Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 20, 2007, 3:20 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

640x480 is not HD but rather VGA, the only HD is 1280x720.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2008, 9:20 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2
Default

Regarding video.....I am sadly disappointed with this camera, I had the previous Model a Z7something. It did pretty good. I am webmaster for a local band, and take photos and video to include on the site. Figuring this newer better model camera would be wonderful to put some good quality HD video and some great photos on my site, I purchased. WRONG.

The lead singer proposed to his girlfriend, I captured the video but the Audio is awful. Much like the "cell phone concert" sound. So. I checked out Kodak, got the stupid tech service that says - use our online help....yeah. ok.

SO. I am not so quick to give up. I try again, move to different locations (away from the main speakers, waaaaaaay far away, and still, jumbled horrible audio. So I go to Kodak again. NOTHING. :PBack and forth is all it is.

Having purchased this camera from Best Buy, I also bought the extra insurance, which I refer to as chills and spills....SO Since the camera is under warranty....and I have the extra insurance...I got nothing to lose.:idea: I talked to the "geek squad" about my problems, and the rep said he never saw one of these cameras returned. Perhaps a white lie, based on what I've been reading. BUT I was a little hopeful that maybe I got a lemon. Now, I'm not so sure!

So now I get to wait up to 4 WEEKS before I get my camera back.

For snapshots, I'm a little impressed, but not extremely. I should've spent the extra hundred and bought the Canon.






tinabelcz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2008, 10:21 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

tinabelcz wrote:
Quote:
The lead singer proposed to his girlfriend, I captured the video but the Audio is awful. Much like the "cell phone concert" sound.
I'm not quite sure how many time I've said it BUT IT IS CELL PHONE AUDIO. KODAK SAID SO. See http://1000nerds.kodak.com/event-cal...&year=2007.

Now will someone explain to me why so many people went out and bought a $300STILL camera expecting $500 dollar video camera performance? Oh, and by theway Canon's direct competitor to the Z812, the S5 didn't and doesn'toffer HD video although Canon has introduced it withmore recentcameras.


ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2008, 10:27 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

By the way my updated comment and testing on "double-flash" are in this thread:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=18
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2008, 10:54 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Well said (again), a.c.!

My daughter & her boyfriend came back this weekend from a medical student 'elective'placement in Uganda, with about 800 still images, and a handful of pretty useless video clips. Now she wants a camcorder, so I researched them a bit yesterday, at my favourite camera shop, with my favourite camera salesman.

To my astonishment, he recommends a good quality, very small, digital videotape Samsung camcorder for 139 ukpounds (1 ukpound = US$2), with reasonable quality stereo sound, though they're in short supply. See...
http://www.wrexcam.com/camcorder.htm, a potted guide to current consumer camcorder technology.I might well buy one myself.

Don't be a 'Vigital Dolt', as in 'DVM - Vigital Dolt Meter'! Always use the tool for the job! Still cameras like the Z812 or my 712, or their competitors, are good at taking still pictures, as a.c.smith said. Camcorders are good at taking video. Sometimes the sound is OK. The better the microphone, the better the sound, but the recording medium has to be up to the job, without too much compression.

I'm still occasionally using my antiqueSony Video8 camcorder, (see image earlier in this thread) recording on analogue 8mm videotape. The sound quality is excellent, to the extent that it's the best means I have of recording my wife's professional classical music performances. There's a bit of motor noise, but that's not a problem if she's loud enough.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 9:38 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Thanks Alan. As always your favorite camera store provides a wealth of information on their web site.

Contributor tclune, in this thread, http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...amp;forum_id=9, does a nice job of explaining the impact of various compression algorithms on video quality and video file size. The entire difference between Canon still camera videos and Kodak Z series videos. Canon uses motion jpeg compression resulting in large files sizes and Kodak uses mpeg4 compression resulting in relatively small files. If I take a video with a still camera it is strictly non-critical application and mpeg4 serves the purpose just fine.


ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 11:56 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

ac.smith wrote:
Quote:
........Contributor tclune, in this thread, http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...amp;forum_id=9........
Excellent, illuminating link. Thanks, Alan

Regards
Alan
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 3:33 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2
Default

Well aren't we a bit testy? I was simply making a point, venting if you will.

Oddly enough, the problem isn't just my audio - I've taken video around home, and it too has been very choppy. Even in small "segments" and quiet conditions. Therefore, there is more of a problem here than just the audio. Apparently, there is a larger problem with the camera I bought, since video of "around the house" which was rather mellow, also was choppy and miserable.




tinabelcz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 4:23 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

tinabelcz wrote:
Quote:
Well aren't we a bit testy? I was simply making a point, venting if you will.

Probably since this has been ongoing issue of expectation and many haven't looked at the prior traffic. In your case however I'd suggest going to Steve's review of the Z612 and the Z1275. On the Samples page (last page of each review) he has some video clips from each camera. These would serve as a bench mark to evaluate your experience. If it's worse than the Z612 then there may be a defect. Note - if you aim at a different subject (at a different distance) while shooting the camera will refocus and this will be more noticeable the longer the focal length of the lens. If you zoom while shooting the lens will have to refocus. Depending on the level of ambient noise you may hear the the optical image stabilization motor, the auto-focus motor and/or the zoom motor. At least some of the competitive cameras eliminate the zoom motor noise by not allowing zoom during shooting.
ac.smith 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 3:44 AM.