Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by M. Adam Davis-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 7/17/08, Bob Ammerman <rammerman@...> wrote:
> > They are primarily being positioned as the next stage in digital video > > media. I just purchased a Canon HF100..... > > My son wants to buy that model. Could I ask you your opinion of it? Changed the topic and subject. Wonder if this might be OT? Please change into soft slippers if you're going to boot me Russell... ;-D I've only had it for a few days now, and haven't done any significant shooting or post processing with it, so you might consider asking me again in a month or two - I'm taking it on a vacation next week. I spent a lot of time on here: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ratings.php# which appears to be (or aspires to be) the dpreview of camcorders. The reviews are fairly thorough. I also spent some time on amazon.com reviews and this one had the least number of bad reviews, though it's a fairly new model. Lot's of, "I bought X but didn't like such and such about it, so I returned it and bought this one and it's perfect!" type reviews. Noting that I've never owned a camcorder before, here are my first impressions: - It's small and light - I can see myself using it for long periods of time without becoming sore, and the case I purchased for it is smaller than my DSLR case (Canon XTi 400D) so I won't hesitate to bring it if I think it might be useful wherever I'm going. Of course, I'm now faced with the perpetual quandry - which one do I bring, and if both to I get a larger case for both or let them hang off my shoulders as two seperate bags? I think that I could modify an arm lamp to act as a mount for this - it weighs less than the flourescent head of the lamp, which could have interesting uses for electronic documentation. - It's surprisingly stable - I can't hold a webcam by hand with noticably annoying shake, but this wasn't annoying. The lens stabilisation (vs electronic image stabilisation) gets high marks from most reviewers, so I think Canon made a good choice here. I can zoom in all the way (12x) and while the shake is noticable, the video is still watchable/usable. This is freestanding hand shake - when I rest my elbows on a table or other surface even zoomed in it appears rock stable. I was expecting it to be pretty bad given its low mass. - The macro focus is AWESOME. I was surprised to find that zoomed out it would focus to about an inch in front of the lens, which is perfect for some of the electronics related video I want to capture. Looking at the fibers in a piece of cloth with perfect focus on a large high resolution monitor was very nice. - The image quality is very, very good. Connected to a full resolution monitor there's no noticable blurriness, aliasing, or image compression artifacts. (well, that I notice on my cheap 24" screen, anyway) - Low light performance is good, though I'm told there are better (including the previous canon SD cameras with larger sensors). Indoor use with flourescent or incandescent lighting is fine, although you can see a marked improvement when the scene is well lit. - The zoom is variable and starts off very slowly, so it's very smooth - The camcorder uses a USB profile that is built into Windows Vista, so even if you use Vista 64 you aren't scrambling around for drivers. - The lens is threaded so you can add polarizing and other filters and attachments (telephoto, wide angle, etc) easily and inexpensively. - Focus is fast. Unless you are outside the focus range (19" zoomed in, 1" zoomed out) then hunting was unnoticable or, in low light, not bothersome. It has a seperate focus sensor, so a quick pan from a near object to a far object was spookily in focus by the time I stopped on the far object. - The important controls (zoom, start, stop, power) are within hand's reach for the gripping hand and usable without loosening your grip. Cons: - It doesn't do live video via USB, so if you want to use it in live video situations (webcam, ustream, etc) then you need to have a video input on your computer, such as composite, or the new HD component or HDMI capture cards now out. - Rather than turning the power savings due to solid state recording into longer record times, they shrunk the battery so it fits inside the envelope of the camcorder. The included battery is 7.4v @ ~800mAH, and is supposed to last typically just under an hour. Batteries are not inexpensive, but you can get an extended battery, and my plan is to simply keep another battery or two around and a seperate charger - this has worked well with my dslr camera usage patterns, so we'll see. Alternately I'm mulling over the idea of an external battery pack that mounts onto the camera's 1/4" tripod mount - just a small box that adds 1/2 to 3/4 inch to the height and is packed with lipoly batteries. Should be cheaper than an official canon