|
|
Posted by PTravel on 09/16/05 21:11
<muffinman2013@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126900284.136508.53150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone give me some advice regarding this camera. I have never
> owned a video camera and I will be getting one soon. I only need it
> for family videos, as I will be getting married soon, and vacations.
> I also have a separate digital still camera, so this is only for
> video. I read alot about the CCDs and mpeg quality and all sort of
> stuff that I dont fully understand.
The most important things to understand about mpeg:
1. It compresses temporally as well as spatially, meaning that it
reconstructs following frames based on changes from preceeding frames. This
makes it extremely difficult to edit, unless you're doing only simple cuts
edits.
2. Mpeg, like other compression schemes, is "lossy," meaning what comes out
isn't as detailed as what goes in. Mpeg compression, at high bit rates, can
be very effective. However, at DVD-compliant bit-rates, it will produce a
noticeably degraded image than you would get from miniDV, which does not use
mpeg compression.
3. Because mpeg uses temporal compression, it is most efficient when it can
analyze what is coming in compared to what came before. To do this requires
more than a single compression pass. Computer software that transcodes
video to mpeg can do multiple-pass compression. On-the-fly hardware
compressors, such as found in DVD and hard-drive consumer camcorders, do
only single-pass compression. This results in further degradation of video
quality.
> This camera seems like it should
> be pretty easy for me to store all of my film on my computer, I have a
> huge HD, and I wont have to purchase or carry around several tapes or
> dvds.
It will be easy to transfer, but so is miniDV -- the transfer process is
exactly the same. It will take up less space because it is more highly
compressed (and, therefore, of lower quality). It will be far harder to
edit.
> I will want to be able to edit the footage together, but again
> this wont be anything fancy.
You have to define "fancy." Transitions, color correction, effects and
titles will be very difficult to do, and you'll have an extremely limited
set of fairly crude editing tools to do it with (unless you want to spend
more on your software than the cost of the camera).
> The camera is very lightweight and
> compact but it doesnt have an eyepiece,
It doesn't? It's LCD screen only? That can be a significant problem in
bright sunlight.
> or a place to attach an
> additional light to it.
The goal is not to use an on-camera light, which results in harsh, flat and
uneven lighting.
> I dont know if the eyepiece is important or
> not, but I am concerned about low light filming.
You need the eyepiece for bright light, not low light -- bright sun can wash
out the LCD screen.
> Although I am under
> the impression that every camera will have some issues with that. I
> have also heard rumors about a very long, 14 second, boot time and the
> possiblity of the camera getting very hot. Does anyone know if any of
> this is true? I am looking to spend around $1,000 for a new camera, and
> if this is a bad choice can anyone offer any good ideas and please tell
> me why. Thanks in advance, I really appreciate the help.
If you have $1,000 to spend, I'd think this is a very poor camera choice.
You might look at some of the higher end Sony and Canon 1-ccd miniDV
machines, as well as Panasonic's mid-range 3-ccd machine.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|