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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by fuzzieotter@yahoo.com, Apr 30, 2006.

  1. Guest

    You may have heard by now of the Sanyo VPC-HD1, a revolutionary new
    camcorder that records in 720p to SD flash memory (up to 88 minutes in
    HD using a 4GB card). It can also record in SD, shoots 5.1MP stills
    (it can shoot stills at the same time your shooting video). You then
    just plug the card into your computer, or plug the camcorder into your
    computer via USB and it is recognized as a drive. Its so easy to copy
    clips and pictures off the camcorder. So much easier than dealing with
    tape! It can also act as a webcam with certain software. It has a
    gorgeous flip-out OLED screen and tons of features. It's tiny too.
    Here are some links.
    Get it at: http://www.dvnation.com/hd1.html
    See pictures and video taken with the cam at
    http://www.dvnation.com/hd1pics.html .
     
    , Apr 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Rubin Guest

    writes:
    > You may have heard by now of the Sanyo VPC-HD1,


    Looks like a nice device. Perhaps I'll buy a unit from B&H. I
    certainly won't buy from a spammer like you. However, thanks for
    paying for the bandwidth for me to download the 30MB video samples to
    base my decision on.
     
    Paul Rubin, Apr 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob Guest

    "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    news:...
    > writes:
    >> You may have heard by now of the Sanyo VPC-HD1,

    >
    > Looks like a nice device. Perhaps I'll buy a unit from B&H. I
    > certainly won't buy from a spammer like you. However, thanks for
    > paying for the bandwidth for me to download the 30MB video samples to
    > base my decision on.


    Ahhh. Great idea. I've been looking for a solid-state camcorder. I trust
    B+H, but I'll use his website, too, to download the video.

    Thanks for the idea, Paul.

    Bob
     
    Bob, Apr 30, 2006
    #3
  4. SleeperMan Guest

    In news:ulW4g.7454$,
    Bob <> typed:
    > "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> writes:
    >>> You may have heard by now of the Sanyo VPC-HD1,

    >>
    >> Looks like a nice device. Perhaps I'll buy a unit from B&H. I
    >> certainly won't buy from a spammer like you. However, thanks for
    >> paying for the bandwidth for me to download the 30MB video samples to
    >> base my decision on.

    >
    > Ahhh. Great idea. I've been looking for a solid-state camcorder. I
    > trust B+H, but I'll use his website, too, to download the video.
    >
    > Thanks for the idea, Paul.
    >
    > Bob


    it's just - - -that "up to 88 mins" bothers me...
    like my Canon S2 - commercial says recording "up to one hour on 1G
    card"....but that means lowest quality - i fear that this is similar . that
    88 mins would be in lowest quality and thus unusable. I saw one video (30M,
    25 sec of video) and it looked like device hasn't ANY image stabilizer at
    all...i'll check out others to proove.

    --
    Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
     
    SleeperMan, Apr 30, 2006
    #4
  5. SleeperMan Guest

    In news:rpZ4g.2249$,
    SleeperMan <> typed:
    > In news:ulW4g.7454$,
    > Bob <> typed:
    >> "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> writes:
    >>>> You may have heard by now of the Sanyo VPC-HD1,
    >>>
    >>> Looks like a nice device. Perhaps I'll buy a unit from B&H. I
    >>> certainly won't buy from a spammer like you. However, thanks for
    >>> paying for the bandwidth for me to download the 30MB video samples
    >>> to base my decision on.

    >>
    >> Ahhh. Great idea. I've been looking for a solid-state camcorder. I
    >> trust B+H, but I'll use his website, too, to download the video.
    >>
    >> Thanks for the idea, Paul.
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    > it's just - - -that "up to 88 mins" bothers me...
    > like my Canon S2 - commercial says recording "up to one hour on 1G
    > card"....but that means lowest quality - i fear that this is similar
    > . that 88 mins would be in lowest quality and thus unusable. I saw
    > one video (30M, 25 sec of video) and it looked like device hasn't
    > ANY image stabilizer at all...i'll check out others to proove.


    yep...like i said... you can calculate..30 M for 25 secs, 27 M for 22
    secs...5.5 M for 3 secs...that comes 1bout 1.22 M per second, which comes
    4400 M for 60 minutes. And i still doubt that these samples are recorded in
    HD mode...note specs which says HD-SHQ mode 9 Mbps which comes 9 minutes on
    4 G card. I bet those are recorded in TV-HQ mode at 640x480...although still
    look pretty nice, i must admit. It's just - i'd be damned it that device
    has image stabilizer turned on...even my S2 doesn't shake that hard. Oh,
    well...