battery, and would add several hours of time with not much weight. - It appears that nearly every camcorder has a built in microphone that picks up environmental noise too easily, and isn't directional. This is no exception - I have a relatively noisy office (a fan, several computers, furnace in next room, etc) and it was very noticable on a recording of someone speaking quietly. The reviewers don't seem to dock points for it, so perhaps it's just par for the course in camcorder land. - Very few buttons. It's a reasonably complex and adjustable camcorder, but you have to go through more than 1-2 button presses to alter the exposure, adjust focus manually, aperature, etc. I don't know that I'll be using these things much, so it suits me, but I know some people like to have everything at their fingertips without taking their eyes off the monitor. - It doesn't come with an off-board battery charger. The power adaptor plugs into the back of the camera while the battery charges installed in the camera. I suppose this is how most camcorders work, but I think I would rather carry around a few batteries and an off camera charger. On the plus side, if there's AC nearby you don't have to worry about the battery running low. - I could be mistaken, but it appears the camcorder requires that AC be plugged in when connected to the computer. Seems odd and somewhat limiting, but it may be that I was connecting in an odd mode or something. None of the cons really bother me, they're just things I would like out of a perfect camcorder. Lastly, the price is very nice - you can get this HD camcorder for just over $600 now. I purchased the camcorder and two 8GB cards for under $700 including shipping. The only thing I wish I could add to this review is comments on the included software bundle (which processes, converts, and burns DVDs among other things). I haven't tried it yet, and I'm concerned that even though I've got a reasonably nice computer that should actually do very well for video, I might still see long conversion times. AVCHD is a relatively new format, so support is limited and sparse in most video editing programs, so this is an important part of the bundle. I'll let you know what I find soon. Let me know if you have any specific questions about it. -Adam -- EARTH DAY 2008 Tuesday April 22 Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by Carlos Marcano
::
Rate this Message:
So, Adam, how has this nice looking camera been doing?
-Carlos On 17/07/2008, M. Adam Davis <stienman@...> wrote: > On 7/17/08, Bob Ammerman <rammerman@...> wrote: >> > They are primarily being positioned as the next stage in digital video >> > media. I just purchased a Canon HF100..... >> >> My son wants to buy that model. Could I ask you your opinion of it? > > Changed the topic and subject. Wonder if this might be OT? Please > change into soft slippers if you're going to boot me Russell... ;-D > > I've only had it for a few days now, and haven't done any significant > shooting or post processing with it, so you might consider asking me > again in a month or two - I'm taking it on a vacation next week. > > I spent a lot of time on here: > http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ratings.php# > > which appears to be (or aspires to be) the dpreview of camcorders. > The reviews are fairly thorough. I also spent some time on amazon.com > reviews and this one had the least number of bad reviews, though it's > a fairly new model. Lot's of, "I bought X but didn't like such and > such about it, so I returned it and bought this one and it's perfect!" > type reviews. > > Noting that I've never owned a camcorder before, here are my first > impressions: > - It's small and light - I can see myself using it for long periods > of time without becoming sore, and the case I purchased for it is > smaller than my DSLR case (Canon XTi 400D) so I won't hesitate to > bring it if I think it might be useful wherever I'm going. Of course, > I'm now faced with the perpetual quandry - which one do I bring, and > if both to I get a larger case for both or let them hang off my > shoulders as two seperate bags? I think that I could modify an arm > lamp to act as a mount for this - it weighs less than the flourescent > head of the lamp, which could have interesting uses for electronic > documentation. > - It's surprisingly stable - I can't hold a webcam by hand with > noticably annoying shake, but this wasn't annoying. The lens > stabilisation (vs electronic image stabilisation) gets high marks from > most reviewers, so I think Canon made a good choice here. I can zoom > in all the way (12x) and while the shake is noticable, the video is > still watchable/usable. This is freestanding hand shake - when I rest > my elbows on a table or other surface even zoomed in it appears rock > stable. I was expecting it to be pretty bad given its low mass. > - The macro focus is AWESOME. I was surprised to find