A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 22nd 04, 02:33 PM
Richard Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams

A,
Recent high end digital cameras are capable of 640x480 @30fps which is
pretty amazing since those parameters are equivalent to camcorders.

Has anyone compared the video quality from a digicam (640, 30fps) vs
camcorder under various environments? How about the audio?

B.
Many newer camcorders are capable of taking 1Mpixels stills.

Granted these camcorders don't have the resolution for stills as real
digital cameras but if one limits the still shots to 2-3 Mpix which is
the limit these days, how do the shots compare to a digicam under
various environments?

C.
All digital, tapeless (ie. uses memory card) convergent devices such
as the Fisher C1 and a couple of Panasonics that shoot MPEG4 video
with sound and take stills produces inferrior quality images according
to reviews and costs are about the same as either the above. In other
words, it is (for the time being) the worst of all worlds. Thus it
would seem to make sense getting either a digital camera with video
capability or camcorder with ability to take stills.
  #2  
Old August 22nd 04, 03:08 PM
leo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Richard Lee" wrote in message
...
A,
Recent high end digital cameras are capable of 640x480 @30fps which is
pretty amazing since those parameters are equivalent to camcorders.

Has anyone compared the video quality from a digicam (640, 30fps) vs
camcorder under various environments? How about the audio?


I have seen the Canon S1 video clip posted on one of the camera review
sites. It's decent. The most important limitation of using digital camera
for video is the media cost. Video is BIG. DV tape is a couple of dollars
and can record 1 hr or 90 minutes [LP mode] of video. As for editing, video
editor such as Premiere, Final Cut Pro, Sony Vegas can only handle DV codec.
Some camcorders might pick up the tape transport noise but some of them also
have external microphone jack so you can get clean audio. A delicated
digital camcorder might also have better low light performance.


B.
Many newer camcorders are capable of taking 1Mpixels stills.

Granted these camcorders don't have the resolution for stills as real
digital cameras but if one limits the still shots to 2-3 Mpix which is
the limit these days, how do the shots compare to a digicam under
various environments?

C.
All digital, tapeless (ie. uses memory card) convergent devices such
as the Fisher C1 and a couple of Panasonics that shoot MPEG4 video
with sound and take stills produces inferrior quality images according
to reviews and costs are about the same as either the above. In other
words, it is (for the time being) the worst of all worlds. Thus it
would seem to make sense getting either a digital camera with video
capability or camcorder with ability to take stills.



  #3  
Old August 22nd 04, 03:08 PM
leo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Richard Lee" wrote in message
...
A,
Recent high end digital cameras are capable of 640x480 @30fps which is
pretty amazing since those parameters are equivalent to camcorders.

Has anyone compared the video quality from a digicam (640, 30fps) vs
camcorder under various environments? How about the audio?


I have seen the Canon S1 video clip posted on one of the camera review
sites. It's decent. The most important limitation of using digital camera
for video is the media cost. Video is BIG. DV tape is a couple of dollars
and can record 1 hr or 90 minutes [LP mode] of video. As for editing, video
editor such as Premiere, Final Cut Pro, Sony Vegas can only handle DV codec.
Some camcorders might pick up the tape transport noise but some of them also
have external microphone jack so you can get clean audio. A delicated
digital camcorder might also have better low light performance.


B.
Many newer camcorders are capable of taking 1Mpixels stills.

Granted these camcorders don't have the resolution for stills as real
digital cameras but if one limits the still shots to 2-3 Mpix which is
the limit these days, how do the shots compare to a digicam under
various environments?

C.
All digital, tapeless (ie. uses memory card) convergent devices such
as the Fisher C1 and a couple of Panasonics that shoot MPEG4 video
with sound and take stills produces inferrior quality images according
to reviews and costs are about the same as either the above. In other
words, it is (for the time being) the worst of all worlds. Thus it
would seem to make sense getting either a digital camera with video
capability or camcorder with ability to take stills.



