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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 25, 2008, 10:57 PM   #1
rxr
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 45
Default

rxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 28, 2008, 11:02 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

With the higher-price CMOS models, the problem is not nearly as bad because there are ways to engineer around it and that's precisely what the better manufacturers do.

I have a Sony HDR-UX1 high definition AVCHD model and I've never observed anything similar to what one can observe with the cheap Aiptek models.

On the other hand, it is possible to see a much less critical problem when shooting *extremely* fast action and many owners of Sony CMOS high definition camcorders have posted frame grabs in other forums to prove that the so-called rolling shutter problem persists.

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2008, 12:50 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
adric22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 359
Default

That is interesting.. I've searched over the internet trying to find such sample pictures. So far any ones I have found are broken links.. I'm curious to see how the CMOS chip works in a higher-end device.
adric22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2008, 4:01 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
Default

I noticed that the difference between my GO HD and my A-HD is that the wobble went away with the A-HD and psychovisual enhancement, IOW macro-blocking replaced it. But at least that looked better than the wobble. You would need a more expensive camera apparently with more buffer to prevent the macro-blocking.

hdguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2008, 10:24 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

Oh, I almost forgot.

There's another article about why CMOS camcorders on the market -- as a practical matter -- incorporate a "rolling shutter" instead of a "global shutter."

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpos...&postcount=159

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 2:13 AM   #7
rxr
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 45
Default


rxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 2:17 AM   #8
rxr
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 45
Default



rxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 5:55 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

I personally don't find the wobble that much of an issue even when using my old MPVR. As long as you don't move it up and down or side to side rapidly I find I hardly notice it. In fact to be honest, it wasn't until I saw it first mentioned on these forums that I actually did begin to notice it :lol:

I think for general purpose family use they're fine.

rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2008, 6:48 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25
Default

I looked at some of this material and am confused. Consumer video cameras have had these artifacts and worse for 30 years. Care to hear about the nightmare that was the vidicon tube? Like a minimum 500 lux light requirement or hauling 10 lbs of lead acid batteries for an hour of shooting time. And accidently framing the sun in the scene for even an instant would destroy the camera (which cost 10 week's pay to repair.)

I'm not sure I find the CMOS "wobble" in a camcorder that costs less than one day's pay a big problem.

:roll:
SPOFF 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 1:44 AM.