[ale] OT: camcorder/camera combos
James P. Kinney III
jkinney at localnetsolutions.com
Fri Dec 13 15:07:16 EST 2002
Unobtanium, maybe. I did see a working version for only one model of
camera. It may be that the camera models were too different to allow for
the manufacturing of the thing in a quantity that was sellable. They
would have to interact with all the different forms of shutter
mechanisms and still be "user loadable".
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 14:59, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> Another splendid piece of equipment, made primarily of unobtainium,
> featured in Popular (Home of the Four-Ounce Bicycle) Science.
>
> - Jeff
>
> On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 14:50, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> > A long while ago, there was a group making a digital add-in for regular
> > film cameras. It was supposed to be a gizmo that fit in the 35mm
> > cartridge slot with a "tongue" that held the CCD device that projected
> > over the film location at the focal plane. It looked like a great idea
> > to add digital to a good collection of lenses. I don't know what
> > happened to them.
> >
> > On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 13:26, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> > > For my part, I'm waiting for the Nikon interchangeable-lens dig-cams to
> > > come down (and my income to go up) so I can port over all my for-Nikon
> > > lenses.
> > >
> > > - Jeff
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 10:19, Dow Hurst wrote:
> > > > I really appreciate the nice explanation! So a big thanks on that!
> > > >
> > > > I can see for convenience a digital camera of reasonable quality is fun
> > > > and fine for family vacations and knockabout photography. However, the
> > > > reality seems to me to be that regular 35mm film and a high quality
> > > > camera/lense would yield far higher quality output. The film could then
> > > > be scanned at very high resolution for better digital prints, right? Is
> > > > my thought process correct? Say that you wanted to take a picture of a
> > > > landscape or object and blow it up into a poster. Wouldn't the process
> > > > I just described yield a better picture than an affordable medium
> > > > quality digital camera? Or would just totally sticking to the chemical
> > > > world of regular film and standard techniques for making large posters
> > > > be the best?
> > > >
> > > > I've been thinking about getting a digital camera but haven't due to
> > > > wanting something with nicer lenses than I can afford. I remember from
> > > > a previous posting that any digital camera that uses a standard memory
> > > > card that can be put in one of those USB reader devices is pretty
> > > > seamless under Linux since those reader devices look like a hard drive
> > > > to the kernel. So the real question is whether a camera supports a
> > > > media that a reader device can use, and what camera fits your needs in
> > > > features and quality.
> > > > Dow
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > aaron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I think Eric's "Hi8 is analog" point was intended to help clarify the
> > > > >definitions and was simply pointing out that Standard8, Hi8 and Digital8
> > > > >are 3 different, independent signal and recording standards. Some
> > > > >confusion arises in that products like the Sony Digital8 camcorders blur
> > > > >the distinctions by supporting some functionality for all 3 standards of
> > > > >8mm video tape.
> > > > >
> > > > >He was certainly correct in stating that the Hi8 format is entirely
> > > > >analog. The fact that Digital8 is recorded on the same kind of metal
> > > > >oxide tape cassettes as Hi8 or that a camcorder can play back or convert
> > > > >between both standards is irrelevant to that.
> > > > >
> > > > >On a couple other points in the thread...
> > > > >
> > > > >I liked the CCD explanations, and they prompted a trip to:
> > > > > http://www.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera.htm
> > > > >...which also had some general answers to the original question:
> > > > > http://www.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera38.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >Turns out the CCD descriptions were partly correct, but capacitive wells
> > > > >are just part of the picture (pun intended) with these solid state analog
> > > > >devices. The actual light sensitivity is provided by semi-conductor
> > > > >diodes and are fairly similar to photovoltaic cells.
> > > > >
> > > > >Mostly the site confirmed what I knew already: that the resolution issues
> > > > >of video and dedicated digital still cameras touch on a lot of factors. I
> > > > >would be surprised to find many consumer Video cameras (for either
> > > > >digital or analog recording formats) that employed a capture chain
> > > > >producing more than 800x600 pixels, and I expect cost factors steer most
> > > > >to 640x480 because that resolution is most consistent with common
> > > > >standards for video signals and lossy digital encoding schemes. [For
> > > > >those that may not know, the standard NTSC TV signal has a maximum,
> > > > >physical vertical resolution of 482 pixels. The Euro PAL TV standard is
> > > > >100 pixels better on usable vertical resolution, but the standard has a
> > > > >"resolution" trade off of 5 fewer frames per second.] As a rule, the
> > > > >"still photo" features of consumer Video cameras will be adequate for
> > > > >small format prints and computer uses, but will not provide the
> > > > >photographically oriented resolution that can be found in dedicated
> > > > >digital still cameras. As near as I can determine, a 640x480 resolution
> > > > >is roughly equivalent to a 1.6 "megapixel" rating on a still camera...
> > > > >but my searches for exact numbers only confirmed that the marketroid
> > > > >"megapixel" anti-standard value states the number of photo-sites on the
> > > > >CCD of a device, while the true physical pixel resolution, color depth
> > > > >and dynamic range of a device may only be loosely related to that number.
