I recently upgraded from the Canon Powershot A620 to the Canon Powershot TX1. The two big improvements are the zoom which is now 10x optical with 4x digital zoom taking it to 40x and the video which is now HD (1280x720) up from VGA (640x480). The problem is that the video in the TX1 is only at 30 frame per second. Thus, it is using much more battery power and much more storage space my laptop. What does the future hold for HD at 15 frames per second? I don't see anything in my price range that will do HD at 15 fps. It seems like it should be an easy option to add. What is going on?
HD video on digital camera
why do you want 15 fps instead of 30, to save storage space?
| videoguy wrote: |
| why do you want 15 fps instead of 30, to save storage space? |
It will absolutely save storage space. I believe it will also lessen battery usage. I think it takes more battery power to shoot 30 fps than 15 fps. However, the primary concern is storage.
P.S. I also would like to be able to do full screen HD video. It can only do widescreen at 16:9 instead of 4:3 (or 16:12). Thus, 1/4 of the frame is lopped off.
No real reason for 15fps HD video......it really doesn't make sense. What could you do with it? Maybe post it online, that's about all, and you don't need HD for that, as you will probably be scaling it down anyways. If you really wanted to do it, you could buy an HDV camcorder and compress it to 15fps. Again I'm really not sure why a person would want 15fps HD video. Maybe 24fps.....for everyone that thinks that gives them an automatic 'filmlook'.
Also, HD is native 16x9 aspect ratio ...thus 16x9 HD IS full screen video. It is a different aspect ratio than SD which is 4x3. That's just the way HD is.
| Tony The Tiger wrote: |
| I believe it will also lessen battery usage. I think it takes more battery power to shoot 30 fps than 15 fps. |
This is irrelevant. While it would take up a tiny miniscule amount of extra power it is not anything you would notice. Bearing in mind that the battery has a life of 3-5 days with alot of use the extra consumption shooting at the full ferame rate would deplet about 5mins extra out of the 5 days.
It would be really silly sacrifice frame rate for storage. HD is big cause its better quality. Accept this and your life will be easier. Go buy an external har drve or bakc the files up on DVD but dont cut the frame rate. That would be pointless.
| Alaskacameradude wrote: |
| No real reason for 15fps HD video......it really doesn't make sense. What could you do with it? Maybe post it online, that's about all, and you don't need HD for that, as you will probably be scaling it down anyways. If you really wanted to do it, you could buy an HDV camcorder and compress it to 15fps. Again I'm really not sure why a person would want 15fps HD video. Maybe 24fps.....for everyone that thinks that gives them an automatic 'filmlook'. |
Video takes up a lot of space on a hard disk. I compress to 10 or 15 fps all the time. There is no reason not to allow the option to film at a different frame rate. I think a camera that gave the option would be in greater demand. Even though someone might want more resolution per frame they still might prefer to choose a different frames/second rate. If I could get full screen HD instead of widescreen, and I could choose the frame rate, I would be much happier.
| irishmark wrote: | ||
This is irrelevant. While it would take up a tiny miniscule amount of extra power it is not anything you would notice. Bearing in mind that the battery has a life of 3-5 days with alot of use the extra consumption shooting at the full ferame rate would deplet about 5mins extra out of the 5 days. It would be really silly sacrifice frame rate for storage. HD is big cause its better quality. Accept this and your life will be easier. Go buy an external har drve or bakc the files up on DVD but dont cut the frame rate. That would be pointless. |
First of all, I don't even like the widescreen HD. It cuts the top and bottom 1/8th of the viewer off. I keep losing things I can see in the viewer. I need fullscreen HD to be happy. I have 240 GB internal HD and I have both a 320 and a 750 external HD. I still don't like to use all that space.
Tony - You dont seem to understand Video standards or at least this is the impression you give. Or you just dont care about having good quality.
HD is widescreen so there is no cutting off of the top or bottom of the screen. Standard resolution is as follows:
PAL 720x 576 pixels in dimensions and runs at 25 frames per second.
NTSC 720 x 480 pixels in dimensions and runs at 29 frames per second.
HD dimensions are far higher because its better quality. It takes up more space as a result. Cutting the frame rate in half would make playback jittery. THIS IS A FACT! it WILL be jittery. By definition this is lower quality. Anything that takes away from the original quality is a bad idea.
Now if you dont care then thats cool and that's your choice but think of it this way.
If you had a load of digital photos and you wanted to save space would you convert them all to black and white?
