Author Topic: Video camera (Read 1007 times)

Vulcan · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2006, 06:23:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Morpheus
The films that I have done for Mars where I was filming from inside and outside the Pitts while he was flying, were a MOTHER F'er to edit with my software, such as Sony Vegas 6 and adobe premier. I used his sony camera, which records onto those mini-CD's.

Ease of editing is no doubt for me, the most important thing. It took me three days to get the pitts film to where I could even begin to edit them, while with normal freakin codecs I could have done it in half the time, or less.

It took very nice quality films, his camera... But unless you use the rinkydink software that sony gives you with the camera, editing the film becomes a nightmare.

Ulead DVD Studio.... gawd easy to use and lotsa features for such a entry level app.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 01, 2006, 06:48:16 PM »

Morpheus,

I’ve spent a zillion hour researching video cameras over the past three months. My conclusion: many decent still cameras take better movies than dedicated camcorders. The limiting factor of camcorders is image size; everything I looked at was 320 by 240. Even camcorders near $1,000 were 320 by 240. Many still cameras on the other hand will shoot 640 by 480 (and some even 1024 by 768). The only advantages that dedicated camcorders have over still cameras are recording time, zoom range and direct storage on media. However, CD and DVDs are so cheap now you can burn from your still camera’s flash cards for probably less. When it comes to recording time for still cameras, flashcards are getting bigger and cheaper; besides, how often do you ever want to record more than a minute or two anyway? Tapes are a total pain in the butt; rewind or FFW to find the starting point of a clip, camera has to be plugged into the PC through a Firewire, its all pretty time consuming. With flash I can put a clip on my site in three or four minutes. Plus, the mechanism of the tape drive adds size, weight, cost, and its just one more thing that can break. I brought my school’s Canon Elura MiniDV camcorder home to test out the features and quality. The zoom range was impressive, but that was it. (Actually, I also did like that it could record directly from old VHS or analog 8mm players directly onto the MiniDV, converting it to digital.)

One thing that I learned is that QuickTime movies tend to be much sharper. I hate to say it because I never wanted to have anything to do with anything Apple. Look at clips on the Net, there’s about a billion crappy, rough, JPEG quality level at 30% Windows Media Player compatible clips out there. The QuickTime clips are almost always sharp though.

I ended up getting a Nikon Coolpix 8400. http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25521
Wide angle was also a huge requirement for me and the 8400 has the widest lens available (24mm equivalent) for non SLRs (next closest is 28mm). It was under $500 and it accepts a fisheye, wide-angle or telephoto converter lens. It kicks butt on any dedicated camcorder that I’ve seen for under $1,000 and it takes time laps movies and great stills. The drawback is that they are about 1 MB a second; but you can always convert/compress down for the net. Judge for yourself. Below is a link to my family movie page; you will find 3 time laps 640 by 480 movies and 3 regular 640 by 480 moves (although one is with the fisheye). Note that the indoor clips have poor light and picked up a bit of noise and slow shutter speed blur. They are still pretty sharp but outdoors lighting would be even better. Be sure to select the links identified as QuickTime.

http://www.wwiirt.com/halls/movies/movies.htm

eskimo

eskimo2 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 01, 2006, 06:59:25 PM »

PS

It’s hard as heck to find image size references on makers’ sites. Download the manual before you buy. Read reviews, some might sound great according to the manufacturer, but might really suck.

PPS

My school’s Canon Elura took sharper movies than the clip you provided, but they were only 320x240. Blow that up to 640x480 and it might look about the same, or maybe even a bit better.

eskimo

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:43:18 PM »

Eskimo,
Any camcorder that uses the DV Standard records at 720 by 480. When you capture it through fire wire to a PC, it is in effect a file transfer so you lose no quality.

The still resolution the video cam takes is not the same as the video resolution on some cams(they make it smaller so it looks better), the image quality on Video cams seem less then still cams because individual frames from video do not need to be high res for the video to look good.

The difference in quality between video cams comes from the Number of CCDs they use and the lenses. (it has been some time since I looked into it by high end video cameras had 3 CCDs, one for Red, one for green and on e for blue. the lower end ones split the CCD up to take in the light all on a single one)

Still Cams for the most part have better CCDs because you need that single frame to look very good. (well, my still cam knowledge is a bit lower, so I may be wrong here)

A DV cam has a huge advantage over a still cam, in that the mini DV tapes are far cheaper then big memory cards.
Another advantage of a DV camcorder is the DV .AVI format. It is a far better format to edit the any Mpeg format. a MPEG video encoded with a Variable bit rate is going to look allot worse then a AVI file if it gets rendered more then once.

