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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 12, 2007, 7:45 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
CheapyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks for your responses, but I think this thread has gone a bit off topic.
I'm aware that YouTube is not a good place for respective camera buyers to judge the quality of raw footage.

However, since YouTube is capable of generating a lot of eyes on your videos, I'm trying to maximize the quality out of the Xacti CG65.

Caelum, your videos look quite good. Do you happen to remember the specific settings (and softwrae) that you used in your rendering? What about the settings on the camera?

Oh, and Sanyo, thanks for the link, but I've already checked out the tips on Squidoo, and they didn't help much.

Thanks!
CheapyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2007, 8:48 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
CheapyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6
Default

I've uploaded another raw sample from the CG65 (at highest quality) on my server:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/podcast/SANY0017.MP4

Below is what it looks like on YouTube when rendered from Vegas as a WMV. I've tried many different formats rendered from Vegas and they all seem to look very similar to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4MgFflEkVI

The video looks infinitely better on my PC, both in the raw form, and after exporting from Vegas.

Your continued help is appreciated!
CheapyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 5:22 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18
Default

Have you tried just uploading after converting to AVI using the MP4CAM2AVI utility (or whatever that one that's floating around is called for converting MP4 to AVI).


Arla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2007, 11:55 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 44
Default

Well Ido not have a solution for you. But the problem you have I also noticed with my C6. Strange.
Bart1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2007, 6:57 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
CheapyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Caelum wrote:
Quote:
I bet if you recorded a fixed cam scene with little movement, like someone just talking,it would then look better
You are absolutely right. Here is my latest video, recorded with a tripod. It looks fine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS6-09So74Y

However, your concert videos look pretty good, and clearly you didn't use a tripod.
Do you happen to remember what settings you used on the camera and in the rendering process?
CheapyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2007, 12:01 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Yes, your fixed videos look much better. I guess it helps us to understand the basics of howvideo iscompressed using very limited bandwidth (bit-rate). Very simply put, it willencode full frames only once in a while followed bylots ofdelta frames between them. Delta frames only encode the changes from the lastframe. The more a scene changes, the more bits the delta frames will consume. Also,each framewill firstencodegeneral sceneshapesusinglarger blocks, then it will usethe left overbandwidth to draw more and more detail using smaller and smaller blocks. So, if your scene is not changing much it will usesome bandwidth to first draw a full frame, then the delta frames will not require much bandwidth, so it can use the extra bandwidth to concentrate on detail, whichresults inbetter quality. With a constantly moving scene, the delta frames will consume a lot of bandwidth, little is left for detail, therefore you end up witha low quality blocky video.

In the case of my videos, you'll noticethey tend to have large areas of uniform color, black (darkness) in this case. These large uniform areas compress very well and don't consume many bits, therefore more bits can be used to encode the actual detail, the people in this case,despite beinghandheld. It's the same principle as explained above, if my video had lots of detail throughout the frame, like lush vegetation, then all the bandwidth would be assigned to the entire scene, none would be left for detail,and it would look more blocky. A tripoded videowith lush vegetation would probably be ok as long as the wind doesn't sway it too much as the full frame could encode the vegetation and the delta frames would only need to encode the subject's movements and bandwidth would be left for details of the subject.

I assume Bart also thinks the problem is the camera because he hasn't tried uploading video from other cameras to Youtube. If you uploaded video from a DV camcorder or even an ultra high-definition pro camera, the same problems would exist since they all get encodedto very low bitrates by Youtube.

Most pro footage isn't shot handheld, and these Xactis are very easy to move way too much, so tripoding will help a lot. Keep in mind that some Youtube partners, like NBC for example, probably get better encoding treatment (like two-pass analytical encoding, for example).
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 10:07 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12
Default

The raw footage looks 1000 times better than the youtube.

blip.tv would render it 100 times better than youtube

but as you point out, you don't get the traffic there that you get at youtube.

Anyway, as a one-time Canon GL2 owner, I'm amazed at the quality of your raw c6 clip. I didn't get that kind of quality with the GL2, and that's a $2000 camcorder.

ricland
ricland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 3:14 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 68
Default

I had a GL-1 for years, I would not say that the CG65 is even close in any way. The CG-65 is a lot smaller but not better PQ.
ArizonaVideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 10:16 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12
Default

ArizonaVideo wrote:

My comparison was based on the clip in this thread's first post. My GL-2 could do no better.

ricland

Quote:
I had a GL-1 for years, I would not say that the CG65 is even close in any way. The CG-65 is a lot smaller but not better PQ.
ricland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 10:01 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
MorePixels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 133
Default

ArizonaVideo wrote:
Quote:
I had a GL-1 for years, I would not say that the CG65 is even close in any way. The CG-65 is a lot smaller but not better PQ.
Agreed. I had the GL1 (loved it) for years too. How can the tiny ccd in the C6 hope to come close to 3CCD and less compression of miniDV?

Lets not even talk about the barrel distortion of the C6 lens

Don't get me wrong, I have a CG6 and love it! But lets be realistic lest some people get the wrong idea.
MorePixels 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 9:56 AM.