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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 9, 2007, 4:47 AM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12
Default

MorePixels wrote:
Quote:
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.
And I had a GL-2, which is in many ways better than a GL-1 and, again, I'm saying I never got a unlighted shot as good as the raw clip in this thread's lead post.

And please note I'm being quite specific. I'm talking about the video clip not all the other things you fellows are introducing.

But let's cut to the chase. Since you both had Canon's, it should be easy for you to post a clip dramatically better than the one being discussed.

Let's see it.

ricland
ricland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 8:31 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

ricland wrote:
Quote:
[...]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.[...]
Yes, many video hosting sites now do much better video than Youtube. I uploaded a testMPEG-4 AVC/H.264 MP4 clip direct from theCG65 to TinyPic and it handled it fine (no grey blocks at the beginning)at full size (640x480). But like you said, Youtube is high profile.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 5:53 AM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 68
Default

ricland wrote:
Quote:
MorePixels wrote:
Quote:
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.
And I had a GL-2, which is in many ways better than a GL-1 and, again, I'm saying I never got a unlighted shot as good as the raw clip in this thread's lead post.

And please note I'm being quite specific. I'm talking about the video clip not all the other things you fellows are introducing.

But let's cut to the chase. Since you both had Canon's, it should be easy for you to post a clip dramatically better than the one being discussed.

Let's see it.

ricland
It might be best to start a new thread for lot of comparisons of different camera footage.

I have about 20 DV tapes from the GL-1 which I still need to put into the computer but I have a spare DV camera now for a transport deck so I can vary well post some footage of my GL-1, GC65, TZ1, S2, JVC DV500, and JVC's GY-X2B.

This is what an X2b looks like.

http://cgi.ebay.com/JVC-GY-X2B-Profe...QQcmdZViewItem


It is hard to explain how much better the large 3CCD cameras perform. The X2B had 3 1/2" CCD's, it would take pictures in almost total darkness and still look good.

If I remember right the GL-2 has a 680,000 CCD and the GL-1 had a 480,000 1/3" CCD so the higher pixel count CCD should make more noise and have slightly less range than the lower pixel CCD thus why you were not so happy with the GL-2. The X2b had a 380,000 and some had a 410,000 pixel CCD and yes the VHS tape looked better than the DV GL-1.


ArizonaVideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2007, 12:20 PM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 73
Default

What I have discovered with YouTube is that is does not appear to like H.264 encoded files.

YouTube converts everything to its own Flash (.flv) codec, so it has to decode the H.264 first. Not only does this appear to take way longer than decoding/reencoding a regular mpeg4, but it also often leaves weird grey frames at the front, or messes up other stuff. I have had some files completely garbled.

Getting a great result on YouTube is pretty much impossible with their current codec. It just doesn't have great settings. I think it's partly because it's a catch-all for all files: it doesn't analyse whether a file might look better with different settings (for example I often use different parameters for an interview compared to action shots, when doing my own encodings) it just does them all the same.

Another issue is that YouTube resizes all video to 320x240, but then plays them at something like 425 by 350. Obviously this makes them look even more terrible.

If, when embedding YouTube videos on your blog or webpage, you reduce their aspect ratio back to 320x240 or lower (which I think looks better on a blog anyway) the YouTube video looks way better.

Now supposedly YouTube is moving to an H.264 codec, but I have yet to see evidence of it. Apparently that is what the iphone compatible videos are. I would love a link to one of them if anyone has one. All the stuff I upload or see, even recent, is in their horrible old Flash codec.
istara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2007, 2:32 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Well Adobe just announced that the Flash 9 Playerwill soon (coming this fall, now in beta) directly support AVC/H.264 video and AAC audio and GPU playback acceleration. I'm not sure if/how soon Youtube would adopt it.

MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and AAC aregetting really hot now, really looks like it's going to become to digital video what JPEGwas to digital photos.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 9:32 PM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 73
Default

Well I hope so. The problem is that I think I may need to replace my C6 now, so can't wait for an H.264-compatible HD3. I'm guessing it's just a few months away, but who knows?
istara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2007, 8:27 PM   #27
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13
Default

What's that blue ghosty thing in the middle of the screen on that video of you at the shrine? Is that lens flare?

That thing takes great videos...
Sashasmommy 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 6:02 PM.