Camcorder vs still camera with movie clips

[evgfpeters]

Today most still cameras provide 640X480 30fps movie clip capabilities with audio. Are there any general disadvantages in using a still camera instead of a camcorder ?

[redwudz]

In general, a video camera does not make that great of still pictures and a still camera does not make a decent video. I'm sure there may be exceptions, but I've never seen one. I would just use each unit for what it's designed for. They will work cross purposes in a pinch, but the quality of either is just not there for non-native formats. JMO.

And welcome to our forums.

[edDV]

Actually very few do 30 fps, more like 10 or 15 fps where what you want is 24fps to do a progressive DVD.

Digital cameras (video mode) compress much more than a typical camcorder. Formats used range from MJPEG (AVI or Quicktime wrapper) to Mpeg4.

If a 3CCD MiniDV camcorder is a 10, a DVD camcorder is a 6, and a Quickcam is a 1, then a digital camera falls in the 1-3 range.

[shiet]

the s2is has pretty good quality video 640x480x30fps, my experience is better image than the 300$ sony dv vidcam i had (which was stolen from me)

sound is not that pleasant since mic is next to the lens, picks up noises.(the $300 vidcam was not much more stellar).

only thing with video on the s2 is file size - memory card...
it uses up ~2MB/sec ... that means u get 120MB/min , 1.2GB/10min
thats alot of SD cards you have to be swapping in and out...

[SingSing]

Under good lighting condition, the 30 fps video from a digital camera is very good. The conversion to DVD is also easy.

A $24.00 1GB SD card can capture about 9 minutes of video seems short, but a lot of event last about 3 minutes, so a couple of 1GB cards can easy last an outing, plus you also got still pictures.

[evgfpeters]

At this data rate (2MB/s, or just 10mins per 1GB SD) the whole thing does not make sense... But 2MB/s seems like way too high. I would expect that 0.4MB/s, or ~1 hour per 1GB SD, should be good enough for a home video. Unfortunately, still camera specs usually do not mention the data rate. Are they all in 2MB/s range ?

[SingSing]

The data rate is depending on the compresssion ratio. Currently there are two types of compression schemes : motion jpeg and mpeg4. For 1GB SD card, motion jpeg gives you 9 minutes, and mpeg4 gives you 36 minutes.

for mpeg4 examples, see : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioz850/page8.asp

For motion jpeg examples, see : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona700/page8.asp

[pizzamandk]

You guys may want to check out this Canon S3 review....

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/s3is.html

Also go see the sample...it's mJPEG and editable NLEPs....hooray!

Worth to mention also is the data rate: 15582 kbs video (640x480) and 1411 audio.

[byteguy]

The problem I've seen, even with the newer digital cameras, is that they don't have any kind of anti-shake processing while in video mode.

I got some video recently from a really nice camera. The person said they held it very still but it still bounced around terribly. Even my old 8mm Sony Handicam took smoother video.

[edDV]

You guys may want to check out this Canon S3 review....

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/s3is.html

Also go see the sample...it's mJPEG and editable NLEPs....hooray!

Worth to mention also is the data rate: 15582 kbs video (640x480) and 1411 audio.

Good that it can do it but in no way is 640x480, 30 fps progressive MJPEG at 2.275 Mb/s anywhere near the quality of camcorder video. Lets go through the list.

First lets do the math. Uncompressed 640x480 8bit 4:2:2 video is 18MB/s, or ~1 GB/s.
Data rate is ~147Mb/s.

1. Compression
- DV video is 25Mb/s (4:1:1 sampling, 5x intraframe compression)
- S3 MJPEG is 2.275Mb/s* (4:2:2 sampling, ~65x intraframe compression)

2. Motion resolution (jerkyness)
- DV video is 59.94 fields per second (above the 48Hz flicker threshold)
- S3 MJPEG is 15 or 30 frames per second.

3. Sound
- DV is uncompressed LPCM at 16bit, 48KHz. (same as DVD)
- S3 sound is 16 bit 44/22/11KHz sampling (compression not stated in specs)

4. DVD conversion
- DV shares the same resolution, bit depth, gamma and other parameters with DVD MPeg2. Both are REC-601 based, so encoding to an interlace MPeg2 DVD is direct. Interframe (motion) MPeg2 compression is added to compress an additional 3x (8300 Kb/s) to DVD

- S3 MJPEG must be scaled to 720x480 or 352x480 and can be pseudo interlaced to a 29.97 fps DVD but motion samples remain 29.97 fps causing some jerkyness and flicker depending on the display.