that zoomed > out it would focus to about an inch in front of the lens, which is > perfect for some of the electronics related video I want to capture. > Looking at the fibers in a piece of cloth with perfect focus on a > large high resolution monitor was very nice. > - The image quality is very, very good. Connected to a full > resolution monitor there's no noticable blurriness, aliasing, or image > compression artifacts. (well, that I notice on my cheap 24" screen, > anyway) > - Low light performance is good, though I'm told there are better > (including the previous canon SD cameras with larger sensors). Indoor > use with flourescent or incandescent lighting is fine, although you > can see a marked improvement when the scene is well lit. > - The zoom is variable and starts off very slowly, so it's very smooth > - The camcorder uses a USB profile that is built into Windows Vista, > so even if you use Vista 64 you aren't scrambling around for drivers. > - The lens is threaded so you can add polarizing and other filters > and attachments (telephoto, wide angle, etc) easily and inexpensively. > - Focus is fast. Unless you are outside the focus range (19" zoomed > in, 1" zoomed out) then hunting was unnoticable or, in low light, not > bothersome. It has a seperate focus sensor, so a quick pan from a > near object to a far object was spookily in focus by the time I > stopped on the far object. > - The important controls (zoom, start, stop, power) are within hand's > reach for the gripping hand and usable without loosening your grip. > > Cons: > - It doesn't do live video via USB, so if you want to use it in live > video situations (webcam, ustream, etc) then you need to have a video > input on your computer, such as composite, or the new HD component or > HDMI capture cards now out. > - Rather than turning the power savings due to solid state recording > into longer record times, they shrunk the battery so it fits inside > the envelope of the camcorder. The included battery is 7.4v @ > ~800mAH, and is supposed to last typically just under an hour. > Batteries are not inexpensive, but you can get an extended battery, > and my plan is to simply keep another battery or two around and a > seperate charger - this has worked well with my dslr camera usage > patterns, so we'll see. Alternately I'm mulling over the idea of an > external battery pack that mounts onto the camera's 1/4" tripod mount > - just a small box that adds 1/2 to 3/4 inch to the height and is > packed with lipoly batteries. Should be cheaper than an official > canon battery, and would add several hours of time with not much > weight. > - It appears that nearly every camcorder has a built in microphone > that picks up environmental noise too easily, and isn't directional. > This is no exception - I have a relatively noisy office (a fan, > several computers, furnace in next room, etc) and it was very > noticable on a recording of someone speaking quietly. The reviewers > don't seem to dock points for it, so perhaps it's just par for the > course in camcorder land. > - Very few buttons. It's a reasonably complex and adjustable > camcorder, but you have to go through more than 1-2 button presses to > alter the exposure, adjust focus manually, aperature, etc. I don't > know that I'll be using these things much, so it suits me, but I know > some people like to have everything at their fingertips without taking > their eyes off the monitor. > - It doesn't come with an off-board battery charger. The power > adaptor plugs into the back of the camera while the battery charges > installed in the camera. I suppose this is how most camcorders work, > but I think I would rather carry around a few batteries and an off > camera charger. On the plus side, if there's AC nearby you don't have > to worry about the battery running low. > - I could be mistaken, but it appears the camcorder requires that AC > be plugged in when connected to the computer. Seems odd and somewhat > limiting, but it may be that I was connecting in an odd mode or > something. > > None of the cons really bother me, they're just things I would like > out of a perfect camcorder. > > Lastly, the price is very nice - you can get this HD camcorder for > just over $600 now. I purchased the camcorder and two 8GB cards for > under $700 including shipping. > > The only thing I wish I could add to this review is comments on the > included software bundle (which processes, converts, and burns DVDs > among other things). I haven't tried it yet, and I'm concerned that > even though I've got a reasonably nice computer that should actually > do very well for video, I might still see long conversion times. > AVCHD is a relatively new format, so support is limited and sparse in > most video editing programs, so this is an important part of the > bundle. I'll let you know what I find soon. > > Let me know if you have any specific questions about it. > > -Adam > > -- > EARTH DAY 2008 > Tuesday April 22 > Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet > http://www.driveslowly.org > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by Vitaliy-2