If anything you should downsize the video to Standard Definition Pal or NTSC. Just dont cut the frame rate. This is the worst thing you can do. I tell you this as a professional.
HD footage takes up alot of space. You need to learn to live with that fact. Besides HDD space is always fallling in price. I have a shelf full of Backup HDD's probably about 10 Terabytes worth. If you want to do video properly then you have to accept that video especially HD will produce huge files.
HD is widescreen so there is no cutting off of the top or bottom of the screen. Standard resolution is as follows:
PAL 720x 576 pixels in dimensions and runs at 25 frames per second.
NTSC 720 x 480 pixels in dimensions and runs at 29 frames per second.
HD dimensions are far higher because its better quality. It takes up more space as a result. Cutting the frame rate in half would make playback jittery. THIS IS A FACT! it WILL be jittery. By definition this is lower quality. Anything that takes away from the original quality is a bad idea.
Now if you dont care then thats cool and that's your choice but think of it this way.
If you had a load of digital photos and you wanted to save space would you convert them all to black and white?
If anything you should downsize the video to Standard Definition Pal or NTSC. Just dont cut the frame rate. This is the worst thing you can do. I tell you this as a professional.
HD footage takes up alot of space. You need to learn to live with that fact. Besides HDD space is always fallling in price. I have a shelf full of Backup HDD's probably about 10 Terabytes worth. If you want to do video properly then you have to accept that video especially HD will produce huge files.
| Tony The Tiger wrote: |
| I need fullscreen HD to be happy. |
HD is widescreen as Alaskacameraman said! you dont get 4x3 hd unless it has been cropped.
If that is happening then you need to check your own settings.
| irishmark wrote: | ||
HD is widescreen as Alaskacameraman said! you dont get 4x3 hd unless it has been cropped. If that is happening then you need to check your own settings. |
On my camera 16x9 is cropping my view finder.
| irishmark wrote: |
| HD is widescreen so there is no cutting off of the top or bottom of the screen. Standard resolution is as follows:
PAL 720x 576 pixels in dimensions and runs at 25 frames per second. NTSC 720 x 480 pixels in dimensions and runs at 29 frames per second. HD dimensions are far higher because its better quality. It takes up more space as a result. Cutting the frame rate in half would make playback jittery. THIS IS A FACT! it WILL be jittery. By definition this is lower quality. Anything that takes away from the original quality is a bad idea. Now if you dont care then thats cool and that's your choice but think of it this way. If you had a load of digital photos and you wanted to save space would you convert them all to black and white? HD footage takes up alot of space. You need to learn to live with that fact. Besides HDD space is always fallling in price. I have a shelf full of Backup HDD's probably about 10 Terabytes worth. If you want to do video properly then you have to accept that video especially HD will produce huge files. |
In all honesty, I am not a professional photographer. I don't truly care that much about quality in the sense that you suggest. My camera takes 640x480 and 1280x720 video calling the latter HD. The former is 4x3 and the latter is 16x9. However, my LCD screen display seems to be a 4x3 (16x12) display. Thus, if I can see something in it at 16x12 but it is only recording 16x9 stuff is getting lopped of that I can see in my viewer. I do like the higher 1280 x 720 resolution because I might be able to use it to produce a single frame .jpg file at 1280 x 720 instead of 640 x 480. However it would be great if I could produce a 1280 x 960 frame .jpg instead since this is what I can see in the iew finder.
Yeah it is not really smart to have HD resolution and have 15 fps, that would make it chunky and not high def at all...
Firstly, it is commercially driven - the old must be face out for the new goods to be sold.
High Definition has several versions
1280 x 768 - is the mid level - this is when you need a monitor that is capable of displaying at least 1280 x 1024 - many of the current monitors are beginning to adopt this.
1920 x 1024 - This is what is currently claimed as HD Full. Who knows when Full will be extended to Full++ or HD Extreme, whatever.
Currently not many monitors are capable of 1920 x 1024 resolutions - more new goods can be sold.
I am using 1280 x 768 HD vidoe camera and display it on my computer with the same resolution. It is sharp and clear, but this is 1 mega-pixel per frame recording - 30 fps in mpeg4 - will still contains 6 KEY frames (full 1280 x 768 pixels) and the 24 frames containing the changes in between frames.
Using HD video implied lastest and most up to date, thus it is not reasonable to drop the fps to below the optimum - actually the eyes will not notice the difference for 24 fps and 30 fps.
Thus, the lowest should be 24 fps, and lower will only result in a sense of jagged movement when viewing the videos.