    --
    Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
     
    SleeperMan, Apr 30, 2006
    #5
  6. SleeperMan Guest

    In news:HPZ4g.2252$,
    SleeperMan <> typed:
    > In news:rpZ4g.2249$,
    > SleeperMan <> typed:
    >> In news:ulW4g.7454$,
    >> Bob <> typed:
    >>> "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> writes:
    >>>>> You may have heard by now of the Sanyo VPC-HD1,
    >>>>
    >>>> Looks like a nice device. Perhaps I'll buy a unit from B&H. I
    >>>> certainly won't buy from a spammer like you. However, thanks for
    >>>> paying for the bandwidth for me to download the 30MB video samples
    >>>> to base my decision on.
    >>>
    >>> Ahhh. Great idea. I've been looking for a solid-state camcorder. I
    >>> trust B+H, but I'll use his website, too, to download the video.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for the idea, Paul.
    >>>
    >>> Bob

    >>
    >> it's just - - -that "up to 88 mins" bothers me...
    >> like my Canon S2 - commercial says recording "up to one hour on 1G
    >> card"....but that means lowest quality - i fear that this is similar
    >> . that 88 mins would be in lowest quality and thus unusable. I saw
    >> one video (30M, 25 sec of video) and it looked like device hasn't
    >> ANY image stabilizer at all...i'll check out others to proove.

    >
    > yep...like i said... you can calculate..30 M for 25 secs, 27 M for 22
    > secs...5.5 M for 3 secs...that comes 1bout 1.22 M per second, which
    > comes 4400 M for 60 minutes. And i still doubt that these samples are
    > recorded in HD mode...note specs which says HD-SHQ mode 9 Mbps which
    > comes 9 minutes on 4 G card. I bet those are recorded in TV-HQ mode
    > at 640x480...although still look pretty nice, i must admit. It's just
    > - i'd be damned it that device has image stabilizer turned on...even
    > my S2 doesn't shake that hard. Oh, well...



    ops...misscalculation...max time comes about 55 minutes. Ok, but still not
    88....
    --
    Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
     
    SleeperMan, Apr 30, 2006
    #6
  7. J. Clarke Guest

    SleeperMan wrote:

    > In news:HPZ4g.2252$,
    > SleeperMan <> typed:
    >> In news:rpZ4g.2249$,
    >> SleeperMan <> typed:
    >>> In news:ulW4g.7454$,
    >>> Bob <> typed:
    >>>> "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> writes:
    >>>>>> You may have heard by now of the Sanyo VPC-HD1,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Looks like a nice device. Perhaps I'll buy a unit from B&H. I
    >>>>> certainly won't buy from a spammer like you. However, thanks for
    >>>>> paying for the bandwidth for me to download the 30MB video samples
    >>>>> to base my decision on.
    >>>>
    >>>> Ahhh. Great idea. I've been looking for a solid-state camcorder. I
    >>>> trust B+H, but I'll use his website, too, to download the video.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks for the idea, Paul.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bob
    >>>
    >>> it's just - - -that "up to 88 mins" bothers me...
    >>> like my Canon S2 - commercial says recording "up to one hour on 1G
    >>> card"....but that means lowest quality - i fear that this is similar
    >>> . that 88 mins would be in lowest quality and thus unusable. I saw
    >>> one video (30M, 25 sec of video) and it looked like device hasn't
    >>> ANY image stabilizer at all...i'll check out others to proove.

    >>
    >> yep...like i said... you can calculate..30 M for 25 secs, 27 M for 22
    >> secs...5.5 M for 3 secs...that comes 1bout 1.22 M per second, which
    >> comes 4400 M for 60 minutes. And i still doubt that these samples are
    >> recorded in HD mode...note specs which says HD-SHQ mode 9 Mbps which
    >> comes 9 minutes on 4 G card. I bet those are recorded in TV-HQ mode
    >> at 640x480...although still look pretty nice, i must admit. It's just
    >> - i'd be damned it that device has image stabilizer turned on...even
    >> my S2 doesn't shake that hard. Oh, well...

    >
    >
    > ops...misscalculation...max time comes about 55 minutes. Ok, but still not
    > 88....


    The Sanyo site says 41 minutes on a 2 GB SD card--perhaps the 88 is based on
    4GB.

    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.

