|
|
Posted by doc on 07/26/06 06:30
i saw what looked like some kind of tiny JVC hd/hdv type camera at NAB in
Las Vegas at the Avid booth and it looked like a mini HVX200 from Panasonic.
now that would be sweet . . although . . it's a JVC and everything we've
gotten from JVC in the last 8 years has been below shelf for us. they have
all been noisy, junky sounding mechanics, and/or just quit working. that
would shy me from dumping much in the way of real hard cash on one but i did
like the size :o)
for my personal use, i use a panasonic pv-gs12 and it takes absolutely
stunning images and i hear the gs400 and 500 are at least a yard or so ahead
on lower lights. i liken my gs12 unto my sony mini 8 and the panasonic
definately kills the mini 8's picture. i pack the thing everywhere i go
practically AND when i was on that hollywood picture movie set last summer
for three weeks i captured some 7 hoiurs worth of "behind the scenes" stuff
and they said they're going to use it in the dvd extra material "behind the
scenes" and i guess that means it more stunning than even i imagined :o)
when i tested nearly 3 dozen cameras i was sold on panasonic's for ease of
use, cross platform hardware (batteries for example - the same battery on
the DVC60 fits the DVX100, A, B and my little GS12 - - which equates to
something in the neighborhood of about 10 hours of battery time on that
little palm cam :o) And when it came to low light we found that while some
cameras looked like they were doing better in the viewfinder under low light
(sony for example), the ouput images were terrible compared to the same 3
lux of the panasonic DVC60 and DVX100A & B. in fact, what really amazed us
was that the number of ccd pixels in the sony were nearly three times the
number of the panasonic but when we viewed the images and took the matter up
with a tech in chicago he said a bigger pixel is better in low light than a
small pixel because of the amouth of energy surface which can absorb light
and thus while the larger pixel should have produced a poorer image, because
it actually captured more light energy than the small pixel sony, the
picture quality was better by at least a visual judgment of 20 to 30%
depending on reflective light and depth of darkenss in the scene. thus, we
chose all panasonic's . . let alone i had the GS12 and had had great
experience with it already so far as reliability was concerned. while my
crews pushed for sony, i over powered them and went panasonic. they have
since agreed when twice we've editied low light sony material under similiar
conditions as our dvx100b's are often and they just can't get the same image
quality as with our own panasonic cameras.
for those so interested in studies and comparisons :o)
DrD
DrD
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:hrSdnVvdU7mnWF_ZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> AnthonyR,
>
> I owned several of those 8mm and Super8 film cameras, and did indeed find
> 3 minutes of recording to be quite adequate for a lot of situations at
> that time. I would love to have a small HD camera, since lugging around my
> FX-1 is a big pain. The really small standard def MiniDV cameras seem like
> a better choice today, all things considered, since the Sanyo picture
> quality is quite poor and the low light performance is just plain
> terrible. Most casual photographers will find this to be severely limiting
> indoors. The day will hopefully arrive soon when a true small HD camcorder
> arrives with (I'm guessing) a 40 to 60 GB hard disk. Since the latest
> perpendicular recording drives in this 60 GB size fit into iPods and other
> pocket devices, and are quite affordable and rugged, they will be a
> natural solution for people who want excellent video quality and
> portability in a camcorder.
>
> I think I should start saving my money........It shouldn't be too long
> given that the hardware is mostly off-the-shelf today, including the
> sensors, HD LSI chipsets, hard drives, etc.
>
> Smarty
>
>
> "AnthonyR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ccuwg.1315$v82.944@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>I agree with both of you, but remember when people would buy home movie
>>cameras that shot of 8mm film?
>> 3 minutes seemed to be enough back then to capture IMPORTANT (being the
>> key word) family moments, not hours and hours of drool footage.
>> So for those who do it professionally and will edit those hours and hours
>> down to a few minutes of action, this type camera is no good.
>> But what about possible for those who want a lightweight travel companion
>> to capture something rather than have no memories?
>> Just a thought where a 15 min of video would be useful.
>>
>> Also, what about capturing to mpeg-2 dvd quality? 4gb would be equivelant
>> to a 2 hour dvd no?
>> Possibly enough for home consumer use.
>>
>> AnthonyR.
>>
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> news:Su2dnYqOlK_mqVzZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>>I agree doc. The camera has gotten relatively poor reviews, and the
>>>downloads I have seen confirm these opinions. Using flash memory will
>>>make a lot more sense when really large cards appear and prices drop much
>>>further.
>>>
>>> Smarty
>>>
>>>
>>> "doc" <doc@anywhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qf6wg.144$qZ2.118@trndny01...
>>>> and at 15 mins for $129 that equates to $8.60 a minute and it hardly
>>>> noticable to the average JQ (John Q Public) [see our post on video
>>>> quality field survey tests in another thread] so to us that's a bad
>>>> idea. hey don't get me wrong, i love the card idea and ability to
>>>> transfer but 40 gig would be more appropriate or even 20 or 30 so that
>>>> one could stay on course with some real work instead of having to have
>>>> a pocket full of cards and chase the identity of each :o)
>>>>
>>>> DrD
>>>>
>>>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:X_OdnZ9xtId_ByLZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>>>> 4GB for 15 minutes does work out to 32GB for a two hour
>>>>> movie.....essentially what HD-DVD and BluRay provide / claim. I
>>>>> seriously doubt that the camera can either capture or record at this
>>>>> rate (35 Mbits/sec), but regardless, a 4 GB card should more than
>>>>> adequately hold 15 minutes of HD video.
>>>>>
>>>>> Smarty
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "doc" <doc@anywhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ERCvg.11963$Te.5403@trndny02...
>>>>>> really 4 GB sounds reasonable for about a quarter of an hour of video
>>>>>> recording to you? not to me. we must have a different set of
>>>>>> ecomics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drd
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:zKOdnZA-8uZlmTrZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> doc wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wow at least the 4gb card is reasonable . . NOT!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> drd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <fuzzieotter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1146362125.574241.232060@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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 .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4GB card for $129 - sounds damn reasonable to me! Get two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I want to know is how fast can it offload to a computer???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
[Back to original message]
|