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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 5, 2008, 10:57 AM   #871
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 16
Default

visorblue wrote:
Quote:
*derxxsfilmer* wrote:
Quote:
But it´s not recommended for stills: I don´t know why, the hd700 16:9 still has more wide-angle than the HD-Video and because of the small diameter the 22mm lens produces dark edges on stills.
In video the HD700 uses a 2-3mp (1280x720) portion of the sensor (I'm no engineer, just guessing) but in photo mode it uses the larger 7mp (3072x2304) area. That would account for the increase in angle when switching from HD video to stills.

Note: I've been wrong before. :lol:
I've seen some screen captures from a review of the HD1000 or HD700 that show the FOV difference between still, video(w/ image stabilization) and video (w/o IS). Its a big, big difference - both between still and video w/o IS, and video w/o IS and video w/IS.

I'll try to find it - but if anyone remembers the url, please post it. :-)

Marcus Alzona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 11:31 AM   #872
Senior Member
 
visorblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
Default

This is an interesting video on the white balance and "warm cards":
http://www.vimeo.com/386089
visorblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 12:24 PM   #873
Senior Member
 
visorblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
Default

Marcus Alzona wrote:
Quote:
I've seen some screen captures from a review of the HD1000 or HD700 that show the FOV difference between still, video(w/ image stabilization) and video (w/o IS). Its a big, big difference - both between still and video w/o IS, and video w/o IS and video w/IS.

I'll try to find it - but if anyone remembers the url, please post it. :-)
Slightly different topic. We were referring to the difference between a 16:9 video and a 4:3 still. The 4:3 still is wider in both vertical and horizontal directions than the 16:9 video which, at first, seems odd as 16:9 video is wider than 4:3 video.

As for the movie image stabilizer on/off part, the HD700 does crop the image when you engage the stabilizer -- I don't see it as a "big, big difference" though. Plus, it's not a problem as you see the results in the screen and can frame for it. Does a decent job though: http://www.vimeo.com/438319



visorblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 12:36 PM   #874
Moderator
 
fishycomics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC NY
Posts: 9,623
Default

visorblue wrote:
Quote:
This is an interesting video on the white balance and "warm cards":
http://www.vimeo.com/386089
wow what a difference thanks for the info.
fishycomics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 3:02 PM   #875
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 16
Default

visorblue wrote:
Quote:
Marcus Alzona wrote:
Quote:
I've seen some screen captures from a review of the HD1000 or HD700 that show the FOV difference between still, video(w/ image stabilization) and video (w/o IS). Its a big, big difference - both between still and video w/o IS, and video w/o IS and video w/IS.

I'll try to find it - but if anyone remembers the url, please post it. :-)
Slightly different topic. We were referring to the difference between a 16:9 video and a 4:3 still. The 4:3 still is wider in both vertical and horizontal directions than the 16:9 video which, at first, seems odd as 16:9 video is wider than 4:3 video.

As for the movie image stabilizer on/off part, the HD700 does crop the image when you engage the stabilizer -- I don't see it as a "big, big difference" though. Plus, it's not a problem as you see the results in the screen and can frame for it. Does a decent job though: http://www.vimeo.com/438319
Actually, I think it is the same topic, I was just giving additional data points. :-)

I found the url that has the image. It was in a review on Akihabaranews (which was linked to from a post in this forum): http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/review-88-X.html

Here's the image itself:



To me, this seems like a big difference between all three levels when you look at the image above and think about how you (want to) use the camera. Perhaps you get used to it *some* - as I did with my HD1. But, getting used to walking backwards every time you want to take some video just seems a bit....wrong. Plus, I think it is a problem, since sometimes you just can't walk far enough back to frame the shot (indoors - back against the wall in the corner, and I still don't get everyone).

Does anyone know if the HD1000 has the same problem? (Or, rather/more importantly, to the same degree.)
Marcus Alzona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 5:35 PM   #876
Member
 
ddchesser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 62
Default

It's nearly the same with the HD1000. But I don't see any size difference when using 720p with and without stabilization. Certainly the surrounding pixels are used for EIS.

