Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Just curious

Reply
Thread Tools

Just curious

 
 
carlazxz@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2005
1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
resolution ? What is the camcorder with maximum resolution ?

2. Even if camcorders have lower resolution, why cannot they
at least make the still camera feature with higher resoultion ?
I mean, it is ok if camcorder will only do 1.3 MP resolution,
but how hard is it to add the still fucntion at say 5 MP ?
It would not add too much to the weight of camcorder for
the additional electronics. I am saying this because, one
can then use the higher optical zoom capabilities of the
camcorder for the still portion of the camcorder.
Most camcorders have like 15x/20x/25x even 28x
optical zoom. Why not use it for the still function.
Am I missing something here .....because there are
many still cameras availabele at say 10x to 12x
optical zoom , are they not ? Is there a limiting
point for the optical zoom for still function ?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lorem Ipsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2005

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> 1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
> resolution ? What is the camcorder with maximum resolution ?


Tiny, tiny sensors.

> 2. Even if camcorders have lower resolution, why cannot they
> at least make the still camera feature with higher resoultion ?


Tiny, Tiny sensors.

> I mean, it is ok if camcorder will only do 1.3 MP resolution,
> but how hard is it to add the still fucntion at say 5 MP ?


$,$,$ and size - it ain't all about electronics




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I am saying this because, one
> can then use the higher optical zoom capabilities of the
> camcorder for the still portion of the camcorder.
> Most camcorders have like 15x/20x/25x even 28x
> optical zoom. Why not use it for the still function.


There is a good chance that camcorder lenses are designed with the rather
limited resolution of video in mind.

For professional 2/3" video cameras, there is a rather large quaility
difference between lenses that are sort of affordable (around $5000) and
the really expensive stuff. And the high-end ones probably don't even come
close to good 35mm primes.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Cohen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2005

"Lorem Ipsum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>> 1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
>> resolution ? What is the camcorder with maximum resolution ?

>
> Tiny, tiny sensors.
>
>> 2. Even if camcorders have lower resolution, why cannot they
>> at least make the still camera feature with higher resoultion ?

>
> Tiny, Tiny sensors.
>
>> I mean, it is ok if camcorder will only do 1.3 MP resolution,
>> but how hard is it to add the still fucntion at say 5 MP ?

>
> $,$,$ and size - it ain't all about electronics
>

Camcorders will play on television, so more resolution would be a waste.
My experience with all sorts of products is that they are best used for
their primary purpose. A radial arm saw is great for safely cutting wood,
but if you want to do routing, get a router and forget the router
attachment. A cell phone can be used to transmit a quick image, but for your
photo album get a camera, I could go on. I've never used the movie mode on
my canon cameras although apparently other find a use for this feature.
Dave Cohen


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
> resolution ?


No requirement, as TV resolution is really low.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PTravel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2005

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> 1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
> resolution ? What is the camcorder with maximum resolution ?


Digital camcorders play video on televisions, so they have to conform with
video standards. There are consumer camcorders that achieve HD resolution.

>
> 2. Even if camcorders have lower resolution, why cannot they
> at least make the still camera feature with higher resoultion ?


Because the tasks are different and in conflict. Camcorders have to produce
a continuous series of images every 1/60th of a second. Digital still
cameras are doing pretty well if they can produce 10 pictures a second in
burst mode. It is for this reason that most camcorders use CCD sensors and
most digital still cameras use CMOS sensors.

> I mean, it is ok if camcorder will only do 1.3 MP resolution,
> but how hard is it to add the still fucntion at say 5 MP ?


Most people who would want an all-in-one like that don't care about either
video or still quality.

> It would not add too much to the weight of camcorder for
> the additional electronics. I am saying this because, one
> can then use the higher optical zoom capabilities of the
> camcorder for the still portion of the camcorder.


Good camcorders don't use optical zoom.

> Most camcorders have like 15x/20x/25x even 28x
> optical zoom.


A cheap marketing gimmick that has no real value, as the video it produces
is highly degraded.

> Why not use it for the still function.
> Am I missing something here .....because there are
> many still cameras availabele at say 10x to 12x
> optical zoom , are they not ? Is there a limiting
> point for the optical zoom for still function ?
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
kashe@sonic.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2005
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:25:55 -0700, "PTravel"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> It would not add too much to the weight of camcorder for
>> the additional electronics. I am saying this because, one
>> can then use the higher optical zoom capabilities of the
>> camcorder for the still portion of the camcorder.

>
>Good camcorders don't use optical zoom.
>
>> Most camcorders have like 15x/20x/25x even 28x
>> optical zoom.

>
>A cheap marketing gimmick that has no real value, as the video it produces
>is highly degraded.
>


Just curious -- aren't you referring to digital zoom in your
last two comments?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark²
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2005
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> 1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
> resolution ? What is the camcorder with maximum resolution ?


1) Frame-rate means you can't capture as much and still play it back
quickly.
2) Televisions (even high-definition) have comparatively MEASELY
resolutions, so more is simply unnecessary and wasteful.

>
> 2. Even if camcorders have lower resolution, why cannot they
> at least make the still camera feature with higher resoultion ?


Because that would require CCDs that are unnecessarily expensive for video.

> I mean, it is ok if camcorder will only do 1.3 MP resolution,
> but how hard is it to add the still fucntion at say 5 MP ?


It isn't hard...It's only expensive.

> It would not add too much to the weight of camcorder for
> the additional electronics. I am saying this because, one
> can then use the higher optical zoom capabilities of the
> camcorder for the still portion of the camcorder.
> Most camcorders have like 15x/20x/25x even 28x
> optical zoom. Why not use it for the still function.
> Am I missing something here .....because there are
> many still cameras availabele at say 10x to 12x
> optical zoom , are they not ? Is there a limiting
> point for the optical zoom for still function ?



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> 1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
>> resolution ? What is the camcorder with maximum resolution ?

>
> 1) Frame-rate means you can't capture as much and still play it back
> quickly.
> 2) Televisions (even high-definition) have comparatively MEASELY
> resolutions, so more is simply unnecessary and wasteful.


True. HDTV is at most 1920x1080 pixels, or 2 megapixels. 1280x720
(just under 1 megapixel) is also commonly used for HD.

--
Måns Rullgård
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Captain Blammo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
> 1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
> resolution ? What is the camcorder with maximum resolution ?


I don't know if you'd call it a camcorder as such, but this is the closest
thing I can think of:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/s2is.html

It does half decent video and shoots 5MP stills, too. Even in the middle of
video recording (though it will black out a few frames).

CB




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just Curious, What Kind Of Garbage Collector Does Sun's JVM Use? res7cxbi@verizon.net Java 2 01-06-2006 11:29 AM
just curious Mike Roberts Wireless Networking 0 11-28-2005 04:31 AM
just curious whitzombi Firefox 2 11-09-2004 03:37 AM
Just curious about &quot;testlets' znakomi MCSE 0 11-03-2003 02:21 PM
OT: Just beeing curious... Wolff MCSE 3 07-07-2003 02:52 PM



Advertisments