Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

Started Mar 4, 2009 | Discussions
DVSteve Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Proof is in the pudding

I'm reserving any judgement until I see actual sample footage. I'm also no fan of Panasonic, but will be if this thing delivers.

LizaWitz wrote:

Really, Camcorders can't compete because they are meant for tourists
and taking pictures of babies.

Was there any point to this statement? Aside from belittling all the camcorder owners out there?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nvsteve/collections/72157603250959710/

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

plevyadophy wrote:

The Canon 5D MkII is often praised for it's video ability and many
photographers are almost having orgasms over the thing; it just so
happens that I have a magazine beside me in which a staff
photographer for a national newspaper is praising the feature
profusely saying how it changes things in photography bla bla bla.
Well, the Canon 5D MkII video is Mickey Mouse rubbish compared to
what the GH1 will be capable of.

First off, thanks for your thoughtful response. I think that the 5D has a significant advantage over the GH1 in one particular area-- its a full frame sensor. This means it can produce really lovely images, but the downside of this is that its damn hard to read off 26 megapixels 30 times a second and downsize them into HD. The results of this is the jello effect people talk about and which hurts the image when the camera is moved quickly.

The GH1 has the advantage of a smaller sensor, and, more importantly, one designed specifically for reading video off of quickly. This should eliminate or mitigate the jello effect. But the GH1 sensor, while quite large compared to camcorders is not as large as the 5D.

But what really makes the 5D mickey mouse is that the video is just tacked on, the camera isnt' designed to shoot video ,and so there are limited manual controls, no AF while shooting, etc.

Canon doesn't get it, but Panasonic does. Maybe Canon will in the future, but I'm afraid it will be a couple years.

The only machine on the
horizon that will come close, and will probably surpass it's
abilities is the recently announced hybrid camera from RED which
costs several thousands more.

Yeah, Red Scarlets sound interesting, unfortunately, the price for the brain is reasonable-- $2,500 -- though still a much smaller imager than the GH1--- but the problem with red is that everything else in their modular system is way over priced. For instance, the module that accepts CF cards to record to is $500 all by itself. $500 for two CF card ports. Its absurd. They may be competing against hollywood digital cinema on price, but they aren't really down in teh $5000 range yet.

My only criticism of the spec sheet so far is that they should have
provided dual memory slots so that you could set the camera to record
video to one card and stills to the other, given that the video
capabilities are quite good and will no doubt eat up memory card
space if used extensively (dual SD Card slots shouldn't make the
camera any bigger).

I shoot video all the time and only take pictures every once and awhile... I just get big SD cards-- 8GB and 16GB. 32GB is now out there... so it isn't really much of a problem for me, but if they had put that into the camera at a cost of an extra $50 or so, I wouldn't mind at all.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
GH1 gives full manual control

dpstrand wrote:

Doesn't the D90 lock you into f/8 or higher, meaning that narrower
depth of field you just got from your larger sensor is a (mostly)
moot point. I wonder if the GH1 will allow the use of f/4?

I can't speak about the D90 much, but the GH1 lets you set aperture and exposure manually, and they can change over time (When in full auto mode they do, I assume you can change them while shooting ,but it may not be convenient.)

At any rate, one of the killer features of the GH1 compared to other still cameras that shoot video is the extensive manual control it gives you-- not just over exposure, aperture, and ISO but over color saturation, noise reduction, and all the other parameters of the custom "film" modes you can set.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

nugat wrote:

How about:
-XLR audio connections

You can add these if you want.

-gain

In there

-ND filters

These go on the lens

-time code options
-sdi

Pointless features that are unneeded

-battery longevity
-ergonomics
\and many many filmmaking requirements that i don't bother to
mention....

Actually you haven't mentioned any filmmaking requirements, but you have mentioned things that the electronic news gathering industry wants. Different market.

arguros Senior Member • Posts: 1,095
Re: Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

Can you just spend few lines explaining why?
I mean why an AVCHD camcorder is much better than the GH1 for filming?

What is the GH1 missing compare to the top of the line ACVHD camcoder? ( I mean the ones aroung 1000 Euro budget?