::
Rate this Message:
Carlos Marcano wrote:
> So, Adam, how has this nice looking camera been doing? Yeah, you promised to tell us more! :) -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by M. Adam Davis-2
::
Rate this Message:
Aaugh, I'm being mobbed by piclisters! ;-D
I delayed as I haven't had time to fiddle with the actual files produced yet. The software included is, for all intents and purposes, useless (on the video end - the pictures are managed by the same software Canon uses with their SLRs, which is very good for what I need). I'm going to be looking at a few packages over the next week or two, but AVCHD is still a new format for HD video. I complicate matters further by using a Windows Vista 64 system as my main machine - Sony's video editing software, for example, installs but then crashes on startup. I still have 3-4 more AVCHD editing packages to try out, and expect I'll find something suitable this week. For now I'm using my XP laptop to transfer the video to an external HD. The laptop is not a speed demon, though, so I'm no going to attempt to edit video on it. The included software doesn't download on my Vista 64 system - it loads, and downloads smaller videos (50MB or less) but fails on larger videos. I imagine it's a driver issue Canon will eventually clear up, but as I'm saving them to an external drive anyway it doesn't matter which computer I use, so for now I'm using an XP system to take the video from the camera. The file format on the SD cards is not what you get on the PC, though, so at the moment I do have to transfer from the camera rather than an SD reader. It looks like a bunch of transport streams and a bunch of files with meta information, and the included software probably grabs the necesary files and stitches them together during the transfer. The latest nightly build of VLC (VideoLanClient) plays the raw M2TS files just fine, and I expect I can use it to transcode (and I've seen messages online saying ffmpeg works with AVCHD M2TS files now) so I don't expect it to be a roadblock, but I do wish the included software had more features, especially regarding transcoding the video to a standard mpeg4 AVI. I'm told that for 32 bit XP and Vista users, there are several good editing programs available that work out of the box - I'm running a non-standard setup. As far as the camcorder itself - - Battery life is as good/poor as described (about an hour on highest quality, 90 minutes on lower quality). I purchased a second regular battery and an external charger. I might get the extended battery later, or wait for a quality generic to become available. - Video quality from the camcorder to an HD monitor is VERY good using component out. - Audio quality is better than I expected - certainly good enough for most usage. Not noisy, picks up quiet sounds easily and clearly (small children speaking quietly). I'm pleased with it. Haven't tested for stereo seperation. - Low light performance is good - recorded a stage play from a few rows back, colors, etc were good. Could detect a slight graininess of the video. Pointing away from the stage into the darkened audience and you lose most color while the 'grain' becomes very noticable, but everything is discernable. - I do wish it was wider on the wide angle end - I found myself backing up in small rooms to get the view I wanted. There's a wide angle lens available, but I don't want the wider view so badly that I'm willing to spend $100+ on it. - Contrary to published reports I had no problems slipping the camcorder into my shirt pockets and pants pockets. It fit very nicely and I had no worries about it falling out - it goes completely inside. I'm probably going to buy a plain glass filter for it so I don't have to worry about dust or scratches on the lens from having it hit other items in my pockets - the front lens cover is held closed by springs, and opens easily if touched from the front. - The still camera images are good - I'm used to the Canon XTi DSLR which is noticably better, but it was good enough that I didn't carry the slr around with me on a recent vacation and instead used the camcorder - better than the point and shoot's I've used in the past. Now that I think about it, I have a sample: http://flickr.com/photos/adavis/2734495254/ Exif: http://flickr.com/photos/adavis/2734495254/meta/ - I'm still very surprised at the macro capabilities. Really very nice. Combined with the zoom I wish I had the camcorder with me rather than the SLR on a recent visit to a buterfly house. I couldn't get a great picture of a flying blue morpho, but I suspect a still HD video frame would have been better than what I did capture. So, the only issue I have right now is that I don't have