  #4  
Old August 22nd 04, 04:05 PM
David Sommers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Since I have some recent experience with the items you mention, I'll
comment:

A. My Canon S1 IS is one of those digital still cameras with a high-grade
video mode (640x480, 30FPS, progressive scan). While the video quality is
stunning, it's not a practical replacement for a decent digital camcorder.
The first weakness is the sound. It's a single channel of only moderate
quality. The second weakness is that only a little over four minutes fills a
512MB CF card. While this does not make this kind of video recording
useless, it's not the most practical.

B. I recently sold my Panasonic PV-GS200 DV camcorder, and have a PV-GS400
on order. The PV-GS200 takes 2.3MP stills, and the PV-GS400 takes 4.1MP
stills. Since I only have used the PV-GS200, I'll talk about that. The
stills were not great. Their quality was inferior to my Canon S1 IS. Yes,
the Canon is a 3.2MP camera. What I am talking about was the quality of the
color and the general clarity of the images. In general, I felt the images
were inferior to the Canon S100 (2.1MP) I used to have too. And this is from
a camcorder that costs about $800. The video quality from the PV-GS200 is a
different story - top notch.

C. I have owned a Panasonic SV-AV10 and SV-AV30 tapeless multi-cams that
shot stills and MPEG4 video. I currently have a Panasonic SV-AV100, which is
unique as it has a real 10X optical zoom lens with an image stabilizer. It
shots MPEG4, VGA grade stills and DVD grade MPEG2 with DVD grade stereo
sound. The stills and MPEG4 video are pretty much what you talk about,
however, the DVD grade MPEG2 video is quite good. And it is the same quality
as standard DVD. In fact, I can author a DVD from the MPEG2 files directly
from the camera with virtually no change in quality.

Even when my PV-GS400 shows up, I'll not be turning in my digital still
cameras. In spite of the good reviews for the PV-GS400 stills, I'm sure they
won't outdo my Canon S1 IS, or my Canon S400, or my good old Olympus E-10.
They all have their place and purpose due to their size, weight, lens
quality and ease of use.

Bye.

"Richard Lee" wrote in message
...
A,
Recent high end digital cameras are capable of 640x480 @30fps which is
pretty amazing since those parameters are equivalent to camcorders.

Has anyone compared the video quality from a digicam (640, 30fps) vs
camcorder under various environments? How about the audio?

B.
Many newer camcorders are capable of taking 1Mpixels stills.

Granted these camcorders don't have the resolution for stills as real
digital cameras but if one limits the still shots to 2-3 Mpix which is
the limit these days, how do the shots compare to a digicam under
various environments?

C.
All digital, tapeless (ie. uses memory card) convergent devices such
as the Fisher C1 and a couple of Panasonics that shoot MPEG4 video
with sound and take stills produces inferrior quality images according
to reviews and costs are about the same as either the above. In other
words, it is (for the time being) the worst of all worlds. Thus it
would seem to make sense getting either a digital camera with video
capability or camcorder with ability to take stills.



  #5  
Old August 22nd 04, 05:33 PM
Matt Ion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"leo" wrote in message
.net...
"Richard Lee" wrote in message
...
A,
Recent high end digital cameras are capable of 640x480 @30fps which is
pretty amazing since those parameters are equivalent to camcorders.

Has anyone compared the video quality from a digicam (640, 30fps) vs
camcorder under various environments? How about the audio?


I have seen the Canon S1 video clip posted on one of the camera review
sites. It's decent. The most important limitation of using digital camera
for video is the media cost. Video is BIG. DV tape is a couple of dollars
and can record 1 hr or 90 minutes [LP mode] of video.


Standard DV (DVCPro/DVCam) is a 50Mbit/s stream (yes, 50 megabits PER
SECOND); consumer-level MiniDV is half that. Actual storage space required
will vary depending on how compressable the stream is (DV *is* a compressed
format) but expect anywhere from 30GB to 60GB for an hour of MiniDV video.

As for editing, video
editor such as Premiere, Final Cut Pro, Sony Vegas can only handle DV

codec.

Wrong - these editors (MOST editors, in fact) will use any compatible codec
you install - from uncompressed AVI to DivX to MPEG-4 to Quicktime. FCP was
the first to handle DV *natively*.