Thanks

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Good points...

liquidsquid wrote:

The ergonomics is the big one for me. Yes, the camera will likely
make great videos, but will it be practical to use for anything but
short clips? I cannot see holding it up during a concert for a long
time, or during any long-term event for that matter. Hand crampage.

Really, someone needs to invent something for holding a camera up, off the ground, something that you can then pan the camera with, but that doesn't require you to hold the camera in your hand.

Or maybe something to let you mount a camera on your shoulder...

Maybe someone will come out with a center-balanced
hand-strap/shoulder mount and remote for this camera to emulate how a
real video camera should be held? I foresee a lot of herky-jerky
videos caused by holding the camera in one hand while attempting to
zoom with the other.

Hell, you can outfit your DSLR to the point that it looks ugly as hell if you want:
http://www.zacutoimages.com/p408746338/e15e7e865

I will watch this forum, and then see how many people in 6 months
still use the video feature on the camera for anything but taking
short clips. I am sure I will be wowed by the video clips.

You won't be seeing them from me, I'll be too busy out shooting to post clips here, and this is a stills oriented forum anyway. IF you want to see the video from the GH1 it will likely be showing up on Vimeo before too long.

The one place I could see this being used is on vacations. The last
time I was on a vacation worth filming... ummm I can't recall.

This camera is not for you.

Oh, and one last point: Editing video, managing those big files, etc.
Say bye-bye to the rest of your spare time.

Not really. I am able to edit quickly, but then, I've got fantastic tools-- iMovie on OS X. I'll get Final Cut when the next release is out, but I'm able to produce what I want so far with iMovie.

Anyway, you don't want video, why are you knocking this camera?

Ever occur to you that maybe those who DO want video might enjoy this camera? IF so, why does that bug you?

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

linuxworks wrote:

short answer: the output of digicam video is HIGHLY compressed
non-source data and makes it cumbersome to do edits.

Maybe under linux. Not really under OS X. I just drop my footage onto the hard drive, iMovie indexes it quickly to give me fast scrubs, and I cut my movie together.

This camera will add a step to go from AVCHD to MPEG4, but it will be lossless and I can edit it as is.

Editing uncompressed would be really cumbersome and expensive, and not really gain you much in video quality.

no one will use flash-card based 'video cameras' for anything serious.

You're really not familiar with the market, it seems. But the whole line-- from consumer to professional is going to Flash based media. The Red One shoots uncompressed HD to compact flash cards. Sony and Panasonic professional cameras shoot to flash media-- SxS and P2 are the names of those formats. Others shoot to hard drives. Tape is dead. Uncompressed is long dead.

you have it reversed; the camcorders are actually more usable as
video cams (duh!) than even the newly proposed combo-cams will be
able to support.

So you assert, but you give no reason to believe it. I gave reasons for my position, I gave arguments. When you just make an assertion like that you don't look very knowledgeable.

If you want to convince someone give arguments, don't just insist something is true, give a reason to believe it.

I've shown no camcorder has the capabilities of this camera.... you can't even dispute that.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: A bit OT for Lisa....

This is a hobby for me, not a profession, so my efforts are not as directed as one who wants to make a buck or serve a particular need. I shoot video like a lot of stills people shoot photographs-- to capture something beautiful or something they like. I've made a feature (for myself, not to be released) from my footage that was kinda like koyaniqaatsi-- but without time-lapse. Nature oriented, though "nature" also include urban and suburban landscapes. I am dabbling a bit with getting the tools (creative tools, not gadgets) together to do short action films, and am working on a elaborate time-lapse project that involves moving the camera during the time lapse. In the past I've done chalkboard animation, spec commercials, whatever seems like fun.

Sorry if that seems very vague-- since I don't have to keep anyone happy but myself, to some extent I'm all over the place, but I am getting more focused as I get better at shooting and editing, and I'm starting to learn about effects.

The GH1 is going to be a big step for me because it will let me control exposure and depth of field, two things I haven't had much control over with my current "Tourist camcorder".

Diane B wrote:

I know you are a videographer and not a still shooter. I'm curious
what type of video (genre' more or less I guess) you shoot and how
you feel you'll use the G1 as opposed to a regular camcorder (I know
you have mentioned using lenses to get a different 'look' for one
thing). Just curious since I've only seen some 'hybrid' videos shot
with the 5DII on vimeo and some other places.