Hope my 2 cents is worth something.
High Definition has several versions
1280 x 768 - is the mid level - this is when you need a monitor that is capable of displaying at least 1280 x 1024 - many of the current monitors are beginning to adopt this.
1920 x 1024 - This is what is currently claimed as HD Full. Who knows when Full will be extended to Full++ or HD Extreme, whatever.
Currently not many monitors are capable of 1920 x 1024 resolutions - more new goods can be sold.
I am using 1280 x 768 HD vidoe camera and display it on my computer with the same resolution. It is sharp and clear, but this is 1 mega-pixel per frame recording - 30 fps in mpeg4 - will still contains 6 KEY frames (full 1280 x 768 pixels) and the 24 frames containing the changes in between frames.
Using HD video implied lastest and most up to date, thus it is not reasonable to drop the fps to below the optimum - actually the eyes will not notice the difference for 24 fps and 30 fps.
Thus, the lowest should be 24 fps, and lower will only result in a sense of jagged movement when viewing the videos.
Hope my 2 cents is worth something.
| poly wrote: |
| Yeah it is not really smart to have HD resolution and have 15 fps, that would make it chunky and not high def at all... |
It depends on what you are looking for. As I say, I would like more frames per second, but don't care about video display quality and hope to save on storage space usage.
| shenyl wrote: |
| I am using 1280 x 768 HD vidoe camera and display it on my computer with the same resolution. It is sharp and clear, but this is 1 mega-pixel per frame recording - 30 fps in mpeg4 - will still contains 6 KEY frames (full 1280 x 768 pixels) and the 24 frames containing the changes in between frames. |
I have never heard of this key frames thing. I often take a 30 fps video and export it at 10 or 15 fps to save space. How does software like Canon Zoombrowser EX handle such a task in light of key frames or does a Canon camera not use such a technology?
tony, you are right about one thing, some cameras DO use a 4:3 HD chip and crop the top and the bottom of it to produce their HD Widescreen Image. you can see this effect by switching to Standard Definition mode on your camera, and using the 4:3 setting. one camera, for example, is the HC-1, which records in HD. if you switch to its still picture mode, you have the option of taking 1920x1440 images, so obviously, the CMOS chip is 4:3, not 16:9
@ shenyl. people CAN notice the difference between 24 and 30 fps, 24 fps is basically just the bare minimum before the video looks choppy instead of smooth enough for realistic motion.
still, tony, why do you want to decrease the framerate? are you filming something that doesnt have motion, or what? what exactly are you videotaping?
also, Keyframes are used in basically any tape based HD recording videocamera. for HDV, it is the mpeg2 standard, which used one keyframe every 30 fields (half of 60i) every second. this is why dropouts last a full 1/2 of a second, b/c if a past frame is corrupted, all frames after than until the next keyframe wont have the necessary information to display.
mpeg4 is used in the newer AVC cameras.
ANY camera that records HD video onto standard MiniDV tapes is recording with keyframes.
it is harder to edit b/c the program must go back through the Group of intraframes between keyframes to display any particular frame. for SD video on MiniDV tapes, intraframe compression is used, so there are NO KEYFRAMES. thats probobly why youve never heard of it.
@ shenyl. people CAN notice the difference between 24 and 30 fps, 24 fps is basically just the bare minimum before the video looks choppy instead of smooth enough for realistic motion.
still, tony, why do you want to decrease the framerate? are you filming something that doesnt have motion, or what? what exactly are you videotaping?
also, Keyframes are used in basically any tape based HD recording videocamera. for HDV, it is the mpeg2 standard, which used one keyframe every 30 fields (half of 60i) every second. this is why dropouts last a full 1/2 of a second, b/c if a past frame is corrupted, all frames after than until the next keyframe wont have the necessary information to display.
mpeg4 is used in the newer AVC cameras.
ANY camera that records HD video onto standard MiniDV tapes is recording with keyframes.
it is harder to edit b/c the program must go back through the Group of intraframes between keyframes to display any particular frame. for SD video on MiniDV tapes, intraframe compression is used, so there are NO KEYFRAMES. thats probobly why youve never heard of it.
| videoguy wrote: |
| why do you want to decrease the framerate? are you filming something that doesnt have motion, or what? what exactly are you videotaping?
also, Keyframes are used in basically any tape based HD recording videocamera. |
I am not that concernted about choppiness.
I am recording to SD card in .avi format. Does a canon powerhsot camera doing so have keyframes.
Related topics
 |