Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Just curious

 
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005

<(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 ?

For the same reason that 8mm film cameras were so far behind still cameras.
The added resolution provides no benefit.
>
> 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 ?
>

It always comes down to money.
Jim


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> 1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
> resolution ?


Because more resolution would be wasted and is unnecessary for video.
Even DV spec is only 720x480, or a little over 0.3MP. Even maximum
required for 16:9 1080i HDTV would be barely 2MP.

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


Because they aren't still cameras, they're video cameras - they're
designed to do video and a high-MP sensor would just add cost that's not
necessary to its primary function.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-0, 10/17/2005
Tested on: 10/17/2005 9:55:29 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
PTravel wrote:
[]
>> 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.


Are you sure about that? As the (cycles per picture height) resolution
requirement is less, and the sensor size is smaller, it may be possible to
produce reasonable images at greater zoom ratios than on 5-8MP still
cameras. Certainly, the image quality from the 12:1 zooms on today's
higher-end point and shoot is remarkably good - beating that on 35mm
lenses for similar zoom range.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
Dave Cohen wrote:
> "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
>
>

I think the best use I have found for the movie mode is catching
children playing. They are rather hard to catch in still mode on a P&S
camera, but the movie mode helps catch the mood. It works well for
'dancing fountains' as well.
It's not a feature that I find one of the 'core values' I look for, however.


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
ptravel@travelersvideo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> 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?


Yeah, sloppy reading on my part. However, I also believe that optical
zoom beyond 12x is pointless as it is impossible to handhold.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ptravel@travelersvideo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005

David J Taylor wrote:
> PTravel wrote:
> []
> >> 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.

>
> Are you sure about that?


As noted by another poster, I was referring to digital zoom, not
optical (though optical zoom beyond 12x is kind of pointless in a
consumer video camera as it can't be handheld.)

> As the (cycles per picture height) resolution
> requirement is less, and the sensor size is smaller, it may be possible to
> produce reasonable images at greater zoom ratios than on 5-8MP still
> cameras. Certainly, the image quality from the 12:1 zooms on today's
> higher-end point and shoot is remarkably good - beating that on 35mm
> lenses for similar zoom range.


I'm not quite sure what you're saying, here. Smaller sensor size for
video cameras means degarded low-light capability. Denser sensors
don't correlate to improved resolution for video (though some
higher-end camcorders do pixel subsampling). If you're saying p&s zoom
glass is better than that available for 35mm film cameras then, no, I
don't agree. At all. In any way.

>
> David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lorem Ipsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
"Captain Blammo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gjX4f.110332$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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).


In other words, "half decent" means twice as sucky as dedicated video, which
sucks to begin with.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
(E-Mail Removed) writes:

>Yeah, sloppy reading on my part. However, I also believe that optical
>zoom beyond 12x is pointless as it is impossible to handhold.


You seem to be assuming that all camcorders are handheld all the time.
But it is possible to put them on a tripod, making long zoom ranges
useful. (Image stabilization also helps the handheld case, and probably
all but the stiffest tripods).

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> PTravel wrote:
>> []
>>>> 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.

>>
>> Are you sure about that?

>
> As noted by another poster, I was referring to digital zoom, not
> optical (though optical zoom beyond 12x is kind of pointless in a
> consumer video camera as it can't be handheld.)


Yes, digital zoom is almost always a waste of time, and not to be compared
with optical zoom.

>> As the (cycles per picture height) resolution
>> requirement is less, and the sensor size is smaller, it may be
>> possible to produce reasonable images at greater zoom ratios than on
>> 5-8MP still cameras. Certainly, the image quality from the 12:1
>> zooms on today's higher-end point and shoot is remarkably good -
>> beating that on 35mm lenses for similar zoom range.

>
> I'm not quite sure what you're saying, here. Smaller sensor size for
> video cameras means degarded low-light capability. Denser sensors
> don't correlate to improved resolution for video (though some
> higher-end camcorders do pixel subsampling). If you're saying p&s
> zoom glass is better than that available for 35mm film cameras then,
> no, I don't agree. At all. In any way.


Yes, I'm saying that the lenses on some high-end point and shoot cameras
are indeed better than those available for 35mm cameras. Example: the
Panasonic FZ20 with a 36- 432mm f/2.8 image-stabilised zoom, where the
entire camera costs (say) USD 500. Show me the equivalent 35mm lens - if
you could get one it would cost a lot more. Perhaps what is actually
happening is that the lenses are designed for a very specific task,
Perhaps there is more optical design freedom due to the lack of an
interchangeable lens mount with a specific back-focus requirement? You
may also have the freedom that more barrel distortion is allowable because
it's easily fixed in software?

Let me rephrase what I said slightly: given a 12:1 zoom range, with image
stabilisation, for a given price you can get higher quality on a point and
shoot camera lens than with a 35mm camera lens.

I'm not referring to video cameras at all.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Captain Blammo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
> In other words, "half decent" means twice as sucky as dedicated video,
which
> sucks to begin with.


30fps VGA is about in line with normal video quality, isn't it? That said,
recording to flash memory seemed like a dodgy thing, but only in terms of
media expense, and I don't think it has an external mic port.

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