High-quality video in versatile camera?

"Mike Stucka" <NOthatSPAMnewPLEASEguy.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J9qdney1EqFwTqvYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@rcn.net...
> Kind folks,
> We're looking to get a better digital camera, one that's highly
> versatile. I was very impressed with a few minutes' hands-on time with a
> Fuji S6000, which offers a great zoom and some wonderful close-up
> opportunities. I didn't get to test it in low-light, though, or test the
> video.
> Is there a digital camera out there that offers acceptable video?

Short answer: no. However, it depends on how you define "acceptable." The
video quality of any still camera will be far below that of even a medicore
miniDV camcorder, just as the still quality of any camcorder will be far
below that of even a mediocre still camera.


> Our first baby's been ordered, so that's becoming a concern. I don't know
> if any versatile digital cameras out there that offer video at least in
> the same neighborhood as a cheap video camera?
>
>
> Mike
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> Even my dinky little Canon SD700 IS shoots VERY decent video at 30fps and
> full VGA.
> I shot video right next to a friend of mine who was using a standard digital
> video camcorder...
> ...and my recording was actually BETTER. The image was actually
> uperior! -The downside was...she could record the entire show, while I was
> limited to the 2GB card I had in my camera...which fills quickly.

I think the SD700 won't shoot more than 1GB of video nonstop, even if
you have a larger card. You have a good chance of a 4GB card working
ok in it though.

Somewhat worse, the SD700 if it's like my A530 has no provision for an
external microphone, and the internal mic is mono and not very good.
Sound is actually more important than video in many situations. If
the sound is good, people will overlook lousy video. The reverse is
much less true.
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>> Even my dinky little Canon SD700 IS shoots VERY decent video at
>> 30fps and full VGA.
>> I shot video right next to a friend of mine who was using a standard
>> digital video camcorder...
>> ...and my recording was actually BETTER. The image was actually
>> uperior! -The downside was...she could record the entire show,
>> while I was limited to the 2GB card I had in my camera...which fills
>> quickly.
>
> I think the SD700 won't shoot more than 1GB of video nonstop, even if
> you have a larger card. You have a good chance of a 4GB card working
> ok in it though.

I believe it will continue until the card is full...but I'll check that.
I have a 4GB card in it now...so maybe I'll just do a little test to see.
Regardless...the quality is very high.
The only problem remains one of file size. These files are just HUGE.
On the other hand...it's amazing how useful it was to have that little
camera with me while in Ukraine recently...for those times when my huge
5D/Grip/580EX was not a practical choice.
I elected to leave the dedicated video camera at home this time, and did NOT
miss it due to the very decent quality of the video taken by the tiny 700IS.

>
> Somewhat worse, the SD700 if it's like my A530 has no provision for an
> external microphone, and the internal mic is mono and not very good.
> Sound is actually more important than video in many situations.

I agree with that, except that the "stereo" speakers on most camcorders are
usually so close together--even on externals--that it's not all that
different from mono anyway.

>If
> the sound is good, people will overlook lousy video. The reverse is
> much less true.

I agree with that.
Digital video sound quality is excellent--even if not widely separated,
left-to-right. I've actually used my video camera for sound-only
recordings, and saved only the sound file because it's that good.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> The only problem remains one of file size. These files are just HUGE.

Huh? I thought they were pretty small. Remember that standard DV
video uses about 3 megabytes per second. Does the SD700 burn space
faster than that?

> > Somewhat worse, the SD700 if it's like my A530 has no provision for an
> > external microphone, and the internal mic is mono and not very good.
> > Sound is actually more important than video in many situations.
>
> I agree with that, except that the "stereo" speakers on most camcorders are
> usually so close together--even on externals--that it's not all that
> different from mono anyway.

This is about microphones, not speakers. Single-point stereo
microphones work very well. The trick is that there is a pair of
directional microphones at the same location, not both pointed in the
same direction.

