>>  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

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>> I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can edit 
>> video on a "normal" PC now?
> 
> Define "edit". My digital camera can trim beginning or end of a video, 
> right from the camera controls.

Mine can too - but only if you format the DVD a certain way. (i.e., the 
way that's incompatible with DVD players.)

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

Post a reply to this message

>>>  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.

Sensor size matters too. If it has 5 megapixels stuffed into a VERY tiny 
area, graininess will show up.

Or so I read.

Post a reply to this message

> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>>> I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can 
>>> edit video on a "normal" PC now?
>>
>> Define "edit". My digital camera can trim beginning or end of a video, 
>> right from the camera controls.
> 
> Mine can too - but only if you format the DVD a certain way. (i.e., the 
> way that's incompatible with DVD players.)
> 

DVD? I'm talking about my photo camera, which can also film videos at 
640x480 30fps. It allows such "editing".

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:39:37 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:


>>>>  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.

Yeah I'm assuming you have a still camera that takes decent still shots;  
crap in , crap out - what a surprise. What I'm saying is my 7MP camera  
doesn't take 7MP movies because it's not designed to shunt that amount of  
data around at 30fps.

> Sensor size matters too. If it has 5 megapixels stuffed into a VERY tiny  
> area, graininess will show up.
>
> Or so I read.

Which I why I'm glad I have a large sensor size and lense compared to the  
more pocket-friendly cameras of my friends.

>>> How does your camera want to output data, let me guess Firewire?

>> Composite or S-Video.

How old is it?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I just meant that Macs are very rare. [Despite all of Apple's efforts.]

Less common. I wouldn't say rare. I know half a dozen people who use 
them, and we all started using them completely independently.


> seperate PCs.

That's very impressive, I had no idea you could buy PCs that cheaply. 
Although I personally certainly wouldn't risk it.

> But no, that's not significantly more expensive. ;-)

My use of 'significant' is certainly arguable. However, you act as if 
Macs are forever outside your price range, like Aston Martins to a 
second-hand Peugeot owner*. They're not. I bet you spent more on your 
last graphics card than I did on my last Mac. :)


*Apple wish.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> A good scanner with a resolution of 4800x9600 (46 megapixels) will do. 
> There's a Canon one for 150 euros, so it's not like processing this kind of 
> image size is uncommon today.
> 

One should also notice that scanner resolutions are dpi-values, so 
that's 46 megapixels for a freakin' square inch. Now, if the photo is 
4*6 inches...

> 
> G.
> 


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

>> I just meant that Macs are very rare. [Despite all of Apple's efforts.]
> 
> Less common. I wouldn't say rare. I know half a dozen people who use 
> them, and we all started using them completely independently.

Well, maybe it's because I work in the wrong field, but I've never ever 
seen a real, live Mac except on TV. To me, that seems pretty rare. 
(Also, presumably that's why they're so expensive? Because they can't 
sell many of them...)


>> 3 seperate PCs.
> 
> That's very impressive, I had no idea you could buy PCs that cheaply. 
> Although I personally certainly wouldn't risk it.





So I guess *three* is a slight exaggeration. But only slight...

I suppose if you wanted to be picky, the OS will cost you 2x that amount 
alone, assuming you're getting it from Micro$oft... [And when you buy a 
Mac, you're partly paying for a proprietry OS, so I guess that would be 
a fairer comparison.]

>> But no, that's not significantly more expensive. ;-)
> 
> My use of 'significant' is certainly arguable. However, you act as if 
> Macs are forever outside your price range, like Aston Martins to a 
> second-hand Peugeot owner*. They're not. I bet you spent more on your 
> last graphics card than I did on my last Mac. :)

Hmm, let me go check...

No, you're wrong.



I don't think there is any Mac in Creation that can be had for such a 
sum. And that's *the* most expensive graphics card I've ever bought, by 
at least one order of magnitude. :-P

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

Post a reply to this message

>>>> How does your camera want to output data, let me guess Firewire?
> 
>>> Composite or S-Video.
> 
> How old is it?

Bought in Christmas 2007?

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

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> DVD? I'm talking about my photo camera, which can also film videos at 
> 640x480 30fps. It allows such "editing".

Interesting. My still camera will only do 12 FPS at 160x120. Which, 
coupled with the fact that everything looks like a glass of Guinness 
unless it's a blindingly bright midsummer's day at noon, makes it pretty 
useless...

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

Post a reply to this message