Some info on the DV format.

I have not looked at how still cams capture video, but I don’t think there is a standard, they use various codecs, frame rates and resolutions, and this can make editing the video a pain in the ass.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:47:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Morpheus
On the subject of quality...

Anything better than this is good enough for me.

http://www.furballunderground.com/films/B25.wmv
That was from last summer taken with a kodak digital camera i had at the time.

I am certain that any video camera I by will be far better than using a digital camera for when want a take a clip of something.

http://sanyodigital.com/HD1/index.html

That does look sweet! 5 meg pixl camera?! Looks tiny as well.

Any DV standard Video camera will look better then that by alot.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:56:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Morpheus
The films that I have done for Mars where I was filming from inside and outside the Pitts while he was flying, were a MOTHER F'er to edit with my software, such as Sony Vegas 6 and adobe premier. I used his sony camera, which records onto those mini-CD's.

Ease of editing is no doubt for me, the most important thing It took me three days to get the pitts film to where I could even begin to edit them, while with normal freakin codecs I could have done it in half the time, or less.

It took very nice quality films, his camera... But unless you use the rinkydink software that sony gives you with the camera, editing the film becomes a nightmare.

Just about all the Video editors out there were designed to deal with .avi file or DV .AVI files specifically.

Most had MPEG editing capabilities added because the average home user thinks that since his DVD player uses MPEG and they look good it must be just as good to edit.

It is not, that’s why you had so much trouble with them. Mpeg is a finished product format; the way Mpeg files compress makes them a pain in the bellybutton to edit.
.Avi for the most part is a editing format, its to large to store.(18 minutes of DV video is about 4 gigs a single layer DVD is 4 gigs) Mpeg came about to as a way to store big video files without to much loss in quality, but you still lose some, ever notice when watching a DVD with lots black you can see squares or it looks like the screen froze? That’s MPEG compression, it dumps down the rate it updates the screen when there is low motion because you won't notice it as much. (it gets more complicated then that, there are whole books on the MPEGs and how they work.)

If you have any interest in editing the videos, the go with a DV standard camcorder, either Mini DV or Digital 8(rare now but the same standard) another upside to a DV cam, many of them allow you to use them as DV converters, so you can hook older video cams or VCRs to them and capture through the fire wire port and the video will come in at the 720 by 480 DV standard (It wont look as good as a real DV capture, but you wont lose much over the original).

Fire wire is easier to deal with then USB as well.

Morpheus · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2006, 10:41:34 AM »

Yup, that's exactly why they are such a pita to edit. I had to extract the sound from mpeg if I wanted sound in it... PAIN

I went looking last night at a few places. I see better prices on line though so I am guessing that's where I'll be picking one up.

beet1e · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2006, 11:07:46 AM »

Morph did you get that .AVI I sent you by PM?

mars01 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2006, 01:05:04 PM »

Yeah morph the Handy cam has it's drawbacks but mostly in the recording time of mini disks and auto focus. I also wish I could just pop the mini DVs into the DVD player and work from there.

Also I think you are confusing the MPV player with the handycam.

For editing you have to go firewire from the camera to the PC. There is something about USB and sound that is a problem. The work around was to take the film into vegas as is, then convert another copy to avi. Bring this copy into vegas and take the sound off of that and remove the video. Your right tho, it would be nive to get both from the same file. I did the Corsairs Over CT video this way and it worked out better.

Sony's HDRFX1 Handycam® Digital HDV Camcorder with Manual Zoom Ring
HDRFX1 LOOKS LIKE THE BOMB!!!!

Morpheus · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2006, 01:17:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Morph did you get that .AVI I sent you by PM?

Yeah, just got it beet. F' me, that's one hell of a shot from there though. I really want to travel more. The quality was good too.

Thanks!

Quote

Also I think you are confusing the MPV player with the handycam.

I could be. The film that I got from the handycam wasnt so much of a pita as the first batch which was from; I think, the camera mounted on the headset.

Your cam is real nice. Even with me getting tossed around the picture still came out very clear. I just wish it was easier to edit... Ideal would be to pull it off the camera and just go to town with the main editing... rather than extracting audio from one type of file that has to be rendered then using video from another.

mars01 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2006, 01:26:26 PM »

Quote

Ideal would be to pull it off the camera and just go to town with the main editing... rather than extracting audio from one type of file that has to be rendered then using video from another.

Yeah no matter what camera you get, if you use USB as the transfer you will have the same problem.

