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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 7, 2008, 11:23 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Rev2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 377
Default

To date I've been copying all my MP4 videos to my PS3 hard drive for playback and things have been great. But, I've been planning on upgrading my PS3 hard drive to like 250gb or so and got to thinking I wouldn't need to if I got a blu-ray burner. Then I thought... "Wait... will burning to blu-ray support my 720/60p videos!?". So I'm wondering what the answer is. If it does I'll likely just buy a blu-ray burner. If not than I'll simply get a 250gb hard drive for my PS3. Either way I'll still be happy. :-)



Rev.
Rev2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 16, 2008, 5:41 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,092
Default

I been wondering about this as well. I also been wondering how I can archive my files. From what I understand, the blue Ray support is on the way but iso images has a max file limit. Some software have issues with UDF 2.6 only burning at a max of 1gb file size. I cannot imagine splitting one of my 16gb movies into 16 separate files just to store it on a blueray disk. It would be nice to have it on a blueray machine but I just dont understand why I have to pay 1 dollar per 1gb of blueray disk space. Iso format level 2 is 2 gb max per file and iso level format level 3 are above 4gb but I have not tried burning anything over 4.7 since I have singler layer dvd's using split files of around 1gb for more compatability due to iso formats.

Also final authoring of the movies to a blue ray movie kind of defeats the purpouse of storage but then again, you can show it to the family. Now that I have close to 100gb of movies, I don't know what to do?!

It's just too early! to adopt.

Ahh I give up! Just thinking about this drives me crazy! :evil: my only dream is a 10terabyte hardrive for 10 dollars!
Cresho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2008, 10:23 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 54
Default

Why is everyone using the 720p/60 instead of 1080i/60fps if your camera (I have the HD1000) has it? Just wondering because I can definately see a quality difference.I moved up from the 700HD and very happy with the 1080i footage I just shot in Alaska.
willk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2008, 10:38 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 224
Default

Unfortunately the HD1010 does not support 60fps in 1080i format. I will say though I have up scaled my 720p 60fps to 1080p 60fps using Avidemux and on my small 20" Dell wide screen monitor I can't really tell the difference it up scales beautifully.

I would love to be able to play them back on a large screen to see if it makes a difference on a larger screen but I only have an old CRT TV.
relate2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2008, 3:25 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54
Default

720p 60fps taken with my HD1010 looks fantastic on my Samsung 50" plasma
renpriv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2008, 4:11 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,092
Default

willk wrote:
Quote:
Why is everyone using the 720p/60 instead of 1080i/60fps if your camera (I have the HD1000) has it? Just wondering because I can definately see a quality difference.I moved up from the 700HD and very happy with the 1080i footage I just shot in Alaska.
Your kidding right? anything interlaced is ugly and looks dirty! They shoot videos at 1080p and send it out in 1080i due to airway bandwith restrictions. That is the only reason why it exists! 1080i is like a cadillac while 1080p is like a saleen while a 720p is like a lamborghini. They may look fine on your television or HD because it converts interlaced to progressive. But on a pc, even with a high end de-interlacer, video just looks way way ugly and conversion to other resolutions and file sizes do not benefit. progressive is picture by picture while interlaced is EVERY OTHER LINE! UGLY! I have upscaled [email protected] to something like [email protected] and looks better than my interlaced videos. way better. You just need to know what your doing.

What I am trying to say is it is a matter of opinion, my opinion and my knowledge helps me. For others, just a hardrive and a high definition monitor is fine for them.
Cresho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2008, 4:35 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,092
Default

okay..first example is a paning in example of an interlaced video! Without hardware or software p, you have this problem and now imagine editing this footage! I do alot of drag strip races and the amount of ghosting after any aplication de-interlacing, I have the ugliest images ever. [email protected], maybee 60fps is better but I have not tried it and i doubt i will but it is used for broadcasting.

Attached Images
 
Cresho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2008, 4:36 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,092
Default

now look at the next image. it is a relative on a swing panning fast on 720p I can easily sharpen and add effects and upscale resolution to make it look better than 1080p.

it is a fast panning kid on a swing and i was going from left to right. [email protected]
Attached Images
 
Cresho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2008, 11:43 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 54
Default

Cresho wrote:
Quote:
Your kidding right? anything interlaced is ugly and looks dirty! They shoot videos at 1080p and send it out in 1080i due to airway bandwith restrictions. That is the only reason why it exists! 1080i is like a cadillac while 1080p is like a saleen while a 720p is like a lamborghini. They may look fine on your television or HD because it converts interlaced to progressive. But on a pc, even with a high end de-interlacer, video just looks way way ugly and conversion to other resolutions and file sizes do not benefit. progressive is picture by picture while interlaced is EVERY OTHER LINE! UGLY! I have upscaled [email protected] to something like [email protected] and looks better than my interlaced videos. way better. You just need to know what your doing.

What I am trying to say is it is a matter of opinion, my opinion and my knowledge helps me. For others, just a hardrive and a high definition monitor is fine for them.
Quote:
I like to watch the videos on my 56" TV. I've only shot a few times at 720p/60fps and I noticed a glimmering coming off some surfaces (tile roofs, bricks etc.). Just got back from an Alaskan cruise and i can't believe how beautiful the videos turned out. Really blows away my previous HD700 that I used to really like. Even the photos I took with it were great.
Quote:
willk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2008, 12:39 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 224
Default

As a test Willk could you take a short movie of the same subject, say the tiled roofs/bricks etc at 720p 60fps and 1080i 30fps and let me know if you notice any major difference on your 56" LCD between the two?

Alaska would certainly bring out the best in any camera, it is one place I would love to cruise to, there and Antarctica.


Thanks

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 12:45 AM.