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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 13, 2008, 3:37 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
sw2cam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Default

Hi I bought a digital still camera and I want the video to perform on the same level as a high end studio video camera. Can anyone tell me what rig I should buy for under $300 that will do this.
sw2cam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 8:43 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

leroyvanhee wrote:
Quote:
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!

And here the fine print on that announcement:

"This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding the production of the MT9P401 and the MT9M002 CMOS image sensors. Actual events or results may differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Please refer to the documents the Company files on a consolidated basis from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically the Company's most recent Form 10-K and Form 10-Q. These documents contain and identify important factors that could cause the actual results for the Company on a consolidated basis to differ materially from those contained in our forward-looking statements (see Certain Factors). Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. We are under no duty to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this press release to conform to actual results."

The designers of every current camera on the market were well locked in prior to this announcement. If they live up to Micron expectation it will still take another year to show up in anybodies product.

ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 12:19 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1
Default

"But you have no rational reason to be dissappointed in your Z812 because you expectation were created by no one but yourself. "

REALLY?

aren't our expectations as consumers formed (at least in part) by the advertising and marketing of the manufacturer? I don't know what method others use todecide ona camera versus other cameras (e.g. "oh, pretty" or "feels solid") but I read the specifications that the mfg advertises. For me, I looked at the specs and in the case of the z812IS... I read that it had optical image stabilization, a name with much goodwill in the lense, an 8mp sensor, HD (High Definition) video with mpeg4 (the latest and greatest of codecs) Quicktime mp4 1280 by 720 pixels progressive @ 30 frames per second.

Let me first state that the z812IS does great pictures! What I think is a fair comparision forvid qualityare:

a) a 1.2mp picture taken from same z812with same lighting, same tripod setting, same everything (as close as possible)... remove as many variables as possible. So the only difference should be jpeg v mpg4 encoding....

and

b) a 640x480 video fromsame camera.



What you shouldsee (if the mfg specs are to be believed and relied on - which we have laws that say asreasonable consumers we should be able to rely on in comparing with their competitorsto form our purchase decisions) we should see with test a) the 1.2mp picture: is that the resolution of a frame grab from 720p is identical, not similar, identical.... mp4 doesn't reduce the resolution and if it does, then the vid shouldn't be advertised as capturing 1280x720. I don't see this. the 720p frame grabSUCKS compared to the still pic.The resolution of the framegrab isNOT 720p as advertised. If it is the mpg4, and as others have stated, Kodak anticipated this as a youtube cam... why offer HD as youtube still doesn't really have? Why offer sdhc? If SDHC 16gb cards are already down to $50 why not offer a graduated compression option for those who want to archive quality vid as one would expect purchasing an HD vid camera? Why not offer a firmware upgrade that gives the user the option of changing the compression settings as in the 1275?

Secondly, we should see from test b)1280x720 vid V. 640x480 vid: a huge increase in quality and specifically resolution. We are talking over 1 million discrete pixels versus300,000. Again the z812 fails. Videoresolution (aside from aspect ratio) is nearly identical. Again, a graduated compression option should be available if anyone can grab a 16gb SDHC fast and big card.

SO - KODAK lied and falsely advertised imaginary specifications - that were material to consumers to induce us to buy the camera in lieu of competitors who truthfully advertised REALISTIC specs.

On top of the shxtty, nonHDvid quality, the audio sucks too (compared tosimilar point and shoot cameras).

AND - Kodak refuses toremedy.Someone seriously needs to class action their punk @sses like we did verizon and the motorolla v712.

F' Kodak, F' Motorolla, F' verizon.

The still photos are great though! The optical zoom is AMAZING! The IS is great too! Kodak used to totally rock. It just pisses me off that they won't release any firmware updates to resolve issues that seem so easy to fix.






chinamanblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 4:43 PM   #24
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 26
Default

Apparently noise is managed in still and video images by selectively rejecting high frequency data. To reduce the noise, the signal is passed through a low-pass filter to separate the signal from the higher-frequency noise. See Neat Image software which is used to clean-up noise in high ISO, low-light images. It actually measures the noise frequencies in a solid-colored area of the photo and selectively blocks those frequencies. The result is usually a softer image which is somewhat restored by sharpening.

Unfortunately, HD video has higher frequency bit-streams than still photos, so it's much more difficult to separate the signal from the noise.

CMOS sensors generally create less noise because they convert the analog signal to digital much sooner (digital signals are not suseptable to noise). In a CMOS sensor there is a analog to digital converter sitting along side each pixel. A sensor with 8 million pixels has 8 million a to d converters.

