 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / February 2007New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird
Hi All, In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that also shoot HD video: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=896 Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that > also shoot HD video: It has a bunch of really stupid limitations, such as max 13 minute movie clips (4GB) and max 1.5 hour audio (1GB), even though it takes SDHC cards (8GB cards are already available with 16GB coming). Plus it has a tiny sensor with too many pixels, and looks like it uses an internal lithium battery that's both proprietary and runtime-limiting. It's an indication of what's coming, though. Maybe they'll make an AA version sometime. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022203canontx1.asp >> In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that >> also shoot HD video: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022203canontx1.asp Yes, there is definitely going to be a merger of at least some types of still camera and video. Both will likely still exist separately for a long time, but I can see a growing segment of crossover cameras. Why have two when one will do it all, I am sure, will be the marketing motto. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > Yes, there is definitely going to be a merger of at least some types > of still camera and video. Both will likely still exist separately for > a long time, but I can see a growing segment of crossover cameras. Why > have two when one will do it all, I am sure, will be the marketing > motto. I used to be very opposed to that but I'm sort of ok with it now. However, this TX-1 seems to me to do a lousy job, for the reasons I mentioned. Basically I'd rather have a gadget that does one thing well than two things badly. And yikes, it seems to have no external mic input! I wonder how the TX-1's audio quality is. I've shot some video clips with my A530 and it's kind of fun, but the A530's audio is terrible. >> Yes, there is definitely going to be a merger of at least some types >> of still camera and video. Both will likely still exist separately for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I wonder how the TX-1's audio quality is. I've shot some video clips > with my A530 and it's kind of fun, but the A530's audio is terrible. Agreed. In theory it should be possible to make a camera that is good at both, but I think it is a long way till we get there, if ever in practice. That said, because I tend to mostly take a still camera with me (well usually two, my IR body and the normal one) I have had occasions when some decent video capability would have been nice. On the other hand if I could only get my wife to carry the video camera, I'd be set :) Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > Agreed. In theory it should be possible to make a camera that is > good at both [stills and video], but I think it is a long way till > we get there, if ever in practice. Maybe the requirements are different. I'm never going to shoot a feature film with a pocket sized camera, and I'm not going to pixel peep video frames. So I'm ok with VGA resolution for video in a pocket camera. On the other hand I'm always after more and more low light performance. They are using a 1/2.5" sensor in that TX-1, so if they went for making it a pure video camera, at 640x480 that would give around 9 micron pixels, beating all current DSLR's for pixel size. With a 640x480 APS-C sensor (not so expensive any more, due to mass market consumer DSLR's) they could beat even professional video cameras. They just don't dare to make the resolution that low. > They are using a 1/2.5" sensor in that TX-1, so if they went for > making it a pure video camera, at 640x480 that would give around 9 > micron pixels, beating all current DSLR's for pixel size. With a > 640x480 APS-C sensor (not so expensive any more, due to mass market > consumer DSLR's) they could beat even professional video cameras. > They just don't dare to make the resolution that low. Why would they want to. People here want at least 720*576 for video (or usually 1080 these days) Frankly I'd rather have a 3ccd hard drive hiDef video camera with the same size sensors :-) MrT. > Why would they want to. People here want at least 720*576 for video (or > usually 1080 these days) OK, SVGA or even 1080 then. But when I watch VGA video blown up to my 1600x1200 screen it still looks fine. > Frankly I'd rather have a 3ccd hard drive hiDef video camera with the same > size sensors :-) 3ccd looks sort of obsolete to me. Larger single CCD's are getting cheaper and cheaper to make, but as the CCD's get larger the prisms and alignment systems for 3ccd systems get ridiculously expensive. So you've got the semipro Sony VX2100 or its HDV successor with 3x 1/3" CCD's at around $2000 and the next model up, with 1/2" CCD's is around $5000. But three 1/3" CCD's is around the same sensor area as 1/1.8". It avoids the light losses in the Bayer sensor but it still doesn't collect anywhere near as many photons as a 4/3" sensor much less an APS-C sensor. The $17,500, 12 MP, super duper Red digital cinema camera will apparently use an APS-C sized sensor but I seriously don't see the obstacle to doing that at the VX2100 price level and HDV resolution. >> Why would they want to. People here want at least 720*576 for video (or >> usually 1080 these days) > >OK, SVGA or even 1080 then. But when I watch VGA video blown up to my >1600x1200 screen it still looks fine. You've never seen HD then. After you've seen 1920x1080 