Diane
-----------------------
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

You don't, by any chance, have any old Bolex, c-mount, PL mount or arriflex lenses you're desperate to get rid of cheap, do you?

Thanks for the support!

Roger Bloemers wrote:

Thank you for posting this. I agree, hmmm maybe a THOUSAND percent!!
I can hardly wait to get one. I use a Canon SLR and several
camcorders, three of which are HD. I have been making movies for 58
years. So, I do know something about movie making. Again, thanks
for the post.

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Proof is in the pudding

DVSteve wrote:

LizaWitz wrote:

Really, Camcorders can't compete because they are meant for tourists
and taking pictures of babies.

Was there any point to this statement? Aside from belittling all the
camcorder owners out there?

Yes there's a clear point: Camcorders are designed and programmed to shoot highly saturated images in full auto mode for people who don't want to fiddle with their camera-- lest they miss their kid doing something, or get things wrong and have bad footage. They rarely give you exposure control and if they do, often its only a semi-auto mode where you get to control shutter or aperture, but not both, etc.

Rarely can you desaturate the image so that you maximize the dynamic range of the images your'e capturing-- this is critical in filmmaking because you want all the info you can and you will make the colors look right when you grade the film--- but toursists never want that-- they want bright happy colors coming out of the camera right off the bat.

We'll see how far the GH1 goes into giving you total control-- but its already clear that it goes vastly further than the other DSLRs that take movies, and the all camcorders under $4,000.

That also means that people have more ability to shoot very poor footage with the GH1 as well, if they misconfigure it.

GregGory Veteran Member • Posts: 4,252
Ha-ha, I'm waiting for...

linuxworks wrote:

short answer: the output of digicam video is HIGHLY compressed
non-source data and makes it cumbersome to do edits.

camcorders, at least ones that have DV output, are MUCH more lossless
and editable (avi) than the mp4 and higher layer native compressions
that flash-based cams use.

HA-HA, I'm waiting for the GH2 with SDXC and RAW video too!!! But until then I'm gonna 'settle' for the GH1, after all, I'm a mere mortal... But I don't understand your concern, the GH1 has p720 M-jpg, and FullHD to those who think it make a difference. If the M-jpg bit rate is good, I'm more than happy.

-- hide signature --

linuxworks Forum Pro • Posts: 18,937
Re: Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

LizaWitz wrote:

linuxworks wrote:

short answer: the output of digicam video is HIGHLY compressed
non-source data and makes it cumbersome to do edits.

Maybe under linux.

you TOTALLY miss what I'm saying. this is not about platforms, its about lossy compression and editing things like that 'in place'.

Not really under OS X. I just drop my footage
onto the hard drive, iMovie indexes it quickly to give me fast
scrubs, and I cut my movie together.

I see. so you don't UNDERSTAND what is going on and that things really are expanded, edited and re-compressed. you are not bothered by that but those that want to have QUALITY edits are bothered quite a lot.

audiophiles never want to 'edit' mp3 files - they want the source (.wav) and then they can do proper edits at the lossless stage.

that is impossible on a heavily compressed format. this hd format is a 'finalized' format and not really suitable for editing like DV is.

This camera will add a step to go from AVCHD to MPEG4, but it will be
lossless and I can edit it as is.

its not lossless. even mpeg (the older DVD style format) is lossy. the higher layer compressors are more efficient but they also throw away a lot more of the data (hence its more lossy).

Editing uncompressed would be really cumbersome and expensive, and
not really gain you much in video quality.

I'm laughing over this one!

no one will use flash-card based 'video cameras' for anything serious.

You're really not familiar with the market, it seems.

the toy camera video wannabe market? nope. no desire to play around with compressed 'native formats' that exist ONLY because camera companies want to put high density data (movies) on things that were never designed for movies (flash cards). flash works ok for stills but its horribly bad for video. the only way you can manage it today is with HIGH levels of compression.

if you used tape like DV you'd have none of the problems of low density (short record time) flash cards.

the storage problems should be fixed first. they weren't. they wanted to cram 'video' into flash cards. I find this an amateurish design and only a stop-gap until something more PROPER is used for movie storage. and I insist that the video format be more directly editable.

