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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 29, 2007, 5:42 AM   #41
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12
Default

Hi,

To edit your movies, you'll have better results using Sony Vegas 7, it's the most useful for the HD2's movies. You can also use Ulead VideoStudio, but it's not so professionnal.
Erwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 5:44 AM   #42
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12
Default

Premiere is not compatible, maybe the Premiere CS3 but i'm not sure...
Erwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2007, 11:26 PM   #43
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
Default

I bought my C6 based on the review and forum comments here and have been thrilled with it (given its limitations). Largely based on our happiness with the C6, and Steve's review, we bought an HD2 yesterday. It looks like history is going to repeat itself (in a positive fashion).

Here are some initial H2 impressions from a C6 owner's perspective:

- Significantly bulkier, we'll keep our C6 for around the town shooting. We loved being able to slip the C6 in our pocket, we can't do that with an H2! But they do give you a very nice belt pack.

- Low light performance significantly improved, but still requires some coddling. We shot a stage musical our daughter performed in. With the C6, shooting at a distance with indoor illumation would have returned unusable results due to the noise. With the H2 in "high sensitivity mode", we got great results much of the time, mixed with poor/decent results. Low lighting is still the big weakness of this camera, but I suspect that with time, we'll learn to work around its limitations. The tricks, I suspect are basically to minimize zooming and movemement, particularly combined with lighting changes. The best results we got were with average or brighter stage lighting combined with relatively low camera movement. The best results, mind you, were quite good to my eye, and translated well to a 42" 1080p screen.
- Sound quality is excellent.
- Still quality is great, and signficantly improved (see sample shots http://flickr.com/photos/bobmatnyc/992501902/ and http://flickr.com/photos/bobmatnyc/992501902/). There is still a "softness" to the pixel grain that keeps the pictures from competing with the Canons, but the difference is less noticeable now.
- Lots of small improvements to interface and erganomics. Seems much more solid, sturdy (though the C6 has been perfect in that regard. It works as well now as it did when we first bought it 18 months ago).
- 10x zoom -- wow! Check out my sample pics for a zoomed in shot of the GWB. Very happy with the optical zoom.
- Flash is GREATLY improved for still photos. Now actually usable at night!
- The HD2, like with the C6, is a hybrid. You'll get better stills with a dedicated still camera, and better video with a 3-chip prosumer. But the compromise in quality, particularly on the video side, is far less with the 6, and you're much more likely to have it with you!
- Works perfectly with all the software we use (iMovie, iPhoto, VNC, FFMpeg, FCP).

Here's one secret I learned when researching the market. If you're a Mac user, or a fan or standards based media, there is no good solution from Canon/Sony/Toshiba on the HD video to hard drive side. None of the current crop of products (as far as I was able to find) records to an open standards format. You're still stuck having to export and transferring via firewire, or having to use crappy software in windows. I have no desire to go back to tape or to start using DVD based cameras. I love just being able to dock and quickly transfer a day's worth of shorts with a few clicks (though with HD video, USB 2.0 seems much slooooower than before!). Files are stored in very accessible H.264 MP4s, and very easy to work with. All of our pics and video for the past two years are stored in source files and backed up, and we never have to think about media management any more.

Once the 3 chip prosumer camcorders can do the same, we may get another no-compromise solution. Until then, the Xacti is it.

Bottom line? Having our camera available, and being able to integrate its output with our "digital lifestyle" beat out our need to get the best quality image. And the compromise gets easier to live with each iteration! We're very happy with the HD2 for far.

bobmatnyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2007, 5:56 PM   #44
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 73
Default

I am a little confused on the HD2 specs - does it do H.264 encoding, either in HD mode or regular mode?
istara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 7:48 AM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19
Default

It uses the generic MP4 profile which is less compressed but works fine.
geralda590 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 10:59 AM   #46
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 73
Default

Aha ok thanks. In that case I may try to wait for the next upgrade - it surely must be arriving soon, they seem to be every six months - as I am sure that will have H.264.

I'm more concerned about quality than size. Is the H.264 used on the other devices better quality than the conventional mpeg4, or is it the exact same quality but a smaller file size?
istara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2007, 8:26 PM   #47
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
Default

Both are part of mp4 spec. h.264 is supposed to provide better quality at lower bitrates. So technically, the image quality should be about the same, given a higher bitrate for mp4 w/o h.264.

Confirmed that the HD2 does not use h.264 (I thought it did originally as well). We get about 40 min of video on a 4G card.

Here's a sample if anyone is interested:

http://www.mediafire.com/?6j7ztswh1su
bobmatnyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2007, 7:25 AM   #48
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 73
Default

Thanks. I have just found that H.264 seems to look better (at least when I am compressing media from my Sony PD150 broadcast quality camera) than regular MPEG4, no matter how big I make the regular MPEG4s.

Something about H.264 just makes the brightness, contrast, clarity and detail better. So even if the regular MPEG4's bitrate is considerably higher, the H.264 looks better. Eg a 2000kpbs MPEG4 lacks a certain sparkle that a 1000kbps H.264 MPEG4 will have.

Its downside is the effort it takes to encode and reencode it, at least with current hardware, and the way YouTube seems to vomit on it.
istara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2007, 7:35 AM   #49
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
Default

Now that the flash player supports h.264, and cheap encoding/decoding chipsets are available, I suspect widespread support is just a matter of time.
bobmatnyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2007, 2:04 PM   #50
Member
 
anjoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 87
Default

I have got the fantastic XACTI CA65 (Waterproof !)
with the famous new compression CODEC ***H.264***


HERE IS A PHOTO GALERY
and many ORIGINAL MP4 VIDEO SAMPLE


http://www.anjoyplanet.com/video/SANYO_XACTI_CA65.html
WELCOME ;-)))
anjoy 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 6:37 PM.