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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 30, 2008, 5:50 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
pgomberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 110
Default

1080p @ 60fps
720p that is not interpolated
lower lux sensitivity
CCD, or CMOS with a global shutter(to eliminate visual distortions inherent with rolling shutters), image sensor
higher quality stereo pickups (the stereo mic input included)
enabling of macro DURING recording
and a macro that can focus all the way up to the lens like my old Sony DV cam does.

all this while not detracting from the features that the Action HD already has.


I guess image stablization is good but has never really been a big deal for me. I can shoot freehanded ok.


I'm curious as to what anyone else might add to this list.

pgomberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 30, 2008, 9:40 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
adric22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 359
Default

This is a joke, at best. Aiptek has shown time and again that they are more interested in making a sale by having products that market really greeat numbers (like megapixles) than they are in actually making products that the consumer will like. Of course, they aren't the only ones.
adric22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2008, 12:25 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
pgomberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 110
Default

adric22 wrote:
Quote:
This is a joke, at best. Aiptek has shown time and again that they are more interested in making a sale by having products that market really greeat numbers (like megapixles) than they are in actually making products that the consumer will like. Of course, they aren't the only ones.
LOL. Does Aiptek really S U C K that badly???
pgomberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2008, 12:59 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Maxprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 153
Default

I don't think so.

Yes, the cameras are not the very best on the market. But , they are very far from the worst. I have had sony handy cams and i like my action hd much more than the bricks I have owned. Also, look at the price range you are in ,$200 and under . I thinkfor the quality of videos you are gettingand the price there's not to muchcomplain about.

Things I would add to the camera:

rearIR port (so i can use the remote from behind the camera )

manual zoom with stepping

thread rings (for filters)
Maxprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2008, 7:20 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Good I agree,

I would like to see a 3D with GPS (location and direction) stamped model. Various consumer tv's now have multiple 3D glasses support, and it is available for computers (the cameras could shift with simple shutter glasses with the camera acting as a wireless glasses controller).

720p and 1080p 50fps option, with better latitude and lower light, like the Sony sensor has in the SR12.

Faster aperture and lock for shutter, exposure, aperture along with the normal focus lock (manual controls would be good, if you can fit them in).

720p50/60 at 9-18mb/s. At least 1 mb/s for every 6mp/s in 1080p60.

Live full res pre-compression component/HDMI recording during recording.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2008, 10:27 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
pgomberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 110
Default

Maxprime wrote:
Quote:
I don't think so.

Yes, the cameras are not the very best on the market. But , they are very far from the worst. I have had sony handy cams and i like my action hd much more than the bricks I have owned. Also, look at the price range you are in ,$200 and under . I thinkfor the quality of videos you are gettingand the price there's not to muchcomplain about.

Things I would add to the camera:

rearIR port (so i can use the remote from behind the camera )

manual zoom with stepping

thread rings (for filters)
I agree, for the $199 I paid for my Action HD I am VERY VERY pleased with it. In fact, I'm more pleased with it than I thought I would be.
pgomberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2008, 1:29 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
adric22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 359
Default

I was in a hurry when I posted that the other day.. this discussion has been brought up before, but to re-iterate my feelings about Aiptek...

1) Their marketing is a bit deceptive sometimes, especially when it comes to the "interpolated" resolutions they offer.

2) Their products are cheaply built, and are built in China, and they have a higher failure rate than brand-name cameras. They anticipate a certain return rate on their products both from dissatisfaction and from defects. That is why they sell so many refurbished ones on their website. 99% of those are returns.

However, if the price is right, then an Aiptek camera can be a good deal. The biggest problem for me is that I absolutely HATE rolling shutter artifacts. Still, I manage to avoid most of them because I know ways to hold a camera very still and/or I use a tripod.

Right now, and for the last year or so, they seem to be focusing on high-definition as their selling point. This is probably because high-def cameras entered the market at ridiculously high prices and Aiptek was the only thing affordable. However, if I have to pick between two cameras that are the same price but have these differences:

CAM 1) High Definition, rolling CMOS Shutter, poor indoor lux rating, bad audio, firmware problems.

CAM 2) Standard Definition, Global Shutter CCD, good indoor lux rating, clear audio, and reliable firmware.

