I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need a camera anyway.
So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, preferably 30fps.
I dont know if it does 25-30fps but a sony digital 8 does DVD, 480i lines horizontal quality. I have the TVR480 it has alot more features then the cheaper 460? it is cheaper under 3 but no remote, touchscreen. no memory stick or photo mode. photos can be taken any time in record or playback of tape, even individual frame by frame with zoom. 20x optical 990 digital, super nightshot, antishake, and many other features. For the price the Tvr 480 cant be beat and mine has had extensive use, at wall mart with 30 day return policy. A Consumer Reports "Best Buy". Your next main upgrade in quality is Canon at 760i lines horizontal resolution , then the new sony 1800$ HD 1080i unit, thats what I want. You will be happy with a Tvr480 for the price you cant do better, it has longer record time with the larger tapes.
There are several: I have the Canon S2 IS which does 30fps at 640x480 BUT is limited to 1 GB at a time (about 8 min. of Video.) As a camera, it is 5Mpixels. Uses SD cards.
> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras > that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap > $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need > a camera anyway.
> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera > that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, > preferably 30fps.
Steven Blackwood wrote: > There are several: I have the Canon S2 IS which does 30fps at 640x480 > BUT is limited to 1 GB at a time (about 8 min. of Video.)
be honest... when ANYONE need more than 8 min of video at a time, then that person REALLY NEEDS video camera, not still one... But for this purposes..S2 is just excellent stuff.HAd S1 before, S2 now. Both just great.
BTW...if there's a need for video camera, it HAS to be expensive one...since all those cheap to moderate price models just can't cope with needs...like shooting in the dark...result is usually choppy picture etc... and image stabilizer isn't nearly as good as it is at S2....etc.etc...
I should read better, here I am steering you at a videocam, sorry, but the 480 camcorder is a good videocam, only stills are 640x480. Video on cameras is expensive cards fill to fast. I have both. and a sony w5 for photos, my only use on the w5 but it does video..
> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras > that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap > $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need > a camera anyway.
> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera > that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, > preferably 30fps.
> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras > that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap > $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need > a camera anyway.
> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera > that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, > preferably 30fps.
As for its using SD cards, that's unfortunate: I've already got a ton of CF cards. Still, I've owned Canons before and they have been nice cameras to use.
>I dont know if it does 25-30fps but a sony digital 8 does DVD, 480i > lines horizontal quality.
Okay, you're confusing a couple of things. Each frame of NTSC video is made up of 525 lines. D-25, a digital standard used, among other things, for miniDV and Digital 8 uses 480 lines per frame. That has nothing to do with resolution.
MiniDV is capable of up to 525 lines of resolution, meaning each scan line can resolve up to 525 discrete bits of information. Only the very best miniDV camcorders can resolve this. Your inexpensive D8 is probably in the mid-400s and the cheapest digital camcorders barely surpass VHS resolution at arond 275 lines.
DVD resolution is limited only by the television standard for which they are encoded, i.e. a standard resolution NTSC DVD will resolve a maximum of 525 lines in a frame composed of 480 horizontal lines.
With respect to the OP's question, no digital still camera will match the _video_ quality of even the inexpensive digital camcorders, just as no digital camcorder can match the still quality of even the most inexpensive still cameras.
Want stills? Buy a digitial still camera. Want video? Buy a digital camcorder.
> I have the TVR480 it has alot more features > then the cheaper 460?
These "features" contribute nothing to the quality of the video produced by the machine.
> it is cheaper under 3 but no remote, touchscreen. > no memory stick or photo mode. photos can be taken any time in record or > playback of tape, even individual frame by frame with zoom. 20x optical > 990 digital, super nightshot, antishake, and many other features. For > the price the Tvr 480 cant be beat and mine has had extensive use, at > wall mart with 30 day return policy. A Consumer Reports "Best Buy". Your > next main upgrade in quality is Canon at 760i lines horizontal > resolution , then the new sony 1800$ HD 1080i unit, thats what I want. > You will be happy with a Tvr480 for the price you cant do better, it > has longer record time with the larger tapes.
> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras > that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap > $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need > a camera anyway.
> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera > that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, > preferably 30fps.
> Thanks!
Sure. Many of the more recent Kodak cameras, such as the P850 do this. Even some of the lower priced ones do as well.
> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras > that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap > $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need > a camera anyway.
> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera > that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, > preferably 30fps.
> Thanks!
Canon SD300, 400, 500, 350, 450 and 550. They record at 640x480 at 30fps for as long as the memory lasts (and you can put 2gb SD cards in them). -- Cari (MS-MVP) Printing & Imaging http://www.coribright.com/windows
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-use...@yahoo.com> writes: >"m Ransley" <rans...@webtv.net> wrote in message >news:15642-43B8121A-601@storefull-3132.bay.webtv.net... >>I dont know if it does 25-30fps but a sony digital 8 does DVD, 480i >> lines horizontal quality. >Okay, you're confusing a couple of things. Each frame of NTSC video is made >up of 525 lines. D-25, a digital standard used, among other things, for >miniDV and Digital 8 uses 480 lines per frame. That has nothing to do with >resolution.
