Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 21, 2004, 1:15 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 44
Default

the small Sony digital camera I have now does 16fps video w/ audio... How much better is 30fps than 16? obviously its double... but what Im wanting to know is, is the quality gonna be good?

im basically basing my decision on the camera taking good video ALONG with good pictures
00bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2004, 4:27 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
Default

zacker wrote:
Quote:
NO, WHY?? :?
lol... that's one of the best comebacks I've seen lol

Lay off the caps though...
Sivaram Velauthapillai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2004, 4:41 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
Default

00bolt wrote:
Quote:
the small Sony digital camera I have now does 16fps video w/ audio... How much better is 30fps than 16? obviously its double... but what Im wanting to know is, is the quality gonna be good?
Standard motion picture is 24fps (if I'm not mistaken).
I would say that 16 fps is too low and video will seem to be skipping. Basically the higher the frame rate, the more smooth it is. Try your existing camera to see if you can live with 16 fps or not. I personally think you need 24fps+ if you want something smooth. So I would say that 30fps is actually much better than 15fps.

The other thing that matters is resolution. Television (not HDTV) is something like 720xZZZ (don't remember). If you get 640x480, then it is almost tv-quality in terms of size. If you get anythign lower then it is smaller and it either has to play in a small window on your tv or it has to be interpolated to fit on the screen which decreases quality.

Quote:
im basically basing my decision on the camera taking good video ALONG with good pictures
I don't think anything has that right now...

The best cameras still lack standard camcorder/DV features:

* camera video takes up huge amount of memory. With 1 GB memory card (cost around $100 now), you can only shoot around 10 minutes (some cameras with MPEG4 compression can shoot 2x or 4x more so they are ok)
* there is very little control over the video. The video controls are almost non-existent. Many of the lower end cameras may not allow you to record sound, or zoom while shooting, or whatever.
* the video is generally very good in ideal conditions (eg. outdoor sunlight) but is horrible in poor conditions (eg. indoors, night, etc). That's how my Canon S1 IS is and that's how most cameras are.

Here are a couple of samples from Canon S1 IS (mid-end ultra-zoom) and Sony V3 (hig-end low-zoom prosumer) (scroll near the end to see the video):

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_v3-review/
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ca...ew/index.shtml


A good camera that also has one of the best video modes is the Canon Powershot S1 IS. It's an ultra-zoom with [email protected] video. It's a competitor to the Fuji you mentioned. Also check out the Konica Minolta Z3 and the Olympus ultra-zoom models... but I think Canon S1 IS is the best out of these for video...

Sivaram Velauthapillai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2004, 5:29 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 73
Default

oh, now i see... im dealing with a bunch of cappists!

it's called tollerance people... lol

J/K

My work machine has to have the caps on when i use the programI need to run for whatI do, So there..:blah:



Now, back to the Sony MiniDV cam I use, it's a Sony DCR-TRV33.

-zacker-
zacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2004, 6:01 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

Convergence is a fact of technology. There will come a time when people look at dedicated still cameras as dinosaurs. Eventually there will be digital cameras that will take excellent video AND be able to select any frame to create a hi resolution still image. You will be able to pick the best shots and print them.

Then we will see threads like "Still photography is DEAD!!" and there will be traditionalist supporters of old still images trying to defend their art in the face of the new technology. Users of digital still cameras will be condemned as 'luddites' who can't accept it when their technology is replaced by something new.

Remember that we have a convergence of computers and audio. Years ago people were asking what the point was in a computer that plays CDs when there were CD decks that did the same thing...but there was convergence.

The computer now plays DVDs thus eliminating the need for a dedicated DVD deck.

It isn't so hard to imagine the end of the dedicated still image camera.
Meryl Arbing 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 11:02 PM.