Guess which one I'm going to pick? I'll go with camera 2 each and every time.

The only reason I actually use my Aiptek camera is for one of two reasons. Reason #1, I am doing something that I fear my good camera might get broken. #2, Sometimes I actually like the challange of getting a good movie out of an Aiptek, because it requires more skill as a photographer. And if you are good enough to make good movies with an aiptek, then you will do really well with a good camera.

Also, such as last Christmas I accidently left my good camera at somebody's house eary in the morning and when all the family got to my house I couldn't find my camera. So I ended up shooting the whole thing on my Aiptek. So it is good for a backup camera. However -I should note that my house has EXCELLENT lighting compared to most. I have white walls and I use "daylight" fluorescent lighting which is very bright and offers a color temperature similar to that of the Sun. So my poor Aiptek camera can actually take acceptable video in my house. If it had been some other house, I wouldn't have been able to get much usable video.
adric22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2008, 3:08 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
pgomberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 110
Default

adric22 wrote:
Quote:
to re-iterate my feelings about Aiptek...

Their marketing is a bit deceptive...

Their products are cheaply built, and are built in China, and they have a higher failure rate than brand-name cameras...

They anticipate a certain return rate on their products both from dissatisfaction and from defects. That is why they sell so many refurbished ones on their website. 99% of those are returns...

The biggest problem for me is that I absolutely HATE rolling shutter artifacts...

..if I have to pick between two cameras that are the same price but have these differences:

CAM 1) High Definition, rolling CMOS Shutter, poor indoor lux rating, bad audio, firmware problems.

CAM 2) Standard Definition, Global Shutter CCD, good indoor lux rating, clear audio, and reliable firmware.

Guess which one I'm going to pick? I'll go with camera 2 each and every time.
OUCH!! You just ripped Aiptek a NEW ONE!!!! :shock:
pgomberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2008, 4:04 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
subc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California, Sac area
Posts: 261
Default

adric22 wrote:
Quote:
...if I have to pick between two cameras that are the same price but have these differences:

CAM 1) High Definition, rolling CMOS Shutter, poor indoor lux rating, bad audio, firmware problems.

CAM 2) Standard Definition, Global Shutter CCD, good indoor lux rating, clear audio, and reliable firmware.

Guess which one I'm going to pick? I'll go with camera 2 each and every time.
Excellent... and this is why I still have my trusty CG65 to shoot everything. 640x480, but real 640x480 with a CCD sensor.. no rolling-shutter BS carp

IN FACT, I have not even upgraded to the 'newer' 640x480 60fps cameras from Sanyo for the same reason: CMOS = MAJOR SUCKINESS!!!!

Then again, CMOS is cool and cheap is you are going to record talking heads or static panoramas. Even today I am still amazed how manufacturers were able to 'convince' the consumer that CMOS looks is 'alright'. I have seen a number of vids from cmos cameras where the authors excuse themselves by having the "stabilization off" and give that as a reason why the video sucks donkey balls.

But no, nevermind the stabilization. Rolling shutter sucks here and in china, with or without stabilization.

The only HD cam with CCD that I like so far costs $3k :?so I guess I wait
subc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2008, 7:58 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
adric22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 359
Default

I don't know.. CMOS isn't so bad under certain conditions. Again, it requires extra talent on the part of the person shooting the video. If you use a tripod, it is usually fine, unless a large moving object like a car is going across the video.

My father in law just bought a hard-drive based camcorder from Sony this weekend that is a high-def camera that uses CMOS. I hope to get to play with it in a few days. I'm very curious to see if it will have rolling shutter issues or not.

Anyway, the picture quality of some CMOS images is actually quite nice. In fact, some of the video I've seen from the A-HD looked pretty nice. It is just the rolling shutter that bothers me.

On that subject, as we all know, the framerate makes a world of difference on rolling shutter. And since the cheaper Aiptek cameras (such as the IS-DV2) do not even reach a true 30 fps, the rolling shutter artifacts are even worse. I believe my IS-DV2 gets about 18 fps on average in 640x480 mode and about 21 fps in 320x240. Of course, they fake the 30 fps by doubling up on a frame every now and then in the video stream.
adric22 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 12:17 AM.