BTW - I dont like the handycam either LOL

eskimo2 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2006, 05:35:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Eskimo,
Any camcorder that uses the DV Standard records at 720 by 480. When you capture it through fire wire to a PC, it is in effect a file transfer so you lose no quality.

The still resolution the video cam takes is not the same as the video resolution on some cams(they make it smaller so it looks better), the image quality on Video cams seem less then still cams because individual frames from video do not need to be high res for the video to look good.

The difference in quality between video cams comes from the Number of CCDs they use and the lenses. (it has been some time since I looked into it by high end video cameras had 3 CCDs, one for Red, one for green and on e for blue. the lower end ones split the CCD up to take in the light all on a single one)

Still Cams for the most part have better CCDs because you need that single frame to look very good. (well, my still cam knowledge is a bit lower, so I may be wrong here)

A DV cam has a huge advantage over a still cam, in that the mini DV tapes are far cheaper then big memory cards.
Another advantage of a DV camcorder is the DV .AVI format. It is a far better format to edit the any Mpeg format. a MPEG video encoded with a Variable bit rate is going to look allot worse then a AVI file if it gets rendered more then once.

Some info on the DV format.

I have not looked at how still cams capture video, but I don’t think there is a standard, they use various codecs, frame rates and resolutions, and this can make editing the video a pain in the ass.

Can you find this in print or on a manufacture’s site anywhere?
I looked all over several manufactures’ sites and only one indicated movie image size, and it was 320x240. With the Canon that I almost bought, I asked to see the owner’s manual at the store; the information was buried but indicated 320x240. My school’s Canon Elura that I tested downloaded to the PC via FireWire at 320x240. I want to believe you, but I’d like to see reputable proof. I still find it hard to believe that the genre of camcorders could be based on such a small image resolution, but I’ve yet to see different.

As far as flash media goes, $40 will buy you a one gig card at Staples or Office Max that’s reusable 1,000,000 times. $22 will buy you 8 one hour MiniDv tapes at Sam’s Club. The flash card can download to a PC in few minutes without tying up the camera. The clips are organized into neat ready to edit or upload files. The MiniDv tapes are a good deal, but it takes a long time to download a tape and then you have to search for the part you want. If I were going on a big trip without a computer to download to, I might want the tapes. Most of what I do, however, is only a few seconds or minutes and then it’s on the PC.

Most importantly, I would insist on seeing a clip shot by the type of camera I was interested in buying.

eskimo

g00b · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2006, 06:28:09 PM »

Morph, there is a bit of dis-information in this thread. Be warned. A true MiniDV cam is still the way to go. A 3 CCD and/or HD if you can afford it. The Canon GL1 and new GL2 are the gold standards of the amateur video market. Don't be swayed by built in DVD, hard drive or memory stick storage. A lot of these use funky compression schemes. You will probably want to save your raw video right? You will quickly find $5/tape is quite a deal compared to having to transfer to PC then burn back to some sort of media. Tapes store well with good conditions. Optical media degrades faster. Hard drives don't last forever. If you want your videos 20 years from now, MiniDV stored in a cool dry place is your best bet.

In short. Get a real MiniDV camera, the priciest your budget will allow. Read some reviews and make your choice.

g00b

PS MiniDV standard is MPEG2 at 720x480. All editing software I'm aware of will handle this by default. Windows Movie Maker, Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, Pinnacle, etc...

gatso · « **Reply #28 on:** March 03, 2006, 04:58:41 AM »

I own a Panasonic GS400. 3CCD or even better 3CCD with HD is the way forward. A pal of mine who used to work for the BBC in R&D bought the same camera and he reckons the quality of these new 3CCD and HD cameras is near as dammit broadcast quality. The 4mp stills are not that great quality on this camera but better than nothing and it has more features than I will EVER use.

If you want me to put up a short clip in DV format and some full res stills I may be able to do so but bear in mind an hour of DV clocks in at 10-14 GB so it will have to be a short clip!

Cheers

Gatso

eskimo2 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 03, 2006, 05:39:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by gatso
I own a Panasonic GS400. 3CCD or even better 3CCD with HD is the way forward. A pal of mine who used to work for the BBC in R&D bought the same camera and he reckons the quality of these new 3CCD and HD cameras is near as dammit broadcast quality. The 4mp stills are not that great quality on this camera but better than nothing and it has more features than I will EVER use.

If you want me to put up a short clip in DV format and some full res stills I may be able to do so but bear in mind an hour of DV clocks in at 10-14 GB so it will have to be a short clip!

Cheers

Gatso

I'd love to see even 15 seconds.