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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 10, 2008, 3:40 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

Everybody has their own opinion regarding "HD DVD" and "Blu-ray Disc."

Personally, I think both formats are a waste of time.

Why?

Because the standard definition DVD format, in my opinion, marks the last truly universal optical disc format.

Technology is advancing.

Optical discs -- even high definition optical disc formats -- represent old technology.

The new paradigm is flash memory and home media servers (such as Apple TV) and Internet downloading/uploading of content.

At the institution of higher learning where I work, one can already observe this paradigm.

Almost nobody uses CDs, for example, to transport data... PowerPoint files, videos, audio files, etc.

Instead they use tiny micro flash memory drives, on key chains, which are getting better and cheaper.

These micro drives are in big demand here.

They're fast.

They hold lots of data.

They're tiny.

This, in my view, is how people will transport HD movies increasingly to the point where optical disc formats such as "HD DVD" and "Blu-ray Disc" won't really be as big of a factor as many people suspected.

Starting this year, I think we'll begin to see the downloading of high definition movies increase in a major way.

People will store these HD movies on home servers and then beam them -- via wireless -- to any screen in the house.

It's already happening.

And it's just going to get better and faster and cheaper to the point where optical discs will be seen as a relic of the past within the next couple of years.

Private Idaho


Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 3:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
adric22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 359
Default

Private Idaho wrote:
Quote:
And it's just going to get better and faster and cheaper to the point where optical discs will be seen as a relic of the past within the next couple of years.

I partially agree with this statement. I too no longer use optical media, except DVD-RAM for backups (ironic, isn't it - but DVD-RAM is inherintly more reliable than DVD-R) of all of my data. Otherwise, when I want to watch a movie, I copy the .AVI file over to a USB memory stick and carry it to my livingroom and insert it into my Philips DVD player which happens to have a USB socket on it too. Incidently, my $59 DVD player will also play HD-qaulity movies over an HDMI cable direct to my HD television, yet it doesn't cost nearly as much as a blu-ray player.

I download some movies from the internet, others I rent, others I buy. But I always rip them and store them on my server for easier, faster access.

Another interesting fact. It will play the files generated by my Sanyo CG6 (which are in .MP4 format) natively. I can copy them to a USB flash drive, or even connect my Sanyo CG6 direct to the USB port on my $59 DVD player and play the files directly from the camera. Strangely enough, it will not play the movies from my Aiptek camera. I am not sure why.

So - Yes, optical media for home users is probably a diminishing market. But it still holds one strong point, which I don't see changing anytime soon. For wide physical distribution of large amounts of information, you can't beat the cost effectiveness. I believe it costs about 25 cents per disc to make in bulk runs at a factory, for a regular DVD. If they tried to put that same information on flash media or some other kind of ROM, then it would cost much more.

The music industry basically had no choice but to move to digital downloads. It was a do or die situation for them. But the movie industry works a little different and they can afford to hold out longer.
adric22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 4:12 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

But don't you see how you still seem to be mis-framing the issue?

You keep making the simplistic statement that "the Sanyo sounds much better."

The debate was never about whether or not the Sanyo had a microphone that recorded a higher fidelity 48KHz, 16-bit stereo as opposed to the Aiptek microphone that records 11.025KHz, 16-bit, mono audio file.

In fact, I seem to recall that I was the individual who provided the actual numbers measuring the sampling rate difference between the two camcorders and I was the individual who pointed out that the Sanyo camcorder grabbed audio at a higher sampling rate.

Therefore, Adric22, the debate was never about whether the Sanyo's microphone was able to pick up sound at a greater distance, as you went to such great lengths to show in your YouTube video.

Don't you see how you mis-framed this?

Apparently, you simply read one comment that I made, specifically in reference to a test that I did talking directly into both the Sanyo and Aiptek camcorder microphones at point blank range (very close).

