Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- From: Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:26:04 -0700
In article <6avssgF38pqvgU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"PTravel" <ptravel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-D2C091.21380606062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
55 minutes on 4GB using H.264 video (aka Advanced Video Codec) would be
either a low-quality HD video or a high quality SD video. Medium
quality 1080 HD is 15Mbit/sec.
AVCHD and HDV are both 25 mbps at the top end. However, AVCHD, in its
consumer implementation, is limited to 12-17 mbps by all manufacturers who
are using it.
Another confusing part about H.264 is that it has a large set of
encoding algorithms available. Which algorithms are used can make more
of a difference than a moderate change in bitrate. I doubt digicams use
the best algorithms at this time because of the computational cost. The
use of interlaced video suggests that the chips are maxed out on
bandwidth. I also doubt that the best algorithms have been invented
yet. 15Mbps H.264 from a camera 2 years in the future will probably
look a lot better than 15Mbps today. Right now the AVCHD cameras blur
motion too much.
--
I will not see your reply if you use Google.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- From: PTravel
- Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- References:
- Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- From: Jim Redelfs
- Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- From: Kevin McMurtrie
- Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- From: PTravel
- Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- Prev by Date: Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- Next by Date: Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- Previous by thread: Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- Next by thread: Re: Flash vs Hard-drive-based Minicam
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|