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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 15, 2008, 10:00 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

rgvcam wrote:
Quote:
Wayne12 wrote:
Quote:
rgvcam wrote:
Quote:
Wayne12 wrote: You are not going to get 16Mb/s in a hybrid anytime soon. Even the low to mid range Sanyo's don't achieve this.
You wont make yourself look anymore intelligent by yelling!

Sanyo is irrelevant, there have been chips for 16mb/s from the beginning (the cancelled Samsung pocket was to have above 16mb/s ambarella chip two years ago). If we don't see them by Christmas, it will probably be by Christmas next year when Ambarella, TI (Kodak codec ship) Sony or somebody else will probably have their power envelope down enough to do it. Besides a Canon Tx1 does 35mb/s, so I supposed technically your right so far (and I'm personally planning on getting a pocket camera that does 800mb/s next year anyway).
Actually I am not yelling. The convention is for YELLING IS WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS. I apologize if you seem to think that was my intention. If you would care to see previous posts, this is a font I often prefer for readability on my screen.
So, is was you, the one I have been meaning to talk to about posting with the large letters !
I give you the closet Monkey pointing finger from Family Guy.

I have the same problem dude, but I change the font size in screen properties and in my browser. The large letters look like somebody is trying to yell but doesn't quiet know how it's done.

Yes, it is a pocket video camera that does 800mb/s apparently, 6 mpixel. It is a professional video tool, so you drop ti back to whatever format you like after recording and editing in high quality. It will play the fields straight on a PC (admittedly you might need lots of CPU's). But the normal speed HD modes are likely to be closer to 100mb/s. Now to find myself a cargo pants large enough to fit it into a pocket.

http://www.red.com/nab/scarlet
http://www.red.com/skin/img/nab_2008...arlet_hero.png


Well, it looks like Jim listened and there is something else I might buy instead:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710

Now this should be all over the news pages. I wonder if he listened about a low cost hybrid.


Their are multiple issues to do with why they use what they use, and if somebody is willing to put a camera out in the price range it is possible (The Canon has been doing 35mb/s for a long time now, in case you didn't notice that). One of the other problems is that it draws too much power and produces too much heat for a practical handheld, but after they use smaller and better silicon processes this drops. The drop is still probably 40% a year, which means that a number of these companies might be getting closer. Canon already does a memory card camera at 24mb/s H264, so a smaller pocket at 16mb/s is not so far a jump. I think the Sony's TG1 might be 12 mb/s, which is not that far off either.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2008, 10:39 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

The video pages are deleted.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2008, 11:55 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
subc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California, Sac area
Posts: 261
Default

the Low light indoor test is here: http://vimeo.com/1728396

What I like about that is how the camera pans/tilts in a very fast manner, and there is no wobbling on the video.

The outdoor (mic test) is here: http://vimeo.com/1725118

What I like on this one is the fast pan from left to right with a light pole in the middle of it. Even during this movement, if you pause it.. you will see no wobbling and no rolling shutter

For such a small device at this price, I am more than happy with the video quality.

You can't obtain the best quality if you are not planning your shots and know a thing or two about videography and lightning... and more bitrate won't help you either.
subc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2008, 12:24 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8
Default

subc wrote:
Quote:
You can't obtain the best quality if you are not planning your shots and know a thing or two about videography and lightning... and more bitrate won't help you either.
The complete truth.

I was going to type out a long response regarding what amounts to bitrate obsession. But I figured it wasn't going to be worthwhile. Needless to say learning the trade in regards to lighting, framing, movement should be a priority over obsessing about whether you have 800mb/s (by the way Wayne12, there's really no point unless you plan on spending for the glass to match and needless to say your workflow, unless you are already used to working with 2-4k is going to be, well fun.... And in the end you will indeed have superior imaging... but at a price that makes introducing the topic into the current board and discussion somewhat spurious.)

The Z600 looks average, but solid. Any word on manual features?
ispn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2008, 1:15 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

subc wrote:
Quote:
the Low light indoor test is here: http://vimeo.c
You can't obtain the best quality if you are not planning your shots and know a thing or two about videography and lightning... and more bitrate won't help you either.
Correction I failed to mention that the linked video download was 16mb/s, which I was commenting on that it would bet good if it was (original h264 16mb/s). Sorry.


If you know about videography, you know that the complete truth is that bit rate still counts as well, and why people still want pro cameras with more bit rate, and movie makers with stacks more again (I suppose they don't know anything about cinematography). Ambarella does a reasonable job of hiding problems but still have problems, though i would be more worried if I had a Sanyo about setting the shots up to reduce the codec errors. Once you get past the obvious codec problems, and then lots of noise and lots action on the screen causing problems, you get into the Nirvana, where the picture becomes more striking and more detailed, the codec has to reduce the difference between adjacent pixels less.

I asked if there was an original because the download appeared to be a 16mb/s QT (not h264) so I thought it could not have been from this camera, never claimed it was. And as you might know, these sorts of QT trans-coding can go wrong, where we have seen trans-coded footage clipped in the upper and lower end, with great color de-saturation, and even though it has much more bandwidth than the original, stuffs gets lost or artifact in trans-coding, less so with a good trans-coder.