(one ref that is useful: there are a few 'direct' mpeg video editors like womble and video-redo. I use video-redo and it 'knows' about mpeg frames and does frame accurate editing. its pretty special and not many programs do this well. its even HARDER in the higher layers of compression. this is the reason I'm slamming this video format as a 'camera original' format. its simply a bad technical choice. its like recording a concert direct to mp3. no one in their right mind does that! they record to wave and edit down and compress down LATER in post. not at record time!

-- hide signature --
caterpillar Veteran Member • Posts: 7,585
not a big problem

liquidsquid wrote:

The ergonomics is the big one for me. Yes, the camera will likely
make great videos, but will it be practical to use for anything but
short clips? I cannot see holding it up during a concert for a long
time, or during any long-term event for that matter. Hand crampage.
Perhaps if I was still a teenager I would still have plenty of wrist
strength ;-).

I agree. but this is round 1 of a stills camera with video, but a very above board video capability. A small camera can easily be made big. But a big camera can't be made small. It is a matter of getting a rail mount (w/c others have done in the past) and suddenly that camera is more video friendly.

Maybe someone will come out with a center-balanced
hand-strap/shoulder mount and remote for this camera to emulate how a
real video camera should be held? I foresee a lot of herky-jerky
videos caused by holding the camera in one hand while attempting to
zoom with the other.

My previous paragraph addresses this issue. To add to it, you can always get a manfrotto steadycam or other more expensive steady cams. Or you can build yourself one and save yourself money. These issues are really not new and have been addressed by videographers years ago.

And if you are a videographer, you know how to zoom, and even manually focus even if the lens is long. I don't see the lens that come with it that long. You should see the lens that film makers use! They are long an so far (1 foot or so) from the film plane! They have to have a 2nd person as a puller to focus.

I for one love technology and the latest gadget, but I am also
practical. I wont buy something anymore that I will play with a few
times, and never pick up again. I will borrow my buddies, play with
it, then hand it back when I have had my fill. Let him pay the
premium for the fun of showing off.

I will watch this forum, and then see how many people in 6 months
still use the video feature on the camera for anything but taking
short clips. I am sure I will be wowed by the video clips.

The one place I could see this being used is on vacations. The last
time I was on a vacation worth filming... ummm I can't recall.

As an event shooter I can tell you now that what we normally do is shoot short clips (5-20 sec). The long clips spanning minutes are for the speeches and other stuff. I don't see any problem with long clips with any camera. Just mount it in a tripod with a fluid head and leave it on. Occasionally, you zoom in or out, or pan. But it's one of the easy things one can do.

The trick really is to shoot short clips and edit them as a whole. You may have a 2nd camera just for continuous shooting.

Oh, and one last point: Editing video, managing those big files, etc.
Say bye-bye to the rest of your spare time.

A dv tape whether HDV or SD will eat up around 13gb per hour. We normally use about 5 hours of tape for a wedding typical. That's about 70gb of storage including temp and supporting files. AVCHD will take maybe only 8-9gb/hour depending on compression settings. That's just about 50gb.

But even now, the storage is cheaper. A 1TB (1,000gb) hard disc now costs around U$100, maybe lesss. A 1.5TB around U$140. Storage now is affordable unlike a year ago.

It's the not size that will kill you. It's the cpu power required for avchd. It's not panny's fault. It's the file format. Not good for editing. Merely viewing. You will need a good software, quad core and a decent video card (e.g ati hd 3450) to iew it without stutV So viewing is possible even with old hardware.

For editing, you need better NLEs. Sony .Vegas can edit avchd natively. But Even the pros use proxy's to edit avchd videos. That's what Apples FCP does.

But if you are an amateur, why bother with these details? Shoot and watch. That's it.

Many of the issues are really non-issues of gargantuan proportions. For those who video, the gh1 is a BIG step and the right diirection. There is more to be done, but its basics for video is now solid with the gh1.

-- hide signature --

  • Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

 caterpillar's gear list:caterpillar's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 +22 more
ShudderBug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,298
Re: Question about a new release I thought I saw

on the front page about 3 to 5 days ago. I don't think it sounded like the one talked about here. I should have jotted the mfr and model number down, but I wanted to watch it, wait for review, sample photos and user opinions, and possibly recommend it to a couple people especially my daughter who needs a new camera and was considering buying both a new p&s camera and a camcorder which I think is foolish as some digicams are pretty good in movie mode.