I think the term HD has to mean more than just the number of pixels in a frame. Kodak is not delivering high definition video frames in the Z812. That's a breach of their unilateral contract offer (their specification) in my opinion.
leroyvanhee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 10:30 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

chinamanblue wrote:
Quote:
"But you have no rational reason to be dissappointed in your Z812 because you expectation were created by no one but yourself. "

REALLY?

aren't our expectations as consumers formed (at least in part) by the advertising and marketing of the manufacturer? I don't know what method others use todecide ona camera versus other cameras (e.g. "oh, pretty" or "feels solid") but I read the specifications that the mfg advertises. For me, I looked at the specs and in the case of the z812IS... I read that it had optical image stabilization, a name with much goodwill in the lense, an 8mp sensor, HD (High Definition) video with mpeg4 (the latest and greatest of codecs) Quicktime mp4 1280 by 720 pixels progressive @ 30 frames per second.

Let me first state that the z812IS does great pictures! What I think is a fair comparision forvid qualityare:

a) a 1.2mp picture taken from same z812with same lighting, same tripod setting, same everything (as close as possible)... remove as many variables as possible. So the only difference should be jpeg v mpg4 encoding....

and

b) a 640x480 video fromsame camera.



What you shouldsee (if the mfg specs are to be believed and relied on - which we have laws that say asreasonable consumers we should be able to rely on in comparing with their competitorsto form our purchase decisions) we should see with test a) the 1.2mp picture: is that the resolution of a frame grab from 720p is identical, not similar, identical.... mp4 doesn't reduce the resolution and if it does, then the vid shouldn't be advertised as capturing 1280x720. I don't see this. the 720p frame grabSUCKS compared to the still pic.The resolution of the framegrab isNOT 720p as advertised. If it is the mpg4, and as others have stated, Kodak anticipated this as a youtube cam... why offer HD as youtube still doesn't really have? Why offer sdhc? If SDHC 16gb cards are already down to $50 why not offer a graduated compression option for those who want to archive quality vid as one would expect purchasing an HD vid camera? Why not offer a firmware upgrade that gives the user the option of changing the compression settings as in the 1275?

Secondly, we should see from test b)1280x720 vid V. 640x480 vid: a huge increase in quality and specifically resolution. We are talking over 1 million discrete pixels versus300,000. Again the z812 fails. Videoresolution (aside from aspect ratio) is nearly identical. Again, a graduated compression option should be available if anyone can grab a 16gb SDHC fast and big card.

SO - KODAK lied and falsely advertised imaginary specifications - that were material to consumers to induce us to buy the camera in lieu of competitors who truthfully advertised REALISTIC specs.

On top of the shxtty, nonHDvid quality, the audio sucks too (compared tosimilar point and shoot cameras).

AND - Kodak refuses toremedy.Someone seriously needs to class action their punk @sses like we did verizon and the motorolla v712.

F' Kodak, F' Motorolla, F' verizon.

The still photos are great though! The optical zoom is AMAZING! The IS is great too! Kodak used to totally rock. It just pisses me off that they won't release any firmware updates to resolve issues that seem so easy to fix.





You joined to flame me? OK, welcome anyway. The specifications listed in Kodak's web site are explicitly and technically correct so one should immediately suspect the qualifications any lawyer willing to attempt a class action suite on that basis. What one infers based on those specifications is not actionable.

I'm not sure what to make of your "test a)" but a 1.2MP 1280x960 4:3 image cannot be identical to a .9MP 1280x720 16:9 image. Beyond that if the 1.2MP was shot still mode it would have only jpeg compression applied. The .9MP frame grab must have mpeg4 compression applied or it wouldn't be a "frame grab" by definition. Either the 1.2 MP still cropped to 16:9 or the smallest 16:9 sized still image (2.1MP) will beat a frame grab. MPEG4 is both a "lossy" compression scheme and its losses include the results of cross-frame compression. JPEGs losses are only within frames.

I just ran a text search on all the Z812 web pages and nowhere is the term progressive to be found.

I'm not a video buff but I haven't run across any mpeg4 still camera that compresses less than the Z812/1012 although some Kodaks and others offer a "long" format which apparently compresses more than the standard format.

Since MPEG4 compresses across frames and is used in both the the 640x480 format and the 1280x720 format the artifacts will be present in both if you don't take steps to avoid those effects. Resolution has no bearing on compression artifacts.

Based on my Z612 tests I believe the audio quality on the entire Z*12 series is equal. Kodak makes no secret that the audio circuitry is the same as a typical cell phone. My tests with live music suggest that it is OK with UNACCOMPANIED vocals only.

A. C.


ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 10:51 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

leroyvanhee wrote:
Quote:
CMOS sensors generally create less noise because they convert the analog signal to digital much sooner (digital signals are not suseptable to noise). In a CMOS sensor there is a analog to digital converter sitting along side each pixel. A sensor with 8 million pixels has 8 million a to d converters.
I don't think I can entirely buy into your version of CCD vs. CMOS:

http://pluggedin.kodak.com/search/de...sp?item=664294

and

http://pluggedin.kodak.com/search/de...p?item=2179980

finally

http://pluggedin.kodak.com/search/de...p?item=2207346

A. C.




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 1:46 AM.