Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Hybrid Still/Movie/MP3 Digicams

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 25, 2007, 12:07 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Need some advice as I'm banging head here... :angry:

I'm looking for the one which has better video performance in both normal and low light conditions...

Also, are CG65 spare batteries hard to get?

Thanks in advance!


jaix is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 25, 2007, 2:41 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

From an video perspective:

The big problem with the TX1 was high noise. But sensors improve as they revise manufacturing, so check with somebody that has an recent TX1 to see if the noise and low light has improved.


Technical:

The Sanyo relies on noise reduction circuits, which I think are better when noise is low in the first place. The TX1, though I don't know, might have insufficient noise reduction.

Don't let anyone fool you with latest codec, highly compressed/small data-rate (more footage per Gigabyte) high data-rate matters. They say that H264, as used in latest Sanyo's, delivers up to 3 times the performance over mpeg2, which maybe is double that of the Jpeg based codec in the Canon. So, that would mean that the 36mb/s Canon footage is equivalent to 36mb/s / 3 / 2 = 6mb/s h264 codec, but I don't think the Sanyo h264 codec is so efficient, and highly compressed codecs like h264 have problems with complex movement, complex scenery, big movement, panning, and especially noise. You could then say that such an h264 codec needs up to 18mb/s to match it in most situations. If you look at footage you will see that Canon has richer detail than many of it's H264 and Mpeg4 rivals (through normal HDV video camera can beat it). It however has some error that causes ghosts from the previouse frame to turn up, see the camcorderinfo review for that.

Apart from the noise (and simplistic design (handling?) with low battery life) the TX1 otherwise, would be worth the buy. Test one in hand.

If you want an hybrid camera, maybe look at the new Kodaks, Digilife, keeps promising 60fps h264 camera. But if video Toshiba has k series gigashot with around 15mb/s h264 720p60 (I think the company that makes this codec chip might be ambarella, which maybe better). Samsung has one at $799, and somewhere around 12-14mb/s, I forget. I would recommend these over the hybrids, if they had real mega pixel still functions, but are only 1.3 mpixel.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2007, 3:00 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 116
Default

jaix wrote:
Quote:
Need some advice as I'm banging head here... :angry:

I'm looking for the one which has better video performance in both normal and low light conditions...

Also, are CG65 spare batteries hard to get?

Thanks in advance!

I was in the same boat as you, but eventually went with the cg65 as I think you get something like 13mins with a 2gb stick of memory with the canon due t the compression used, which to me was not enough. The canon is suppose to take better picture and videos quality wise. Also the canon was more expensive at the time not sure if this has changed though.
I manage to get cg65 batteries although not the originals for £4 a pop from an amazon reseller but the P&P (S&H) was £4 but they do last a good 40 mins. Recently I went to a wedding and took approx 100 photos and 2 1/2 hours with a proper sanyo battery and 2 spare knock offs and had half power left on the last battery. This was on a 4Gb sd card which had well over a 1Gb left.
herbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2007, 11:41 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Wayne12 wrote:
Quote:
[...]Don't let anyone fool you with latest codec, highly compressed/small data-rate (more footage per Gigabyte) high data-rate matters.[...]
Exceptit's afactthat the TX1 can only record a maximum of 8 minutes of video per gigabyte at the same resolution as the CG65 which can record 41 minutes of video per gigabyte at highest quality and over an hour at the next highest. Claims are useless, compare video samples yourself, I find the CG65 takes excellent video and handles movement and low light very well. Only you can really determine what meets your needs, collect as many samples / as much info.as you can to make your own call.

And I find laughable the TX1's HD video mode which can only record 3 minutes (yes, three) of video per gigabyte (yes GB), and even with a large SD card it will not allow longer clips. How practical is that really?
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2007, 6:27 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Thanks for the all the replies!

Most likely will be going for the CG65... the recording time on the Canon is just too short, especially when on a trip.

I'm very much tempted by the HD700 too (new poison!) but it isn't available yet at where i'm from and i'll be on a trip next sat.

Anyhow... thanks!
jaix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2007, 8:48 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Is it really limited to 3 mins whatever sized card you have? Pity, flash memories will continue to drop in price for the next 2-4 years (so 35mb/s would have been no (problem). You then backup to an portable drive case (there are cheap ones).

Film makers use clips less than 3 mins, but not for continuous shooting.

You'll find you need an more powerful computer for h264 (get at least an low end $50 Radeon 2400 graphics card).

I've compared both, and the GS65 just can't handle the movement properly. What they needed to do was to produce an GC64 like camera that recorded MiniDV/HDV720p 25mb/s to card. That would have been cool.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2007, 2:20 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

Remember you are comparing a Hidef camera (TX1) with a Standard Defintion camera (CG65).

I have seen the TX1 footage and I don't think the quality is good enough to overcome the recording time limitation.

