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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 22, 2007, 6:39 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 630
Default

The main difference between the CG6 and CG65 seems to be the video format, specifically the file size, with the CG65 file sizes as much as 25% smaller for video clips of the same length.

With video cards getting so large and so inexpensive, the advantage of the AVC/H.264 seems to be marginal with a small practical advantage for those who like to email their videos or post them on the internet.

Is there more to it? Is the AVC/H.264 superior to MPEG-4 in any other respect?


Setter Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 23, 2007, 1:15 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 hasquality advantages over MPEG-4 simple profile. The most visibly obvious should be less MPEG "block" artefacts in the videowith scene movementand/or fine detail.

But yeah, the CG6 is actually affordable now at retail.

I assume when youwrote "With video cards getting so large", you meant hard drives.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2007, 7:53 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 630
Default

Actually Caelum, I meant memory cards. But the increasing size of hard drives is also a factor.

I'm glad to hear the newer format in the CG65 may have somewhat better quality than the MPEG-4. My C5 isn't bad at all but I do notice a lack of detail in some scenery shots.

Hard to keep up with all the goodies, isn't it? Once I get my next camera I should stay off the internet,.........but then I don't want to miss the fun, do I?
Setter Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2007, 10:42 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25
Default

If AVC/H.264 is 25% more efficient, then it stands to reason that video taken at the same 3 Mbps rate would be better quality. The question I have is: can it be edited? The simple profile MPEG 4 can be edited by every video editing program I've tried. Even Microsoft's free Moviemaker does a surprisingly good job (other than its lack of output options).
SPOFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2007, 11:31 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 630
Default

Moviemaker?...... Maybe I should try that. I actually just record my video clips to a Panasonic DVD recorder/writer after joining them in the C5 and make DVDs after I get 30-45 minutes worth on the hard drive. I could probably do a better job if I had an editor of some kind but I just haven't gotten to that.
Setter Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2007, 8:45 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

SPOFF wrote:
Quote:
[...]The question I have is: can it be edited?[...]
Those with Macs have built-in support for it, so they can with the included iMovie or others. On the Windows side, more and more programs are supporting MP4 and AVC/H264, but not all... yet. A big issue is Microsoft not wanting to support AVC or MP4 instead wanting to push it's own VC1 WMV format (perhaps it has litigation fears, like the MP3Alcatel-Lucent fiasco; may or may not be an issue). Only their Zune and it's PC software support MP4 and AVC, sinceit's the premier video format for both thevideo iPod and the PSP.There is already support for MP4 AVC in lower end video editing packages because they are targetting the portable media market. My editing software, Sony Vegas has support for MP4 and AVC/AAC.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 6:55 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 18
Default

Going back to the original question, I don't understand how the CG65 H264/AVC could be a higher quality image. It may be more efficient at compression, but doesn't that mean it is also throwing away 25% more date than the CG6? Flash memory is so cheap I'm not concerned about file size, and paying an extra $100 for the CG65 doesn't seem to make sense.

My main concern is image quality. I'd take the money saved on the CG6 and put it towards an extra battery and another SDHC card.

Are there any samples comparing the same video shot on the CG6 and the CG65?
oxboxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 8:07 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

oxboxx wrote:
Quote:
Going back to the original question, I don't understand how the CG65 H264/AVC could be a higher quality image. It may be more efficient at compression, but doesn't that mean it is also throwing away 25% more date than the CG6?[...]
Quote:
Are there any samples comparing the same video shot on the CG6 and the CG65?
It is better, more sophisticatedcompression.I'll give you an example: PNG images, which use deflationcompression,aresignificantly more compressed than BMP images which use RLE compression;and theyare both lossless formats. PNGis able to shavemore than 50% off the file size (even moreif compared to the original), yetitdoes notthrow anything away at all. It's possible to compress more and be higher quality, the price is computing power.

I don't have a CG6 to directly compare. I did post a brief comparison withmy older C6 in my mini review thread; it'sjust anencoder torture test (look for "long dead grass").

Is the CG65 worth $100 more than the CG6? I can't answer that for you.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 8:13 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25
Default

When we say a compression algorithm is 25% more efficient, we mean it allows the same quality picture even though we've reduced the file size by another 25%. And in theory this works in reverse: so a CG65 recording at 3.0 Mbps should give you the equivalent picture that a C6 would if it could record at 3.75 Mbps, which of course it can't. Also, the AVC/H.264 has "smarter" algorithms so things like blocking, video noise and fuzzy edges are better contained. Caelum has another new thread where he has C65 footage. I've only looked at one clip so far, but I'm convinced.
SPOFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 8:40 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 18
Default

Thanks for the info. It sure would be interesting to see the two cameras recording the same scene at the highest quality for comparison. I'm about ready to buy...
oxboxx 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 8:06 AM.