So when I typed my comment, I was talking specifically about speaking directly into the microphones -- at a distance of only one foot -- in a quiet room.

And that's the only circumstance that I was talking about.

You, on the other hand, went to all of that trouble to record video and audio and then re-encode it and then create a piece that essentially mis-framed the entire debate and painted an extremely inaccurate picture of what the so-called "debate" was all about.

As I tried to explain -- repeatedly -- the debate is not about fidelity.

The debate is about noisy Sanyo microphones.

And -- absolutely -- I maintain Sanyo microphones are noisy.

You apparently do not buy into this theory.

In addition, Adric22, please understand that noise and fidelity are two completely different issues.

The point I was trying to make is that the Aiptek ISDV2.4 microphone -- due to its lower sampling rate -- produces a dialogue recording that is not as *noisy* as the recording made by the Sanyo's higher fidelity microphone.

Lynne's comment about her Sanyo VPC-HD700 on the DVInfo.net Web site was as follows:

"
There's enough baseline noise in the background to make you think you're listening to scratchy old LPs."

Link:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=110693

I agree 100% with Lynne.

The Sanyo recordings are noisy.

Now I'm not saying the Sanyo is a complete piece of junk.

But I am saying that my Sanyo VPC-CG6 recordings seem incredibly noisy.

As I said earlier, I'm pretty busy and I don't have the time to immediately show you what I mean on YouTube.

But I have several digital camcorders and I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to Sanyo camcorders and this noise issue.

The Panasonic SDR-S10 is a small hybrid that costs about the same as the Sanyo VPC-CG6.

The Aiptek ISDV2.4 costs one-half to one-third of what it costs to buy a Sanyo VPC-CG6.

I plan to compare all three.

So -- no -- the audio recorded by the Aiptek won't have the same fidelity or range.

But -- yes -- I believe I can open an Aiptek ISDV2.4 audio recording into any computer program with a full-screen waveform view and I can show -- visually -- how much more *quiet* the Aiptek recording is compared to the Sanyo recording.

With my Sanyo clips, I can literally *see* the noise in the waveform representation on my computer.

So I doubt this noise issue is just my imagination.

What I hope to demonstrate is that my Sanyo camcorder does have the same noise issue Lynne describes in her comment.

Clear? I hope so.

Private Idaho

adric22 wrote:
Quote:
Private Idaho wrote:
Quote:
Your workflow does not help the literally thousands of individuals who buy these cameras in hopes of recording interviews with relatives to preserve family histories, etc.

In addition, you seemed unwilling to accept the possibility that Sanyo stereo microphones are unusually noisy compared to microphones from similar manufacturers.
Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I still hold the opinion that the Sanyo sounds much better. The two reasons I say this are that the Aiptek only records low sounds and no treble. This is probably because of the lower sampling rate. It also has terrible gain, because at distances you can't hear anything at all. I don't notice any particular background hiss on the Sanyo, and if I did I could filter it out.

As far as the situations you described where people would be doing interviews.. All I can say is that if people expect to do interviews around campfires and on streets, then they get what they deserve because you can't expect good audio in any of those situations without a hand-held or clip-on microphone. I don't care what kind of camera it is. I've tried getting audio from a $3,000 prosumer camcorder's built-in microphone in a room six feet away and it still sounded unprofessional because you could hear so much echo.


And buy the way.. just for the record, I am not biased towards Sanyo in any particular way. Everybody who knows me knows that I'm fair and I give credit where credit is due, and critizism where it is due. I realize the Aiptek cameras are much cheaper than other cameras and so I rate them by a different scale. I think that some of their products are worthwhile purchases, when found at the right price. However, what I don't tolerate is when they lie about the product specs by saying it has 8 Megapixels when it really has 5, or saying it records 30 fps when it really does 18, saying it has a 4x digital zoom when it really doesn't have a digital zoom at all, etc..
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 4:44 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

If the Aiptek files aren't playing, it's probably due to the lack of the required codec for Windows Media video with .ASF (Microsoft) file extensions.