  #6  
Old August 22nd 04, 05:41 PM
Matt Ion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Sommers" wrote in message
...
Since I have some recent experience with the items you mention, I'll
comment:

[snip]
B. I recently sold my Panasonic PV-GS200 DV camcorder, and have a PV-GS400
on order. The PV-GS200 takes 2.3MP stills, and the PV-GS400 takes 4.1MP
stills. Since I only have used the PV-GS200, I'll talk about that. The
stills were not great. Their quality was inferior to my Canon S1 IS. Yes,
the Canon is a 3.2MP camera. What I am talking about was the quality of

the
color and the general clarity of the images. In general, I felt the images
were inferior to the Canon S100 (2.1MP) I used to have too. And this is

from
a camcorder that costs about $800. The video quality from the PV-GS200 is

a
different story - top notch.


I haven't actually studied the technology, so I can't comment
authoritatively, but my educated guess would be that both cameras are using
a lot of interpolation to arrive at anything above about 337.5kpixels, since
that's the maximum resolution required for DV video (720x480). Even if
they're doubling the sensor resolution for quality, that's still only 1.3MP.
There's not much point to going any higher in in a video camera EXCEPT to
give it betters stills ability.



  #7  
Old August 22nd 04, 06:26 PM
leo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:4V3Wc.176791$M95.40704@pd7tw1no...

Wrong - these editors (MOST editors, in fact) will use any compatible
codec
you install - from uncompressed AVI to DivX to MPEG-4 to Quicktime. FCP
was
the first to handle DV *natively*.


You're correct that many editors will handle any video format as long as
there're corresponding codec but MPEG uses interframe compression which is
not suitble for editing. You can, of course, uncompress each frame before or
during editing, but it's not that fast and easy.


  #8  
Old August 22nd 04, 06:26 PM
leo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:4V3Wc.176791$M95.40704@pd7tw1no...

Wrong - these editors (MOST editors, in fact) will use any compatible
codec
you install - from uncompressed AVI to DivX to MPEG-4 to Quicktime. FCP
was
the first to handle DV *natively*.


You're correct that many editors will handle any video format as long as
there're corresponding codec but MPEG uses interframe compression which is
not suitble for editing. You can, of course, uncompress each frame before or
during editing, but it's not that fast and easy.


  #9  
Old August 22nd 04, 06:36 PM
Matt Ion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"leo" wrote in message
k.net...
"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:4V3Wc.176791$M95.40704@pd7tw1no...

Wrong - these editors (MOST editors, in fact) will use any compatible

codec
you install - from uncompressed AVI to DivX to MPEG-4 to Quicktime. FCP
was the first to handle DV *natively*.


You're correct that many editors will handle any video format as long as
there're corresponding codec but MPEG uses interframe compression which is
not suitble for editing. You can, of course, uncompress each frame before

or
during editing, but it's not that fast and easy.


Hmm, NOW you tell me. After all those projects I've done in Premiere, FCP
and Vegas, combining VCD (MPEG-1), AVI of various formats including DivX,
DV, DVD clips (MPEG-2), and assorted stills... now you're saying what I did
is next to impossible?


  #10  
Old August 22nd 04, 06:37 PM
Dave Martindale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Matt Ion" writes:

Standard DV (DVCPro/DVCam) is a 50Mbit/s stream (yes, 50 megabits PER
SECOND); consumer-level MiniDV is half that. Actual storage space required
will vary depending on how compressable the stream is (DV *is* a compressed
format) but expect anywhere from 30GB to 60GB for an hour of MiniDV video.


Those numbers don't work out. 25 Mbit/s x 3600 s/hr is 90 Gb/hour, or
11.25 Gbyte/hr. If you're getting 30-60 GB on disk, then you're not
storing the raw mini-DV data, but something less compressed.
That may make sense for editing (you want to be able to play back in
real time, possibly using a software codec) but doesn't represent what
the tape drive in the camera has to deal with.

Dave
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Image intensifiers Richard Knoppow In The Darkroom 8 July 31st 04 04:38 AM
Image circle versus stopping down? Nick Zentena Large Format Photography Equipment 11 July 3rd 04 02:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.