> > > > >
> > > > >As with just about everything, as quality goes up so does the price.
> > > > >Industrial / Professional grade video cameras of higher cost and quality
> > > > >will employ a beam splitter to 3 CCD's of greater physical area and
> > > > >higher pixel counts, one CCD each for the RGB channels. As Eric also
> > > > >correctly noted, the optics make a HUGE difference, and the better video
> > > > >cameras employ true focus tracking 13 element zoom lenses made with
> > > > >dichroic glass. All these factors greatly improve the effective
> > > > >(interpolated) resolution, light sensitivity and color balance control of
> > > > >the camera's capture chain. The last point of quality improvement with
> > > > >more professional digital cameras is the use of higher bandwidth
> > > > >recording formats with lower compression ratios (less than 5 to 1) that
> > > > >don't discard most of the captured information before it even hits the
> > > > >recording medium.
> > > > >
> > > > >Of course, the biggest marketroid myth is that "Digital" is somehow,
> > > > >magically, always better quality, and in a whole lot of cases it simply
> > > > >is not. Recording signals in digital form requires several times the
> > > > >bandwidth of recording the same signals in analog, and there are a whole
> > > > >lot of compromises being made to cram that digital bandwidth onto
> > > > >increasing tiny formats. There are certainly a number of advantages to be
> > > > >found with digital signal recording and processing, but these still come
> > > > >at some cost.
> > > > >
> > > > >---
> > > > >Sorry for the overkill, but these are areas I know a fair amount about.
> > > > >
> > > > >peace
> > > > >aaron
> > > > >
> > > > >On Thursday 12 December 2002 09:02, Geoffrey wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>Okay, so we're picking nits off of nits here. I'm a stickler for
> > > > >>accuracy though so I'll throw out what the manual says and be done with
> > > > >>it:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>With your digital camcorder, you can use Hi8/Digital8 video cassetes.
> > > > >>Your camcorder records and plays back pictures in the Digital8 system.
> > > > >>Also, you camcorder plays back tapes recorded in the Hi8/standard 8
> > > > >>(analog) system. You, however cannot use the functions in "Advanced
> > > > >>Playback Operations" on page 52 to 58 for playback in the Hi8/standard
> > > > >>8 system. To enable smooth transition, we recommend that you do not
> > > > >>mix pictures recorded in the Hi8/standard 8 with the Digital8 system on
> > > > >>a tape.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Eric Webb wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>On Thursday 12 December 2002 02:15 am, Geoffrey wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>Are you on crack? Hi8 is purely analog. miniDV is purely digital.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>Ah, not exactly true. My camera Sony trv730 is a digital camera but
> > > > >>>>will accept either hi8 or standard 8 tapes. With standard 8 tapes,
> > > > >>>>you get analog recording.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>There's a whole lotta crack smokin' tonight.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>I have a TRV330 and 530 myself. Read your manual again. While these
> > > > >>>cameras may use either tape medium, the recording is in Digital8
> > > > >>>format. All of these cameras (AFAIK) only PLAY the standard 8mm and
> > > > >>>Hi8 analog formats -- they do not record in those formats.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>(Manual says that if you record on standard 8mm, you must play back
> > > > >>>in same machine or you will get mosaic artifacting -- the fact that
> > > > >>>it's a mosaic pattern alone tells you it's gonna record in digital
> > > > >>>mode! The cheaper standard 8mm tape doesn't have the resolution that
> > > > >>>Digital8 requires.)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>http://www.epinions.com/content_27278413444
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>And even if it did, the fact that your camera would record analog on
> > > > >>>a standard 8 tape doesn't disprove my original statement. It only
> > > > >>>would mean that your camera supports multiple formats.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>-E.
> > > > >>>_______________________________________________
> > > > >>>Ale mailing list
> > > > >>>Ale at ale.org
> > > > >>>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >Ale mailing list
> > > > >Ale at ale.org
> > > > >http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > __________________________________________________________
> > > > Dow Hurst Office: 770-499-3428
> > > > Systems Support Specialist Fax: 770-423-6744
> > > > 1000 Chastain Rd., Bldg. 12
> > > > Chemistry Department SC428 Email:dhurst at kennesaw.edu
> > > > Kennesaw State University Dow.Hurst at mindspring.com
> > > > Kennesaw, GA 30144
> > > > *********************************
> > > > *Computational Chemistry is fun!*
> > > > *********************************
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ale mailing list
> > > > Ale at ale.org
> > > > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ale mailing list
> > > Ale at ale.org
> > > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > --
> > James P. Kinney III \Changing the mobile computing world/
> > President and CEO \ one Linux user /
> > Local Net Solutions,LLC \ at a time. /
> > 770-493-8244 \.___________________________./
> >
> > GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics) <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> > Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
--
James P. Kinney III \Changing the mobile computing world/
President and CEO \ one Linux user /
Local Net Solutions,LLC \ at a time. /
770-493-8244 \.___________________________./
GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics) <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7
This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Ale
mailing list