Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sanyo HD1 high-def camcorder records to SD flash memory!

Reply
Thread Tools

Sanyo HD1 high-def camcorder records to SD flash memory!

 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-30-2006
Paul Rubin wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> It also says "Advanced MPEG-4 Compression Technology". That's how they
>> get 41 minutes of HD into a 2 GB SD, and that's using a 6 MB/sec mode
>> rather
>> htan 9. Getting it into a standard format that can be played back on
>> something other than the camera or a PC is going to involve rerendering
>> in a different compression format with a generation loss.

>
> Many DVD players can play mpeg-4 files.


Many, but trust me, the one you _need_ to have play them won't.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SleeperMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-30-2006
In news:(E-Mail Removed),
Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> hm....still... if they use 6Mb/sec that comes 360 M per minute, or
>> 21 G per hour...

>
> The 6Mb is megabits, so 0.75 megabytes/sec etc.


Uh...if that's true, it's really odd...is it possible that this mp4 squeezes
movie so much?

I knew i should wait with my camera purchase a while more... (good i didn't
buy it yet) - if all said (and viewed) is true, it's quite excellent piece
of equipment.
But i still think that who shot those demo's online either didn't have
image stabilizing turned on either it's not working...all videos are
shaaaaaking as hell... But quality is quite great.

--
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-30-2006
"SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > The 6Mb is megabits, so 0.75 megabytes/sec etc.

>
> Uh...if that's true, it's really odd...is it possible that this mp4 squeezes
> movie so much?


Yes, sure, it's used all the time to compress regular video down to CD
bit rates (1.5 mbit/sec). There are of course considerable motion
artifacts and so forth when you use such high compression.
 
Reply With Quote
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-30-2006
Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> > The 6Mb is megabits, so 0.75 megabytes/sec etc.

>>
>> Uh...if that's true, it's really odd...is it possible that this mp4
>> squeezes movie so much?

>
> Yes, sure, it's used all the time to compress regular video down to CD
> bit rates (1.5 mbit/sec). There are of course considerable motion
> artifacts and so forth when you use such high compression.


It all depends on the codec used and the particular implementation of
that codec. I've seen HD video compressed with MPEG4 AVC to about
3Mbps with no visible artifacts. This was achieved using multiple
passes, each one probably quite slow, so hardly anything that a
camcorder would be doing, but impressive nonetheless.

--
Måns Rullgård
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
SleeperMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006
In news:(E-Mail Removed),
Måns Rullgård <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
> Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> The 6Mb is megabits, so 0.75 megabytes/sec etc.
>>>
>>> Uh...if that's true, it's really odd...is it possible that this mp4
>>> squeezes movie so much?

>>
>> Yes, sure, it's used all the time to compress regular video down to
>> CD bit rates (1.5 mbit/sec). There are of course considerable motion
>> artifacts and so forth when you use such high compression.

>
> It all depends on the codec used and the particular implementation of
> that codec. I've seen HD video compressed with MPEG4 AVC to about
> 3Mbps with no visible artifacts. This was achieved using multiple
> passes, each one probably quite slow, so hardly anything that a
> camcorder would be doing, but impressive nonetheless.


i've read some reviews not long ago about cameras recording to DVD and
general conclusion was not good...too many artifacts, low quality and
similar. So, i wonder how long we'll have to wait to get a decent camcorder
without the tape or similar crap? I mean, ok, flash memory is good, but you
must still bear in mind re-recording from card to any decent, cheap media -
DVD - whihc means re-coding to DVD format which again means hours of
waiting, working with it etc... Sure, there is an option of having
stand-alone DVD recorder but this is still costly...

--
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006
SleeperMan wrote:

> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
> Måns Rullgård <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
>> Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>> The 6Mb is megabits, so 0.75 megabytes/sec etc.
>>>>
>>>> Uh...if that's true, it's really odd...is it possible that this mp4
>>>> squeezes movie so much?
>>>
>>> Yes, sure, it's used all the time to compress regular video down to
>>> CD bit rates (1.5 mbit/sec). There are of course considerable motion
>>> artifacts and so forth when you use such high compression.

>>
>> It all depends on the codec used and the particular implementation of
>> that codec. I've seen HD video compressed with MPEG4 AVC to about
>> 3Mbps with no visible artifacts. This was achieved using multiple
>> passes, each one probably quite slow, so hardly anything that a
>> camcorder would be doing, but impressive nonetheless.

>
> i've read some reviews not long ago about cameras recording to DVD and
> general conclusion was not good...too many artifacts, low quality and
> similar. So, i wonder how long we'll have to wait to get a decent
> camcorder without the tape or similar crap?


You can get one now. Pro equipment, costs more than a new BMW. Personally
I don't see any need for such a thing--tape works, it has a long track
record, and it's cheap. I can't see any other technology bringing anything
to the party except compact size.

> I mean, ok, flash memory is
> good,


It's only real advantage in video recording is the physical size.

> but you must still bear in mind re-recording from card to any
> decent, cheap media -
> DVD - whihc means re-coding to DVD format which again means hours of
> waiting, working with it etc... Sure, there is an option of having
> stand-alone DVD recorder but this is still costly...