DVD cannot handle 30p although HD/BD DVD can. To make a progressive DVD, one must frame interpolate to 23.976fps from 30 or 15 fps. This will degrade image quality further. That is why I said progressive 24fps would have been a better S3 choice for transfer to a DVD. It would have eliminated the need to reinterpolate from a highly compressed source.

In the future, digital cameras will adopt REC-601 based video standards and maybe get to HDV or HD MPeg4 performance. Today they fall way short.


PS: To get to the 2.275 Mb/s number, I was ignoring audio. Uncompressed 16bit 44KHz stereo audio takes ~1.4 Mb/s out of that number (more than half). So audio quality needs to be mono and very low sample rate (~11 KHz) to get video near 2 Mb/s.

[tekkieman]

@ edDV - You are of course, quite accurate in everything you say involving specifications. And from a technical perspective, the information you have provided is quite useful.

I'm not going to use the word "but", although I'm sure you can already hear it.

I followed the recent thread on this very same topic, and decided to do some "research". I use that term, although what I really mean is: "What suits my need, desire, and budget". Since my need is to quit carrying a film camera, a digital camera, and a movie camera everywhere I go, my desire is to find something that will do almost everything they can do. My budget is what my wife allows me to spend. I can honestly state, IMO, that the S3 (and the older S2) absolutely meet the need, the desire, and the budget.

Again, I am not saying that what you said is wrong, it isn't. Obviously they are not the equivilent of each other. However, I can tell you this: The video quality (that is to my eye, since I'm the one watching it), is superior to my Hi-8 camcorder. The brightness level of the camcorder has always been a sore spot with me, and now that is solved. The picture quality of the 6MP (5 for the S2) will certainly beat my old 2MP camera, and the 432mm zoom, while not having the quality of my 35mm lenses, suffices 99% of the time. Since the S2 and S3 have image stabilization on both photo and movie mode, full 5MP (or 6MP) resolution picture capability while in video mode, and 12X optical zoom even in movie mode (try to find that in most other digicams).

Now, I need to convert the video whether it's the Hi-8 or this camera, so there isn't much of a difference there. This is home video, not something for the silver screen. I can honestly say (and provide samples if you wish), that for most people, this is a viable alternative. While I applaude your knowledge of video, sometimes you need to look beyond specifications, and look at functionality. To Joe Sixpack with his dog, pick-up, and 2.2 kids, there is a "all-in-one" solution.

[edDV]

@ edDV - You are of course, quite accurate in everything you say involving specifications. And from a technical perspective, the information you have provided is quite useful.

I'm not going to use the word "but", although I'm sure you can already hear it.

I followed the recent thread on this very same topic, and decided to do some "research". I use that term, although what I really mean is: "What suits my need, desire, and budget". Since my need is to quit carrying a film camera, a digital camera, and a movie camera everywhere I go, my desire is to find something that will do almost everything they can do. My budget is what my wife allows me to spend. I can honestly state, IMO, that the S3 (and the older S2) absolutely meet the need, the desire, and the budget.

Again, I am not saying that what you said is wrong, it isn't. Obviously they are not the equivilent of each other. However, I can tell you this: The video quality (that is to my eye, since I'm the one watching it), is superior to my Hi-8 camcorder. The brightness level of the camcorder has always been a sore spot with me, and now that is solved. The picture quality of the 6MP (5 for the S2) will certainly beat my old 2MP camera, and the 432mm zoom, while not having the quality of my 35mm lenses, suffices 99% of the time. Since the S2 and S3 have image stabilization on both photo and movie mode, full 5MP (or 6MP) resolution picture capability while in video mode, and 12X optical zoom even in movie mode (try to find that in most other digicams).

Now, I need to convert the video whether it's the Hi-8 or this camera, so there isn't much of a difference there. This is home video, not something for the silver screen. I can honestly say (and provide samples if you wish), that for most people, this is a viable alternative. While I applaude your knowledge of video, sometimes you need to look beyond specifications, and look at functionality. To Joe Sixpack with his dog, pick-up, and 2.2 kids, there is a "all-in-one" solution.

Of course there are applications for this but one needs to understand the limitations. Hi8 is in-between as a recording medium and carries all the analog issues of noise and dropouts. The camera technology makes at least half the differnece. That is why there are crappy $300 DV camcorders and $30,000 DV camcorders even though the recording path is almost the same performance. If you record a fancy camera with 70x+ compression it will still make some difference but mostly what you see is the 70x+ compression.

We all compromise as we see fit. When I look back on my travel videos from the early 90's, I'm glad that I did carry that 15lb. Sony CCD-V5000 behemoth and all the batteries all over Asia and Europe, but it was a pain at the time. I find that I enjoy the videos much more than the stills. The video touches more senses. It takes you back to the experience.

So, if I were in your delima, I would opt for a smallish camcorder like the Sony HC1.

Back then:
+

[pizzamandk]

EdDV thanks for providing the tech specs and I find them interesting and informative. However, some users (like an amateur like me) are also looking for another feature: ease of use and speedy transfer. Like USB transfer. I am really tired of rewinding the DV tapes in the search for the right spots and while some ppl here may say I'm lazy I must say that after 6 years with budget-line DV cams I am seriously considering a digi still cam with nice video capabilities (unless the SD vidcam Panasonic SD200 comes out not too expensive).

And for the anti-shake: I've seen lots and lots of worse amateurs than me hold their precious DVD cams with the hand in the strap designed by the factory, with shakes to follow in minutes. WRONG! You get far better results pointing the cam like a gun, police officer style. Your arms don't get tired that fast and you can hold the cam MUCH longer and easier. Oh yes and it looks cool )

[edDV]

You have made up your mind. You value ease of use over quality.

[SingSing]

And for the anti-shake: I've seen lots and lots of worse amateurs than me hold their precious DVD cams with the hand in the strap designed by the factory, with shakes to follow in minutes. WRONG! You get far better results pointing the cam like a gun, police officer style. Your arms don't get tired that fast and you can hold the cam MUCH longer and easier. Oh yes and it looks cool )

The camcorder in that style is known as Sharp viewcam. You are right, it does not need anti-shake by design.

[guns1inger]

I have a pretty good quality digital still camera. The Fuji 5600S (or 5200S in the US). It is capable of 640 x 480 @ 30fps, and the quality is in fact surprisingly good. However it is in no way a substitute for a DV camera. Why ?

1. Mono audio from a scratchy little microphone
2. Can't use the zoom function when filming, so lens is effectively fixed.
3. Smooth on a tridpod, not as smooth as DV when moving
4. Obviously more compressed than DV
5. And this is the biggie - limited capacity. At full resolution, less than 4 minutes on a 256MB XD card. OK for a quick clip - say if I see a UFO but useless for real filming.

But in the end it comes down to personal choice. If you don't really care about quality, or can't tell the difference anyway, then just buy a still camera with movie capability. In fact, why waste money on a good quality still camera - just buy a cheap memory based video camera - no tape, no HDD, no DVD.

[SingSing]

I have a pretty good quality digital still camera. The Fuji 5600S (or 5200S in the US). It is capable of 640 x 480 @ 30fps, and the quality is in fact surprisingly good. However it is in no way a substitute for a DV camera. Why ?
1. Mono audio from a scratchy little microphone
2. Can't use the zoom function when filming, so lens is effectively fixed.
3. Smooth on a tridpod, not as smooth as DV when moving
4. Obviously more compressed than DV
5. And this is the biggie - limited capacity. At full resolution, less than 4 minutes on a 256MB XD card.
But in the end it comes down to personal choice.

1, 2, 3 are Fuji issues. 4 but the video still looks very good. 5. Handful of $24 1GB SD card can handle most outting.

For most occasions, one would like to pick up the small digicam and go, and known that you can capture still as well as video. For occasions that you need to capture 30 minutes or more of video, bring the camcorder out too.

We are still waiting for day a cam can do both well. Panasonic has its SD cam, Samsung has DuoCam, and they are still trying.

[guns1inger]

Actually, 1, 2 and 3 are common, in one combinatioon or another, to all still cameras with movie functions.

Less than 15 minutes to a 1GB card. As with everything, cheap is cheap. Cheap memory cards are unreliable and prone to dying easily. I would not trust anything I wanted kept to a cheap memory card. But even at US$24 each, that's a lot more expensive than DV tape. Would you pay US$100 for a DV tape - because that is what you are paying for comparable recording time to solid state memory.

As with anything, the final decision is down to the individual. For me, the best option is always the best tool for the job. If I want video, I will use a video camera.

[pizzamandk]

You have made up your mind. You value ease of use over quality.

Ah, not necessarily. I still value the 25 mbit that DV gives me. Maybe I should change my transfer habits DV to PC....maybe I AM too lazy. ...maybe I really should start saving for that Panasonic SD-200 :P