|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Jim RedelfsJim Redelfs Date: Jun 6, 2008 00:57
Is the hard-disk-drive-based minicam the current, top-of-the-line
technology for consumer use?
I just began a job selling digital cameras and video cameras. I know
plenty about the former but not nearly as much about the latter.
We sell a couple each of the MiniDV, miniDVD and HDD/flash-based rigs.
Just looking into the complicated mechanism of the MiniDV cameras is
enough to convince me of its dated use of magnetic tape as primary
storage medium.
The SD-only Canon's manual says that, at highest resolution, fps and
whatever other stuff I don't yet know, will deliver 55 minutes on a 4 GB
SD card. Is that reasonable?
Does that mean that I can leave the thing recording, at that high res,
for the ENTIRE 55 minutes without having to stop to let the buffer write
to the card? Is there a "buffer"? Does this process improve noticeably
with a higher-speed card?
Based on price alone, I assume that the HD/flash- and flash-based
cameras are more recent technology than MiniDV and miniDVD.
|
| Show full article (1.12Kb) |
|
| | 17 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tim StreaterTim Streater Date: Jun 6, 2008 09:22
In article
news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
Jim Redelfs NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
> Is the hard-disk-drive-based minicam the current, top-of-the-line
> technology for consumer use?
Not in my opinion. Mini-DV will give you the best video.
> I just began a job selling digital cameras and video cameras. I know
> plenty about the former but not nearly as much about the latter.
>
> We sell a couple each of the MiniDV, miniDVD and HDD/flash-based rigs.
> Just looking into the complicated mechanism of the MiniDV cameras is
> enough to convince me of its dated use of magnetic tape as primary
> storage medium.
No, see above.
> The SD-only Canon's manual says that, at highest resolution, fps and
> whatever other stuff I don't yet know, will deliver 55 minutes on a 4 GB
> SD card. Is that reasonable?
It's going to have to compress it a *lot* to manage that. Which means
crappy video.
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Kevin McMurtrieKevin McMurtrie Date: Jun 8, 2008 13:04
In article ,
"iws" nospam.com> wrote:
> "PTravel" travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:6avsnbF38r8anU1@mid.individual.net...>>
> snip
>
>>Manufacturers think consumers want tiny camcorders, which is one of the
>>reasons for the move to solid-state memory in consumer machines.
>>
>
> While I agree that tape is currently the best quality medium, I think that
> solid state memory is the future. It avoids mechanical complexity, is more
> compact and should be cheaper to make. The space and cost saved with solid
> state storage could be used to accommodate better sensors if consumers
> demand it. Currently, 16 and 32 GB CF cards are readily available and
> getting cheaper and faster all the time so compression similar to DV-25 will
> be feasible.
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tim StreaterTim Streater Date: Jun 8, 2008 14:38
In article ,
"iws" nospam.com> wrote:
> "PTravel" travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:6avsnbF38r8anU1@mid.individual.net...>>
> snip
>
>>Manufacturers think consumers want tiny camcorders, which is one of the
>>reasons for the move to solid-state memory in consumer machines.
>>
>
> While I agree that tape is currently the best quality medium, I think that
> solid state memory is the future. It avoids mechanical complexity, is more
> compact and should be cheaper to make. The space and cost saved with solid
> state storage could be used to accommodate better sensors if consumers
> demand it. Currently, 16 and 32 GB CF cards are readily available and
> getting cheaper and faster all the time so compression similar to DV-25 will
> be feasible.
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: iwsiws Date: Jun 8, 2008 18:14
"Tim Streater" waitrose.com> wrote in message
news:timstreater-32122B.22383208062008@news.individual.net...> In article ,
> "iws" nospam.com> wrote:
>>> "PTravel" travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:6avsnbF38r8anU1@mid.individual.net...>>>
>> snip
>>
>>>Manufacturers think consumers want tiny camcorders, which is one of the
>>>reasons for the move to solid-state memory in consumer machines.
>>>
>>
>> While I agree that tape is currently the best quality medium, I think
>> that
>> solid state memory is the future. It avoids mechanical complexity, is
>> more
>> compact and should be cheaper to make. The space and cost saved with
>> solid ...
|
| Show full article (1.75Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PTravelPTravel Date: Jun 8, 2008 21:25
"iws" nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Qt%%2k.1857$Ll6.133@newsfe20.lga...> "Tim Streater" waitrose.com> wrote in message
> news:timstreater-32122B.22383208062008@news.individual.net...>> In article ,
>> "iws" nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> "PTravel" travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6avsnbF38r8anU1@mid.individual.net...>>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>Manufacturers think consumers want tiny camcorders, which is one of the
>>>>reasons for the move to solid-state memory in consumer machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree that tape is currently the best quality medium, I think
>>> that
>>> solid state memory is the future. It avoids mechanical complexity, is
>>> more ...
|
| Show full article (3.56Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Kevin McMurtrieKevin McMurtrie Date: Jun 8, 2008 22:26
>> 55 minutes on 4GB using H.264 video (aka Advanced Video Codec) would be
>> either a low-quality HD video or a high quality SD video. Medium
>> quality 1080 HD is 15Mbit/sec.
>
> AVCHD and HDV are both 25 mbps at the top end. However, AVCHD, in its
> consumer implementation, is limited to 12-17 mbps by all manufacturers who
> are using it.
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: iwsiws Date: Jun 8, 2008 22:36
>
> It's going to be some time before we see affordable 14 gigabyte solid
> state memory.
Less than two years ago, I paid just under $90 for a 4 GB SD card. Today,
such a card can be purchased for $15. Today, you can buy a 16G GB card for
under $60. Do you have any doubt that it will be under $15 two years from
now? I don't. A MiniDV system is mechanically complex, heavier, bulkier,
slower to download and within a couple of years almost certainly costlier in
every way. Oh, and those wonderful archive tapes - you'll always have to
have a working MiniDV playback system to recover the data. Better to archive
your recordings on diffent media and re-archive periodically.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: PTravelPTravel Date: Jun 9, 2008 10:38
> In article <6avssgF38pqvgU1@ mid.individual.net>,
> "PTravel" travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>>>> 55 minutes on 4GB using H.264 video (aka Advanced Video Codec) would be
>>> either a low-quality HD video or a high quality SD video. Medium
>>> quality 1080 HD is 15Mbit/sec.
>>
>> AVCHD and HDV are both 25 mbps at the top end. However, AVCHD, in its
>> consumer implementation, is limited to 12-17 mbps by all manufacturers
>> who
>> are using it.
>
> Another confusing part about H.264 is that it has a large set of
> encoding algorithms available. Which algorithms are used can make more
> of a difference than a moderate change in bitrate. I doubt digicams use
> the best algorithms at this time because of the computational cost. The ...
|
| Show full article (4.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
