>>  From what I've seen of mobile phone "pictures" and "videos", the 
>> quality as so abysmal as to be laughable. I'm talking about video that 
>> you'd actually want to *watch*! ;-)
> 
> My camera takes still images at 3072*2304, but movies at 640*480; 
> mobiles phones at 320*240 (or better now).

My camera is 3 megapixels. My mum bought one that's 5 megapixels. She 
was all, like, "hey, my camera's better than yours!" Until we tried to 
use it. And we discovered that my camera takes "pictures", and hers 
produces grainy unrecognisible things.

I hypothesize this is due to my camera's 45 mm lense, and her camera's 
2.1 mm lense. >:-)

Having the best sensor in the world won't help you if you have crap 
optics. So, yeah, telling me the resolution is interesting, but it isn't 
the whole story.

> Neither of these items are 
> designed primarily for taking movies, so a trade-off has to occur.

No kidding.

(My camera fits in a backpack. My mum's camera fits in your shirt pocket.)

>> As for YouTube, most of it seems to be either illegal movies, mobile 
>> phone recordings [most of which demonstrate an awe-inspiring level of 
>> pointlessness], or footage of computer games.
> 
> Otherwise known as 'things young geeks do' :-)

LOL!

>> Video editing is something that moderately interests me. And I have a 
>> digital camcorder now. But I'm not aware of any way of getting the 
>> digital data from the camera to my PC, and that presumably means I'll 
>> need an expensive video capture card...
> 
> If you want real-time editing and remastering back to the camera then 
> quite possibly; if you just want to pull the data then play with it for 
> burning or uploading then as Gilles said you just need capacity. How 
> does your camera want to output data, let me guess Firewire?

Composite or S-Video.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message