> Digital video sound quality is excellent--even if not widely separated,

It should approximate what you actually hear when you're making the
recording.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo#Various_methods_of_stereo_recording
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>> The only problem remains one of file size. These files are just
>> HUGE.
>
> Huh? I thought they were pretty small. Remember that standard DV
> video uses about 3 megabytes per second. Does the SD700 burn space
> faster than that?
>
>>> Somewhat worse, the SD700 if it's like my A530 has no provision for
>>> an external microphone, and the internal mic is mono and not very
>>> good. Sound is actually more important than video in many
>>> situations.
>>
>> I agree with that, except that the "stereo" speakers on most
>> camcorders are usually so close together--even on externals--that
>> it's not all that different from mono anyway.
>
> This is about microphones, not speakers.

That was a typo... -Meant microphones, of course.

>Single-point stereo
> microphones work very well. The trick is that there is a pair of
> directional microphones at the same location, not both pointed in the
> same direction.

It's better than mono, but they are not typically directional microphones.
If they were, then they wouldn't pick up sounds in front of the camera very
well.



--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:25:49 -0400, Mike Stucka <NOthatSPAMnewPLEASEguy.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Kind folks,
> We're looking to get a better digital camera, one that's highly
> versatile. I was very impressed with a few minutes' hands-on time with a
> Fuji S6000, which offers a great zoom and some wonderful close-up
> opportunities. I didn't get to test it in low-light, though, or test the
> video.
> Is there a digital camera out there that offers acceptable video?
> Our first baby's been ordered, so that's becoming a concern. I don't
> know if any versatile digital cameras out there that offer video at
> least in the same neighborhood as a cheap video camera?

Check out the Canon S2 IS. The video performance is excellent.
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> >Single-point stereo
> > microphones work very well. The trick is that there is a pair of
> > directional microphones at the same location, not both pointed in the
> > same direction.
>
> It's better than mono, but they are not typically directional microphones.
> If they were, then they wouldn't pick up sounds in front of the camera very well.

Of course they're directional microphones, theyre not
ultra-directional (that would require enormous shotgun mics) but the
common schemes are either crossed cardioids or else a cardiod facing
ahead plus a mic with a figure-8 pattern getting the sides (mid-side
arrangement). See:

http://www.paia.com/msmicwrk.htm

This has been very standard stuff for many decades.
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

"PTravel" <ptravel.DeleteThis@travelersvideo.com> writes:
> > The files created by even my little camera are about 1GB per 9 minutes of
> > video...
>
> Sounds like constant-bit-rate mpeg2 at DVD-compliant rates, which will be
> around 5 GB per hour.

I think the stuff from my A530 is mpeg-4 and I'd be surprised if the
SD700 is something different.

> I'm not talking about state of the art camcorder video. I've spent a fair
> amount of time explaining the technical reasons why video from still cameras
> is of significantly lower quality than video from an _average_ quality
> miniDV machine. Your response is to ignore the specs and the technical
> explanation and simply claim that still camera video is "acceptable" by
> "most consumer's standards." Aside from the fact the you do not speak for
> most consumers you are incorrect -- most consumers who want video buy miniDV
> or Digital8 (another DV-25 based format) camcorders. Accordingly, most
> consumers want DV-25 quality.

I'd say the audio matters a lot more. I'm also not so sure DV25 is
the most popular camcorder format, or if it is, by what margin. I see
quite a few of those silly 3" mini-DVD cameras in the stores. There's
also quite a lot of analog (VHS-C and hi- still around, and hard
drive camcorders are getting more popular. I've been interested in
getting something more modern than my old hi-8 camera but I'd only
bother with mini-DV if I were doing something serious. Otherwise I
kept wanting a camera that recorded onto regular (i.e. full size, 4.7
inch) recordable DVD media. These days though, hard drives also look
good. I'd even consider a flash-based camcorder if it ran on AA cells
and had good audio.
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

snapper.DeleteThis@mailinator.com wrote:
> Check out the Canon S2 IS. The video performance is excellent.

Thanks for the suggestion!

To the folks in the more involved discussion: I thank you, too. As
someone pointed out, "acceptable" to one person may not be "acceptable"
to another. While I'll certainly treasure video of my child's earliest
years, I'm not certain how much difference it'll make if a 15-year-old
video looks like an 18-year-old video.