That's pretty much correct. For the benefit of other readers who may still be confused, the "525 line" number for NTSC simply means that the electron beam in a CRT scans left to right and back to the left again 525 times over the period of one complete picture, almost 1/30 second. But in broadcast TV, only about 485 of those lines contain picture - the other 40 or so are used for vertical sync and blanking and test signals. MiniDV uses only 480 lines of picture information, and it's stored digitally so it doesn't waste space on the non-picture 45 lines.
But the number of horizontal picture lines does determine *vertical* resolution. The theoretical maximum is (as you'd expect) 480 TV lines per picture height, but in the real world the actual measured maximum is usually about 70% of that, or about 335 lines of vertical resolution.
But since the number of picture lines is fixed by the video format (NTSC or PAL), the vertical resolution is about the same for all video devices except the very worst, and so nobody bothers quoting it. The "resolution" figures you see in video data sheets are all *horizontal* resolution, because that does vary a lot.
>MiniDV is capable of up to 525 lines of resolution, meaning each scan line >can resolve up to 525 discrete bits of information. Only the very best >miniDV camcorders can resolve this. Your inexpensive D8 is probably in the >mid-400s and the cheapest digital camcorders barely surpass VHS resolution >at arond 275 lines.
Almost but not quite. These are horizontal resolution figures, but in order to make them comparable to vertical resolution, they are by convention quoted in *lines per picture height*, not lines per picture width. So "525 lines" means that one scan line can resolve up to 525*4/3 alternating black and white lines, or a total of 700 lines per picture width. Since miniDV actually has 720 pixels per line, with about 704 of them actually within the 4:3 frame, a rating of 525 lines is pretty much the theoretical maximum for this format.
>DVD resolution is limited only by the television standard for which they are >encoded, i.e. a standard resolution NTSC DVD will resolve a maximum of 525 >lines in a frame composed of 480 horizontal lines.
Right; the encoded data is 720x480 pixels.
>With respect to the OP's question, no digital still camera will match the >_video_ quality of even the inexpensive digital camcorders, just as no >digital camcorder can match the still quality of even the most inexpensive >still cameras.
There are some digital still cameras that will do 640x480 at 30 Hz, which should be *almost* as good as a decent DV camcorder if it's recorded in motion JPEG format. If it uses MPEG-2 or MPEG-4, the higher compression may drop the quality.
>Want stills? Buy a digitial still camera. Want video? Buy a digital >camcorder.
Generally good advice.
I *have* used a Canon Optura 60 as a 2 megapixel digital still camera at times. It has a 14X zoom lens with image stabilization, and I have no comparable still camera with that feature. The images are sharp, but noisy. (It's a 1/2.5" CCD)
> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras > that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap > $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need > a camera anyway.
> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera > that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, > preferably 30fps.
> Thanks!
Casio EX-Z750. Not sure of the quality, though, 7mp and a tiny sensor, but, then, it's a tiny camera...
> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras > that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap > $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need > a camera anyway.
> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera > that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, > preferably 30fps.
> Thanks!
The *Konica Minolta A 200* makes movies in .MOV (QuickTime) format. After burning them with NERO to a SVCD they have the same quality as VHS looked like in the earlier days with the CamCorders. NOT BAD for a digital PHOTO camera !
>> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras >> that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap >> $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need >> a camera anyway.
>> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera >> that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, >> preferably 30fps.
> My Nikon Coolpix 8800 can do 30fps of video.
> -- > - Barry
The 8800 will only do 60 seconds at a time and there is a processing lag between clips.
>>>I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras >>>that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap >>>$300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need >>>a camera anyway.
>>>So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera >>>that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, >>>preferably 30fps.
>>My Nikon Coolpix 8800 can do 30fps of video.
>>-- >>- Barry
> The 8800 will only do 60 seconds at a time and there is a processing lag > between clips.
You are correct about the time limit in 640x480 mode (I have no idea why). It can take 895 seconds at 320x240.
I've only used this feature twice (once just to test that it worked) and cannot speak to the time-lag (but I don't doubt it).
>> I want a cheap alternative to the expensive video cameras >> that are out there, and I don't particularly want a cheap >> $300 video camera. You see I have limited funds and I need >> a camera anyway.
>> So I was wondering if anyone can point me to a digital camera >> that records video at 25 frames per second at 640x480, >> preferably 30fps.
>> Thanks!
> Sure. Many of the more recent Kodak cameras, such as the P850 do this. > Even some of the lower priced ones do as well.
|
