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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 13, 2008, 12:36 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

I think where these more inexpensive cameras really shine is for subjects where the detail doesn't matter. For instance family video, where the focus is on your kids etc. rather than whether you can resolve the individual blades of glass in the lawn they may be playing on.

While I agree that it would be nice to have a higher bitrate to be able to do that, obviously compromises have had to be made to keep the cost down and I do think we have become rather spoiled today with the quality of video that we expect. After all we were happy once with VHS quality which only had about 240 lines or so of resolution! So over that, the Aiptek is indeed a great improvement.

Of course I am not saying that we stay happy with that quality, after all we rightly expect technology to improve, but sometimes we overshoot in our expectations and I have to say that I am just as guilty in that respect in that I want a $200 camera with the 12Mbps bitrate of the more expensive cameras as well!
rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2008, 12:55 PM   #32
Moderator
 
fishycomics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC NY
Posts: 9,621
Default

economy one, Aiptek. I always said this "these are pc camcorders" not " home theater ones" stepping away from your pc, and filming. that is what they're great at. Outdoor shots.....

Great for Amatures, and those who like to Mod for their hobbies, etc........

If we expect more, then we want more. this cam does not full manual controls, this cam does a nice job for the price, if on the other hand and AIptek claimes it is a Major Company , high end, I expect , the best, then with the limitations,

I can say get a Flip be a better device. just an observation.

Used spell check,but left the .,-? out

fishycomics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2008, 4:01 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

rgvcam wrote:
Quote:
While I agree that it would be nice to have a higher bitrate to be able to do that, obviously compromises have had to be made to keep the cost down and
The ambarella based pocket CAM that was to be released a few years ago by Samsung was to have around 17mb/s bit rate. What we got instead is disappointing last year, it still sues 12 or 14 mb/s ambarella. The ambarella based Toshiba unit uses closer to 16mb/s or so (I forget). So while it would be excellent for a $100 cam, and does a descent job for z500 $200 cam, I would prefer if they offered the full bit-rate, even if it was $300.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2008, 12:19 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
adalfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denmarkian
Posts: 266
Default

Thx for ur opinions guys. I realize i was too harsh in my comments about the Z500+ and I was kinda comparing it to a Canon Vixia HF10. Very stupid of course as these two cams are totally diff. leagues and price range. My brother-in-law got a HF10 recently and I got to mess around with a day's times. I was astonished about the image quality and sharpness. The z500+ was way inferior in all aspects but size.
It was after this I posted my dissapointment here, which I now realize was stupid cuz u more or less get what u pay for. Thx guys for making me realize that.


Quote:
I can say get a Flip be a better device. just an observation.
If you are talking about the Flip Video Ultra fishy, I love the design but it's not HD video rec. And it's not available in Europe or atleast I cannot find it here.

DXG DVS-567HD is like the Flip Video but not yet available in Europe, I think.
adalfa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2008, 12:23 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

From what I have seen of the Aiptek 720p60 6mb/s footage (and that is the only one to practically use, and probably the best performance) I am surprised the footage is too objectionable to the Canon. Could I ask:

What video modes did you use, and did you try the 720p60 at highest quality (I don't expect much from the other modes).

What sort of software player and TV setup did you use? Some players and TV make the footage look better by fixing up mistakes, some players and TV's make the footage look worse. If you test on the wrong one or use a different one for each camera, you are going to get variations. I have seen less quality on pocket camera clips in the times past in Quicktime.

Thanks

Wayne.

adalfa wrote:
Quote:
Thx for ur opinions guys. I realize i was too harsh in my comments about the Z500+ and I was kinda comparing it to a Canon Vixia HF10. Very stupid of course as these two cams are totally diff. leagues and price range. My brother-in-law got a HF10 recently and I got to mess around with a day's times. I was astonished about the image quality and sharpness. The z500+ was way inferior in all aspects but size.
It was after this I posted my dissapointment here, which I now realize was stupid cuz u more or less get what u pay for. Thx guys for making me realize that.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2008, 12:43 AM   #36
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Default

if it will not be done image stabilazation that sense will be lost. But if yes, it can be unbelievable primely!
Certainly, for 1440*1080 a powerful processor is required for encoding with sufficient biterate. And very rapid SD-card, Which will have to be
looked and there is a quite a bit money to leave.
Sergyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2008, 11:10 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

The Canon Vixia HF10 is absolutely the best AVCHD high definition prosumer camcorder now available in the sub-$1100 price range.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...;modelid=16186

But it costs almost $1100 even on the online sale sites.

