Just curious

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by carlazxz@yahoo.com, Oct 17, 2005.

  1. Guest

    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 ?
     
    , Oct 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lorem Ipsum Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    <> 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
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Dave Cohen Guest

    "Lorem Ipsum" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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
     
    Dave Cohen, Oct 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >1. Why are digital camcorders far behind still digital cameras in
    > resolution ?


    No requirement, as TV resolution is really low.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 17, 2005
    #5
  6. PTravel Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 ?
    >
     
    PTravel, Oct 17, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:25:55 -0700, "PTravel"
    <> 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?
     
    , Oct 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Mark² Guest

    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 ?
     
    Mark², Oct 18, 2005
    #8
  9. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

    > 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
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Oct 18, 2005
    #9
  10. > 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
     
    Captain Blammo, Oct 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Jim Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Jim, Oct 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Matt Ion Guest

    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
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 18, 2005
    #12
  13. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Ron Hunter Guest

    Dave Cohen wrote:
    > "Lorem Ipsum" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Guest

    wrote:
    > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:25:55 -0700, "PTravel"
    > <> 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.
     
    , Oct 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Guest

    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
     
    , Oct 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Lorem Ipsum Guest

    "Captain Blammo" <> wrote in message
    news:gjX4f.110332$...
    >> 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.
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 18, 2005
    #17
  18. 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
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 19, 2005
    #18
  19. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 19, 2005
    #19
  20. > 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
     
    Captain Blammo, Oct 19, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. whitzombi

    just curious

    whitzombi, Nov 7, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    551
    Nobody
    Nov 9, 2004
  2. Wolff

    OT: Just beeing curious...

    Wolff, Jul 1, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,067
    Consultant
    Jul 7, 2003
  3. znakomi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    487
    znakomi
    Nov 3, 2003
  4. gumpy

    Attn Mike - just curious

    gumpy, Apr 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    491
    slumpy
    Apr 5, 2004
  5. GCW

    Just curious -- is anything off topic?

    GCW, Aug 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    347
    John Navas
    Aug 1, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page