HD, SD analog video, no matter how well produced, looks like crap. >> Frankly I'd rather have a 3ccd hard drive hiDef video camera with the same >> size sensors :-) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >see the obstacle to doing that at the VX2100 price level and HDV >resolution. > >OK, SVGA or even 1080 then. But when I watch VGA video blown up to my > >1600x1200 screen it still looks fine. > > You've never seen HD then. After you've seen 1920x1080 HD, SD analog > video, no matter how well produced, looks like crap. I suppose if one is a videophile that's true. I'm sure I could tell the difference, it's that I just don't care. I've seen 70mm film at the theater and I'm sure that looks even better than HD. But the actual experience of watching the movie isn't especially better than watching it on VHS in someone's living room. I really care a lot more about the quality of the script, the acting, whether the person in the next seat is coughing on me, etc., than I do about the pixels. The most successful documentary of all time (Fahrenheit 911) was shot mostly on SD video and I really doubt that anybody minded. > > You've never seen HD then. After you've seen 1920x1080 HD, SD analog > > video, no matter how well produced, looks like crap. Actually it's more often the content that is crap in either case :-) > I suppose if one is a videophile that's true. I'm sure I could tell > the difference, it's that I just don't care. I've seen 70mm film at > the theater and I'm sure that looks even better than HD. Not necessarily, it depends on the movie, camera's used, quality of print, quality of cinema equipment etc. Similarly with HiDef. digital recording/playback. > But the > actual experience of watching the movie isn't especially better than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > most successful documentary of all time (Fahrenheit 911) was shot > mostly on SD video and I really doubt that anybody minded. True it depends on the material, and I wouldn't want to see Lord of the Rings done that way! MrT. >> > You've never seen HD then. After you've seen 1920x1080 HD, SD analog >> > video, no matter how well produced, looks like crap. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >True it depends on the material, and I wouldn't want to see Lord of the >Rings done that way! Seen on a small screen in SD, the opening cityscape on CSI:Miami is just bland. In HD on an 8 foot screen the better ones are, well, you gotta see one to believe it. > On the other hand if I could only get my wife to carry the video camera, >I'd be set :) Now that's a serious admission of failure on your part :-) MrT. >> On the other hand if I could only get my wife to carry the video camera, >> I'd be set :) > > Now that's a serious admission of failure on your part :-) > > MrT. You bet :) SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >>> In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that >>> also shoot HD video: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cameras. Why have two when one will do it all, I am sure, will be the > marketing motto. I'm not into shooting lots of video, but I did choose to leave the camcorder at home when I traveled to and worked in Ukraine last summer. I decided that the 30fps VGA video of my little pocket camera was enough for me, since I primarily shoot stills (5D). As it turned out, I actually figure I shot MORE video with it than I would have with my camcorder, simply because I could slip the tiny SD700IS into a pocket, where the camcorder would never have come along anyway. It's not as good as "real" video, but it was very usable for my purposes. There are plenty of folks who are tired of lugging around even the smaller tape-driven video cameras. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > As it turned out, I actually figure I shot MORE video with it than I > would have with my camcorder, simply because I could slip the tiny > SD700IS into a pocket, where the camcorder would never have come > along anyway. It's not as good as "real" video, but it was very > usable for my purposes. There are plenty of folks who are tired of > lugging around even the smaller tape-driven video cameras. -- Right, so why not make a "real" video camera that size, with video performance comparable to fairly high end consumer camcorders, if all it takes is slightly different electronics inside, plus ditching the ability to shoot high-resolution stills? The 1/1.8" CCD should be at least comparable to the 3x 1/6" CCD's in the current Sony/Pana/whatever lineup. You can always stick yet another digicam in your pocket if you want to also shoot stills. >> As it turned out, I actually figure I shot MORE video with it than I >> would have with my camcorder, simply because I could slip the tiny [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Sony/Pana/whatever lineup. You can always stick yet another digicam > in your pocket if you want to also shoot stills. Probably has to do with the huge amount of memory required to store high-def video. The Canon can only do 13 minutes(!) on 4GB, or so I was told... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Right, so why not make a "real" video camera that size, with video > > performance comparable to fairly high end consumer camcorders,... > Probably has to do with the huge amount of memory required to store > high-def video. The Canon can only do 13 minutes(!) on 4GB, or so I > was told... Since 8GB SDHC cards are in the $50 range that isn't too terrible. 