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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 28, 2007, 10:10 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Just for clarity is your position that the video is poor on the Z812 and the still captures are representative of what you see in the videos or is your position that the video is bad because the still captures are not equal to the still images from the camera?

Comments:

Yours "These are problems that I hoped the Z812 wouldovercomebecause it produces progressive video (the whole frame is captured at the same instant) and there is no need toexcessively conpress the frames."

Mine: Compression is need to have a reasonable (a judgement to be sure) record time with the available media. Kodak's Z*12s can record about 30 min. per GB @ 640x480. I suspect you get about 10 min per GB when shooting HD. By comparison the Canon S3/S5 camera uses motion jpg with a much lower compression and gets about 8 min. per GB @ 640x480. It's reputed to be high quality video butifHD were available (it's not) just how big a card would you need?

The CMOS vs. CCD is a red herring. The issue is primarily compression and S/N ratio of the sensor. I showed your capture of Steve's Z1275 video and your capture from your Z812 to my wife, both at 100% on the same screen. Her instant comment was that they were both terrible (applying still standards). After about 5 min. of close examination she decided the Z1275 was better but obviously, if it took her that long to come to the determination the images are not that far apart.

Why would the Z1275 be better? The sensor and the lens. The Z1275 uses a 1/1.72 sensor vs. the Z812's 1/2.5. I think Kodak gets a littlebetter noise noise performance out of a 12MP 1/1.72 sensorthan they can out of an 8MP 1/2.5 sensor. The Z812 has a great 12x lens but the fact that it is 12x means that compromises were made with it that did not have to be with the Z1275's 5x lens. That lens was also used on the well regarded C875.

Next, my question, why would someone buy a still camera to correct perceived issues in a video cam?

Finally, I am not a Z812 owner but rather a satisfied Z612 owner. Just for the record I've shot a video at 640x480 and made a couple of captures and also have two stills shot at ISO 800, 1.1 MP, and maximum in-camera jpeg compression (called basic). Guess what? The stills are still sharper and I'm neither surprised nor unhappy. I will attach the photos

IMO Kodak intended the Zseries videos for easy sharing with friends/uploading to places such as YouTube. Those activities are much easier with small file sizes hence the heavy compression. As a side note Kodak does offer one camera that uses the same motion jpeg that the Canon S3/S5 uses, the M883 but as with the Canons, no HD.

The EXIF data should be attached to the still photos. below is the first video capture:
Attached Images
 
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 10:12 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Still photo ISO 800, 1.1MP, high compression.
Attached Images
 
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 10:13 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Video capture.
Attached Images
 
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 10:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Video capture.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 10:15 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Still.
Attached Images
 
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2007, 9:11 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 26
Default

The difference between the noise in my (and your) still and the video frame examples can't be the lens or the size of the CCD because the same lens and CCD took both images.

Quality is subjective. If you like the video frames, great. I don't. With the examples we've provided, everyone candecide for themselves how red the herring is.
leroyvanhee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2007, 7:48 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

leroyvanhee wrote:
Quote:
The difference between the noise in my (and your) still and the video frame examples can't be the lens or the size of the CCD because the same lens and CCD took both images.

Quality is subjective. If you like the video frames, great. I don't. With the examples we've provided, everyone candecide for themselves how red the herring is.
When I spoke of the difference between sensors and lenses I was referring to the difference between the Z*12s and the Z1275. If you compare video captures from the Z1275 and the Z1275's still pictures (which you can do with Steve's review samples) you will see the same relative difference in quality as we are observing in the Z*12s.

Quality has both objective and subjective elements AND a judgement factor of what quality is required for a specific task. If you want a superzoom still camera that shoots video and whose video capture stills approach the quality its still image you need to check out the Canon S3/S5. They won't shoot HD video but they do shootVGA (640x480) with less motion blur and greater detail. How do they accomplish this feat? It's not by using a CMOS sensor but rather by using motion jpeg encoding (with less compression) rather than mpeg4. The cost (besides the price differences between the Canons and the Kodaks) is a file size three times larger for the same recording time.

I am satisfied with my Z612 because of it's excellence as a still camera and there was, at the time I purchased my camera nothing about the Canon S3 stillcamera performance that warranted the price difference at the time IMO. As it stands the Z612s still performance is excellent and although I have never had a need to do this this I can shoot a emergency video up to 30min. and still have room for 150 stills at the highest quality. The S3 won't do that. If I have a real need for a quality camcorder in the future I'll get one, not a still camera.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 12:45 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 26
Default

ac.smith wrote:
Quote:
If I have a real need for a quality camcorder in the future I'll get one, not a still camera.
As long as you're satisfied with standard-definition and interlaced format, you'll have lots of choices. If you want to record in 720p or 1080p, you may want to read the first sentence of this thread. I found no camcorders that do that.

I ran a noise test with my z812 (CCD sensor) and my HV10 (CMOS sensor) to see if there is a difference. The test subject is a plain gray board. It has uniform color with no texture. Therefore any variations (noise)you see are caused by the camera. The videos were taken outside at midday with an overcast sky.

The first video frame is from the z812: http://myroots.pgvhosting.com/z812_videoframe1.jpg Notice the color (hue) variations. They seem to be random. ThisIbelievecauses my preception of noise in videos.

The secondvideo frame is from the HV10: http://myroots.pgvhosting.com/hv10_videoframe1.jpg Here I see variations of saturation that seem to be syncronized with the horizontal sweep. It's not random noise. No variations of hue.

Conclusion:The CCD sensorhassignificantly more noise than the CMOS sensor.
leroyvanhee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 2:36 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

But you have no rational reason to be dissappointed in your Z812 because you expectation were created by no one but yourself. It is abundantly fair however to be dissappointed in the current state of the art. Yet the craft of photography isusing the tools at hand to evoke the senses in thedesired manner.

By the way, if you have any way of doing it you might want to shoot a couple of test videos with a V1253. It has a least a choice of compression levels:

[align=left]Video Size[/align]

[align=left]Choose a video resolution.[/align]

[align=left]1280 x 720 (HD720p) HQ—
HDTV format; uses the least[/align]
[align=left]compression, gives the highest video quality.[/align]

[align=left]1280 x 720 (HD720p) (default)—
HDTV format; uses[/align]
[align=left]compression to save space.[/align]

[align=left]640 x 480 HQ—
medium quality and file size.[/align]
[align=left]640 x 480—
medium quality and file size; uses compression[/align]
[align=left]to save space.[/align]

320 x 240—
lowest quality; smallest file size.



ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 1:03 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 26
Default

ac.smith wrote:
Quote:
But you have no rational reason to be dissappointed in your Z812 because you expectation were created by no one but yourself...
Did you just revoke my right to the pursuit of happiness? LOL

I came across an announcement (issued last spring) of some new low-noise, inexpensive, CMOS sensors from Micron Technology (Boise, ID). They're targeted at point-and-shoot cameras such as Kodak's Z812. They can produce 720P video at 60 fps. or 8 mega-pixel stills at 10 fps. That's what I'm talking about.

http://www.micron.com/about/news/pre...74179AEFA2B68E

Come on Kodak!


leroyvanhee 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 3:32 PM.