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 ZLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 23rd 07, 02:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,185
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

Paul Rubin wrote:
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number writes:
As it turned out, I actually figure I shot MORE video with it than I
would have with my camcorder, simply because I could slip the tiny
SD700IS into a pocket, where the camcorder would never have come
along anyway. It's not as good as "real" video, but it was very
usable for my purposes. There are plenty of folks who are tired of
lugging around even the smaller tape-driven video cameras. --


Right, so why not make a "real" video camera that size, with video
performance comparable to fairly high end consumer camcorders, if all
it takes is slightly different electronics inside, plus ditching the
ability to shoot high-resolution stills? The 1/1.8" CCD should be at
least comparable to the 3x 1/6" CCD's in the current
Sony/Pana/whatever lineup. You can always stick yet another digicam
in your pocket if you want to also shoot stills.


Probably has to do with the huge amount of memory required to store high-def
video. The Canon can only do 13 minutes(!) on 4GB, or so I was told...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


  #22  
Old February 23rd 07, 02:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Paul Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 883
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number writes:
Right, so why not make a "real" video camera that size, with video
performance comparable to fairly high end consumer camcorders,...

Probably has to do with the huge amount of memory required to store
high-def video. The Canon can only do 13 minutes(!) on 4GB, or so I
was told...


Since 8GB SDHC cards are in the $50 range that isn't too terrible.
26 minutes is slightly limiting but 13 minutes is even more limiting.
It will ease up when 16GB cards arrive which should be soon. Also,
standard-definition video can look good at much lower bit rates.
  #23  
Old February 23rd 07, 04:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

On 21 Feb 2007 21:04:48 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:

In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that
also shoot HD video:


It has a bunch of really stupid limitations, such as max 13 minute
movie clips (4GB) and max 1.5 hour audio (1GB), even though it takes
SDHC cards (8GB cards are already available with 16GB coming).


Not so stupid if you think about it. Many people might end up
trying to transfer a 5GB or larger file to a computer whose file
system doesn't allow for files greater than 4GB. An easy
workaround, especially if it was an optional menu item would be to
allow the camera to automatically save files when 4GB is reached and
continue shooting with the next incrementally available file number.
These could always be concatenated after transferring to a hard
drive with a more suitable file system.

  #24  
Old February 23rd 07, 04:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Paul Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 883
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

ASAAR writes:
Not so stupid if you think about it. Many people might end up
trying to transfer a 5GB or larger file to a computer whose file
system doesn't allow for files greater than 4GB.


The camera's fat32 file system has that same limit so we presume
automatic splitting. Other comparable devices already do that.
  #25  
Old February 23rd 07, 05:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Mr.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
4 GB is not a "weird limitation" at all, that's the FAT32 file size
limit. To go higher than that they'd have to either split the video
across two files or go to NTFS or some other file system on the card,
which would, no matter what they chose, introduce compatibility
problems.


Why would splitting the video file into two, as many FAT32 systems have done
for years, "introduce compatibility problems"?
Similarly what is wrong with using NTFS these days anyway?

MrT.


  #26  
Old February 23rd 07, 05:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Mr.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird


"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
You've never seen HD then. After you've seen 1920x1080 HD, SD analog
video, no matter how well produced, looks like crap.


Actually it's more often the content that is crap in either case :-)

I suppose if one is a videophile that's true. I'm sure I could tell
the difference, it's that I just don't care. I've seen 70mm film at
the theater and I'm sure that looks even better than HD.


Not necessarily, it depends on the movie, camera's used, quality of print,
quality of cinema equipment etc. Similarly with HiDef. digital
recording/playback.

But the
actual experience of watching the movie isn't especially better than
watching it on VHS in someone's living room. I really care a lot more
about the quality of the script, the acting, whether the person in the
next seat is coughing on me, etc., than I do about the pixels. The
most successful documentary of all time (Fahrenheit 911) was shot
mostly on SD video and I really doubt that anybody minded.


True it depends on the material, and I wouldn't want to see Lord of the
Rings done that way!

MrT.


  #27  
Old February 23rd 07, 01:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital.zlr
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:11:45 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
You've never seen HD then. After you've seen 1920x1080 HD, SD analog
video, no matter how well produced, looks like crap.


Actually it's more often the content that is crap in either case :-)

I suppose if one is a videophile that's true. I'm sure I could tell
the difference, it's that I just don't care. I've seen 70mm film at
the theater and I'm sure that looks even better than HD.


Not necessarily, it depends on the movie, camera's used, quality of print,
quality of cinema equipment etc. Similarly with HiDef. digital
recording/playback.