That's the native format of the Aiptek ISDV2 and ISDV2.4 camcorders.

I don't have an Aiptek A-HD, but I seem to recall reading from others that Aiptek employs the QuickTime .MOV format on that model.

But -- yes -- home servers are the modern way forward.

There's a pretty cool illustration on the Apple Web site that shows how Apple TV can work with any type of computer -- Mac or PC -- to play files originating from any hard disk in the house to the TV screen.

It's here:

http://www.apple.com/appletv/sync.html

Apple TV isn't the only device that does this.

There are several similar devices made by many different companies.

What I think makes the Apple TV device interesting is the Apple FrontRow software experience.

It's a very high quality experience.

Illustrated here:

http://www.apple.com/appletv/tour.html

I find it is very easy to navigate through many movies and songs and still images.

Private Idaho

adric22 wrote:
Quote:
Private Idaho wrote:
Quote:
And it's just going to get better and faster and cheaper to the point where optical discs will be seen as a relic of the past within the next couple of years.

I partially agree with this statement. I too no longer use optical media, except DVD-RAM for backups (ironic, isn't it - but DVD-RAM is inherintly more reliable than DVD-R) of all of my data. Otherwise, when I want to watch a movie, I copy the .AVI file over to a USB memory stick and carry it to my livingroom and insert it into my Philips DVD player which happens to have a USB socket on it too. Incidently, my $59 DVD player will also play HD-qaulity movies over an HDMI cable direct to my HD television, yet it doesn't cost nearly as much as a blu-ray player.

I download some movies from the internet, others I rent, others I buy. But I always rip them and store them on my server for easier, faster access.

Another interesting fact. It will play the files generated by my Sanyo CG6 (which are in .MP4 format) natively. I can copy them to a USB flash drive, or even connect my Sanyo CG6 direct to the USB port on my $59 DVD player and play the files directly from the camera. Strangely enough, it will not play the movies from my Aiptek camera. I am not sure why.

So - Yes, optical media for home users is probably a diminishing market. But it still holds one strong point, which I don't see changing anytime soon. For wide physical distribution of large amounts of information, you can't beat the cost effectiveness. I believe it costs about 25 cents per disc to make in bulk runs at a factory, for a regular DVD. If they tried to put that same information on flash media or some other kind of ROM, then it would cost much more.

The music industry basically had no choice but to move to digital downloads. It was a do or die situation for them. But the movie industry works a little different and they can afford to hold out longer.
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2008, 12:53 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
Default

I've had a "home server" player for 3 years, an AVeL Linkplayer2. That also means I've had an HD media player too for 3 years. :lol: It also can play clips of USB sticks. Still I think a lot of people will be using BluRay to distribute videos. Those disks don't have to be using BluRay media. You can use regular DVD disk with MPEG-2 and AVCHD transport streams (which use an MPEG-2 wrapper) on them and they play. Once you get one of the HD players you'll be impressed with the movies which are far better than what you get via broadcast, cable or satellite.

My reference for comparison are films shown at my local theater which is equiped with Christie DLP projectors and almost all films are shown in digital. Most people who actually get HD on their new HD sets (rather than watch stretched blurry SD) never want to watch much of anything in SD again. The same is true once you get an HD player and start watching movie in HD. You start demanding the local rental store (or Netflix) get more HD disks as you start to only want to watch new releases in HD.

Being a Comcast subscriber I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for that 120 mbps service. :lol: Also the studios will probably continue to provide low bitrate HD movie fiiles for VOD because they want to sell you the movie on HD media (looks like that will be BluRay due to events this past week).

The problem for the moment is that BluRay doesn't support Quicktime files so you can't just throw the Aiptek files on a disk and play them. They'll have to be converted. The best way if you are not going to edit them would be to use a converter that just pulls the AVCHD frames out of the Quicktime data section and wraps them in an MPEG-2 transport stream wrapper. That's assuming that the data is AVCHD enough compliant so that just wrapping it will work.

