need yet to purchase a real dvd codec. I may do that through windows media player, and just know it will be good for the whole system. I tried it once for a short time, and it even changed my encoding quaility..all while not encoding exactly to DVD. (I was simply working with my little mpeg2.)It is good to have installed if to work with mpeg2 of any kind.

Anyway, thanks for the chat..looking forward to a simple no bs vid cam that can go outside in the rain....even if vidquality is less than perfect or HD or mpeg4 or however opinions end up like they do..

Private Idaho Feb 1, 2008 12:17 AM

Good luck.

One other thing.

The Panasonic SDR-S10's photos are low resolution.

And the video -- while quite acceptable in terms of quality -- is interlaced (480i).

So if you plan on using this camera for the Web, you might want to consider deinterlacing the video during editing.

I saw a review on Amazon by some guy who didn't seem to understand the concept of deinterlacing so he basically trashed the camera's video while putting his own ignorance of video on worldwide display.

Private Idaho

bgd73 Feb 1, 2008 4:39 PM

hey yes deinterlace works.

I wanted to verify here that 704x480 is the cameras output for everything?

I have run into a strange problem. after encoding without much trouble, the same routine is crashing my explorer.. now I am stuck. Can't seem toreencode.

I was going winff to a compatible divx for windows and deinterlacing, reencoding to the same bitrate as original. Looked quite nice.Then dropped video right into win movie maker. Thelast step for the net was that I attempted h264 and you tube to show what I ended up with, it is pretty close to original, but of course, its on you tube:


ok this is what I have figured out today...

recording mode 4:3 needs resizing to 640x480

recording mode 16:9 is 640x360

I just tested with a video I passed through sdstudio to be further edited, and one not reencoded at all, just renamed. One was recorded at 16:9, the other at 4:3. If not recorded at 16:9 it will look lousy after reencoding for local playback at 16:9.If camera recorded it as 16:9 a mysterious resizing and 16:9 mode happens., it seems only if you pass it through sdstudio and reencode with option for further edit, and 16:9..all with the same file!

I used winff and divx as I can manually put 9500kbits. After deinterlace it only has about half the bandwidth in this divx encoding, and it does look pretty good.

I will add to this, as earlier today I had a deinterlaced 640x480 screaming along at 7500kbit. It could be as simple as a darker vid versus one with light seperating the bitrate dramatically, will figure that out soon enough. If to go 16:9 mode, it seems you have to use sdstudio and reencode for further editing, output that file, reencode again at 16:9 with whatever,and it works . I do not know how they did all that to one file to be two way different aspect ratios, and it is frustrating already to see data lost ..although not quality. Rather clever. It does look good for loacl playabck. this is definately a dvd burning vid, not much concern for local.

Private Idaho Feb 1, 2008 10:23 PM

Yes, the resolution is 704 x 480.

That's one of the legal NTSC DVD approved resolutions.

So you can burn it to DVD -- as is.

Or you can resize the MPEG-2 video to 640 x 480; it really depends on what you plan to do with the video.

Panasonic has released new models -- bold colors -- that are said to be more water resistant...

Private Idaho

bgd73 Feb 3, 2008 3:20 PM

Private Idaho wrote:

Yes, the resolution is 704 x 480.

That's one of the legal NTSC DVD approved resolutions.

So you can burn it to DVD -- as is.

Or you can resize the MPEG-2 video to 640 x 480; it really depends on what you plan to do with the video.

Panasonic has released new models -- bold colors -- that are said to be more water resistant...

Private Idaho

Yes I saw that. I am not after that model, I just want something to withstand the real world of the northeast usa...cheaply. i recently got a google alert for this camera down to 199 bucks delivered, I just may go for two of them sooner than later.

I did figure out the video encode for local and internet in 2 steps:

the vid has to be imported through sdstudio (panasonic CD that came with camera)

it does not matter how it is exported from the program (except for 4:3 or 16:9 and that depends on how you recorded it),it has to use sdstudio to unlock full bitrate potential (very odd problem).I get same results for quality (reencoode export or not)...and full bitrate. I found divx to be the winner after deinterlacing , resizing to 640x480, and going for original rate as a setting. From there it is ready for h264 (very small high grade net file) or off to win movie maker (which kills all video). The tip I learned for WMV is to save it as large, regardless of what you see as a small bitrate on playback. From there you can deflate it and go elsewhere with full data (supposedly- I still see a bit of a loss in quality no matter what I do with WMV stuff). Avidemux is excellent and so is winff. If there is an even easier way to avoid sdstudio for example and get full rate on re-encode I would like to know. It is the same re-encode routine you get with all mpeg-2 (dvd recorders) and there must be a one step routine out there somewhere to convert simply to local and internet playback (one and the samejust bigger and smaller) with zero loss.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:56 AM.