I think the advent of DVD standards and then HDTV has changed how we
look at video, constantly raising the bar. That said, I just looked at a
~15-year-old video of my sister-in-law's birthday, and, while the sound
was atrocious and the video quality was merely awful, it was still
invaluable.

Meanwhile, we're busy getting seven reels of 8mm film from our two
families converted to DVD.

I think the value of these films is incalculable, but everyone expects a
loss of quality compared to contemporary standards. Our standards simply
shift with technology, which shifts with time.

I guess I'm more concerned about being able to discern faces in
low-light birthday parties than being able to catch every detail. In
that sense, the ultimate resolution matters a bit less than other
technical specs.


Mike
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xejt4e66w.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "PTravel" <ptravel DeleteThis @travelersvideo.com> writes:
>> > The files created by even my little camera are about 1GB per 9 minutes
>> > of
>> > video...
>>
>> Sounds like constant-bit-rate mpeg2 at DVD-compliant rates, which will be
>> around 5 GB per hour.
>
> I think the stuff from my A530 is mpeg-4 and I'd be surprised if the
> SD700 is something different.

mpeg4 is a temporally-compressed lossy codec. Everything I said about mpeg2
applies, i.e. the need for an analysis pass rather than single-pass
on-the-fly transcoding, data rate, etc.
>
>> I'm not talking about state of the art camcorder video. I've spent a
>> fair
>> amount of time explaining the technical reasons why video from still
>> cameras
>> is of significantly lower quality than video from an _average_ quality
>> miniDV machine. Your response is to ignore the specs and the technical
>> explanation and simply claim that still camera video is "acceptable" by
>> "most consumer's standards." Aside from the fact the you do not speak
>> for
>> most consumers you are incorrect -- most consumers who want video buy
>> miniDV
>> or Digital8 (another DV-25 based format) camcorders. Accordingly, most
>> consumers want DV-25 quality.
>
> I'd say the audio matters a lot more.

Audio is irrelevant to video quality. However, audio is important, yes.

> I'm also not so sure DV25 is
> the most popular camcorder format, or if it is, by what margin.

It is. I don't have numbers, but miniDV is the most popular format. It's
also the only digital format that is also used in prosumer and professional
cameras.

> I see
> quite a few of those silly 3" mini-DVD cameras in the stores.

Everything I said about digital still camera video applies to them in
spades, except that digital still cameras probably have better glass.

> There's
> also quite a lot of analog (VHS-C and hi- still around, and hard
> drive camcorders are getting more popular.

In terms of resolution, VHS (vhs-c only refers to the physical cassette
format and not the recording format) can resolve about 250 lines. Hi-8 can
resolve about 425-450. MiniDV (and Digital8) can resolve 500-525. Analog
formats, such as Hi-8, are also far more prone to drop-outs.

> I've been interested in
> getting something more modern than my old hi-8 camera but I'd only
> bother with mini-DV if I were doing something serious. Otherwise I
> kept wanting a camera that recorded onto regular (i.e. full size, 4.7
> inch) recordable DVD media. These days though, hard drives also look
> good. I'd even consider a flash-based camcorder if it ran on AA cells
> and had good audio.

Do you have any interest in editing your video? If so, you do not want a
DVD, hard drive or flash-based camcorder as all use temporal compression
codecs which are not readily editable, quality issues notwithstanding.
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

"PTravel" <ptravel.TakeThisOut@travelersvideo.com> writes:
> > I'm also not so sure DV25 is
> > the most popular camcorder format, or if it is, by what margin.
>
> It is. I don't have numbers, but miniDV is the most popular format.
> It's also the only digital format that is also used in prosumer and
> professional cameras.

Probably the higher end of DV25 is getting displaced by HDV, but
the low end doesn't care. Note that HDV is also one of those
"temporally compressed formats" but that doesn't stop serious
productions (TV shows, indie movies) from using it.