I am sure filmmakers do use clips less than 3 minutes but even they need enough capacity to record much more than that for a session or trip. I can't imagine they just go out and think "We'll only be recording just a couple of 3 minute clips"

I don't think you'll be dissapointed with the CG65, but if you are worried about the ability of your PC to play them, you might also consider the similar CG6 which is basically the same but records in regular MPEG4 format that is less taxing on your PC but still takes up far less space than MJPEG.

Anyone who thinks recording time is not an issue should remember the tape format wars. Betamax vs VHS and VHS-C vs 8mm. In both cases the one with the longer recording time effectively won. VHS was also supposed to have inferior quality (though I think this is always overplayed) but it's no good having a superior format if you can't fit a whole movie on one tape :G

I do agree though, that once cards become large enough they should also start offering higher quality less compressed modes.

I don't know why the Hard Drive models such as the Everios don't allow you to record in DV format. The models with the lowest capacity drives would still record just over 2 hours at that quality which would be enough for birthday parties etc. that most people like to record. For vacations where you can't off load until you return, you could revert to the MPEG2 format. That way you have the best of both worlds.


rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2007, 1:05 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

"Film makers use clips less than 3 mins, but not for continuous shooting." Was meant to read, that it is unsuitable for continuous shooting for home user, if limited to 3 mins. I did not find mention of this in the review here, so I might look at the camcoderinfo review.

As cheap way (though h264 at vga resolution and such low bot rates are an bit less requiring smaller processor) is the ATI Radeon 2400, 2600 and upcoming new 2900 revision series cards (the present one uses older video processing architecture than the bottom end 2400) cards. They are potentially an cheap way to do h264 (but still get an good processor+memory size to complement) because they have an new driver for download that supports encoding to H264. They also accelerate H264 display. But, how long it will take NLE software to update to take advantage of these things on your cameras format is another thing. But for $50+ it is an cheap way, even if the NLE support does not pan out, you get an 3D card.

I think they should introduce super-mini-dv with h264 intra encoding (like Panasonic uses in professional camera) at 25-50-100mb/s to hard disk, with backup to minidv and DVCPROHD tape. We are seeing 16-32GB cards/sticks now, so good use in pocket cameras is, potentially, only an few years away when the 32GB-64GB cards could come down in price.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2007, 2:42 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Caelum wrote:
Quote:
And I find laughable the TX1's HD video mode which can only record 3 minutes (yes, three) of video per gigabyte (yes GB), and even with a large SD card it will not allow longer clips.* How practical is that really?
Where did you read that Caelum, I can't find mention of an 3 min limit in the camcorder article either.

I find them complaining that it will do over 3 minutes per 1GB, and 12 min for 4GB. Actually with an 16 GB card you would get about an hour, if there is no artificial limit. I did hear something about 30 minutes, because of the battery or something (and no socket for external power).


The article is worth looking at, as it is an comparison with the Sanyo HD2, and the quality of the VGA mode should not be much different compared to the 65.

Jaix, they have comparisons shots, and report that the image is not as good compression (and maybe resolution) as the HV20 (an minimum requirement that no hybrid camera matches) and I think they gave it to the Sanyo for resolution (but in the real world where compression eliminates detail, this might not matter).

camcorderinfo./content/The-Little-HD-Shoot-out-Canon-TX1-and-Sanyo-VPC-HD2-32863/Performance.htm
camcorderinfo./content/The-Little-HD-Shoot-out-Canon-TX1-and-Sanyo-VPC-HD2-32863/Format.htm
camcorderinfo./content/The-Little-HD-Shoot-out-Canon-TX1-and-Sanyo-VPC-HD2-32863/Handling-and-Use.htm
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2007, 7:44 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Wayne12 wrote:
Quote:
[...]Where did you read that Caelum, I can't find mention of an 3 min limit in the camcorder article either.[...]
Oops, my bad, I got mixed up with most of the other Canons, like the S2 and S3 IS for examplehave a 1Gb per file size limit for MJPEG. I see the TX1 actually has a 4GB file size limit, or 14 minutes, my mistake. Stillthat kind of consumption is highlyimpractical for myself anyhow.

I actually find the CG65 much better quality than the HD2 in VGA mode. The HD2 does use MPEG-4 part 2 (SP), whereas the CG65 uses MPEG-4 part 10 (AVC). But sure, if you look at frame by frame detail between MJPEG and MPEG-4, MJPEG should/must be better considering how inefficient it is. However, there isa huge convenience factor with the file sizes produced usingMPEG-4.

Also, I have issues with the TX1's lack of motion fluidity in video, it looks more like a bunch of stills strung together, like stop motion... ohbut I see they mentionthat in the link you posted. Interesting read, thanks.
Caelum 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 8:36 AM.