If you want a camera that records direct to DVD with reasonable quality
you're going to have to wait for faster CPUs than the dual-core P4 with
power consumptions lower than an 800 MHz Via to achieve that level of
compression in realtime without significant artifacting in a camera with
reasonable battery life.
>


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Ih
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006
I have an older model, with brand name Fisher and was bought from Sears about
1.5 yrs ago. The camcorder was made by Sanyo. It is not HD. However, I am
sure that HD1 is several generations improvement of that model. Actually the
video is reasonably good at the highest quality (30 min on 1 GB card) and
"acceptable" at the next level (both at 640x480, 30 frame/sec.). I am usually
not that critical about quality. I view that the ratio of "have" and "have-not"
is infinite. You have to improve the quality by a factor of ten (at a
considerable cost) to make quality "look" and/or "feel" twice as good.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Måns Rullgård <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> > The 6Mb is megabits, so 0.75 megabytes/sec etc.
>>>
>>> Uh...if that's true, it's really odd...is it possible that this mp4
>>> squeezes movie so much?

>>
>> Yes, sure, it's used all the time to compress regular video down to CD
>> bit rates (1.5 mbit/sec). There are of course considerable motion
>> artifacts and so forth when you use such high compression.

>
>It all depends on the codec used and the particular implementation of
>that codec. I've seen HD video compressed with MPEG4 AVC to about
>3Mbps with no visible artifacts. This was achieved using multiple
>passes, each one probably quite slow, so hardly anything that a
>camcorder would be doing, but impressive nonetheless.
>
>--
>Måns Rullgård
>(E-Mail Removed)



 
Reply With Quote
 
SleeperMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006
In news:(E-Mail Removed),
J. Clarke <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
>> Måns Rullgård <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
>>> Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>>> The 6Mb is megabits, so 0.75 megabytes/sec etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh...if that's true, it's really odd...is it possible that this
>>>>> mp4 squeezes movie so much?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, sure, it's used all the time to compress regular video down to
>>>> CD bit rates (1.5 mbit/sec). There are of course considerable
>>>> motion artifacts and so forth when you use such high compression.
>>>
>>> It all depends on the codec used and the particular implementation
>>> of that codec. I've seen HD video compressed with MPEG4 AVC to
>>> about 3Mbps with no visible artifacts. This was achieved using
>>> multiple passes, each one probably quite slow, so hardly anything
>>> that a camcorder would be doing, but impressive nonetheless.

>>
>> i've read some reviews not long ago about cameras recording to DVD
>> and general conclusion was not good...too many artifacts, low
>> quality and similar. So, i wonder how long we'll have to wait to get
>> a decent camcorder without the tape or similar crap?

>
> You can get one now. Pro equipment, costs more than a new BMW.
> Personally I don't see any need for such a thing--tape works, it has
> a long track record, and it's cheap. I can't see any other
> technology bringing anything to the party except compact size.
>
>> I mean, ok, flash memory is
>> good,

>
> It's only real advantage in video recording is the physical size.
>
>> but you must still bear in mind re-recording from card to any
>> decent, cheap media -
>> DVD - whihc means re-coding to DVD format which again means hours of
>> waiting, working with it etc... Sure, there is an option of having
>> stand-alone DVD recorder but this is still costly...

>
> If you want a camera that records direct to DVD with reasonable
> quality you're going to have to wait for faster CPUs than the
> dual-core P4 with power consumptions lower than an 800 MHz Via to
> achieve that level of compression in realtime without significant
> artifacting in a camera with reasonable battery life.


so, speed is mostly that factor...so we're back at physical size, as you
said...more space and again more space...

--
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
SleeperMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006
In news:e3581b$kh5$(E-Mail Removed),
Charlie Ih <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
> I have an older model, with brand name Fisher and was bought from
> Sears about
> 1.5 yrs ago. The camcorder was made by Sanyo. It is not HD. However,
> I am
> sure that HD1 is several generations improvement of that model.
> Actually the video is reasonably good at the highest quality (30 min
> on 1 GB card) and "acceptable" at the next level (both at 640x480, 30
> frame/sec.). I am usually not that critical about quality. I view
> that the ratio of "have" and "have-not" is infinite. You have to
> improve the quality by a factor of ten (at a considerable cost) to
> make quality "look" and/or "feel" twice as good.
>


i guess that codecs are came to certain end...regarding space. I mean, you
just can't squeeze an elephant into a mouse hole, no matter what you do. So,
next step would be to increase size of memory cards and especially to lower
prices of those.



--
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006
"SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > If you want a camera that records direct to DVD with reasonable
> > quality you're going to have to wait for faster CPUs than the
> > dual-core P4 with power consumptions lower than an 800 MHz Via to
> > achieve that level of compression in realtime without significant
> > artifacting in a camera with reasonable battery life.

>
> so, speed is mostly that factor...so we're back at physical size, as you
> said...more space and again more space...


Nah, cameras use ASIC's with a lot of parallelism to get that speed.
It's the same way with cellular phones. Not much of that dual core P4
is actually doing arithmetic. In the ASIC, it's almost all arithmetic.
 
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
Camcorder Accessories To Improve Camcorder Experience syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 03-06-2008 02:49 AM
Recover Lost Data on A Sanyo Mobile - Sanyo M1 Nho Whei NZ Computing 0 01-10-2008 03:52 AM
Sanyo Xacti HD2 Camcorder Review skarkada@gmail.com Digital Photography 28 05-18-2007 03:23 AM
Sanyo HD1 Zen Cohen Digital Photography 0 05-31-2006 05:20 AM
4GB SD card for Sanyo HD1, C6, etc fuzzieotter@yahoo.com Digital Photography 3 04-29-2006 03:53 AM



Advertisments