So it should not be compared to the Aiptek camcorders.

CamcorderInfo.com did a review recently and wrote the following:

"We shot with the Canon HV20 (HDV tape model) in one hand and the HF10 in the other. In most instances, it was hard to tell the difference. The compression artifacting has gotten to the point where it looks no worse than HDV. In certain panning shots, the HV20 still keeps the upper hand in regards to sharpness, but on the whole the camcorders are matched. The HF10 has all the same great color performance as the other Canon HD camcorders, and now offers the highest resolution we've yet to see in a consumer camcorder. The low light performance tests higher for noise, but to the eye it looks as good, sometimes better than the HV20."

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2008, 11:35 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

That's great to hear, still the 720p60 mode should be the best to compare. If you look at Ambarella claims, that H264 is 2-3 times more efficient than Mpeg2 (but obviously speaking for themselves) which means that the Aiptek has performance close to 25mb/s Mpeg2. If you look at Ambarella claims, I think they claim 10% or 20% over 30fps to get similar 60fps performance. So it still might be capable of being in the ball park of HDV performance.

Most people don't do a big screen test on picture quality and artifacting. Ten times the size makes the artifacting much more noticeable, and that's the sort of screen that home theatre specifications are moving towards. My own projected screen design would make a 200inch screen affordable for most homes that would have a camera.

I trust more recent reviews on ccinfo because it appears one of the guys from dvinfo forums is other there taking the job more seriously. Though I cannot say that the person will be as careful in review as a big screen test. This sort of test draws the cameras manufactures attention to the quality of their future products.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2008, 12:24 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
adalfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denmarkian
Posts: 266
Default

Wayne12 wrote:
Quote:
What video modes did you use, and did you try the 720p60 at highest quality (I don't expect much from the other modes).

What sort of software player and TV setup did you use? Some players and TV make the footage look better by fixing up mistakes, some players and TV's make the footage look worse. If you test on the wrong one or use a different one for each camera, you are going to get variations. I have seen less quality on pocket camera clips in the times past in Quicktime.
I've tried all modes. The 720p60 wouldn't run smooth on my laptop(C2D2GHz,2GB,ATIX2300) but looked "acceptable" on Samsung 32" LCD TV. I actually prefer the 720p30 mode as the 60p looks more compressed to me. I can't find any quality settings on any of the modes. Maybe it's only available on US version.

Watching the clips on the pc, I use Media Player Classic with CoreAVC codec. IMO it doesn't look "good" on VLC player. I haven't tried Quicktime yet as I don't like it on pc's.

Canon HF10's footage looked better than the z500+ on all the media players and monitors/TV's. Though on a standard def. tube TV there weren't tht much difference.


adalfa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2008, 12:58 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Thanks. I looked at the manual today, and the Aiptek does not have separate quality settings like many AVCHD cameras. Actually it was surprising to see how little features was on it. The Ispans advertise 9 in 1 cameras, with ebook, media player voice recorder, motion detection (I hope that is a recording feature) games etc. If they had a 720p60 version now I would probably buy that, but they don't.

So it comes down to between this camera and the Casio. The Casio uses an Sony chip, but I don't think Sony have any cheap cameras using that chip yet. There is a 720p60 Toshiba but nobody reviewed it. The Elphel DIY cinema camera uses the same sensor manufacturer as Aiptek, so there is hope that it's picture will improve. The 3K resolution, at under $3K scarlet pocket cinema camera is not arriving till next year (go to red . com to see it, does stills too, maybe it can go on the hybrid list). The Sumix cinema camera project is sort of lost in between these for me. So it might be safe to buy this camera and wait.
Wayne12 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 5:33 PM.