a good video software workflow. Having not owned a camcorder before, and having heard from friends that most camcorders don't come with good software I wasn't expecting to have this set up quickly anyway, but I do wish the software had enough functionality to convert to something that Vimeo or Youtube can eat. I'm planning on taping the next Go Tech meeting (Ann Arbor local maker/electronics/computers/CNC/robots/etc enthusiast group) next Tuesday, so I expect a few days after that I'll have some video online, and I'll see about putting some of the raw stuff up so you can see what it produces. Hopefully I'll have a workflow setup by then that requires almost no effort to go from camera to HD Vimeo online. Let me know if you have any questions or want me to try something with it... -Adam On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Vitaliy <spam@...> wrote: > Carlos Marcano wrote: >> So, Adam, how has this nice looking camera been doing? > > Yeah, you promised to tell us more! :) > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- EARTH DAY 2008 Tuesday April 22 Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by Olin Lathrop
::
Rate this Message:
Vitaliy wrote:
>> So, Adam, how has this nice looking camera been doing? > > Yeah, you promised to tell us more! :) I'm not Adam (whoever that is), but I got my son a HF100 for birthday and highschool graduation. I'm impressed with the camera itself. Two hours of HD video at the highest quality setting on a 16Mb card is fine. The image quality is good too, although you can sometimes still see compression artifacts when there is lots of motion. The highest quality setting is 17Mbits/second. This is a rapidly advancing field, so I'm sure there will be something better out in 6 months, but the HF100 looks like the best tradeoff for a affordable personal HD video camera today. The problem is the video editing software. The stuff that comes with the camera is way too slow unless maybe you have a top of the line fully souped up desktop system. It was unusable on my son's laptop. We got the Ulead video editing software ($80 download). It works on smaller systems because it has what they call a "proxy" mode. The high res HD is essentially precomputed into low res that you do the editing with, then the final result is of course rendered from the original high res HD. The Pinnacle software was the other contender, but it wasn't clear whether they had anything like this proxy mode and there was no free trial, so we got the Ulead software and are happy with it. You do need the Ulead version 11.5, not 11.0. Version 11.5 adds support for importing the ADVCHD (something like that) files the HF100 camera creates. Version 11.0 can't. You end up buying 11.0, despite what the screen says when you click BUY NOW, then you have to add the free upgrade to 11.5 separately. They could have made that easier and less confusing, but after the initial hassle all works as expected. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
RE: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by fred jones
::
Rate this Message:
I hang out on the hv20.com forum site where many of the guys are professionals. Because of their dissatisfaction with AVCHD (first gen anyway), I decided to go with the HV30 instead of the HF100. Of course it is a fantastic little camcorder, the number 1 rated HD consumer camcorder just barely beating out Sony. My coworker got the HF100 recently and now I'm not so sure I made the right choice. I wanted the best quality I could get so I decided to go with tape one more time. After seeing the quality and convenience of his HF100, I think it may have been worth a slightly lower video quality. Oh well, what's done is done. FJ> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:34:21 -0400> From: stienman@...> To: piclist@...> Subject: Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)> > Aaugh, I'm being mobbed by piclisters! ;-D> > I delayed as I haven't had time to fiddle with the actual files> produced yet. The software included is, for all intents and purposes,> useless (on the video end - the pictures are managed by the same> software Canon uses with their SLRs, which is very good for what I> need). I'm going to be looking at a few packages over the next week> or two, but AVCHD is still a new format for HD video. I complicate> matters further by using a Windows Vista 64 system as my main machine> - Sony's video editing software, for example, installs but then> crashes on startup. I still have 3-4 more AVCHD editing packages to> try out, and expect I'll find something suitable this week.