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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 15, 2009, 12:14 PM   #11
Member
 
timtak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 80
Default

Thank you very much for your very full explanation. My reply is incomplete.
I am inclined to be persuaded that I want a HD1000. This is another way of saying that, if my wife lets me, I may upgrade.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RdQ3bvNxQWA&fmt=18
Awesome!

How do you get that size on youtube?

Even if I add &fmt=18 to my videos, there is still a column to the right of the video.

This is an incomplete reply, to say thank you.

Thank you,

Tim
timtak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2009, 6:02 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 224
Default

Youtube now supports HD(high definition) you no longer need the tag on the end of the url. If you have a youtube account there is a setting where you can tell youtube that you have a fast connection and to always show the videos in HD if it is available.

Here are a few of my hang gliding videos in HD using my HD1010.

http://au.youtube.com/my_videos
relate2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2009, 6:27 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4
Default

Make sure you wait until after the new product launch next week, whatever you do!!

YouTube will only convert show your videos in HD if you uploaded them recently. As you can see I have a bunch of videos uploaded previously and they have black letterboxing actually encoded into the flash-based video.

Even though the window that displays the videos is now 16:9, the older videos have the letterboxing "baked in" to them, so you'll get the YouTube window adding its black side-pillars to the encoded top/bottom black bars, creating a small postage stamp video in the middle of a surrounding black area.

The only way to fix it really, is to re-upload the videos, but then you lose all your comments, sharing, and so on.

Which is a shame -- since, I'm told, YouTube keeps a copy of all the originally uploaded files.

(The "format 6" and "format 18" thing only works on recently encoded videos, that are "high quality" or "HD" according to YouTube).

The other thing is that, despite being HD, I think the videos are all still limited to 30fps. Plus, their definition of "high definition" is basically 960x540.

But as long as you upload 1920x1080, 1280x720, 960x540, 1024x576, 720x432 or 640x360 ... I think they will all now be displayed as 16:9 in YouTube, from now on.

Er, that could be "my" videos, or his videos, or anybody else's videos ... sure, in your case it looks like yours, relate2 ... but not in anyone else's :?

CK.
whophd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2009, 3:24 AM   #14
Member
 
timtak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 80
Default

Oops.
http://uk.youtube.com/user/timtak1

I uploaded my videos in29.970 fps, 720x480, Quality VBR 90, WMV V9 Compression, which was recommended by an afficionado of vimeo. I guess that there reason why my videos are displayed smaller is because I did not upload in enough definition.

I will wait for the new product. I am hoping for microphone inputs on their lower range cameras since I like speaking into a microphone. I quite like the pocketable sony hd video camera if only it had a microphone.

timtak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2009, 6:51 AM   #15
Member
 
timtak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 80
Default

I shall try some night photography with my HD2.

I see that we both like the Sony. I wrote the above without carefully reading, or at least remembering, your earlier post. I fiddled with the Sony today at a electronics store.

I can play HD2 stuff easily using the standard windows media player on my 2.5G dual pentium. I use Sony Vegas for editing. I am going to have to get some HD1000 (or the new one) footage and try editing/playing it.

I do not carry a rucksack. I want pocketable.

But your footage is yummy.
timtak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2009, 6:44 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4
Default

Tim,

Please be aware that 720x480 is not a square-pixel resolution, and all web video needs to be in square pixels. (It comes from the land of "standard definition", where rectangular pixels make life nice and interesting). As you can calculate, 720x480 is neither 4:3 or 16:9, yet the picture within those pixels will certainly be 4:3 or 16:9. Net result: It will look stretched or squashed.

That's why your upload needs to something like 1920x1080, 1280x720, 960x540, 1024x576, 720x432 or 640x360 if it's in widescreen 16:9.

Of course, for frame rate you should have whatever you produced your content in. Sometimes I make content in 25fps or 50fps, often in 59.94fps ("60") or 23.976fps ("24") ... actually I just make it true 24fps but then you need to conform your video correctly in the first place.


Anyhoo, if you want some raw HD1000 footage, there are quite a number of MP4 available to download off the internet. Just have a Google around -- that's what I did, and when I played them on my computer and found they were handled quite well by QuickTime, that's the moment I decided I wanted to buy :-P

CK.
whophd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 3:10 AM   #17
Member
 
timtak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 80
Default

I am still using HD2. As long as things do not move much then it seems okay but I still wonder whether to get a HD1000/1010/2000.

And while the HD1000/2000 is clearly much better at movement (60p) and does not have a lot of nasty zigzags, still people are generally saying that they reconvert to something else before editing. I rarely have enough time as it is. If I have to reconvert it is a bit like using a tape based camcorder and having to capture from tape.

But this, taken with HD1000 is superb.
http://www.vimeo.com/1029690
One can download the original file too. It is very jerky in preview in my Vegas and Windows Media Player but perhaps it plays in quicktime.

This video explains how to convert the files using something called MPEG Streamclip.
http://vimeo.com/5567787
It seems that it is not as slow as capturing from tape since one can reconvert in about 1/3 of the time that it took to take the video (i.e. a one hour video in 20 minutes).



Tim

Last edited by timtak; Oct 30, 2009 at 3:16 AM.
timtak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 8:20 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 224
Default

Just one comment about that video of the African singers it looks like it was taken during the golden hour before sunset.

As with any camera still or video, taking footage in the golden hour in the morning just after dawn or in the afternoon just before sunset usually shows the best a camera can do.

I am not saying the Hd1000 isn't a great camera it is just that I would still think about the HD1010 or the HD2000. Just be aware though with the HD2000 if you shoot at 1920X1080 60 frames/sec it is going to take a fairly powerful computer to edit it.

Cheers

Robert
relate2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 9:24 AM   #19
Member
 
timtak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 80
Default

I agree about the golden hour. But the footage still blows my HD2 away.

All the same, I wonder how powerful a computer is needed.

While I am aware that the HD1000, 1010, 2000 take great video, I do NOT want to convert before editing. Are there people with powerful enough computers to not want to recode/reconvert whatever, there HDx000 footage?

I have about 1600 USD of budget that I could spend on a non-brand, get-the-computer-shop-to-make-it, computer. Perhaps I could get a dual or quad pentium at about 4GHz and lots of memory and if it helps a good video card. Would my 1600 USD buy me a computer that could play and edit HDx000 video or would I still be reconverting?

By the way on my Dual pentium 3.5GHz with 2GB ram the quicktime playback is still jerky, even when I make the playback area about the size of a cigarette packet.

Last edited by timtak; Oct 30, 2009 at 9:36 AM. Reason: add a bit about quicktime
timtak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 6:25 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 224
Default

Regarding the power of your computer a good quad core should do it. Remember though if you go with 32 bit windows it will only see just over 3 gig of ram no matter how much ram you have in your system. You need to go to 64bit Windows to see up to 32 gig of ram.

More importantly these days is a good graphics card. Editing software now has the option of passing off the editing and viewing of HD video to the graphics cards for faster and smoother editing. With Nvidia cards it is called CUDA. Ati cards can do the same thing but I don't know that they call it.

You don't need an ultra powerful video card, if you check the card websites you will find a list of their cards that support video editing. I have a Nvidia 9800GT video card that is about 3 years old and it handles my HD1010 video fine.

Cheers

Robert
relate2 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 10:52 PM.