Cameras that record video

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:45:38 GMT, "Jake Maxwell"
wrote:

What are some good options for 3/4/5 megapixel cameras in the under-$400
range that first and foremost take sharp pictures, but also have the
capablity to record VGA video (and preferrably for longer than 30 secs.)?

Anyone have any experience with these cameras? What do you think?

Thanks,
Jake




Canon Powershot S1 IS, currently $419 at buy.com

3 megapixel, but 10X optical zoom. VGA in 640X480 or 320X240, either
30 or 15 frames per second. Length of video is limited only by the
size of the compact flash card.

At best quality on my 512MB card, about four minutes...

dwight

re digital video recording with a digital camera.

I have a now obsolete Olympus C2100UZ, but I think it's basically the same
engine as the modern Olympus C7nn series.

In my camera, resolution when shooting movies is much lower than still
picture resolution. In so-called high quality mode, movie resolution is
only 320x240. Also, movies are shot at 12.5 frames per second. That's
about equivalent to the very early silent movie films in cinema technology.
I believe modern cine film runs at more than double that frame rate.

The end result is movies that are just about watchable in a 4x3 inch window
on a normal sized monitor - and even then the low frame rate is evident.
Blow them up to full screen size and they are pretty dire.

Another thing to check - not all camera brands can record sound with their
movies.

Maybe the more modern versions, or other brand cameras, can improve on the
abover figures but I doubt they do so by much. The bottom line is, if you
want high quality movies, buy a video camera. The movies from a still
digital camera are not much better than a curio.

That's my humble opinion.

Keith

Does anyone know why it is, in MS Outlook Express, in certain newsgroups I
don't see my own reply messages?

I subscribe to several different newsgroups. In some, if I reply to a
posting then, sure enough, next time I log onto the newsgroup there's my
reply. In others (like this one), my replies apparently get sent (they are
in my sent items box) but I don't see them in the newsgroup listing so I'm
never quite sure they actually made it. The message below is a typical
example. I posted it to the "Cameras that record video" thread but it never
appeared in the newsgroup so far as Outlook Express is concerned on my
computer. Did it ever make it? Perhaps someone can post a message to tell
me whether they see a) this message and/or b) my original posting to the
"Cameras that record video" thread.

I have posted several messages (mainly replies) to this newsgroup but if I
pick the View menu, Current View, Show all messages is checked. If I
uncheck "Group by Conversation" and sort on the "from" column I can find no
messages from me at all. Any suggestions?

Keith


re digital video recording with a digital camera.

I have a now obsolete Olympus C2100UZ, but I think it's basically the same
engine as the modern Olympus C7nn series.

In my camera, resolution when shooting movies is much lower than still
picture resolution. In so-called high quality mode, movie resolution is
only 320x240. Also, movies are shot at 12.5 frames per second. That's
about equivalent to the very early silent movie films in cinema technology.
I believe modern cine film runs at more than double that frame rate.

The end result is movies that are just about watchable in a 4x3 inch window
on a normal sized monitor - and even then the low frame rate is evident.
Blow them up to full screen size and they are pretty dire.

Another thing to check - not all camera brands can record sound with their
movies.

Maybe the more modern versions, or other brand cameras, can improve on the
abover figures but I doubt they do so by much. The bottom line is, if you
want high quality movies, buy a video camera. The movies from a still
digital camera are not much better than a curio.

That's my humble opinion.

Keith