That is a more accurate picture.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2008, 1:39 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

ispn wrote:
Quote:

should be a priority over obsessing about whether you have 800mb/s (by the way Wayne12, there's really no point unless you plan on spending for the glass to match and needless to say your workflow, unless you are already used to working with 2-4k is going to be, well fun.... And in the end you will indeed have superior imaging... but at a price that makes introducing the topic into the current board and discussion somewhat spurious.)
Correction I failed to mention that the linked video download was 16mb/s, which I was commenting on that it would bet good if it was (original h264 16mb/s). Sorry.

Have a look at the links, it has it's own glass, good quality ones too. The obsession was somebody jumping around about 16mb/s, when I was asking about an original file than the 16mb/s one. Somebody basically mistaken in their forceful claims, as we already have a 35mb/s camera (canon TX1), 16mb/s h264/Divx doable and somewhat likely, and even 800mb/s (which is the high res or high speed mode (I think 120 or 180fps) which is of limited use to me (as I can use a 100mb/s mode most of the time) which really just goes to showing what the real reality is, as does my above comments on codec speeds. I used to be very involved with DIY Cinema camera movement, and professional video considerations, so I have an idea what I am actually talking about. As far as the hybrid h264 cameras go, I am merely worried about the minimal level to get rid of all artifacts in most all situations for home users, which 16mb/s+ should get into, and 35mb/s is pretty much at the top end for home quality, even for 1080p60 Full HD (I think BD may support this data-rate in H264, but even if it doesn't it would be useful to render to Mpeg2 35mb/s modes for quality with a good trans-coder). I think we wont see many cameras go above 24mb/s though (until SHD comes out) and I don't have much ambition above 24mb/s consumer (the 100mb/s fro the Scarlet camera linked above would be an intra wavelet codec, meaning that it requires at least 2 times more data-rate to meet the same quality on a still image, and requires much less processing power than an Inter version would (h264 is an inter-codec). In case you missed it, 2K is basically close to 1080p full-hd, and the Scarlet goes to 3K, but most people will use it for 1080pFullHD).

Now let's get back to the this side of 16.1mb/s discussion .
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2008, 2:23 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Looks like the original video is up, smaller size and less problems with altitude and colors, pretty much what we have come to expect.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2008, 5:06 AM   #18
Moderator
 
fishycomics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC NY
Posts: 9,621
Default

http://vimeo.com/1738427

the persons ski clip:

As most shots are of excitement of owning the cam . paitiently awaiting a test clip with sound.

just natura shots do help out but its what we need to hear if we'refilming

"Hey look over here catch me by the statue and the person is 20 feet away telling you."

that would be what we are looking for


fishycomics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2008, 8:27 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

Yes Wayne12, I have 'noticed' the Canon TX1 which does 35MB/s. But it uses MJPEG which is why it has a high bitrate. MJPEG is much easier on the CPU both for compression and playback which is why Digital cameras have used the format for years. h264 and mpeg require a not insignificant amount of processing for a small device.

Just because something is technically possible and can be done, doesn't mean it will be at a particular price point straight away. The way you pointed out the Canon TX1, implied that I was under the impression that it was impossible technically for some reaon.

Manufacturers place devices at different price points for a reason and all I have been saying is that I do not think we'll see a 16Mb/s device from Aiptek in the near future and as such I think Sanyo *is* relevant. Even their highend device doesn't currently go that high yet and this was only recently. It takes time for higher end features to filter down. I somehow doubt Aiptek is going to leapfrog the more well known brands, but as I said before I will more than happily eat my words if they do so.

Out of interest, do you have a link to the 800Mb/s Digital camera that I can take a look at?
rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2008, 9:44 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

The assertion you made was about hybrids not doing 16mb/s, not codec or price, or brand. The Link to the 800mb/s is the one I posted before that you should have seen by now (it is specified as 100MB/s which is megabyte, but we wonder if it is a typo, but you wont get much pro-quality at 6mpixel at 60fps. However, sharing there technology across models, it could be possible).

Sanyo has not significantly increased there data-rate over the year, which means that the next process shrink could make it a lot faster. The main stream competitors are going for 24mb/s and a handheld at 16mb/s is realistic. Ambarella will get similar benefit from this stepping, but because they use a better compression engine (more process intensive) they may take longer to get to 24mb/s.

I forget exactly why I said Sanyo was irrelevant to thew issues there. They are not exactly the technology, codec quality, or data rate pushers, that others desire to be. Some AVCHD players probably have the desire to raise the data rate wherever it has the quality of not, and Ambarella has the technology.

To me, that a camera with manual controls option, and locking, live icon free pre-compression HDMI out, a sensor twice as good, and 16mb/s, is worth buying compared to every other hybrid. It doesn't worry we if it has to be a little bigger. If they want to see it on the street at $300, thats OK, and a descent camera, I would say to people that is the camera to buy for carrying around.
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 2:37 AM.