> > For now I'm using my XP laptop to transfer the video to an external> HD. The laptop is n! ot a speed demon, though, so I'm no going to> attempt to edit video on it. The included software doesn't download> on my Vista 64 system - it loads, and downloads smaller videos (50MB> or less) but fails on larger videos. I imagine it's a driver issue> Canon will eventually clear up, but as I'm saving them to an external> drive anyway it doesn't matter which computer I use, so for now I'm> using an XP system to take the video from the camera. The file format> on the SD cards is not what you get on the PC, though, so at the> moment I do have to transfer from the camera rather than an SD reader.> It looks like a bunch of transport streams and a bunch of files with> meta information, and the included software probably grabs the> necesary files and stitches them together during the transfer.> > The latest nightly build of VLC (VideoLanClient) plays the raw M2TS> files just fine, and I expect I can use it to transcode (and I've seen> messages online saying ffmpeg works with AVCH! D M2TS files now) so I> don't expect it to be a roadblock, but I do wi sh the included software> had more features, especially regarding transcoding the video to a> standard mpeg4 AVI.> > I'm told that for 32 bit XP and Vista users, there are several good> editing programs available that work out of the box - I'm running a> non-standard setup.> > As far as the camcorder itself -> - Battery life is as good/poor as described (about an hour on highest> quality, 90 minutes on lower quality). I purchased a second regular> battery and an external charger. I might get the extended battery> later, or wait for a quality generic to become available.> - Video quality from the camcorder to an HD monitor is VERY good> using component out.> - Audio quality is better than I expected - certainly good enough for> most usage. Not noisy, picks up quiet sounds easily and clearly> (small children speaking quietly). I'm pleased with it. Haven't> tested for stereo seperation.> - Low light performance is good - recorded a stage play from a few> rows back, colors, etc ! were good. Could detect a slight graininess of> the video. Pointing away from the stage into the darkened audience> and you lose most color while the 'grain' becomes very noticable, but> everything is discernable.> - I do wish it was wider on the wide angle end - I found myself> backing up in small rooms to get the view I wanted. There's a wide> angle lens available, but I don't want the wider view so badly that> I'm willing to spend $100+ on it.> - Contrary to published reports I had no problems slipping the> camcorder into my shirt pockets and pants pockets. It fit very nicely> and I had no worries about it falling out - it goes completely inside.> I'm probably going to buy a plain glass filter for it so I don't have> to worry about dust or scratches on the lens from having it hit other> items in my pockets - the front lens cover is held closed by springs,> and opens easily if touched from the front.> - The still camera images are good - I'm used to the Canon XTi DSLR> wh! ich is noticably better, but it was good enough that I didn't carry> t he slr around with me on a recent vacation and instead used the> camcorder - better than the point and shoot's I've used in the past.> Now that I think about it, I have a sample:> http://flickr.com/photos/adavis/2734495254/ Exif:> http://flickr.com/photos/adavis/2734495254/meta/> - I'm still very surprised at the macro capabilities. Really very> nice. Combined with the zoom I wish I had the camcorder with me> rather than the SLR on a recent visit to a buterfly house. I couldn't> get a great picture of a flying blue morpho, but I suspect a still HD> video frame would have been better than what I did capture.> > So, the only issue I have right now is that I don't have a good video> software workflow. Having not owned a camcorder before, and having> heard from friends that most camcorders don't come with good software> I wasn't expecting to have this set up quickly anyway, but I do wish> the software had enough functionality to convert to something that> Vimeo or Youtube can ea! t.> > I'm planning on taping the next Go Tech meeting (Ann Arbor local> maker/electronics/computers/CNC/robots/etc enthusiast group) next> Tuesday, so I expect a few days after that I'll have some video> online, and I'll see about putting some of the raw stuff up so you can> see what it produces. Hopefully I'll have a workflow setup by then> that requires almost no effort to go from camera to HD Vimeo online.> > Let me know if you have any questions or want me to try something with it...> > -Adam> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Vitaliy <spam@...> wrote:> > Carlos Marcano wrote:> >> So, Adam, how has this nice looking camera been doing?> >> > Yeah, you promised to tell us more! :)> > --> > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive> > View/change your membership options at> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist> >> > > > -- > EARTH DAY 2008> Tuesday April 22> Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet> http://www.driveslowly.org> -- > ! http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive> View/change your mem bership options at> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist _________________________________________________________________ Get more from your digital life. Find out how. http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008 -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by Apptech
