I think you folks are just moving too far away from a simple consumer device. I envision more of an iSight that's portable and records. Since it records in MPEG-4, it would be easy to upload movies to .Mac. The types of cameras that all of you are talking about are $5000 and up (a lot up). No much of a market there.
Yeah, the up front costs may be more expansive than a standard MiniDV recorder, but in the long run it's cheap because you don't spend any money on consumables (ie. tapes)
May I remind all of you that MP3 players and digital still cameras are still more expensive than their non-digital cousins.
A 2 to 4 GB Digital Camera with DV MP4 recording (QT in almost every DigiCam is Apples baby after all) would be awesome, especially if it has a greater than 3X zoom. At 640x480 with current MP4 at 30 FPS (progressive, not interlaced) you'd get 4 hours of recording and excellent storage space for pictures. Apple could one up it by allowing synching with an iPod on the road, giving you up to 40GB's more and further justifying larger iPods. It all makes sense as Apple would be
640x480 at 30 FPS is better than progressive DVD quality (I believe), so that would be more than perfect for the consumer market. I'm interpolating these numbers from Sanyo's flash DV camera specs that they were supposed to release in Japan this past November. Panasonic also has a Flash DV camera out that got good reviews albeit expensive due to the 512MB flash driving its price to 1,499.
640x480 at 30 FPS is better than progressive DVD quality (I believe), so that would be more than perfect for the consumer market.
DVD is 720x480 at 24 FPS progressive (right?). But, now I am remembering something about anamorphic DVDs, and something else. but I am like 90% sure that a frame is 720x480.
On a side note, this may be stupid, but do current miniDV cameras record in progressive or interlaced format? Progressive is like film, where the whole image is represented in each frame, correct? And interlace is where it does "fields" not frames per second, so the iamge is built in two passes. I would assume, since miniDV is digital, that it is recorded in progressive, but I could just be way off here.
Now, onto another total side note, but how does DV compare to mpeg2 quality wise? Size wise?
DVD is 720x480 at 24 FPS progressive (right?). But, now I am remembering something about anamorphic DVDs, and something else. but I am like 90% sure that a frame is 720x480.
The actual resolution of a DVD is 720x480 pixels regardless of whether it is "full-screen" or "anamorphic."
On a side note, this may be stupid, but do current miniDV cameras record in progressive or interlaced format? Progressive is like film, where the whole image is represented in each frame, correct? And interlace is where it does "fields" not frames per second, so the iamge is built in two passes. I would assume, since miniDV is digital, that it is recorded in progressive, but I could just be way off here.
Most do interlaced, but some have the option for progressive. In the Canon models they call it 'Frame Mode' but the vertical resolution per frame drops some when compared to interlaced mode.
I think you folks are just moving too far away from a simple consumer device. ... May I remind all of you that MP3 players and digital still cameras are still more expensive than their non-digital cousins.
If the technology is still too expensive for professionals, then it's certainly out of bounds for consumers. The digital cameras are just coming to a point where the results are better than film. That's taken years. MP3 players, like the iPod, are a different animal. Look at how long between the time we saw a CD (digital audio) and MiniDV (digital video). That has to be a spread of about 10 years. So, cool your jets. We're getting there, just not as quick as you and I would like, but we will eventually get there.
The idea of either still or motion picture cameras from Apple is ludicrous in the extreme and a betrays a complete lack of understanding of the present Jobs/Ive/Anderson regime. Discussing the various possible technologies completely misses the point. People already have endless choices for the creation of stills and movies; there is absolutely no space for Apple to enter and dominate this market.
The next DLD will be some time coming (Jan 2005?) and will be the fabled/derided iFrame type device. I.e. storage and display of Quicktime content. As the number of digital documents that we create and store rises exponentially there is a real need for easy and portable display of such documents for both business and pleasure. This is an area right up Apple's street.
Its all so fukcing obvious I can't believe these threads keep popping up.
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. Consumer tapeless camcorders are already available with prices ranging from $99-1000.
What's not in the consumer price range are HD digital camcorders.
What are you talkign about? There is no $99 device.
I believe the cheapest one is $200, and it can hold 5 minutes of MPEG4 video (it has 64 MB on-board). Should that even qualify? I mean, my digital camera can record video up to that long...
