Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Just curious

 
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:31:17 GMT, "Captain Blammo" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> 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
>


Well, sort of.
If you look at a TV scene (of a person walking across the screen, for
example)(I can do this with my TiVo ), you will notice that the
image of the person walking is blurred in each frame.
However, using a still camera to do the same thing, each frame will be
sharp.
It makes a difference when seeing motion.

This is one reason game players want a high frame rate, BTW; it takes
more FPS to make those clear, sharp frames look like smooth motion.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Captain Blammo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
> This is one reason game players want a high frame rate, BTW; it takes
> more FPS to make those clear, sharp frames look like smooth motion.


It's the same as a progressive scan mode on a camcorder, yes? I've no
experience with video editing, but wouldn't it be fairly easy to apply a
filter to emulate that effect?

CB


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dj_nme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
Captain Blammo wrote:
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>This is one reason game players want a high frame rate, BTW; it takes
>>more FPS to make those clear, sharp frames look like smooth motion.

>
>
> It's the same as a progressive scan mode on a camcorder, yes? I've no
> experience with video editing, but wouldn't it be fairly easy to apply a
> filter to emulate that effect?


Possibly, but the reason for computer game players wanting a high video
frame rate is because many games don't produce motion blur when
rendering to screen.
That is what Bill Funk was writing about.
The idea behind using a high frame rate is so that the images are
blurred together in your mind to create an illusion of continuous motion.
 
Reply With Quote
 
carlazxz@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005

Looks like I did not explain what I meant to ask very clearly.

What I meant to ask was this.

If a camcorder has 20x to 28X optical zoom , why don't the still
portion of the camera does not take advantage of this high optical zoom
?

For example consider this design, take the body of the high-opt-zoom
camcorder as starting point and attach the still camera electronics
first (with 5 or 6 MP resolutions) and then add teh low res camcorder
electronics.
Or stated in another way, given that a camcorder is relatively bulky
compared to a still camera, how much more bulky it will get if you gave
it
a 5MP capability electronics instead of 1 MP capability.

What I am saying then is that it can then work as both a low res
camcorder and high res still camera

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Looks like I did not explain what I meant to ask very clearly.
>
>What I meant to ask was this.
>
>If a camcorder has 20x to 28X optical zoom , why don't the still
>portion of the camera does not take advantage of this high optical zoom
>?


A camcorder can use a lens with a 20x zoom range because the lens
doesn't have to be very good. It's only got to produce an image
for a 640 by 480 sensor and so it doesn't have to be very sharp.

You could put the same lens in front of a 6MP camera sensor but the
shortcomings of the lens would be obvious. It would be blurry and
have poor contrast and color. A quality lens is harder to make.
A lens that has a 20x zoom range, is sharp throughout the range, is
sharp from corner to corner, with good color and contrast, would be
very, very, expensive.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:50:07 GMT, "Captain Blammo" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> This is one reason game players want a high frame rate, BTW; it takes
>> more FPS to make those clear, sharp frames look like smooth motion.

>
>It's the same as a progressive scan mode on a camcorder, yes? I've no
>experience with video editing, but wouldn't it be fairly easy to apply a
>filter to emulate that effect?
>
>CB
>


Which effect? The effect of very sharp frames, or of blurred images of
moving elements?

In games, the sharp frames are *wanted*. Blur is the bane of hard core
gamers; they want to see everything in tack-sharp detail. It helps
them identify threats.
So any filter to blur the frames is pointless.

Or did I not understand what you're saying?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
On 20 Oct 2005 07:46:53 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
>Looks like I did not explain what I meant to ask very clearly.
>
>What I meant to ask was this.
>
>If a camcorder has 20x to 28X optical zoom , why don't the still
>portion of the camera does not take advantage of this high optical zoom
>?


Because the video (for NTSC) is only 740x480. That's really crappy
resolution to start with. It's roughly equivalent to VGA (640x480).
So a half-way decent zoom lens with a high zoom factor won't really
hurt the image.
But put such a lens on a 3MP camera, and the sensor has the resolution
to show the limits of the lens.
>
>For example consider this design, take the body of the high-opt-zoom
>camcorder as starting point and attach the still camera electronics
>first (with 5 or 6 MP resolutions) and then add teh low res camcorder
>electronics.
>Or stated in another way, given that a camcorder is relatively bulky
>compared to a still camera, how much more bulky it will get if you gave
>it
>a 5MP capability electronics instead of 1 MP capability.


First, a video camera doesn't need a 1MP sensor; it only needs about
350KP, or a 1/3MP sensor.
While there are video cameras sporting higher MP sensor for still
pics, the cost increases by doung this. And the lens for that bigger
sensor must also be much better, adding to the cost again.
But the sensor is a video sensor; it uses a different mechanism for
getting the data off the sensor sites and into the storage medium. If
it's optimized for video, it won't work well fro still shots, and if
it's optimized for still shots, it won't work well for video.
>
>What I am saying then is that it can then work as both a low res
>camcorder and high res still camera


Except that it can't (at least with current technology).
The idea is a good one,and is being worked toward now. We have
digicams with the abililty to take movies, and we have video cameras
that will take still shots. But each type works best as the dedicated
type, either still or video, but works poor as the other type.

But hang in there, we may see a camera that does both still and video
well yet.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
In rec.photo.digital Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

: But hang in there, we may see a camera that does both still and video
: well yet.

One thought came to me as I read this description of the problems. What if
the camera took a page from SLR technology. First the higher quality
optics would have to happen and would, of course, cost. But if the
difference in sensor technology is the main problem, what if a mirror were
placed in the optical stream. In the normal (down) position the image
would be reflected onto the video sensor. And all viewfinder dutiy would
happen from this sensor. But when a still image is triggered the mirror
would flip up, as with an SLR, exposing the high res still image sensor.
Of course with two sensors the price would be high, but for those who wish
a combo unit to reduce the number of devices being carried, this might
do the trick. JMHO

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>: But hang in there, we may see a camera that does both still and video
>: well yet.
>
>One thought came to me as I read this description of the problems. What if
>the camera took a page from SLR technology. First the higher quality
>optics would have to happen and would, of course, cost. But if the
>difference in sensor technology is the main problem, what if a mirror were
>placed in the optical stream. In the normal (down) position the image
>would be reflected onto the video sensor. And all viewfinder dutiy would
>happen from this sensor. But when a still image is triggered the mirror
>would flip up, as with an SLR, exposing the high res still image sensor.
>Of course with two sensors the price would be high, but for those who wish
>a combo unit to reduce the number of devices being carried, this might
>do the trick. JMHO
>
>Randy


Well, yes, of course, such a device could be produced.
The question is, "would it be produced?"
Consider the bulk and weight of such a device; would it really be
better than two lightweight dedicated devices?
Current technology could produce such a device now, but there are none
on the market.
Either there's not enough interest in such a device to tempt the
camera makers, or they are *all* incompetent.


--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lorem Ipsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2005
"Bill Funk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Which effect? The effect of very sharp frames, or of blurred images of
> moving elements?


I wonder if he means to make a video with motion-picture film flicker - you
know, when you film while panning, there is a decidedly filmish 'flicker'.
Well, of course that's a standard feature of a good videocam such as the
Canon XL2, and others.


 
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