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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 14, 2008, 1:32 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 15
Default

From what I remember I had all settings on the camera at defaults when I took this. I probably should have put the white balance to sunny instead of auto. Exposure (EV) was at 0. EV can be adjusted between -2 and 2. I don't see the rolling aliasing that you mention, but don't quite know what you mean by that other than blurriness. There was a smudge on the lens that was causing a little circle of blurriness on the footage.

Here's a couple more videos if you feel like you need more footage to analyze. The first has a lot of color variation / motion in it and is 18 MB. The second is footage of the sunset in a bit lower light than all the other footage and is 48 MB.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DSFJOR4W

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=63CKHY6V
fuzz54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2008, 9:49 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Am feeling quiet unright today, so it will take time to get to it. I saw the smudge, no problem. The rolling shutter gives a slant to objects that move across the scene, but only a little on this (we had thought it might be eliminated completely previously). It gives a sickly effect at 30fps, if ti was half as much again over what it is now, it would be very good I think off top of my head.

I took that it was at standard, darkening the exposure might improve footage of bright areas (but you will loss dark areas, but life is compromise on low end). Your right, the exposures could solve white balance problems.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2008, 12:53 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 15
Default

I hope you're feeling better soon. I know what you mean. I've had a sinus infection for a couple months and need it to go away.
fuzz54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2008, 8:53 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

fuzz54 wrote:
Quote:
From what I remember I had all settings on the camera at defaults when I took this.* I probably should have put the white balance to sunny instead of auto.* Exposure (EV) was at 0.* EV can be adjusted between -2 and 2.* I don't see the rolling aliasing that you mention, but don't quite know what you mean by that other than blurriness.* There was a smudge on the lens that was causing a little circle of blurriness on the footage.

Here's a couple more videos if you feel like you need more footage to analyze.* The first has a lot of color variation / motion in it and is 18 MB.* The second is footage of the sunset in a bit lower light than all the other footage and is 48 MB.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DSFJOR4W

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=63CKHY6V
I thought this was almost perfect for what we are looking for, but then found I had not put the color back to normal on my monitor from last time (and now realise the brightness was set to around half as much as it should be), but still much better. Is this another camera, or did you re-balance the color? What settings did you use?

I have found one of the problems I have been talking about. The VLC renders the picture pretty good, with the red normal, but media player classic renders the image over bright, less saturation and the red is blown out.

I am sorting through the color settings in VLC to see if I have left something adjusted, doesn't look like it (and can't find the media player controls). Amusingly, if I turn brightness to the minimum the women's red top is the only thing visible .

Quicktime is in-between. Red is slightly popped. If I knew the brand of the mower/tractor on the lawn, I could better nail the red. with monitor color adjustment QT and VLC are closer, but QT is still more less saturated and more washed out. The reality is that these sensors often produce a less saturated image that is adjusted up in camera before going to 8 bit, which is better when recording in 8bit color.

I suspect that the h264 container file contains color balance and exposure information that is interpreted differently by different codecs, which leads to variable results when all i am interested is in the actually recorded leveled that are used for editing. I wonder if the GVS/600 will come good depending on player and settings.

I hopefully can get to investigate the footage more for pixel accuracy and artifacts (but some are already coming up in the panning of the sky).

I am reasonably satisfied with this camera footage, could do with better color balance, and double the data-rate. I will have to examine more latter.


Thanks Fuzz.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2008, 12:25 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Hi Fuzz

I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions I can't find answers to.

The manual does not tell what the focus distance the macro has, would you know what it is? Some do 3cm or 5cm, which is useful.

When you hook this camera up to hdtv, does it display the picture live (without playback) at true 720p resolution at 60fps (status on HDTV might tell you). A lot of hybrids don't display anything, or display at standard definition.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2008, 11:32 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Have found one supplier that ships to Australia (mis-spelt the name in listing). If you can help with any of the questions Fuzz, I might be able to order.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2008, 2:14 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 15
Default

The HSHD can be plugged into HD television with the component cables included with the camera. It appears to be true 720p at but I couldn't tell if it was 30 or 60 Hz. The HSHD internal video processor does have some compression artifacts there that don't show up when playing the file on the PC. The movies still looked good when processed by the HSHD, but not nearly as good as on a PC.

As for the macro focus distance, I would put it in the range of 4 to 5 cm just from some quick testing.
fuzz54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2008, 3:03 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

>..The HSHD internal video processor does have some compression artifacts there that don't show up when playing the file on the PC. The movies still looked good when processed by the HSHD, but not nearly as good as on a PC.

Nooooooooooooo, it looks like crap on my PC!

So you are saying that while filming (not playback) it shows the image compressed with delay and compression artifacts on the HDTV, would that be right?

> As for the macro focus distance, I would put it in the range of 4 to 5 cm just from some quick testing.

That's good, it's useful.

I bought the camera on ebay a few days before Christmas, but have not heard back from the guy. It might take another weeks to get here by air (by surface ti would be months).

I have been spending time looking at 30 inch 4mpixel and 24 inch full hd monitors, and 32 inch full hd TV and 50 inch 720p plasma for the camera (of course I have other uses fro them).

Some good news is that it appears to be an 1080p60 camera in the next half of the year.


Thanks

Wayne.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2008, 6:18 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 15
Default

You are right, playback is the same on TV and computer. I don't know why I thought they were different in quality. And you are right that the picture isn't so great when moving around. I'm starting to notice the compression artifacts and poor motion capture that the HSHD has. It works just fine for somewhat static scenes, but if the whole frame is in motion then forget it. But I'd bet that it's the same for all of Aiptek's camcorders. I'm still happy with it though. I just want to remember my vacations, not see the pores on people's faces and how hairy I was

I hear ya on wanting to buy a new TV these days. Stuff is going so cheap now with 30000:1 contrast and 120 Hz at big LCD screen sizes. But the wife says no to that until we have the down payment for our house. I figure that's for the best since things will be dropping in price even more by then. I bought my 1080p 42-inch flat LCD 3 years ago with its lousy 1000:1 contrast, but I should be worshipping it compared to the TV's I had before that. It's still way better than a 32 inch SD tube TV that weighed more than I did.


fuzz54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2008, 6:21 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 15
Default

Go for the 50 inch 720p plasma if you are gonna be more than 10 or 12 feet away from the screen!! That'd be one awesome TV to have and probably not too expensive.
fuzz54 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 7:17 AM.