This is one area where the HD-DVD camp goofed. They don't support raw files as part of their spec.



hdguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2008, 4:41 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

I must be really different from other people because when I switch back and forth between high definition and standard definition, it just doesn't "kill" me to go back to standard definition.

I've worked in TV for years so I think I know what good 720p and 1080i look like.

Yet, I am happy to go back to my older tube TVs and watch 480i... as long as the video is good 480i.

Perhaps there are individuals -- unlike me -- that behave just as you describe and once they see high definition they absolutely can't go back to watching standard definition.

But what I see -- and I've worked professionally in TV for years -- is that many people will watch good standard definition on a high definition display and they *think* they are watching high definition!

In other words, they often cannot distinguish SD from HD.

And this becomes especially true when one watches TV from a certain distance.

There are good upscaling DVD players out there that cost a fraction of what it costs to buy the Blu-ray Disc players.

[line]

Case in point:

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/ReallyNeed.html

As for downloading of movies, well, that's already happening.

1. VideoGiants

http://www.musicgiants.com/VG_store.html

2. Apple iTunes

http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/movies.html

3. Microsoft Xbox LIVE Marketplace

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/marketplace/moviestv/

4. VUDU

http://www.vudu.com/

5. Amazon Unbox

http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/help/..._rd_i=16261631

6. AxiomTV

http://www.axiom.tv/

7. Movielink

http://www.movielink.com/store/web/h...uestid=1339067

8. FANFARE

http://www.sandisk.com/fanfare/intro/

9. TiVo HD

http://www.tivo.com/whatistivo/tivohd/index.html

10. Veoh

http://www.veoh.com/

11. Joost

http://www.joost.com/whatsjoost.html

12. AT&T U-verse

https://uverse1.att.com/un/launchAMSS.do

13. FiOS by Verizon

http://www22.verizon.com/content/fiostv

I think the only thing that might save Blu-ray Disc (or HD DVD) would be Apple.

If Apple were to upgrade the Apple TV with a Blu-ray Disc drive, then I think the general public might be inclined to bite.

If not, then I think Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD will be kind of like the Laserdisc... sort of a niche product without widespread adoption by the masses.

Private Idaho


[line]


Looks like Sony just joined the download game:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...vx-format.html

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 5:23 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16
Default

So did anyone get any information about this upcomming Aiptek camera?

I hope they improve sound quality, add a microphone mini-jack input.

If they can improve panning and add somekind of image stabillization, that would be great.

Anyone know when this new Aiptek will be released and how much it will cost?
Charbax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2008, 12:55 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

Wish we knew.

I've been watching the Web pretty closely for Aiptek news.

Nothing.

So far.

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2008, 1:43 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 27
Default

The wavy video is cuased by rolling shutter. It is the nature of CMOS sensor. Even you have DIS or EIS, it can't be fixed. Fortunately, the high speed sampling rate can improve it a lots. So you may enjoy 60fps modes if you think it is a big issue. 30fps is always need a tripod. And it is not suitable for sprots or other high speed scene.
Rio12375 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2008, 2:06 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16
Default

Sony and others use CMOS sensors and don't have this type of wavy video on panning and handheld use. I guess it's because they have some kinds of optical image stabilization technology or somehow automatically blur the image instead when camera movement is detected. Perhaps Aiptek could do some digital image stabilization when shooting at 720p 30fps with a camcorder chip that can support 1080p. This way the camcorder could shoot more pixels around the image to constantly have margin to do digital image stabilization..

I think Aiptek just needs to slightly improve this audio and video quality, and if they can achieve that, this would really be great, it'd mean there would be no reason to pay $1000 for a HD camcorder anymore, since $100 would do the trick just fine.
Charbax 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 4:56 PM.