A device that can record 30 minutes of MPEG4 costs $800. Neither of these have accepible storage for a consumer device even (30 minutes of a non-removable memory... give me a break). Once it gets to a few hours, then , maybe the consumer space for these will start to take off.
I still don't get why people want to move away from miniDV. Tapes are cheap, they are a good means to archive footage, and it makes it really easy to pop in a new tape if the current one is full or close to it. Can an HD (or solid-state) soultion ever compare with this? No, probably not.
I still don't get why people want to move away from miniDV. Tapes are cheap, they are a good means to archive footage, and it makes it really easy to pop in a new tape if the current one is full or close to it.
There is NOT one tapeless video camcorder on the market today that can give you the quality you can get from MiniDV. Quality has gone backwards just in the vein attempt to stick a "tapeless" badge on it. MiniDV is still very desirable, high quality, and inexpensive. DVCPRO (a DV-variant) was around a year or two before MiniDV started to catch on in the US. Consumer oriented miniDV camcorders were at first very expensive ($3000+). It's going to take at least three to five years for a quality tapeless format (equal or better than DV) to catch on in the professional market before it comes to consumers. In the meantime, DV will emerge into HDV, DVCPRO into DVCPRO 100 (high def). That said, Kupan is right -- tape will reign supreme for quite awhile longer. And...there's nothing wrong with tape.
-- tape will reign supreme for quite awhile longer. And...there's nothing wrong with tape.
I totally agree. The advantages of tapeless are really two fold[list=1][*]Size - they're tiny. Can fit in your pocket with room to spare. No way a tape system can be that small[*]Instant web ready - just like jpegs from a digital camera.[/list=1]
If you compare this to other trends, what you'll see is that it's all about sharing and people are willing to sacrifice quality for easy of sharing. MP3 took off because they're easily shared. Digital cameras are talking off because it's easy to share photos. MP3 and digital pictures are no where near as good (quality wise) as their analog counter parts - but they're easier to share.
The quality issue is BS. What limits quality is storage capacity. That's my point about replacing the flash memory with a mini toshiba hard drive. You can store more at low quality or record at higher quality. These cameras have various quality settings that simply adjust the bit rate for the compressed video.
As for cost, I think there's a lot of room to push the cost down. All we're really talking about here is adding a hard drive to an iSight. An iSight costs $150. Now add a hard drive and a tiny LCD - lets say $400. That's a tapless camera for $650. With volume, the price could come down further and break the $500 price point.
At the sub $500 price point you've got a winner on your hands.
Please tell me how to get rid of moire with bicubic interpolation, scaling down a 5 mp image down to about 3 mp. Also, please tell me how to insert color accuracy that was never captured by the mosaic.
And well all know that megapixels isn't the only thing to care about. What happens when full-frame mosaic sensors surpass the upper limits of a lens' optical resolution? The lower pixel count X3 type sensor will trounce it.
If you take an image and downsize it enough, the little interpolation artifacts disappear (along with detail). I didn't say 5MP to 3MP, but 5MP to about 1.5MP. An even quarter, or 1.25MP from a 5MP file ends up looking quite X3-like.
And, yes, once we reach the limits of lense/sensor/pixel pitch, the X3 becomes a superior concept, but for now, especially for the type of device being described here, both mosaics and X3 are a ways off from that.
the above picture is that someones photoshop or an actual product design, pretty cool. you can have a hard drive based unit with a slot for xd card from olympus, i read it can reach 8gb, or compact flash that can hold a microdrive for the ability to add memory on the fly. it wouldn't take up much space especially the xd card now what about battery power
so basically if you could take video that is dvd quality easy interface to download (fw800?) and able to take 2-3mb stills with flash--consumer nirvana
it would also drive sales of any apple product with a dvd burner and fw800
if as elegant as ipod i'd buy one pronto.
but how about an interface with imovie and iMovies STORE NOW THAT WOULD BE COOL
Ok, that is the $200 one I was refering to with a capicity of 5 minutes at "best" quality. Hell, the video on the gateway is only 320x240. And why is it 22-25 FPS? Isn't NTSC 29.97?