It's a shame only using half of the sensor when making movies! Because only half of the light is used! The HD1000 has a 4MP-Sensor and only about 2MP (1920x1080) are used for movies. I think the same percentage with the HD700.


ddchesser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 6:27 PM   #877
Senior Member
 
visorblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
Default

Marcus Alzona wrote:
Quote:
To me, this seems like a big difference between all three levels when you look at the image above and think about how you (want to) use the camera. Perhaps you get used to it *some* - as I did with my HD1. But, getting used to walking backwards every time you want to take some video just seems a bit....wrong.
Okay, with the added information it is the same topic. However, I don't see it as a problem since you don't see the 4:3 format while setting the shots up and then have it drop down when you shoot. What you see on the screen is the shot, whether in 16:9, 4:3, or stabilizer. So you back up, move forward, zoom, add a wide angle lens, etc., as desired like with any other camera. The only time I see a difference is when I shoot a still from being in 16:9 mode where mine stays.
visorblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 7:43 PM   #878
Senior Member
 
visorblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
Default

Just saw the Panasonic SDR-S150 on sale for $400 at J&R. 10x zoom, optical image stabilizer, 37mm threaded lens, ND filters, etc:



http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.proc...ed.PAN+SDRS150
visorblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 9:12 PM   #879
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 16
Default

visorblue wrote:
Quote:
Marcus Alzona wrote:
Quote:
To me, this seems like a big difference between all three levels when you look at the image above and think about how you (want to) use the camera. Perhaps you get used to it *some* - as I did with my HD1. But, getting used to walking backwards every time you want to take some video just seems a bit....wrong.
Okay, with the added information it is the same topic. However, I don't see it as a problem since you don't see the 4:3 format while setting the shots up and then have it drop down when you shoot. What you see on the screen is the shot, whether in 16:9, 4:3, or stabilizer. So you back up, move forward, zoom, add a wide angle lens, etc., as desired like with any other camera. The only time I see a difference is when I shoot a still from being in 16:9 mode where mine stays.
I didn't say it was a framing problem - I know that it frames the shot as it would record (depending on the settings, of course, but I've always kept it in HD-widescreen-video-framing mode, as you've indicated you do as well). So, you actually agree with me on that method. :-)

The problem is that, say, you have a still camera, and aretaking a picture of a scene/event....and you decide that you want to take some video with a Sanyo...you pull out the HD1/700/etc....open it up...and inevitably find that you are way, way too close to capture the scene. Sometimes, I find that I have to stand in the doorway, slightly in the next room, in order to get the FOV to capture some scenes/events.

It really shouldn't be this way. And, with other HD cameras, I know it isn't. A couple of months ago, I was in Circuit City, and compared a Panasonic SD5 and a Sanyo HD2 (they don't have the HD1000 in stock in stores yet, see my other thread:-) ). There was a significant difference between the FOV. Both cameras, zoomed out as wide as possible, one in each hand, one on top of the other....the Panasonic was so clearly better.

I'm hoping that the HD1000 is at least a little better than my old HD1 with the FOV, but I fear that I'll be disapointed. The FOV and the low-light performancebugged me the most when using my HD1 - from reports on here, I know that the HD1000 (and perhaps the HD2) are at least a little better with low light....
Marcus Alzona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2008, 8:13 AM   #880
Senior Member
 
visorblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
Default

Marcus Alzona wrote:
Quote:
The problem is that, say, you have a still camera, and aretaking a picture of a scene/event....and you decide that you want to take some video with a Sanyo...you pull out the HD1/700/etc....open it up...and inevitably find that you are way, way too close to capture the scene. Sometimes, I find that I have to stand in the doorway, slightly in the next room, in order to get the FOV to capture some scenes/events.
Hmm. Okay, not something I do or can relate to as I don't tend to use the HD700 with another camera shooting the same thing from the same position. I shoot stills and video with the HD700 all the time. However, I'll check my HD700 against another camera later, but would expect the FOV of a 4:3 camera at 38-190mm to be different than tha Sanyo's 16:9 at the same focal length. I'll check it against another 16:9 HD camera at the same focal lengths as well.

Later...

Okay, as promised, I just setup the HD700, another 720P HD camera, and a still camera in the same spot (on a tripod with a quick release), set them all to approx. 38mm like the HD700 and compared. The other HD camera and the HD700 were almost identical -- it's a 40mm equiv. at the widest, not a nickel's worth of difference. The still camera had about the same FOV side-to-side but more top/bottom, which I expected due to the 4:3 ratio verses the 16:9 of the HD cameras.

The only times I could see needing to back up is if I had to have the same vertical FOV and that's going to happen with any 16:9 vs. 4:3 situation, or if was using the stabilizer on the HD700 as it crops, at that point I could understand your comments. So, if you're comparing the HD700's digital image stabilizer to another camera's optical image stabilizer, then you're right and I get the point.

I don't use the HD700's stabilizer in normal practice. Not because I don't like it, more because I rarely am in a situation where hand holding will be real shaky that I don't also have a tripod, monopod or something to brace the camera or myself on.




visorblue 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 5:52 AM.