> In terms of resolution, VHS (vhs-c only refers to the physical
> cassette format and not the recording format) can resolve about 250
> lines. Hi-8 can resolve about 425-450. MiniDV (and Digital8) can
> resolve 500-525. Analog formats, such as Hi-8, are also far more
> prone to drop-outs.

Regardless of that, hundreds of millions of consumers watched
Hollywood movies on VHS and were perfectly satisfied.

> Do you have any interest in editing your video? If so, you do not want a
> DVD, hard drive or flash-based camcorder as all use temporal compression
> codecs which are not readily editable, quality issues notwithstanding.

The motion compression means the editing software has to be a bit more
complicated, but that's not the user's problem. It also means if you
want frame-accurate editing, there can be some video artifacts right
after the edit point, but most viewers won't notice. As a fairly
casual video user I don't really care about frame-accurate editing,
I'm fine with being off by a few frames or even by a second or two. I
think this is pretty typical.
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x8xjclyxo.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "PTravel" <ptravel.RemoveThis@travelersvideo.com> writes:
>> > I'm also not so sure DV25 is
>> > the most popular camcorder format, or if it is, by what margin.
>>
>> It is. I don't have numbers, but miniDV is the most popular format.
>> It's also the only digital format that is also used in prosumer and
>> professional cameras.
>
> Probably the higher end of DV25 is getting displaced by HDV, but
> the low end doesn't care.

Actually, not yet. HDV has some signficant problems. It, too, uses a
temporally-compressed codec and, evidently, there are some significant
motion artifact issues with it.

> Note that HDV is also one of those
> "temporally compressed formats" but that doesn't stop serious
> productions (TV shows, indie movies) from using it.

Ah, you beat me to it. I don't know of any professional use of HDV, whereas
I know of several studio-released feature films that were shot on miniDV.

>
>> In terms of resolution, VHS (vhs-c only refers to the physical
>> cassette format and not the recording format) can resolve about 250
>> lines. Hi-8 can resolve about 425-450. MiniDV (and Digital8) can
>> resolve 500-525. Analog formats, such as Hi-8, are also far more
>> prone to drop-outs.
>
> Regardless of that, hundreds of millions of consumers watched
> Hollywood movies on VHS and were perfectly satisfied.

Sure -- VHS was the only game in town, except for the exotic, expensive,
must-be-flipped-many-times laser disk.

>
>> Do you have any interest in editing your video? If so, you do not want a
>> DVD, hard drive or flash-based camcorder as all use temporal compression
>> codecs which are not readily editable, quality issues notwithstanding.
>
> The motion compression means the editing software has to be a bit more
> complicated, but that's not the user's problem.

Not quite. The temporal compression means that frame-accurate editing
requires untranscoding and retranscoding. Some of the higher-end prosumer
products, e.g. Premiere Pro 2.0, can handle it, but only with a very, very
powerful computer. I've done projects that required working with mpeg2
clips (I use Premiere Pro 1.5 on a 3.1 GHz P4 with 1 gig of RAM). It was an
absolute pain, and I was only using clips. It would have been almost
impossible to do any compositing, effects, etc.

> It also means if you
> want frame-accurate editing, there can be some video artifacts right
> after the edit point, but most viewers won't notice.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "most viewers."

> As a fairly
> casual video user I don't really care about frame-accurate editing,
> I'm fine with being off by a few frames or even by a second or two. I
> think this is pretty typical.

I'm a casual video user, and I care very much about frame-accurate editing,
as well as achieving the best possible video quality.
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera? 

"PTravel" <ptravel.TakeThisOut@travelersvideo.com> writes:
> Ah, you beat me to it. I don't know of any professional use of HDV,

According to Wikipedia, some parts of the JAG television series are
shot on HDV.

> I'm a casual video user, and I care very much about frame-accurate
> editing, as well as achieving the best possible video quality.

I think I'd take issue with "casual video user" in that case, but it's
not exactly a club that anyone is clamoring to get into. A casual
user is someone who isn't very fussy, pretty much by definition. The
still photography equivalent would be someone who takes snapshots with
a disposable camera or cell phone camera.
 >> Stay informed about: High-quality video in versatile camera?