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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 10, 2007, 3:15 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Default

Thanks Caelum, Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or later sounds very demanding, at least my current computer is not fast enough. I found the spec for CG6 as follow. It seems to me H.264 is way too demanding comparing to conventional MPEG-4. You will have problems when you email your video clips to your friends/relatives, and then find out they can't play them on their computers. I am leaning toward CG6 now.


http://www.sanyo-dsc.com/english/pro...pec/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) SANYO Software Pack Operating Environments

Windows Macintosh

OS* Windows 2000 / Windows XP Mac OS 9.0 or Later
CPU
Photo Explorer Pentium III 800 MHz or greater Macintosh: Power PC
DVD MovieWriter Pentium III 800 MHz or greater -
Motion Director Pentium III 1 GHz or greater -
Memory
Photo Explorer 256 MB or greater (512 MB recommended) 64 MB or greater
DVD MovieWriter 256 MB or greater (512 MB recommended) -
Motion Director 256 MB or greater(512 MB recommended) -
Others DirectX 9.0 or later


bluedragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 3:46 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

bluedragon, itmight betoo demanding for old PCs at the highest 3Mbps mode, but I would also never send 3Mbps video via e-mail (I would re-encode at a lower bit-rate before sending/posting, or just prepare a DVD for them). The WEB-SHQ mode is a lot less demanding, should play fine on most PCs and PMPsand is web/e-mail friendly file size wise (andsignificantly better quality than the TV-S mode was on my C6). But yeah,the CG6 sounds pretty good, is at a good price now and easy to pick up at Walmart.

Oh, and keep in mind that a Pentium 4 3Ghz is not nearly as fast as any CPU in the CoreDuo families at nearly half the Ghz, so when they put "or later", it doesn't mean higher Ghz, just later models.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 7:28 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 398
Default

Hey caelum - if you have a chance and weather permits, can you take a sweeping sample shot of the lawn with your CG65? I find that this is actually very challenging for the video codec, because on my old C6 the video compression either "breaks up" the blades of grass (ie. make them look like digital noise and pixels) or "muddle" them up (I guess from the compression and averaging process). I haven't had a chance to try out the CG6 on this issue yet.
blindsight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 7:41 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

blindsight, no grass around here yet, just the flat dead stuff left over from winter, but I'll see what I can do.

Edit: Ok, I took something quickly this morning; it could be the most ugly, boring video I've ever taken,althoughan interesting test. It's a quick sweepof flat long dead grass in the morning sun, monochrome (straw color) contrast, full auto, no digital corrections. Given my theories that the CG65 smoothes uniform areas and uses variable bit-rates, in this unusual case the CG65has noopportunity to save on smooth uniform areas, so its total bit-ratesactually exceed the quoted ones. I think this is a really good thing, itwill not sacrifice detail. The C6 did pretty well, but the CG65didbetter andsmoother; if you pause the videoyou can see the differences better, the C6'sexhibits blocks whereas the CG65's just looks like normal motion blur. The differencesare made very evidentin the CG65 WEB-SHQ vs. the C6's equivalent TV-S.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2007, 3:12 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
Default

Thanks for all the info Caelum!

After I watched all the video samples I am really impressed by this little cam. But still - I don't trust the IS. Even the best video quality is crap when it is too shaky.

Therefore I would be very grateful if you couldupload one or some free-hand samples with panning & shaking and IS turned on. :-) Thanks a lot in advance!

By the way - has someone already tried to directly edit the AVC/H.264 samples using third party software? I mean without recompressing the files before editing?
puper78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2007, 12:57 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Hi puper78, ok np, I'm also very curious. I justnow took twofree-hand clips and uploaded them,both optically zoomed in at 5X,one with digital image stabilisation(DIS) off, the other with it on. It's a wet grey day outside right now, so it's also a good low contrast test. I was trying to keep the one without DIS steady, I think part of the movement could be my heartbeat in my extended arm. I hadn't really played with it so far, but I have to say I'm really impressed by the DIS now. Oops, I just noticed you asked for shaking, but I think we can see just from that sample that, just like brachiopod said, if you shake or move enough, theDIS won't do anything. Basically, if you are trying to hold a steady shot the DIS locks in and does it's job, if you are moving, the DIS will disengage. Keep in mind this is 5X zoomed in, zoomed out would naturally have less shake. Youcan seethe DIS one looks more zoomed in, although they were both shot from the same distance,becauseit uses the outside edge of the sensortodo it'sDIS.I can't really imagine an OIS being able to do anything more if the camera moves more than it can compensate for either, especially with a small lens with little leeway, except it wouldn't sacrifice sensor resolution. Bottom line, if you are going to walkaround or move a lotwhile filming, don't expect to have steadyvideo,evenwith the DIS on, you'd need something like a Steadycam attachment.