It is only at $100 after a mail in rebate, and after you purchase a DV-S20 accessory kit which is $40. So really the whole thing is:
$199
$20 for shipping
$40 for accessoriy kit
-$100 for rebate
------
total of $159.
So this is not a "$99 camcorder". If anything it is a $159 2.0 megapixel digital camera, with no optical zoom, and with the ability to take short video clips. Kind of what my cannon digital elph can do, only my cannon does it better (3.2 megapixel, 2x optical zoom)...
How it saves 700 stills on a 64MB card I don't get. What is that on, not-worth-saving quality, or this-came-out-of-my-ass quality?
How it saves 700 stills on a 64MB card I don't get. What is that on, not-worth-saving quality, or this-came-out-of-my-ass quality?
It probably isn't actually 2 megapixel... It's probably interpolated up in size. In other words, it like scaling up an image in photoshop.... there's a loss in quality. Those tiny cheap still cameras like the Logitech Pocket Digital claim 1.3 megapixel, but they're interpolated.
If you take an image and downsize it enough, the little interpolation artifacts disappear (along with detail). I didn't say 5MP to 3MP, but 5MP to about 1.5MP. An even quarter, or 1.25MP from a 5MP file ends up looking quite X3-like.
No, it would not. The interpolation effects would not disappear. The fact is thatlarge pixel patches must be used in mosaic sensors to approximate the right color. You cannot simply add it back because it was never there. When you took the picture.
And what's the goddamned point of reducing a 5 mp picture down to 1.5 mp? In one situation you are taking a pic that was already interpolated and interpolating it again. You cannot simply remove moire by scaling the photo down. You will not create moire by scaling up a photo taken from an X3.
We're probably less than two years off from 35mm equivalent sensors hitting the same rut as 6 megapixel 1/1.8" sensors.
I don't care what the point is, but the simple fact is that you can get similar results by half sizing the image, or quarter sizing it (half the height and width). Ever scanned something? General scanning orthodoxy, when it is neccessary to remove moire from a scan, is to scan said image into your computer at twice the vertical and horzontal resolution, apply a filter and downsample. buh-bye moire. If you're dealing with 4X the pixel locations, it's not that the information isn't there, it's that it isn't converged properly, hence the moire. But once you combine that info into fewer locations, the artifcats present from that misconvergence largely disappear. You lose detail, but you also lose noise and moire. We could talk about the fidelity of said image -- combining a red blue and two green pixels, all at slightly different locations, down to one point is NOT a perfectly accurate representation of the actual image, but it works well enough for the purposes of eliminating artifacts while trying to keep a sharp-looking image.
two years is a long time for a device which people are asking to see at MWSF.
Comments
Yeah, the up front costs may be more expansive than a standard MiniDV recorder, but in the long run it's cheap because you don't spend any money on consumables (ie. tapes)
May I remind all of you that MP3 players and digital still cameras are still more expensive than their non-digital cousins.
640x480 at 30 FPS is better than progressive DVD quality (I believe), so that would be more than perfect for the consumer market. I'm interpolating these numbers from Sanyo's flash DV camera specs that they were supposed to release in Japan this past November. Panasonic also has a Flash DV camera out that got good reviews albeit expensive due to the 512MB flash driving its price to 1,499.
References:
http://www.sanyo.co.jp/koho/hypertex...-j/1001-1.html
http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_el...camcorders.asp
Originally posted by stingerman
640x480 at 30 FPS is better than progressive DVD quality (I believe), so that would be more than perfect for the consumer market.
DVD is 720x480 at 24 FPS progressive (right?). But, now I am remembering something about anamorphic DVDs, and something else. but I am like 90% sure that a frame is 720x480.
On a side note, this may be stupid, but do current miniDV cameras record in progressive or interlaced format? Progressive is like film, where the whole image is represented in each frame, correct? And interlace is where it does "fields" not frames per second, so the iamge is built in two passes. I would assume, since miniDV is digital, that it is recorded in progressive, but I could just be way off here.
Now, onto another total side note, but how does DV compare to mpeg2 quality wise? Size wise?
Originally posted by kupan787
DVD is 720x480 at 24 FPS progressive (right?). But, now I am remembering something about anamorphic DVDs, and something else. but I am like 90% sure that a frame is 720x480.
