Steve Jolly wrote: > It is nowhere near DV quality, I'm afraid. There's more to quality than resolution and frame rate.
Well, it's a lot better than the 320x240 15fps that most digicams produce and furthermore I believe it's better than Video8 or VHS which were very popular until recently. I can put up will lower than DV quality video for the sake of portability - I can take my Optio 43WR places and more importantly, use it, where my DV camera and SLR cannot go. > Still and video cameras are optimised for very different uses. Hence a camera that can do both will always be a compromise. > Here's an example: the motion blur from slow shutter speeds is invisible in moving images because your eye smooths it out. > In still photos however, it becomes very obvious. So the shutter speeds you would choose for shooting a video are likely to > be very different to those you would use for shooting stills. Fair enough - I forgot about shutter speed. But then again, my Digital video camera has settings for faster and slower shutter speeds - and although my Optio 43WR doesn't - why can't a digicam of the future have such settings also? > And what about flash? If a video light (I used an LED headtorch) or the next generation of high sensitivity CCDs won't do the trick, then I guess it's time to set the camera to "still-shot" mode and either use flash or long-time exposures. I guess there will always be situations that lend themselves to still photography rather than video. However I think that future interchangable lens cameras will probably be able to shoot video as well as single shot images. All DZLRs (is that what they're called?), including 8MP ones, already do. Cotty wrote: > You have shot video with your handicam - do you edit it? If not, how does > it get viewed? The video you have shot with the intention of selecting > one or many frames to use as a still image, does the 'leftover' video get > viewed or are you treating it as master material from which to draw more > still images? Yes - I do edit it. The video I shot was of a group mountaineering/hiking trip and will be edited into a "watchable" feature which the participants are eager to see. Still images will be taken from the video for use on a website report and for the cover of the DVD - copies of which will be sold to the participants. John Francis wrote: > Quite apart form the technological reasons (high-resolution sensors > don't work the same way low-res video sensors do, and the bandwidth > to move [EMAIL PROTECTED] is rather more than current interfaces can handle); Well, my Optio 43WR can take 4MP stills as well as low-res video - so doe this make it a high-res or low-res sensor? And sure, *current* interfaces can't handle the bandwidth - but what about in a year or two? Progress marches on.