Oh, and I've edited the CG65AVC MP4 files directly in Sony Vegas 6.0d and it works really well for me, rendered out to DVD in best mode looks great; I think it uses the Mainconcept AVC codec.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2007, 1:11 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 630
Default

Caelum,...

I'm shifting my interest from Canon TX1 to Sanyo CG65, primarily due to reported poor handling qualities of the TX1. Slight advantages in video quality and even a 10X zoom compared to 5X don't give the Canon an edge if it's half as hard to handle as folks say it is. I have even read one report that it's almost impossible to operate the TX1 with one hand. For me, that's a deal breaker.

Frankly, I'm going to school on your posts and learning more than I have from all the techical "reviews" posted here and there online. I'm pretty well convinced that it will be superior in video quality to my C5 and I will really enjoy the longer screen for viewing and in camera editing.

I'm on my way to Walmart right now to handle the CG6. Sanyo tells me it is exactly the same physically as the CG65. My C5 is so small and handy that it's become my gold standard for handling qualities in a camera. I'm hoping the CG65 handles about as well with a slightly better video.
Setter Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2007, 4:27 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
Default

Thanks a lot for the samples! IS looks ok - at least no pumping during panning. But when it stops working at a little shaking you could not use it for a motorbike ride or any sports activities because it would be turned off all the time. ;-)

Anyway great camera for that price! I guess around US$400? Unfortunately it's not yet available in Germany.

But still I can't decide between the CG65 and my other fauvorite the Panasonic SDR-S150. The latter one is a little bit bigger and about $200 more expensive but creates smoother videos. On the other hand it records interlaced and I kind of have problems removing the interlacing during rendering...
puper78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2007, 4:39 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
Default

The CG65 just died for me -I found the Casio Exilim EX-V7, which makes little better video: 848x480 (16:9), H.264/AVC, 7.2 Mbit/s!! And it really looks a little bit better. Furthermore you cannot hear any zoom or focus noise. You can search Google. There are many sample videos out there:
http://dc.casio.jp/product/exilim/ex...y/CIMG0004.MOV
http://dc.casio.jp/product/exilim/ex...y/CIMG0093.MOV
http://hottaky.com/photos/ex-v7/movies/CIMG5226.MOV
http://sthapit.googlepages.com/snow_drive.wmv(recompressed)
http://sthapit.googlepages.com/night_snow.wmv(recompressed)

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"The V7's photo quality should be nearly the same as the CG65's because it was not rated as good as other Exilim's.
puper78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2007, 7:25 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 398
Default

I have also done some research on the Casio EX-V7 - those sample movies on the Casio site are really great looking! Many user reviews are also coming out, such as taky cheng and several others in the dpreview forum - this is another one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/casio/ex-v7.htm

I do notice that although the Casio's highest resolution video is slightly larger than the Xacti CG65's (848 x 480 vs. 640 x 480), the video bitrate of the best quality setting is far higher than the CG65's. I always wonder why Sanyo did not increase the max. video bitrate so that the already-decent video gets better - maybe they have a contract with the video chip manufacturer? I guess since memory card capacity gets larger and faster, and the price keeps dropping (plus the new SDHC format), hcamera manufacturers can increase the video bitrate to make their movies look better.

I agree that Casio is superior (at least probably superior, since I have never owned or used a Casio) in most aspects - still picture quality (I have never been a fan of the Xacti C series' still picture quality: I only use it as a pocketable camcorder), zoom lens range, and now the movie quality. The only and biggest point I prefer the Xacti series is the "grip" design which is ideal for shooting video - I never find shooting video using the conventional "box-type" point&shoot cameras very comfortable. I guess this is the reason Canon also designed their TX1 to be grip-like.
blindsight 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 6:10 AM.