Why do the the blind masses compromise photo quality for HD video playback

Jeff Rutsch said:

My god man, you're claiming that a Panasonic TZ5 offers better
results than a Canon 1D!

Click to expand...

Am I? I think I said that it does in certain ways, not in all ways.

Jeff Rutsch said:

I think all your emphasis on photons is sometimes interesting, but
you need to step back and realize there's more to the equation than
just that - it's obviously leading you to draw bizarre conclusions.

Click to expand...

I think you need to learn to read or slowly, or stop assuming that you understand everything you read. For instance, define "image-level read noise". BTW, this has NOTHING to do with photons. Photons are what the 1D is better at. The 1D has a primitive Panasonic sensor with only 4 MB, and as much or more read noise per pixel than current Panasonic P&S cameras. This means that when you get deep down into the shadows, the newer Panasonic P&S cameras can actually outperform the 1D. Also, with more resolution, they can outresolve anyway. 4M huge pixels is still only 4M pixels.

Guess what; cameras aren't monolithic. One camera can be better at one thing, and worse at another. Sorry if this realistic complexity is too much for you.

--
John

If they can have their little digital camera replace their bigger camcorder, they'll make that choice. Not everyone wants or needs very high quality in photos or video. Some people just use their cell phone for their camera and video recording because they'll always have their cell phone with them.

pauw said:

I'm considering many digital cameras and the panasonic tz5 is one of
them. However, the cheapest hd camcorder is far superior to hd
recording on this camera.

Click to expand...

This is an example of a true, but irrelevant, analogy. Similar to my pointing out that the cheapest semitruck has better cargo carrying capacity than my explorer.

pauw said:

Thus I ask why people even consider hd
playback as a bonus? Any small point and shoot will only provide
subpar video performance no matter what resolution it can record at,

Click to expand...

Here, you have made an erroneous assumption, that not being "the best" is sufficient reason to not exist, at all. By that logic, point and shoot cameras should not exist, at all, because they will only provide sub-par performance to DSLRs. And the lower end DSLRs should not exist, because they are sub-par to the higher end ones.

Have you ever heard the old saying "the best camera is the one you have with you"?

My "main" camera is a Nikon D3. But I have taken sellable pictures with my Canon S400 point and shoot, because it was the camera that "I had with me". Now, I've never produced a sellable video using its video capability, but I have shot video sufficient for management presentations and more than sufficient to bring amusement to family and friends.

pauw said:

and I feel that camera companies could make the sensor larger and
allow for better photo quality cameras.

Click to expand...

This is a more serious erroneous assumption. A larger sensor represents a substantial materials cost, which would raise the price of the camera considerably. A video mode merely represents a software cost that is amortized over tens of millions of P&S cameras, and is a much smaller cost increment, per camera, than a larger sensor would be.

pauw said:

I must blame the many blind
consumers who are blind and swayed by HD playback, thus causing
companies like panasonic to offer such a feature to please ignorant
buyers. Is my reasoning sound?

Click to expand...

No. You drew an irrelevant analogy and made two erroneous assumptions. Your reasoning broke down at all levels.

Well, you asked.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

John Sheehy said:

Guess what; cameras aren't monolithic. One camera can be better at
one thing, and worse at another. Sorry if this realistic complexity
is too much for you.

Click to expand...

I guess we wont talk about the latest pannie compacts to come out, more WA..complete with corner softness. There goes the optics for one..

If you are trying to pull up the shadows on the small sensor stuff, you just get a bucketload of noise, a far cry from the APS stuff. And we dare not mention the weak DR either.

Seriously John, you are not very convincing at all, sure some pannies have got decent lenses, but there are limits. And lets not mention you can hit ebay right now and get a 35mm that walks all over them for IQ, and by a huge margin ;-)

All for a lot less cash. Loads of work to do on small sensors..sadly, I thought they would be much better by now, but they just pump up the mp, ad NR. Yup my benchmark for IQ is film, and these itty sensor cameras are miles off it..miles.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

I like cameras that do everything, because there is less stuff to carry around.

My cameras do VGA movies in addition to stills. I stick some of them on YouTube, and they reduce them to 320x240, loosing much of the detail of the original. If I give them 320x240 to start with, you end up with a couple of minutes worth of moving blotches.

Now, HD in a still camera makes sense if you have a large screen TV and a captive audience (like a bunch of quadruplegics). My TVs are not HD ready, so those cameras would be overkill for me. So I cannot comment on whether the still cameras with HD video compromise on photo quality.

Henry

--



Henry Falkner - Stylus 800, SP-550UZ, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner

Barry Fitzgerald said:

John Sheehy said:

Guess what; cameras aren't monolithic. One camera can be better at
one thing, and worse at another. Sorry if this realistic complexity
is too much for you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

I guess we wont talk about the latest pannie compacts to come out,
more WA..complete with corner softness. There goes the optics for
one..