    I notice that there aren't any customer reviews on B&H, but there are
    several on Amazon that point out some shortcomings.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 30, 2006
    #7
  8. SleeperMan Guest

    In news:,
    J. Clarke <> typed:
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >
    >> In news:HPZ4g.2252$,
    >> SleeperMan <> typed:
    >>> In news:rpZ4g.2249$,
    >>> SleeperMan <> typed:
    >>>> In news:ulW4g.7454$,
    >>>> Bob <> typed:
    >>>>> "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>> You may have heard by now of the Sanyo VPC-HD1,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Looks like a nice device. Perhaps I'll buy a unit from B&H. I
    >>>>>> certainly won't buy from a spammer like you. However, thanks for
    >>>>>> paying for the bandwidth for me to download the 30MB video
    >>>>>> samples to base my decision on.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ahhh. Great idea. I've been looking for a solid-state camcorder. I
    >>>>> trust B+H, but I'll use his website, too, to download the video.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks for the idea, Paul.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bob
    >>>>
    >>>> it's just - - -that "up to 88 mins" bothers me...
    >>>> like my Canon S2 - commercial says recording "up to one hour on 1G
    >>>> card"....but that means lowest quality - i fear that this is
    >>>> similar . that 88 mins would be in lowest quality and thus
    >>>> unusable. I saw one video (30M, 25 sec of video) and it looked
    >>>> like device hasn't ANY image stabilizer at all...i'll check out
    >>>> others to proove.
    >>>
    >>> yep...like i said... you can calculate..30 M for 25 secs, 27 M for
    >>> 22 secs...5.5 M for 3 secs...that comes 1bout 1.22 M per second,
    >>> which comes 4400 M for 60 minutes. And i still doubt that these
    >>> samples are recorded in HD mode...note specs which says HD-SHQ mode
    >>> 9 Mbps which comes 9 minutes on 4 G card. I bet those are recorded
    >>> in TV-HQ mode at 640x480...although still look pretty nice, i must
    >>> admit. It's just - i'd be damned it that device has image
    >>> stabilizer turned on...even my S2 doesn't shake that hard. Oh,
    >>> well...

    >>
    >>
    >> ops...misscalculation...max time comes about 55 minutes. Ok, but
    >> still not
    >> 88....

    >
    > The Sanyo site says 41 minutes on a 2 GB SD card--perhaps the 88 is
    > based on 4GB.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > I notice that there aren't any customer reviews on B&H, but there are
    > several on Amazon that point out some shortcomings.


    hm....still... if they use 6Mb/sec that comes 360 M per minute, or 21 G per
    hour... and all those demo videos aren't record that way - they all use only
    1.22 M per second. SO, it's still true - it's all missleading - you can
    still squeeze only about 9 minutes of HD best quality video.

    --
    Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
     
    SleeperMan, Apr 30, 2006
    #8
  9. Paul Rubin Guest

    "SleeperMan" <> 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.
     
    Paul Rubin, Apr 30, 2006
    #9
  10. Paul Rubin Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> 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.
     
    Paul Rubin, Apr 30, 2006
    #10
  11. J. Clarke Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:

    > "J. Clarke" <> 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)
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 30, 2006
    #11
  12. SleeperMan Guest

    In news:,
    Paul Rubin <http://> typed:
    > "SleeperMan" <> 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
     
    SleeperMan, Apr 30, 2006
    #12
  13. Paul Rubin Guest

    "SleeperMan" <> 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.
     
    Paul Rubin, Apr 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Paul Rubin <http://> writes:

    > "SleeperMan" <> 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
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Apr 30, 2006
    #14
  15. SleeperMan Guest

    In news:,
    Måns Rullgård <> typed:
    > Paul Rubin <http://> writes:
    >
    >> "SleeperMan" <> 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
     
    SleeperMan, May 1, 2006
    #15
  16. J. Clarke Guest

    SleeperMan wrote:

    > In news:,
    > Måns Rullgård <> typed:
    >> Paul Rubin <http://> writes:
    >>
    >>> "SleeperMan" <> 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)
     
    J. Clarke, May 1, 2006
    #16
  17. Charlie Ih Guest

    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 <>,
    Måns Rullgård <> wrote:
    >Paul Rubin <http://> writes:
    >
    >> "SleeperMan" <> 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
    >
     
    Charlie Ih, May 1, 2006
    #17
  18. SleeperMan Guest

    In news:,
    J. Clarke <> typed:
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >
    >> In news:,
    >> Måns Rullgård <> typed:
    >>> Paul Rubin <http://> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> "SleeperMan" <> 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
     
    SleeperMan, May 1, 2006
    #18
  19. SleeperMan Guest

    In news:e3581b$kh5$,
    Charlie Ih <> 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
     
    SleeperMan, May 1, 2006
    #19
  20. Paul Rubin Guest

    "SleeperMan" <> 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.
     
    Paul Rubin, May 1, 2006
    #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. Allan

    High Def Brings High Sales Hopes.

    Allan, Aug 2, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    1,719
    Kimba W. Lion
    Aug 8, 2005
  2. habshi
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,232
    AZ Nomad
    Jan 30, 2007
  3. 4GB SD card for Sanyo HD1, C6, etc

    , Apr 28, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    359
    Pete D
    Apr 29, 2006
  4. Zen Cohen

    Sanyo HD1

    Zen Cohen, May 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    Zen Cohen
    May 31, 2006
  5. Nho Whei
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    450
    Nho Whei
    Jan 10, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page