All I can remember is that I thought it was was a Panasonic, P9?, maybe a Lumix, had a zoom that went somewhere around 632 mm and had a MSRP of under $500. So I thought.

Maybe I've got it confused with another model or am imagining things, cannot find it on the front page now, scanned through threads, didn't see what I was looking for.

linuxworks Forum Pro • Posts: 18,937
Re: not a big problem

caterpillar wrote:

A dv tape whether HDV or SD will eat up around 13gb per hour. We
normally use about 5 hours of tape for a wedding typical. That's
about 70gb of storage including temp and supporting files. AVCHD will
take maybe only 8-9gb/hour depending on compression settings. That's
just about 50gb.

But even now, the storage is cheaper. A 1TB (1,000gb) hard disc now
costs around U$100, maybe lesss. A 1.5TB around U$140. Storage now is
affordable unlike a year ago.

It's the not size that will kill you. It's the cpu power required for
avchd. It's not panny's fault. It's the file format. Not good for
editing. Merely viewing. You will need a good software, quad core and
a decent video card (e.g ati hd 3450) to iew it without stutV So
viewing is possible even with old hardware.

thanks for making my point.

video (SD video) is now sort of easy on modern multicore cpus. HD video is a PITA (!) to edit. on my quad core system it still takes a long time to edit my HD mpeg (mpeg2) videos.

pany picked the only logical compression format for small flash cards but the price they paid in this design was 'uneditable files' or files that are 'already finished' and fit for viewing but not REALLY editable.

that one aspect makes this a toy camera in my mind.

if I'm going to do HD right, I want a native editable format. else why even bother!

-- hide signature --
plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Re: Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

LizaWitz wrote:

plevyadophy wrote:

The Canon 5D MkII is often praised for it's video ability and many
photographers are almost having orgasms over the thing; it just so
happens that I have a magazine beside me in which a staff
photographer for a national newspaper is praising the feature
profusely saying how it changes things in photography bla bla bla.
Well, the Canon 5D MkII video is Mickey Mouse rubbish compared to
what the GH1 will be capable of.

First off, thanks for your thoughtful response. I think that the 5D
has a significant advantage over the GH1 in one particular area-- its
a full frame sensor. This means it can produce really lovely
images, but the downside of this is that its damn hard to read off 26
megapixels 30 times a second and downsize them into HD. The results
of this is the jello effect people talk about and which hurts the
image when the camera is moved quickly.

The GH1 has the advantage of a smaller sensor, and, more importantly,
one designed specifically for reading video off of quickly. This
should eliminate or mitigate the jello effect. But the GH1 sensor,
while quite large compared to camcorders is not as large as the 5D.

But what really makes the 5D mickey mouse is that the video is just
tacked on, the camera isnt' designed to shoot video ,and so there are
limited manual controls, no AF while shooting, etc.

Canon doesn't get it, but Panasonic does. Maybe Canon will in the
future, but I'm afraid it will be a couple years.

Also, the lenses are bog standard 35mm lenses. The GH1's kit lens is designed with video in mind.

Really, the GH1 is light years of anything else out there. Dinasours of the type who in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary will insist that if it has an optical viewfinder and 35mm sensor it must be superior will go on having orgasms over the 5D MkII, until one of the dinasours gets curious picks up a GH1 and then shows it to his other pals in Jurassic Park. Then the reality will hit home.

Really this camera should be a dream come true for photojournalists. It's small like a rangefinder type camera, it's fairly quiet in operation, has reasonable image quality AND it has very good video capabilities.

Panny just need to get their publicity people to work out a strategy for targeting professionals and persuading them that the G series, in particular the GH1 is a viable tool.

The only machine on the
horizon that will come close, and will probably surpass it's
abilities is the recently announced hybrid camera from RED which
costs several thousands more.