26 minutes is slightly limiting but 13 minutes is even more limiting. It will ease up when 16GB cards arrive which should be soon. Also, standard-definition video can look good at much lower bit rates. > Yes, there is definitely going to be a merger of at least some types of > still camera and video. i thought it was going inevitable 5 years ago..... hell, my mobile will do 4o minutes of 640x480 @ 30fps! kosh >> In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that >> also shoot HD video: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022203canontx1.asp 4 GB is not a "weird limitation" at all, that's the FAT32 file size limit. To go higher than that they'd have to either split the video across two files or go to NTFS or some other file system on the card, which would, no matter what they chose, introduce compatibility problems. > 4 GB is not a "weird limitation" at all, that's the FAT32 file size > limit. To go higher than that they'd have to either split the video > across two files or go to NTFS or some other file system on the card, > which would, no matter what they chose, introduce compatibility > problems. I don't see what's wrong with splitting the video or audio into multiple files. Audio recorders do it. Just start a new file every so often. > I don't see what's wrong with splitting the video or audio into > multiple files. Audio recorders do it. Just start a new file every > so often. And the video on DVD discs is split into 1gig parts as well, nothing new here. My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte pieces.. >> I don't see what's wrong with splitting the video or audio into >> multiple files. Audio recorders do it. Just start a new file every [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte >pieces.. Is there a standard for doing that or does doing so lock you into a proprietary program for playback? > >My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte > >pieces.. > Is there a standard for doing that or does doing so lock you into a > proprietary program for playback? My PVR is so new I haven't had enough time to play with it yet (and I haven't recorded anything worth keeping :).. But somehow I assume the splitting part of the problem is solved simply by concatenating the files together, there are no special headers. After that, it's in whatever format DVB-C in Europe gets sent. >> >My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte >> >pieces.. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >headers. After that, it's in whatever format DVB-C in Europe >gets sent. There are no special headers but if you check carefully you should see that it names the files in some fashion so that it can tell which piece is where in the sequence. "Thisdreck1", "Thisdreck2", "Thisdreck3" or some such. Might look like a random number even. > 4 GB is not a "weird limitation" at all, that's the FAT32 file size > limit. To go higher than that they'd have to either split the video > across two files or go to NTFS or some other file system on the card, > which would, no matter what they chose, introduce compatibility > problems. Why would splitting the video file into two, as many FAT32 systems have done for years, "introduce compatibility problems"? Similarly what is wrong with using NTFS these days anyway? MrT. >> 4 GB is not a "weird limitation" at all, that's the FAT32 file size >> limit. To go higher than that they'd have to either split the video [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Why would splitting the video file into two, as many FAT32 systems have done >for years, "introduce compatibility problems"? There's no standard that I know of for splitting such a file and making the second piece findable in a transparent manner. If you're only going to play back in the camera it's not an issue, but if you have to be able to play back without knowing what software the user is going to be running then you need to use a compatible naming convention and there is no standard for the naming convention. >Similarly what is wrong with using NTFS these days anyway? First, there's the problem of actually writing to NTFS using a non-Microsoft operating system. The Linux people have been trying to develop this capability for as long as I can remember and last time I upgraded my kernel it was still broken--Apple has tried to do the same and last I heard it was still broken on their system as well, so the camera manufacturer would either have to run some form of Windows on their camera or figure out how to do something that has proven beyond the capabilities of some of the sharpest programmers in the industry. Then theres the matter of _reading_ it. OS/X can, sort of, Linux has had read support off and on and sometimes broken, the only OS that can be _counted_ on to read NTFS is Windows and not all versions of _that_. > There's no standard that I know of for splitting such a file and > making the second piece findable in a transparent manner. If you're > only going to play back in the camera it's not an issue, but if you > have to be able to play back without knowing what software the user is > going to be running then you need to use a compatible naming > convention and there is no standard for the naming convention. Irrelevant. The user simply opens both files into his editor whatever they are called. And since when did the manufacturer ever care what software the user had? They usually provide software of their own, and if you want to use something else, then the problem is up to THAT company. :-) Anyway WHY does everything have to be done in the camera when computers and software can do it so much better? As long as the camera can save the file/s you can write software to convert/combine/rename it however you want. (And that is usually a trivial exercise anyway) > >Similarly what is wrong with using NTFS these days anyway? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > be _counted_ on to read NTFS is Windows and not all versions of > _that_. Well obviously you don't need to use NTFS if your destination is not Windows XP/Vista! And if you want to use it, then unfortunately you need to license it from Bill. Probably a good reason to stay with multiple FAT32 files, as most manufacturers have done so far, I suppose. MrT. >> There's no standard that I know of for splitting such a file and >> making the second piece findable in a transparent manner. If you're [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Irrelevant. The user simply opens both files into his editor Editor? What editor? Who said anything about an editor? >whatever they >are called. And since when did the manufacturer ever care what software the >user had? They don't, which is why they use standard formats. >They usually provide software of their own, and if you want to use >something else, then the problem is up to THAT company. :-) So what camera manufacturers provide video playback software? >Anyway WHY does everything have to be done in the camera when computers and >software can do it so much better? As long as the camera can save the file/s >you can write software to convert/combine/rename it however you want. (And >that is usually a trivial exercise anyway) All this is nice for someone who has a copy of Premiere or whatever handy, but I doubt that that's the intended market for what's basically a point-and-shoot. >> >Similarly what is wrong with using NTFS these days anyway? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Well obviously you don't need to use NTFS if your destination is not Windows >XP/Vista! So how do you get a file size larger than 4 GB? >And if you want to use it, then unfortunately you need to license it from >Bill. Probably a good reason to stay with multiple FAT32 files, as most >manufacturers have done so far, I suppose. > >MrT. > Editor? What editor? Who said anything about an editor? So if you are *only* playing the files in your camera, where is the problem? (other than storage :-) > So what camera manufacturers provide video playback software? Quite a few do provide versions of Ulead or similar software in fact. > All this is nice for someone who has a copy of Premiere or whatever > handy, but I doubt that that's the intended market for what's > basically a point-and-shoot. And just what ARE those people doing with their "video's" then do you think, if they don't have any software to play or edit them? > >Well obviously you don't need to use NTFS if your destination is not Windows > >XP/Vista! > > So how do you get a file size larger than 4 GB? You don't *have* to. See below. >> Probably a good reason to stay with multiple FAT32 files, as most > >manufacturers have done so far, I suppose. And it's not uncommon to cut file sizes to 1GB chunks for video. MrT. >> Editor? What editor? Who said anything about an editor? > >So if you are *only* playing the files in your camera, where is the problem? >(other than storage :-) Who said anything about playing the files in your camera? You seem to be having trouble with the notion that there are players that do not have any editing capability. Windows Media Player for example. Winamp for another. >> So what camera manufacturers provide video playback software? > >Quite a few do provide versions of Ulead or similar software in fact. What manufacturers of cameras provide Ulead? >> All this is nice for someone who has a copy of Premiere or whatever >> handy, but I doubt that that's the intended market for what's >> basically a point-and-shoot. > >And just what ARE those people doing with their "video's" then do you think, >if they don't have any software to play or edit them? Again, you're confusing the issue when you introduce editing. Player <not equal> editor. >> >Well obviously you don't need to use NTFS if your destination is not >Windows [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You don't *have* to. See below. No, unless you want to record more than 4 GB of data and play it back with any random player without having to first find the pieces and rename them to the player's naming convention. >>> Probably a good reason to stay with multiple FAT32 files, as most >> >manufacturers have done so far, I suppose. > >And it's not uncommon to cut file sizes to 1GB chunks for video. However in this case it appears that that is not being done so what is "not uncommon" is irrelevant. Point and shoots are not aimed at video experts, you know. > You seem to be having trouble with the notion that there are players > that do not have any editing capability. Windows Media Player for > example. Winamp for another. I just don't see the big problem here. Audio recorders face exactly the same issue, and the ones I know of simply make file001.wav, file002.wav, file003.wav, etc. where the user can set how often the recorder should start a new file. People can generally figure out what to do with the files regardless of what type of player they're using. >> You seem to be having trouble with the notion that there are players >> that do not have any editing capability. Windows Media Player for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >out what to do with the files regardless of what type of player >they're using. Audio recorders face the problem of dealing with files larger than 4 GB????? That's about 6 hours at CD quality. > Audio recorders face the problem of dealing with files larger than 4 > GB????? That's about 6 hours at CD quality. Usually you set them to start a new file much sooner than that, like every 1/2 hour or whatever. I think my PMD660 can even start a file every 30 seconds. >> Audio recorders face the problem of dealing with files larger than 4 >> GB????? That's about 6 hours at CD quality. > >Usually you set them to start a new file much sooner than that, >like every 1/2 hour or whatever. I think my PMD660 can even start >a file every 30 seconds. If you're talking a $500 audio recorder you're talking about a different market from that for an under-$500 camera. > >Usually you set them to start a new file much sooner than that, > >like every 1/2 hour or whatever. I think my PMD660 can even start > >a file every 30 seconds. > > If you're talking a $500 audio recorder you're talking about a > different market from that for an under-$500 camera. The TX-1 is also around $500. I think the PMD660 was around $400. > Audio recorders face the problem of dealing with files larger than 4 > GB????? That's about 6 hours at CD quality. But not when you are recording 24/96 (or even 24/192) pro formats. You also need to split each track into separate files when recording multi-track. MrT. > Who said anything about playing the files in your camera? > > You seem to be having trouble with the notion that there are players > that do not have any editing capability. Windows Media Player for > example. Winamp for another. And why do you assume people with a computer are incapable of running anything else, even a simple file conversion program that could come with the camera? > Again, you're confusing the issue when you introduce editing. Player > <not equal> editor. And a simple file conversion program is not equal to editor either. But I'm not interested in debating semantics. > No, unless you want to record more than 4 GB of data and play it back > with any random player without having to first find the pieces and > rename them to the player's naming convention. Which can all be done automatically if appropriate software is used to download from the camera. Just as some camera's do now. > However in this case it appears that that is not being done so what is > "not uncommon" is irrelevant. No it's not, ALL I said was it CAN be done. What manufacturers *choose* to do is not something I spend my time worrying about. MrT. >> Who said anything about playing the files in your camera? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >anything else, even a simple file conversion program that could come with >the camera? Because I've dealt with more users than you have? >> Again, you're confusing the issue when you introduce editing. Player >> <not equal> editor. > >And a simple file conversion program is not equal to editor either. But I'm >not interested in debating semantics. Nor it is equal to a least common denominator player. >> No, unless you want to record more than 4 GB of data and play it back >> with any random player without having to first find the pieces and >> rename them to the player's naming convention. > >Which can all be done automatically if appropriate software is used to >download from the camera. Just as some camera's do now. And how about if you are reading the card directly and not downloading from the camera? >> However in this case it appears that that is not being done so what is >> "not uncommon" is irrelevant. > >No it's not, ALL I said was it CAN be done. What manufacturers *choose* to >do is not something I spend my time worrying about. Then why are you fussing about it? >> In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that >> also shoot HD video: > > It has a bunch of really stupid limitations, such as max 13 minute > movie clips (4GB) and max 1.5 hour audio (1GB), even though it takes > SDHC cards (8GB cards are already available with 16GB coming). Not so stupid if you think about it. Many people might end up trying to transfer a 5GB or larger file to a computer whose file system doesn't allow for files greater than 4GB. An easy workaround, especially if it was an optional menu item would be to allow the camera to automatically save files when 4GB is reached and continue shooting with the next incrementally available file number. These could always be concatenated after transferring to a hard drive with a more suitable file system. > Not so stupid if you think about it. Many people might end up > trying to transfer a 5GB or larger file to a computer whose file > system doesn't allow for files greater than 4GB. The camera's fat32 file system has that same limit so we presume automatic splitting. Other comparable devices already do that. >> In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that >> also shoot HD video: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022203canontx1.asp Hi Paul, Then again I am not sure if they are big limitations for many people. I know I very rarely shoot more than 13 minutes of continuous video. More commonly I shoot short 30 second to at most 5-10 minute clips for later editing together, so I don't think it would really affect me much. I look forward to playing with one. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > In the new releases is the Powershot TX-1, a weird still camera that also > shoot HD video: > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=896 Canon have a history of making weird cameras - anyone remember the Epoca? (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1992-1996/data/1992_jet135.html) I got sick of people telling me, "Gosh, it looks like a video camera!" "Yeah, I know ...." :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.