The actual resolution of a DVD is 720x480 pixels regardless of whether it is "full-screen" or "anamorphic."
Originally posted by kupan787
On a side note, this may be stupid, but do current miniDV cameras record in progressive or interlaced format? Progressive is like film, where the whole image is represented in each frame, correct? And interlace is where it does "fields" not frames per second, so the iamge is built in two passes. I would assume, since miniDV is digital, that it is recorded in progressive, but I could just be way off here.
Most do interlaced, but some have the option for progressive. In the Canon models they call it 'Frame Mode' but the vertical resolution per frame drops some when compared to interlaced mode.
Originally posted by pjn23
I think you folks are just moving too far away from a simple consumer device. ... May I remind all of you that MP3 players and digital still cameras are still more expensive than their non-digital cousins.
If the technology is still too expensive for professionals, then it's certainly out of bounds for consumers. The digital cameras are just coming to a point where the results are better than film. That's taken years. MP3 players, like the iPod, are a different animal. Look at how long between the time we saw a CD (digital audio) and MiniDV (digital video). That has to be a spread of about 10 years. So, cool your jets. We're getting there, just not as quick as you and I would like, but we will eventually get there.
The next DLD will be some time coming (Jan 2005?) and will be the fabled/derided iFrame type device. I.e. storage and display of Quicktime content. As the number of digital documents that we create and store rises exponentially there is a real need for easy and portable display of such documents for both business and pleasure. This is an area right up Apple's street.
Its all so fukcing obvious I can't believe these threads keep popping up.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
If the technology is still too expensive for professionals, then it's certainly out of bounds for consumers.
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. Consumer tapeless camcorders are already available with prices ranging from $99-1000.
What's not in the consumer price range are HD digital camcorders.
Originally posted by pjn23
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. Consumer tapeless camcorders are already available with prices ranging from $99-1000.
What's not in the consumer price range are HD digital camcorders.
What are you talkign about? There is no $99 device.
I believe the cheapest one is $200, and it can hold 5 minutes of MPEG4 video (it has 64 MB on-board). Should that even qualify? I mean, my digital camera can record video up to that long...
A device that can record 30 minutes of MPEG4 costs $800. Neither of these have accepible storage for a consumer device even (30 minutes of a non-removable memory... give me a break). Once it gets to a few hours, then , maybe the consumer space for these will start to take off.
I still don't get why people want to move away from miniDV. Tapes are cheap, they are a good means to archive footage, and it makes it really easy to pop in a new tape if the current one is full or close to it. Can an HD (or solid-state) soultion ever compare with this? No, probably not.
Originally posted by kupan787
What are you talkign about? There is no $99 device.
Yes there is. Check it out. $99 Gateway tapeless camcorder
Originally posted by kupan787
I still don't get why people want to move away from miniDV. Tapes are cheap, they are a good means to archive footage, and it makes it really easy to pop in a new tape if the current one is full or close to it.
There is NOT one tapeless video camcorder on the market today that can give you the quality you can get from MiniDV. Quality has gone backwards just in the vein attempt to stick a "tapeless" badge on it. MiniDV is still very desirable, high quality, and inexpensive. DVCPRO (a DV-variant) was around a year or two before MiniDV started to catch on in the US. Consumer oriented miniDV camcorders were at first very expensive ($3000+). It's going to take at least three to five years for a quality tapeless format (equal or better than DV) to catch on in the professional market before it comes to consumers. In the meantime, DV will emerge into HDV, DVCPRO into DVCPRO 100 (high def). That said, Kupan is right -- tape will reign supreme for quite awhile longer. And...there's nothing wrong with tape.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
-- tape will reign supreme for quite awhile longer. And...there's nothing wrong with tape.
I totally agree. The advantages of tapeless are really two fold[list=1][*]Size - they're tiny. Can fit in your pocket with room to spare. No way a tape system can be that small[*]Instant web ready - just like jpegs from a digital camera.[/list=1]
If you compare this to other trends, what you'll see is that it's all about sharing and people are willing to sacrifice quality for easy of sharing. MP3 took off because they're easily shared. Digital cameras are talking off because it's easy to share photos. MP3 and digital pictures are no where near as good (quality wise) as their analog counter parts - but they're easier to share.
