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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 16, 2008, 5:10 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
TheTurk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Default

I agree with REV2010, its impossible to make claims of a better camera without even seeing it or using it. Even if it turns out to be better my whole point was that I feel 'ripped off' with the constant new models appearing every few months. These cameras are expensive and 'improvements' to the exisiting models should not be sold as new models, the customer is getting a bad deal here. There are I understand new features like the slo mo which i would not be too bothered about anyway, but I agree with Rev, focus hunting, low light performance etc should be addressed in a firmware update.
TheTurk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2008, 12:07 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Rev2010 wrote:
Quote:
[...]OK, well explain tous *why* exactly progressive scan would require less data than interlaced.
If there were some validity to progressive taking less data to encode than interlaced, itwouldhavenothing to do with the raw frame data but rather entirely with the compression algorithms used. Modern lossy data compressions, likeJPEG and MPEGwork best with continuous areas of gradual color changes within, and between,frames rather than sharp edges and high contrast. Which is why we get blocking artifactsin scenes with fast movementand/orlots ofsharp edges, they just don't compress well.

Having said that, I think H.264 / AVC has a number of optimizations (like multiple previous frame references)thatallow interlaced video tocompressjust as well asprogressive video.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2008, 7:32 PM   #43
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 68
Default

this camera really needs OIS.I will be selling my HD1000 and get something else...
klas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2008, 9:47 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Rev2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 377
Default

klas wrote:
Quote:
this camera really needs OIS.
You're right, it really does. That is why I have no plans on switching out to the HD1010. If they released a version with these new features and OIS I would switch for the difference in cost. However,so far for methe currentfeatures outweight the shakiness. I can hold my camera prettystill so I really onlyhave to contend with the shakiness when I'm zoomed in all the way and when I'm in/on a moving vehicle or walking. But I hear ya, I too would love OIS. If the features match up with you check out the Canon HF100. The prices have dropped pretty significantly since it's release. It's about $645 now and has OIS.



Rev.
Rev2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 2:33 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 584
Default

Rev, I just bought another HD700 (I sent the earlier one back). I have a conference next week, and there is nothing else that is quite as easy and reliable for shooting spur-of-the-moment HD video. My Canon HF100 is my primary camcorder right now, and it has some really nice features - just last night I found it took 3/per/second successive stills, each with separate flash. The new batteries show the number of minutes remaining, and, unlike Sony's battery system,I haven't been able to break this one's estimates (so far). But as you say, the video just works superbly. Both OIS and the rock-solid focus. However, the video noise is higher than my HV20, although nowhere near as bad as the HD700. This is not a problem, as I can use my Kodak V1073 when I need low-light HD video. It has about the same video noise as my HV20, and there is nothing better in the sub-$1000 price range. V1073 sound is mono, and not nearly as good as the HD700 or HF100. Luckily, it does have ALC, and is acceptable. Note that the OIS on the V1073 introduces a low level 'random clatter' softly into the audio background, as the OIS lens is manipulated. Sigh, I guess you can't have everything - small size - perfect performance...

Trevmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 11:51 AM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 28
Default

Yes progressive uses less data to show the same frame as interlace. It's very simple when you know about videos like I do. In interlaced, when the first 30 fields have been displayed, what about the blank 30 linesinbetween them???? They take up some data as well even though they are displaying absolutely NOTHING. Then when the other 30 fields appear in between them to make the full 60 fields of a second, that's when the full data is completely used up. Also the fact that interlace has more movement (movement of the fields) in it also requires more data.

Progressiveon the other hand, since it has no EMPTY SPACE in it that needs to be filled up half a second later, therefore requires less data to display the FINAL COMPLETE FRAME.It's not rocket scienceand it's not being cocky.

Some of you complain on here just too much about stuff, like you could do any better. Sanyo runs a business and in business you dont make decisions to benefit previous customers, you make decisions to ensure the future and stability of your business. It's not like they are dropping the price to half like apple did with the iphone.

I just go with the flow. I'm excited nonetheless. Bring it on Sanyo!

hel
helriser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 12:22 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Rev2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 377
Default

helriser wrote:
Quote:
In interlaced, when the first 30 fields have been displayed, what about the blank 30 linesinbetween them???? They take up some data as well even though they are displaying absolutely NOTHING.
Interlacedrecords one field first then the next, that's why it's called interlaced - it only handles one *field* at a time. It doesn't recordany data in between LOL!The articleabout Interlacing on Wikipedia seems to disagree with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced

To quote from the that page, under Benefits of Interlacing:

"For a given bandwidth and refresh rate, interlaced video can be used to provide a higher spatial resolution than progressive scan. For instance, 1920x1080 pixel resolution interlaced HDTV with a 60 Hz field rate (known as 1080i60) has a similar bandwidth to 1280x720 pixel progressive scan HDTV with a 60 Hz frame rate (720p60), but approximately 50% more spatial resolution."

Sounds to me like interlacing does not require a higher data rate than progressive.

For more info:

http://www.techterms.com/definition/interlaced

http://neuron2.net/LVG/interlacing.html



Rev.
Rev2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 12:45 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 584
Default

Rev2010 wrote:
Quote:
The articleabout Interlacing on Wikipedia seems to disagree with you

Sounds to me like interlacing does not require a higher data rate than progressive.
Rev, it is a mistake to rely upon anything on Wikipedia. I myself have edited stuff there quite often, and I am certainly not always correct :-)

The HF100 uses a data rate of 17 Mbps for its 1920x1080i while it has 12, 7 and 5 Mbps available for recording 1440x1080p. Assuming Canon's engineers did their homework, I would suspect that the interlaced format is not significantly more efficient.

In fact, on a pixels basis:
1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600
1440 x 1080 = 1,555,200 , or 3/4 the pixel count

12/17 is about 0.7, or about 3/4

So I would initially conclude that there is little or no advantage to interlaced encoding , at least when using the AVCHD format:-)
Trevmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 12:59 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Rev2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 377
Default

Trevmar wrote:
Quote:
So I would initially conclude that there is little or no advantage to interlaced encoding , at least when using the AVCHD format:-)
I think you've mistaken a bit of what is being said. I'm not saying interlaced is an advantage, that's from the article. I'm saying interlaced video does not require a higher data rate than progressive. The original comment that led to this discussion is thatI noted how I found it silly that Sanyo increased the data rate to 14mbps for the 1080i mode but only allows a data rate up to 12mbps for the new progressive mode. I was saying they should've given that mode the option to go to 14mbps. That's when Helriser, who knows so much more than every one of us here :roll:,claimed the reason is becauseinterlacing requires a higher data rate than progressive, which is still irrelevant to my point that 14mps would've been nice for the new mode.



Rev.

Rev2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2008, 1:02 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Rev2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 377
Default

Trevmar, by the way, on a different note does the HF100's 1080/30p mode alsoshoot at 17mbps?



Rev.
Rev2010 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 5:14 AM.