But the
actual experience of watching the movie isn't especially better than
watching it on VHS in someone's living room. I really care a lot more
about the quality of the script, the acting, whether the person in the
next seat is coughing on me, etc., than I do about the pixels. The
most successful documentary of all time (Fahrenheit 911) was shot
mostly on SD video and I really doubt that anybody minded.


True it depends on the material, and I wouldn't want to see Lord of the
Rings done that way!


Seen on a small screen in SD, the opening cityscape on CSI:Miami is
just bland. In HD on an 8 foot screen the better ones are, well, you
gotta see one to believe it.
  #28  
Old February 23rd 07, 01:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:03:01 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .
4 GB is not a "weird limitation" at all, that's the FAT32 file size
limit. To go higher than that they'd have to either split the video
across two files or go to NTFS or some other file system on the card,
which would, no matter what they chose, introduce compatibility
problems.


Why would splitting the video file into two, as many FAT32 systems have done
for years, "introduce compatibility problems"?


There's no standard that I know of for splitting such a file and
making the second piece findable in a transparent manner. If you're
only going to play back in the camera it's not an issue, but if you
have to be able to play back without knowing what software the user is
going to be running then you need to use a compatible naming
convention and there is no standard for the naming convention.

Similarly what is wrong with using NTFS these days anyway?


First, there's the problem of actually writing to NTFS using a
non-Microsoft operating system. The Linux people have been trying to
develop this capability for as long as I can remember and last time I
upgraded my kernel it was still broken--Apple has tried to do the same
and last I heard it was still broken on their system as well, so the
camera manufacturer would either have to run some form of Windows on
their camera or figure out how to do something that has proven beyond
the capabilities of some of the sharpest programmers in the industry.
Then theres the matter of _reading_ it. OS/X can, sort of, Linux has
had read support off and on and sometimes broken, the only OS that can
be _counted_ on to read NTFS is Windows and not all versions of
_that_.


  #29  
Old February 23rd 07, 11:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Wayne J. Cosshall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 826
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

Paul Rubin wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" writes:
In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that
also shoot HD video:


It has a bunch of really stupid limitations, such as max 13 minute
movie clips (4GB) and max 1.5 hour audio (1GB), even though it takes
SDHC cards (8GB cards are already available with 16GB coming). Plus
it has a tiny sensor with too many pixels, and looks like it uses an
internal lithium battery that's both proprietary and runtime-limiting.

It's an indication of what's coming, though. Maybe they'll make an AA
version sometime.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022203canontx1.asp

Hi Paul,

Then again I am not sure if they are big limitations for many people. I
know I very rarely shoot more than 13 minutes of continuous video. More
commonly I shoot short 30 second to at most 5-10 minute clips for later
editing together, so I don't think it would really affect me much.

I look forward to playing with one.

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
  #30  
Old February 24th 07, 05:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Mr.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
There's no standard that I know of for splitting such a file and
making the second piece findable in a transparent manner. If you're
only going to play back in the camera it's not an issue, but if you
have to be able to play back without knowing what software the user is
going to be running then you need to use a compatible naming
convention and there is no standard for the naming convention.


Irrelevant. The user simply opens both files into his editor whatever they
are called. And since when did the manufacturer ever care what software the
user had? They usually provide software of their own, and if you want to use
something else, then the problem is up to THAT company. :-)

Anyway WHY does everything have to be done in the camera when computers and
software can do it so much better? As long as the camera can save the file/s
you can write software to convert/combine/rename it however you want. (And
that is usually a trivial exercise anyway)

Similarly what is wrong with using NTFS these days anyway?


First, there's the problem of actually writing to NTFS using a
non-Microsoft operating system. The Linux people have been trying to
develop this capability for as long as I can remember and last time I
upgraded my kernel it was still broken--Apple has tried to do the same
and last I heard it was still broken on their system as well, so the
camera manufacturer would either have to run some form of Windows on
their camera or figure out how to do something that has proven beyond
the capabilities of some of the sharpest programmers in the industry.
Then theres the matter of _reading_ it. OS/X can, sort of, Linux has
had read support off and on and sometimes broken, the only OS that can
be _counted_ on to read NTFS is Windows and not all versions of
_that_.


Well obviously you don't need to use NTFS if your destination is not Windows
XP/Vista!
And if you want to use it, then unfortunately you need to license it from
Bill. Probably a good reason to stay with multiple FAT32 files, as most
manufacturers have done so far, I suppose.

MrT.


 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 43 February 25th 07 07:24 AM
Weird Canon numbering scheme? (198-9900) [email protected] Digital Photography 5 January 23rd 07 02:45 PM
Weird problem with Canon printer Don Stauffer Digital Photography 8 February 23rd 06 05:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 AM.


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.