The quality issue is BS. What limits quality is storage capacity. That's my point about replacing the flash memory with a mini toshiba hard drive. You can store more at low quality or record at higher quality. These cameras have various quality settings that simply adjust the bit rate for the compressed video.
As for cost, I think there's a lot of room to push the cost down. All we're really talking about here is adding a hard drive to an iSight. An iSight costs $150. Now add a hard drive and a tiny LCD - lets say $400. That's a tapless camera for $650. With volume, the price could come down further and break the $500 price point.
At the sub $500 price point you've got a winner on your hands.
Originally posted by Eugene
Please tell me how to get rid of moire with bicubic interpolation, scaling down a 5 mp image down to about 3 mp. Also, please tell me how to insert color accuracy that was never captured by the mosaic.
And well all know that megapixels isn't the only thing to care about. What happens when full-frame mosaic sensors surpass the upper limits of a lens' optical resolution? The lower pixel count X3 type sensor will trounce it.
If you take an image and downsize it enough, the little interpolation artifacts disappear (along with detail). I didn't say 5MP to 3MP, but 5MP to about 1.5MP. An even quarter, or 1.25MP from a 5MP file ends up looking quite X3-like.
And, yes, once we reach the limits of lense/sensor/pixel pitch, the X3 becomes a superior concept, but for now, especially for the type of device being described here, both mosaics and X3 are a ways off from that.
so basically if you could take video that is dvd quality easy interface to download (fw800?) and able to take 2-3mb stills with flash--consumer nirvana
it would also drive sales of any apple product with a dvd burner and fw800
if as elegant as ipod i'd buy one pronto.
but how about an interface with imovie and iMovies STORE NOW THAT WOULD BE COOL
Originally posted by NOFEER
the above picture is that someones photoshop or an actual product design, pretty cool.
It's real. It's the Sanyo aka Fisher tapeless camcorder. Oddly enough it's available only at Sears. I saw one today - very light and small.
Originally posted by pjn23
Yes there is. Check it out. $99 Gateway tapeless camcorder
Ok, that is the $200 one I was refering to with a capicity of 5 minutes at "best" quality. Hell, the video on the gateway is only 320x240. And why is it 22-25 FPS? Isn't NTSC 29.97?
It is only at $100 after a mail in rebate, and after you purchase a DV-S20 accessory kit which is $40. So really the whole thing is:
$199
$20 for shipping
$40 for accessoriy kit
-$100 for rebate
------
total of $159.
So this is not a "$99 camcorder". If anything it is a $159 2.0 megapixel digital camera, with no optical zoom, and with the ability to take short video clips. Kind of what my cannon digital elph can do, only my cannon does it better (3.2 megapixel, 2x optical zoom)...
How it saves 700 stills on a 64MB card I don't get. What is that on, not-worth-saving quality, or this-came-out-of-my-ass quality?
Originally posted by kupan787
How it saves 700 stills on a 64MB card I don't get. What is that on, not-worth-saving quality, or this-came-out-of-my-ass quality?
It probably isn't actually 2 megapixel... It's probably interpolated up in size. In other words, it like scaling up an image in photoshop.... there's a loss in quality. Those tiny cheap still cameras like the Logitech Pocket Digital claim 1.3 megapixel, but they're interpolated.
Originally posted by Matsu
If you take an image and downsize it enough, the little interpolation artifacts disappear (along with detail). I didn't say 5MP to 3MP, but 5MP to about 1.5MP. An even quarter, or 1.25MP from a 5MP file ends up looking quite X3-like.
No, it would not. The interpolation effects would not disappear. The fact is thatlarge pixel patches must be used in mosaic sensors to approximate the right color. You cannot simply add it back because it was never there. When you took the picture.
And what's the goddamned point of reducing a 5 mp picture down to 1.5 mp? In one situation you are taking a pic that was already interpolated and interpolating it again. You cannot simply remove moire by scaling the photo down. You will not create moire by scaling up a photo taken from an X3.
We're probably less than two years off from 35mm equivalent sensors hitting the same rut as 6 megapixel 1/1.8" sensors.
two years is a long time for a device which people are asking to see at MWSF.