Yeah, Red Scarlets sound interesting, unfortunately, the price for
the brain is reasonable-- $2,500 -- though still a much smaller
imager than the GH1--- but the problem with red is that everything
else in their modular system is way over priced. For instance, the
module that accepts CF cards to record to is $500 all by itself.
$500 for two CF card ports. Its absurd. They may be competing
against hollywood digital cinema on price, but they aren't really
down in teh $5000 range yet.

Thanks for telling me/us that. I didn't realise the pricing was that nuts!!!

Regards,

OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Camcorders can't compete with GH1, here's why.

plevyadophy wrote:

Really, the GH1 is light years of anything else out there. Dinasours
of the type who in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary will
insist that if it has an optical viewfinder and 35mm sensor it must
be superior will go on having orgasms over the 5D MkII, until one of
the dinasours gets curious picks up a GH1 and then shows it to his
other pals in Jurassic Park. Then the reality will hit home.

Brilliant! I really kinda forgot that the 5D has a mirror, I mean, what is this, the 1970s? I just kinda am in denial-- I've been a bit obsessed about the G1 and pinning a lot of hopes on the GH1. Part of the reason I'm so down on camcorders is that I've been struggling with them the last several years-- those companies are still stuck on the "ITs a super 8 camera!" design-- they don't want to spend the tiny bit of effort to give us real creative control because the mass market is so consumer oriented.... I know there are enough people to support a good camcorder for filmmakers if they would just make one-- every manufacturer has a dozen models of camcorders, why not ONE targetted at people who aren't shooting their vacations?

I think the GH1 is going to have a big impact in that market-- all these photogs who are complaining that they don't need video (but still they want the GH1? why? cause its the latest and greatest? Ironic that they accuse me of only wanting it for that reason).... they really don't understand that the market is more than just stills--- there are a lot of people who really do value cinema..... people like me for whome that's the sole consideration (I appreciate the great stills capability, true, but its secondary)... and a lot of people in the middle.

I sure hope things work out and this camera hits its market potential and is a huge seller.

Diane B Forum Pro • Posts: 20,694
Thanks....

LizaWitz wrote:

I've made a
feature (for myself, not to be released) from my footage that was
kinda like koyaniqaatsi-- but without time-lapse. Nature oriented,
though "nature" also include urban and suburban landscapes.

I know that one well--and love Philip Glass's music composed for it. That gives me an idea of what you're doing.

-- hide signature --

Diane
-----------------------
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic

 Diane B's gear list:Diane B's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Apple iPhone XS Max +1 more
OP LizaWitz Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: not a big problem

linuxworks wrote:

video (SD video) is now sort of easy on modern multicore cpus. HD
video is a PITA (!) to edit. on my quad core system it still takes a
long time to edit my HD mpeg (mpeg2) videos.

You realize there's a difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4? MPEG4 is a lot easier and better to edit. Its unfortunate that MPEG2- a format that's about 20 years old now-- is still so popular.

My Core2Do Laptop has no trouble editing H.264 video... I do it all the time. Doesn't even cause the fan to come on. Sometimes it will drop frames when playing 1080i, but not enough to notice, and certainly not an issue with editing, just previewing.

Maybe you need to get a Mac, if PCs are that inefficient. Or maybe its just MPEG2.

pany picked the only logical compression format for small flash cards
but the price they paid in this design was 'uneditable files' or
files that are 'already finished' and fit for viewing but not REALLY
editable.

Absolutely false. I edit MPEG4 video all the time. Like, every week.

that one aspect makes this a toy camera in my mind.

You're totally fixed on the irrelevancies and your lack of understanding of things (and maybe your crappy computer).

if I'm going to do HD right, I want a native editable format. else
why even bother!

MPEG4 files would be better than AVCHD, but you can just pull the H.264 and stereo audio out of AVCHD, its really no big deal.

The idea that MPEG4 isn't editable is about 3 years out of date.

linuxworks Forum Pro • Posts: 18,937
Re: not a big problem

you keep saying you edit these compressed formats natively.

I need some info before I believe that. can you give some refs to the ENGINE that does this, so that we can see beyond any simple GUI abstractions?

just because you can drag/drop a file to a visual editor does NOT mean its working natively on that format.

lets solve this first. please provide refs to prove that the editing of these files is not doing an up/down conversion. you may be right but I'd like to see more than 'the gui lets me' before I believe it.

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads