How do u know the quality of a video camera~!!

[Unisykolist]

im always looking in mags but it never says what the quality is!!!!!!!!!!!
how do u tell or are they all just the same quality or something.

and whats MTB?

[jamessd]

Frame rate, higher the better (FPS).

And you might be given a resolution too, which is two numbers determining the size, and bigger usually means better quality.

[skrobo]

type your model number into google, and figure it out :)... you can post the specs here and ppl will tell you you need a better one. I have a 640x480 30 fps camera and it works great.

my oldest one, 15fps likes to glitch up on fast movement.

[agentQ]

Price is usually a good indicator of camera quality. Typically the better something is the more expensive it is, this is especially true in the digital word.

The more dots/pixels per frame the better the picture is going to look.

[skrobo]

haha!
all my videos have been made with a 100 dollar camera... :)

youtube kills quality though.

[jamessd]

Price is usually a good indicator of camera quality. Typically the better something is the more expensive it is, this is especially true in the digital word.
Well, I got this camera (http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5606801/Trail/searchtext%3EKODAK+CAMERA.htm) for £100 (200$) and it records in beautiful HD so... :p ... and that isn't particularly expensive is it?

[agentQ]

Well, I got this camera (http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5606801/Trail/searchtext%3EKODAK+CAMERA.htm) for £100 (200$) and it records in beautiful HD so... :p ... and that isn't particularly expensive is it?


No that may not be that expensive, but compared to a $50,000.00 HD camera, the picture would not compare.


I was not saying that you will only have good picture quality if you spend tons of money, but you will have a better camera. The better the camera the more it will cost. Just because something is HD doesnt mean it has the best picture quality you can get... all HD is not created equal.

[lpounds]

Frame rate, higher the better (FPS)

Not necessarily true. The higher the frame rate the more frames go by the hypothetical gate which means only that your super slow motion shots look very gradual. A screen shot comparison of both would show no difference.

[ntappin]

Another really good indicator is if it has three CCDs. If it does then it is probably very good.

I think Spencer uses 3 CCD and his videos are very crystal clear.

[lpounds]

Another really good indicator is if it has three CCDs. If it does then it is probably very good.

I think Spencer uses 3 CCD and his videos are very crystal clear.
Yeah def. 3CCD is a good indicator.

I like to think that point and shoot still cameras are to digital SLRs....

as handycams are to 3ccd video cams.


Has anyone though about shooting a good trials vid on 16mm or 35mm cameras? It would cost a bit, but in terms of quality and warmth it would blow everything else out of the water (that is, if you have a good place to host it at full quality)

The best indicator is what format it shoots on:

8mm
digital 8
mini dv
mini dv hd
dvcr pro
dvcr pro hd

From wiki:


Tapes

* Betacam, BetacamSP, Betacam SX, Betacam IMX, Digital Betacam, or DigiBeta — Commercial video systems by Sony, based on original Betamax technology
* HDCAM was introduced by Sony as a high-definition alternative to DigiBeta.
* D1, D2, D3, D5, D9 (also known as Digital-S) — various SMPTE commercial digital video standards
* DV, MiniDV — used in most of today's videotape-based consumer camcorders; designed for high quality and easy editing; can also record high-definition data (HDV) in MPEG-2 format
* DVCAM, DVCPRO — used in professional broadcast operations; similar to DV but generally considered more robust; though DV-compatible, these formats have better audio handling.
* DVCPRO50, DVCPROHD support higher bandwidths as compared to Panasonic's DVCPRO.
* Digital8 — DV-format data recorded on Hi8-compatible cassettes; largely a consumer format
* MicroMV — MPEG-2-format data recorded on a very small, matchbook-sized cassette; obsolete
* D-VHS — MPEG-2 format data recorded on a tape similar to S-VHS

[Tyler_N]

my sister and her friends broke my camera:(

[agentQ]

Has anyone though about shooting a good trials vid on 16mm or 35mm cameras? It would cost a bit, but in terms of quality and warmth it would blow everything else out of the water (that is, if you have a good place to host it at full quality)



Ive thought about getting the "Letus" adapter for my camera which will give a 35mm effect. Unfortunately it is pretty pricey and there are few things higher on my list.

[lpounds]

Ive thought about getting the "Letus" adapter for my camera which will give a 35mm effect. Unfortunately it is pretty pricey and there are few things higher on my list.
Neato! It has a video feed as well. I guess because the normal viewfinder wont show the adapted footage.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sKPqDxOaC1k&feature=related

[kington99]

interesting that no-one has mentioned lenses yet, possibly the most important part of any camera. The CCD size is a reasonably good indicator, by which i mean the physical size not the number of pixels. Jamming extra pixels in to the same size CCD does little good. You have to think about suitability too, I'm using a camera at the moment that by any parameter mentioned would be highly rated (145,000 fps, £90,000) but which would be utterly useless for shooting uni movies.

[ridethelobster2008]

Why not ask a pro. Post a PM to Brian.

[jamessd]

(145,000 fps, £90,000) but which would be utterly useless for shooting uni movies.
Why? :confused:

[agentQ]

My guess is high speed macro. For slow motion close ups. ..?

Still seems a bit exaggerated.

particle physics?

[SincoJim]

I guess sometimes CMOS is better than 3CCD... But there are cameras with 3 CMOS chips as well, which can provide much better quality of course.
Size of the lenses, and the format you're recording to matters the most.
Number of frames recorded per sec. doesn't affect quality at all.
But as been said earlier, more expensive the camera is, the better result you'll get. And if you want to keep high quality, you won't upload your stuff to youtube. :)

[jamessd]

Number of frames recorded per sec. doesn't affect quality at all.
I thought if you were recording more frames per second then the video looks much smoother, no?

[agentQ]

I thought if you were recording more frames per second then the video looks much smoother, no?

It depends on what you are doing with the video. Most digital video when its in its finale state plays at close to 30 frames per second. So shooting at 30fps is ideal. MOst DV is shot in 60i which it two sets of 30fps interlaced together. Any camera that shoots faster than 30fps, when the footage is plays back on a normal timeline will be in slowmotion. High speed cameras can shoot thousands of frames a second and you get super smooth perfect slowmotion, however that does not effect the picture quality.

If you shoot 2 frames per second with a slow shutter, say in a city at night, and speed it up in a 30fps timeline, you will have fast motion with cool streaky lights. It will look smoother than speeding up normal night footage.

[SincoJim]

Well... Maybe.
But i'm not sure if smoothness is part of quality... of picture quality.
If you take the whole video quality, then even sound belongs there, so who knows... :o
I don't know man, it's hard to tell.

[kington99]

My guess is high speed macro. For slow motion close ups. ..?

Still seems a bit exaggerated.

particle physics?


Yes it is an exaggerated example, although the figures aren't. My point was things like battery life, storage media, size, robustness, sound recording quality all are vital factors. In these factors my camera sucks i.e., you need to plug it in, you need two computers to run it, its friggin big, i really wouldn't drop it and it doesn't do sound.

I use it for filming the fuel injection and combustion in spark ignition engines, not Macro but the resolution drops dramatically at higher speeds, it's the Phantom V7.1 if anyone wants to get one.

[Emile.m]

No that may not be that expensive, but compared to a $50,000.00 HD camera, the picture would not compare.

Not that the picture would be that great, but compared to a $200.00 camera, the price would not compare.

[Unisykolist]

wow.
i didnt think this thread would make this much conversation in a day.

some of the stuff is just to technical and too much to consider i just want a good quality camera that will record a nice vid. but i guess i need...
.good FPS
. good CCD (or something)
. and maybe good lenses

anywayz ill rent it weekly, i dont want to buy one too expensive
ill tell the salesman what i want to do and im sure hell help me.

and recording on cameras is crap i think and the fiile type is .MOV

i hope the file type isnt that with a Movie camera cos .MOV duznt go into wmm (widows movie maker).

[jamessd]

i hope the file type isnt that with a Movie camera cos .MOV duznt go into wmm (widows movie maker).
It does for me, but you don't get sound. There are programs out there that you can use to convert the files into a different format; sacfricing some quality.