Click to expand...

I guess we won't, and I never said or implied that all small-sensor cameras with high pixel densities were good. All you need is one example of what is possible to see what is possible. The fact is, high pixel density does not reduce photon capture, and it is possible to make very sharp lenses for very small sensors. The discussion here is not about the TZ5 specifically, it is about alleged problems with small sensors and higher pixel density. High pixel density in and of itself is NOT a problem. The problem is that because the public is ignorant (and viewing technology, both hardware- and software-wise is horrible), camera manufacturers feel a need to make noise invisible or look like some mysterious texture that really isn't there, at 100% pixel zoom.

Member said:

If you are trying to pull up the shadows on the small sensor stuff,
you just get a bucketload of noise, a far cry from the APS stuff. And
we dare not mention the weak DR either.

Click to expand...

Read noise becomes a major source of noise just a stop or two beneath "middle gray" in DSLRs at low ISO, and the amount of photons becomes the smallest problem. Larger sensor cameras are plagued by read noise, which is the major reason the deepest shadows are generally unusable. P&S cameras have read noise any where from slightly worse to significantly better than DSLRs in general in terms of absolute pixel-level SNR, and similar in terms of DR.

Member said:

Seriously John, you are not very convincing at all, sure some pannies
have got decent lenses, but there are limits. And lets not mention
you can hit ebay right now and get a 35mm that walks all over them
for IQ, and by a huge margin ;-)

Click to expand...

Member said:

All for a lot less cash. Loads of work to do on small sensors..sadly,
I thought they would be much better by now, but they just pump up the
mp, ad NR.

Click to expand...

NR is not a direct consequence of increased MPs. It is a decision made by manufacturers, to assuage an ignorant public.

I really don't know what improvements you're expecting in small sensors; they are already close to maximum possible efficiency, and the best small sensors are much more efficient (don't respond unless you know what "efficient" means) than any DSLR or medium format back. Small sensors will always collect a minimum amount of photons at a given ISO; there aren't many more photons to collect, because they don't exist.

Member said:

Yup my benchmark for IQ is film, and these itty sensor
cameras are miles off it..miles.

Click to expand...

You can't compare anything fairly and correctly to save your life. I've seen your comparisons and arguments before - arguing that film is better because b&W film has more latitude than digital P&S cameras at 0 EC in color, never, ever giving compact digital B&W a chance to compete, and to use - EC.

--
John

John Sheehy said:

NR is not a direct consequence of increased MPs. It is a decision
made by manufacturers, to assuage an ignorant public.

Click to expand...

Who still keep buying them! And the reviewers keep giving them good marks. We gain so little with a few extra mp. Rather sad situation.

John Sheehy said:

I really don't know what improvements you're expecting in small
sensors; they are already close to maximum possible efficiency, and
the best small sensors are much more efficient (don't respond unless
you know what "efficient" means) than any DSLR or medium format back.
Small sensors will always collect a minimum amount of photons at a
given ISO; there aren't many more photons to collect, because they
don't exist.

Click to expand...

Thus there will always be limitations.

John Sheehy said:

You can't compare anything fairly and correctly to save your life.
I've seen your comparisons and arguments before - arguing that film
is better because b&W film has more latitude than digital P&S cameras
at 0 EC in color, never, ever giving compact digital B&W a chance to
compete, and to use - EC.

Click to expand...

Oh I compare very fairly. Simply put..give me 35mm quality, or I aint interested. Ok so maybe thats not easy..but there you go. They could at least try harder. Who said anything about b&w flim? Hell neg colour thrashes them to death. Way more DR, all over, far more subtle tonal graduations, and loads more detail.

If you did photography in the field, you would know just how much easier it is..not to spend time looking at your LCD histogram and highlight warnings. - exp compensation still doesnt solve the bad DR, pull those shadows up..and noise fest.

Its just there on film. Like it or not, the DR and highlight latitude of small sensors, is a bit of a joke, and thats being nice about it. I guess you are easily pleased..I am not! As it happens, pannie seem to be the worst offenders on DR for many models..their rivals seema bit ahead on this one.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

acsmith said:

That's OK. Those same consumers moan loudly and threaten class
action suites when they discover that a still camera with a video
capability won't take videos on the par with video cameras costing
2-3x more.

Click to expand...

Consumers don't file class action law suits - lawyers do.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Thus I ask why people even consider hd
playback as a bonus? Any small point and shoot will only provide
subpar video performance no matter what resolution it can record at,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewsk:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Here, you have made an erroneous assumption, that not being "the
best" is sufficient reason to not exist, at all. By that logic, point
and shoot cameras should not exist, at all, because they will only
provide sub-par performance to DSLRs. And the lower end DSLRs should
not exist, because they are sub-par to the higher end ones.

