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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 26, 2009, 3:14 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3
Default

I've been looking for a small affordable video camera and some time ago I purchased an Aiptek C100, which I regret. The video was very choppy (among other problems, avoid this camera like the plague).

Then I looked around vimeo and other sites for samples of other camera models and found them to be choppy too.

This clip demonstrates it very well: http://www.vimeo.com/2664141

After 2 minutes you can see a road shot with the aiptek AHD200 and the efficient frame rate seems to be 4fps, because it's lagging. Just before that you can see the same scenario shot with a canon camera and it's completely smooth, so I take it it must the camera and not vimeo or the transfer.

Another random clip (from the Z500): http://www.vimeo.com/1059670

Also very choppy. They're really screwing people with the 60 fps argument. Isn't this supposed to be one of their better cameras?

I've been reading a lot here and never seen this issue come up.

Are all Aiptek's like that?

Edit: Sorry for my grammar. Couldn't change the topic.
parnuder is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 27, 2009, 9:39 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

So did you find all Aiptek video clips choppy or just a few?

Well for the first clip he does make the following disclaimer:

"By the way, the AHD200's footage may appear to lack smoothness here but that's because the computer which encoded and rendered this (Mac Mini PowerPC 1.42G, 512RAM) simply didn't have the raw power and juice to handle the 720p HD output of the AHD200"

The road shot seems to be suffering an encoding problem. While Aipteks may often be accused of inflating their fps, it certainly isn't *that* bad!

A friend of mine has the Aiptek Action HD and I shot some video of a train with it, and it certainly seems as smooth as any other camcorder to me.

It may also be an artifact of how vimeo is handling the video encoding. The only sure way is to get the original files. Of course you then need to make sure your PC is capable of playing them back. If it isn't then another good test is to encode them to a different format that is able to be played back on your PC. That way you can at least see if the video plays back smoothly.
rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2009, 9:37 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
adalfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denmarkian
Posts: 266
Default

Yes all Aiptek(or any other brand) videos are choppy if your PC or MAC can't handle HD video. It's as simple as that. Vimeo converts all videos to 24p so 30p or 60p can looks weird sometimes, because of bad frame conversion.
adalfa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2009, 10:32 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3
Default

Sorry for the late reply.

No. Until I got my Aiptek C100 I hadn't noticed it, and I've been watching a lot of clips. After however I've found all clips with rapid movement I found on vimeo to be choppy.

My camera is choppy as hell and I don't even film in HD, which is why I took notice of it.

Thanks for your replies. I'll check some more into it!
parnuder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2009, 6:30 PM   #5
Member
 
NuttySquirrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 76
Default

I'm now having a problem with choppy videos in the MOV. format tooand have not until now. all other formats play fine it's just the MOV.Even if I take the RAW videos and use them in a Video editor with a finalproduction in a MOV. they are still choppy. Swicth it to a MPEG-2 format and everything is fine.The only changes in my computor is a recent up-date from ArcSoft on my TotalMedia Extreme software. I un-installed the software, cleaned the "regisrty" and re-installed TotalMedia Extreme and did not allow it to up-date, but still the same problem. It's not the camera, I have two that take video in the same format ArcSoft H.264. It does not matter which player I use, I have tried 4 now.(not free CNET players, but real players)Any Ideas?

Does anyone know which codec is better a Quality MPEG-2 or Sorenson3?

Thank you
NuttySquirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2009, 8:22 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

As Sorensen 3 appears to be a variant of h264 then it would follow that it would be better quality at the same bitrate than mpeg2. mpeg2 is easier to work with as it's a mature codec and thus much more widely supported now.

rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2009, 8:45 PM   #7
Member
 
NuttySquirrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 76
Default

rgvcam,

thank you for your answer, I havestarted using MainConcept's MPEG-4 H.264 codec. when compaired to the Sorenson3 in MOV. format, the MainConcepts is some what better ( it took some time to find the right settings). Smoother, better colors and more. Any thoughts on the MainConcepts brand codec? Sorry I'm not very good with the differentcodecs.Plus now YouTube will nowreconize my videos as HD, where with the Sorenson3 only 1 time out of 13 did it see the same video as HD
NuttySquirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2009, 1:10 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Various things can happen in the computer to produce this problem, the codec or graphics card driver might need to be reinstalled, or even the OS. I is a pain to do.

I thought Sorenson was lossless? Here is a run down. The Mpeg2 will work better because it requires less processing power and gives less results. Mpeg2 Inter codec requires a lot less power than H264 inter codec, because the compression over frames is a lot but achieves only 1/2 reduction to 2/3rds. h264 intra (on a frame bu frame basis) requires less processing power for a quality per bit rate maybe similar to Mpeg2. I do not know what the processing requirement is compared to Mpeg2 and probably would retain better quality during motion/complex scenes, but I imaging it is a lot less than the difference between Mpeg2 and h264 inter. H264 intra is now being used for professional cameras.

Careful with format conversions, if the transcoding software is good and the bit rate high enough you will probably get similar quality, but if the transcode software is not crash hot you will loss quality, possibly even at 4 times the bit rate if the software is even worse.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2009, 8:42 AM   #9
Member
 
NuttySquirrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 76
Default

Wayne12, what I found the problem to be is a program called "ffdshow" It needed to be installed with a video compression software that I was trying. Even though "ffdshow" was not to be decoding in my video players, it was. So my geuss is their generic codecs were conflicting with myother codecs. I geuss a corupt file or something.

I use Magix Movie Edit Pro14 Plus and my main computer thatIhave is aIntel QX6850 processor 8GBof memory 8800 GTX 756MB video card and it hasnever seen the internet, except for XP up-dates. I think Its a decent combination for what I,m trying to do? My guess was that I should be able to get equal quality when coverting them AcrSoft MOV. H.264 to MainConceptMPEG-4 H.264. If you know of a better editor when it comes to quality of coverting, then please let me know ($100 price range)

What did you mean by " thought Sorenson was lossless?" so far I'm not a fan of their codecs, but I very well could be doing somting wrong when I'm working with them. Is Sorenson3 an "True" H.264 codec? I thought it got down-graded to a H.263+ codec?

Thank you

I must add: NoI did not spend $800 on a QX6850. Ordered a $240 quad core and got shipped the wrong one. Lucky me I geuss

NuttySquirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2009, 9:27 AM   #10
Member
 
NuttySquirrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 76
Default

rgvcam wrote:
Quote:
As Sorensen 3 appears to be a variant of h264 then it would follow that it would be better quality at the same bitrate than mpeg2.
I thought the the same thing that you did. With Magix Movie Edit Pro 14 Plus, the Sorenson3 coverted at a bitrate of 22.1 Mbps and the MainConcept MPEG-2 at a bitrate of 18.7Mbps its a 50/50 trade-off in over all video quality. Confused me. It could be the program or could be me.
NuttySquirrel 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 7:18 AM.