::
Rate this Message:
> I'm not Adam (whoever that is), but I got my son a HF100
> for birthday and > highschool graduation. I'm impressed with the camera > itself. Two hours of > HD video at the highest quality setting on a 16Mb card is > fine. The image > quality is good too, although you can sometimes still see > compression > artifacts when there is lots of motion. The highest > quality setting is > 17Mbits/second. It's stunning the compression rates that can be achieved these days. :-) R -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by Spehro Pefhany
::
Rate this Message:
Quoting Apptech <apptech@...>:
>> I'm not Adam (whoever that is), but I got my son a HF100 >> for birthday and >> highschool graduation. I'm impressed with the camera >> itself. Two hours of >> HD video at the highest quality setting on a 16Mb card is >> fine. The image >> quality is good too, although you can sometimes still see >> compression >> artifacts when there is lots of motion. The highest >> quality setting is >> 17Mbits/second. > > It's stunning the compression rates that can be achieved > these days. :-) > > > R Meanie. I was wondering what would happen if I put an 8MB CF card up on eBay... Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" s...@... Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by M. Adam Davis-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 8/5/08, Apptech <apptech@...> wrote:
> It's stunning the compression rates that can be achieved > these days. :-) Wait until we get 3D object recognition in real time in the camcorder - then all they'll do is record 3D meshes with textures moving about the scene. 15:1 is nothing! ;-D -Adam -- EARTH DAY 2008 Tuesday April 22 Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by Apptech
::
Rate this Message:
>> It's stunning the compression rates that can be achieved
>> these days. :-) > Wait until we get 3D object recognition in real time in > the camcorder > - then all they'll do is record 3D meshes with textures > moving about > the scene. 15:1 is nothing! 15:1??? Nay sir > I'm impressed with the camera itself. > Two hours of HD video at the highest > quality setting on a 16Mb card is > fine. ... > The highest > quality setting is 17Mbits/second. 17 Mb/s x 1/8 Bytes x 7200 seconds / 16 MB ~= 956:1* :-) FWIW 17 /8*7200 = 15.3 GB or NO compression at all. Or, maybe that's unwinding the calculation that produced the 17 Mb/s in the 1st place. Seems quite likely. Full circle ;-). Russell That 956 = 1000 for some values of = is not a coincidence :-) -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by M. Adam Davis-2
::
Rate this Message:
heh heh heh, I missed the Mb vs GB discrepancy.
-Adam On 8/5/08, Apptech <apptech@...> wrote: > >> It's stunning the compression rates that can be achieved > >> these days. :-) > > > Wait until we get 3D object recognition in real time in > > the camcorder > > - then all they'll do is record 3D meshes with textures > > moving about > > the scene. 15:1 is nothing! > > 15:1??? > Nay sir > > > I'm impressed with the camera itself. > > Two hours of HD video at the highest > > quality setting on a 16Mb card is > > fine. ... > > The highest > > quality setting is 17Mbits/second. > > 17 Mb/s x 1/8 Bytes x 7200 seconds / 16 MB ~= 956:1* > > :-) > > FWIW 17 /8*7200 = 15.3 GB or NO compression at all. > Or, maybe that's unwinding the calculation that produced the > 17 Mb/s in the 1st place. > Seems quite likely. Full circle ;-). > > > > Russell > > That 956 = 1000 for some values of = is not a coincidence > :-) > > > > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- EARTH DAY 2008 Tuesday April 22 Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [TECH] Canon HF100 camcorder (was: [EE] SDHC Cards, was Re: Digital Sound)
by Spehro Pefhany
::
Rate this Message:
Quoting Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@...>:
> Apptech wrote: >> 17 Mb/s x 1/8 Bytes x 7200 seconds / 16 MB ~= 956:1* > > You slipped a few decimal points. HD video is 1920 x 1080 pixels per frame, > which is 2.1 Mbyte. With no compression or chroma subsampling there are 3 bytes per pixel. > With interlacing (1080i at 60Hz format) you send half > that 60 times per second for a total uncompressed data rate of 62.6 > Mbyte/sec or 498 Mbit/sec. 498/17 = about 30:1 compression. > > Two hours of 17 Mbit/sec is 15.3 Gbytes, which makes the claim of 2 hours > recording time on a 16 Gbyte card seem plausible. > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" s...@... Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist |
|
|
|