Click to expand...

Here you have butchered my speech to fit your own premeditated train of assumptive thought. I never once said that cameras which have hd playback should for some unknown reason cease to exist, and when did I EVER compare point and shoot IQ with even the lowest end DSLRs? Here again you spit words into my mouth as you say lower end DSLRs shouldn't exist. Perhaps I must translate what I meant to you? I was merely saying that hd playback is not a bonus, and pales in comparison to any camcorder. Notice in no way did I compare DSLR IQ to point and shoots, and by no means did I "infer" that those that did not meet my high expectations should not exist. Your logic on this point fails beyond reasonable doubt.
Joseph S Wisniewsk:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Have you ever heard the old saying "the best camera is the one you
have with you"?
Joseph S Wisniewsk:
My "main" camera is a Nikon D3. But I have taken sellable pictures
with my Canon S400 point and shoot, because it was the camera that "I
had with me". Now, I've never produced a sellable video using its
video capability, but I have shot video sufficient for management
presentations and more than sufficient to bring amusement to family
and friends.

Click to expand...

No I've never heard the "old" say this, but perhaps you have access to some deep hidden vault of knowledge I am currently unaware of. That's great you have made presentations and brought amusement to others with the video capabilities of your camera. Did I ever say that video capability was a "bad" feature? No. I simply pointed out that HD playback is another gimmick camera manufactures entertain upon the unassuming, blind masses among other things to sell more cameras. Here again you fail to grasp the larger picture, and here again your logic unequivocally fails.
pauw:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

and I feel that camera companies could make the sensor larger and
allow for better photo quality cameras.

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewsk
This is a more serious erroneous assumption. A larger sensor
represents a substantial materials cost, which would raise the price
of the camera considerably. A video mode merely represents a software
cost that is amortized over tens of millions of P&S cameras, and is a
much smaller cost increment, per camera, than a larger sensor would
be.

Click to expand...

I resign the fact that I should have been more explicative on my statement here, yet you again continue assuming to no end. I have no qualm with enhancing digital cameras by allowing them to capture video, but HD recording is a "bonus" to get more sales. Rather than continue to develop this supposedly "cheap software cost" I am pointing out that sensor size and technology could be worked upon as an alternative than increasing megapixel count and developing higher resolution video recording capability. True the cost may be higher, but I really don't care and would be perfectly content if a line ofvideo capable cameras per say were available, and a line of higher quality IQ cameras were also made publicly for a premium.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I must blame the many blind
consumers who are blind and swayed by HD playback, thus causing
companies like panasonic to offer such a feature to please ignorant
buyers. Is my reasoning sound?

Click to expand...

No. You drew an irrelevant analogy and made two erroneous
assumptions. Your reasoning broke down at all levels.

Click to expand...

I truly do blame the blind consumers who distract camera manufacturers attention to irrelevant HD enabled cameras, thereby detracting from the quality and value of digital camera point and shoots.

So enough of this baseless, arbitrary, subjective conjecture. You claim that I have made two "erroneous assumptions" when in reality you have butchered my discourse and merely "assumed" what I meant. I inferred a far different meaning than what you assume to be what I assume. And you sir are a charlatan.
Caio!

pauw said:

pauw said:

pauw said:

Thus I ask why people even consider hd
playback as a bonus? Any small point and shoot will only provide
subpar video performance no matter what resolution it can record at,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewsk:

pauw said:

Here, you have made an erroneous assumption, that not being "the
best" is sufficient reason to not exist, at all. By that logic, point
and shoot cameras should not exist, at all, because they will only
provide sub-par performance to DSLRs. And the lower end DSLRs should
not exist, because they are sub-par to the higher end ones.

Click to expand...

Here you have butchered my speech to fit your own premeditated train
of assumptive thought.

Click to expand...

I did no such thing.

pauw said:

I never once said that cameras which have hd
playback should for some unknown reason cease to exist, and when did
I EVER compare point and shoot IQ with even the lowest end DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You compared camcorders to P&S digital cameras. I simply extended the comparison, using the rules that you laid down. If you do not like other people joining in your game and playing by your rules, perhaps you should use a medium more "one directional" than an online forum.

pauw said:

Here again you spit words into my mouth as you say lower end DSLRs
shouldn't exist. Perhaps I must translate what I meant to you?

Click to expand...

No, you "must translate" nothing. If you are not capable of writing in a way that conveys your actual meaning, then you probably should not be writing at all.

Have nice life. (But please, consider having it someplace else)

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Why have poetry, literature ect..., why not just have the author tell you what they mean?

--
Peter

Persuasive Marketing Systems -
inc Copywriting, Design & Photography

You compromise on portability and versatility.

