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
  #11  
Old February 22nd 07, 09:52 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

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
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

Yes, there is definitely going to be a merger of at least some types
of still camera and video. Both will likely still exist separately
for a long time, but I can see a growing segment of crossover
cameras. Why have two when one will do it all, I am sure, will be the
marketing motto.


I'm not into shooting lots of video, but I did choose to leave the camcorder
at home when I traveled to and worked in Ukraine last summer. I decided
that the 30fps VGA video of my little pocket camera was enough for me, since
I primarily shoot stills (5D). 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.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


  #12  
Old February 22nd 07, 10:00 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:
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.
  #13  
Old February 22nd 07, 11:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
kosh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird


Yes, there is definitely going to be a merger of at least some types of
still camera and video.


i thought it was going inevitable 5 years ago..... hell, my mobile will
do 4o minutes of 640x480 @ 30fps!

kosh
  #14  
Old February 22nd 07, 11:44 AM 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

Mr.T wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
...
On the other hand if I could only get my wife to carry the video camera,
I'd be set


Now that's a serious admission of failure on your part :-)

MrT.


You bet


--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
  #15  
Old February 22nd 07, 03:11 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 21 Feb 2007 21:04:48 -0800, 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


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.
  #16  
Old February 22nd 07, 03:15 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 22 Feb 2007 00:39:01 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home writes:
Why would they want to. People here want at least 720*576 for video (or
usually 1080 these days)


OK, SVGA or even 1080 then. But when I watch VGA video blown up to my
1600x1200 screen it still looks fine.


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

Frankly I'd rather have a 3ccd hard drive hiDef video camera with the same
size sensors :-)


3ccd looks sort of obsolete to me. Larger single CCD's are getting
cheaper and cheaper to make, but as the CCD's get larger the prisms
and alignment systems for 3ccd systems get ridiculously expensive. So
you've got the semipro Sony VX2100 or its HDV successor with 3x 1/3"
CCD's at around $2000 and the next model up, with 1/2" CCD's is around
$5000. But three 1/3" CCD's is around the same sensor area as 1/1.8".
It avoids the light losses in the Bayer sensor but it still doesn't
collect anywhere near as many photons as a 4/3" sensor much less an
APS-C sensor. The $17,500, 12 MP, super duper Red digital cinema
camera will apparently use an APS-C sized sensor but I seriously don't
see the obstacle to doing that at the VX2100 price level and HDV
resolution.

  #17  
Old February 22nd 07, 06:25 PM 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

J. Clarke writes:
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.


I don't see what's wrong with splitting the video or audio into
multiple files. Audio recorders do it. Just start a new file every
so often.
  #18  
Old February 22nd 07, 06:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Toni Nikkanen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 255
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

Paul Rubin writes:

I don't see what's wrong with splitting the video or audio into
multiple files. Audio recorders do it. Just start a new file every
so often.


And the video on DVD discs is split into 1gig parts as well, nothing new here.

My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte
pieces..

  #19  
Old February 22nd 07, 06:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Paul Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 883
Default New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

J. Clarke writes:
OK, SVGA or even 1080 then. But when I watch VGA video blown up to my
1600x1200 screen it still looks fine.


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


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. 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.
  #20  
Old February 22nd 07, 06:53 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 22 Feb 2007 19:29:48 +0200, Toni Nikkanen
wrote:

Paul Rubin writes:

I don't see what's wrong with splitting the video or audio into
multiple files. Audio recorders do it. Just start a new file every
so often.


And the video on DVD discs is split into 1gig parts as well, nothing new here.

My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte
pieces..


Is there a standard for doing that or does doing so lock you into a
proprietary program for playback?
 




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 05:50 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.