Henry

--



Henry Falkner - Stylus 800, SP-550UZ, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner

pauw said:

Using a camera in place of a camcorder is not worth it, particularly in
the sound arena unless you get the canon s5.

Click to expand...

Four years ago in Disney World I had a camcorder (Canon MV-100) and a still camera (Olympus C-750UZ).

Sandra wanted videos, so I shot 11 hours of them. Back home I did a quick edit down to 1 hour for a radio club meeting.

Two years later I got a laptop with a DVD burner, but found that after 30 minutes of capturing, it would start shedding frames in big chunks. So I could use only small excerpts from those tapes.

Two years later again I finally discover why the M-type processor in the laptop was seeing only one of the two cores in the CPU. The machine had come with only one memory clip installed, and simply filling the second slot did nothing for the CPU. It took yet another fresh install of Windows XP for the Toshiba M60 laptop to start working with both cores, finally. So much for my laptop sabotaging my efforts of capturing DV tapes.

Meanwhile, in July 1975 I got an Olympus Stylus 800 pocket camera. It does VGA movies at 15fps, and they transfer with no problem to the laptop, which came with video editing software. I also got some format conversion software, and since then the world sees my videos on YouTube.

Now, YouTube restricts you to VGA uploads, no more than 100MB, no more than 10 minutes. For that, the video as produced by current still cameras is ideal - if you upload at their final format of regurgitation, you get moving blotches. They also turn my DV segments into moving blotches.

But a few of the inhabitants of this world actually watch my movies on YouTube.

My DV tapes? I will have another go at converting them to DVDs, which represent a standard for video distribution.

DV tapes never became a standard for video consumption, I had to convert them to VHS. But VHS required long hours of shuttling back and fourth for editing, which was not precise. Now people start chucking out their VHS machines.

So give me a still camera which does VGA movies any time. I carry just one camera, the output of which is suitable for all the media I currently produce for. I edit a radio-club news-letter, and my stills are better for that than the badly focussed and badly framed prints I get from another member.

Looking at video again, for my current needs, a camcorder's video and sound quality is overkill for distribution over the internet.

As outlined above, there is a problem with capturing DV tapes, since they have to play in real time with my current equiment.

Harddisk-based camcorders are still considered a bit fragile.

Camcorders working solely with solid memory storage are not yet available at the lower prices.

Henry

--



Henry Falkner - Stylus 800, SP-550UZ, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner

The 'masses' no nothing of IQ and what creates it. HD video playback is great for the salesman - 'Did you know that you can look at your photos in HD?' It's is there to shift units and therefor emake money for the manufacturer. In other words it makes good business sense.
--
Greg

When you've got a moment, have a look at my newly updated site including my blog:
http://www.wrightphotos.co.uk
also http://www.wrightphotos.co.uk/FromeInFocus

Winner of the South West Rural section of the BBC's Picture of Britain Competition.

And you pay your price for it.

A DSLR has never stopped me doing a great commercial job.

With a little 5x7mm sensor, I could not have done them.

Yes, I look forward to great backs in the future of view cameras with all movements.

--
Peter

Persuasive Marketing Systems -
inc Copywriting, Design & Photography

Both price, and cost of running as well as some more. Bulk, weight, package size, battery need, processing need ( on the PC ) etc etc .... etc .....

--

• Franka -

Maybe the OP should look @ red one ? Not cheap though!

Regards , Rod.

If you added a can opener and compass to both cameras they would suffer IQ loss. Your superior knowledge and judgemental approach to the great unwashed consumers is not attractive.

pauw said:

I'm considering many digital cameras and the panasonic tz5 is one of
them. However, the cheapest hd camcorder is far superior to hd
recording on this camera. Thus I ask why people even consider hd
playback as a bonus? Any small point and shoot will only provide
subpar video performance no matter what resolution it can record at,
and I feel that camera companies could make the sensor larger and
allow for better photo quality cameras. I must blame the many blind
consumers who are blind and swayed by HD playback, thus causing
companies like panasonic to offer such a feature to please ignorant
buyers. Is my reasoning sound?

Click to expand...

--
Bob

'There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.' - Ansel Adams

Canon 40D, 70-200mm f4L IS, 28-135mm IS, Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 Macro, 100-400 mm f4.5L IS, Sony R1 & Canon Pro1

mike703 said:

Just be grateful that zillions of
members of the blind masses buying ridiculous new toys regularly from
Canon (or whoever) means that more discerning customers can get a
well-specified DSLR for about the price of a good meal for two in a
nice restaurant.

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't have the good fortune to live in Malaysia where you can get 20 or more delicious meals for two in a nice restaurant for the price of a good DSLR ($800).
--
Laurie Strachan