OK. I've got to get this off my chest. I think that HD is massively overrated for shooting videoblog posts of people talking. Or even videoblog posts of pretty things. That beautiful video I posted by Jay the other day, with all those super detailed little moving photographic moments - that was 320x240.
If you're Robert Croma, and you're doing something insanely visually beautiful at a large scale, great. But it's about the skill and artistry, not the resolution. Liss produces more beauty than most of us can handle, at 640x360. Speakman at 320x240. If you only want a cheap pocket camera for videoblogging, why is resolution your priority? Why not get a camera that shoots much better images and colours at lower res video? And is great in Low Light - surely one of the most important things of all for videoblogging? I've always been impressed by the visuals and low light capabilities of the good Canon point and shoots. Although they are getting sucked into HD now. Nokia's blogger marketing people sent me a Nokia N86, which their ex- Kodak imaging chief has put a lot of effort into - a beautiful Zeiss lens and great processor. Shoots lovely video at 640x480, and great photographs at 8MP. Or even 5MP. That's a *phone* that shoots better quality video than your Kodak or your Flip. If you're not convinced by any of that, but you believe in energy conservation and limiting your emissions, then consider this: a report by McKinsey published before the explosion in HD video predicted that data centers would outstrip airlines in carbon emissions by 2020. Think about the energy costs of uploading *and* transcoding *and* storing *and* delivering all the multiple formats of your video (YouTube converts to and stores 3 copies: flv, mp4, HD) hundreds or thousands of times. And the power required by your computer to edit and playback HD. All to see your face in 1920x1080. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 23-Oct-09, at 1:10 PM, compumavengal wrote: > I'd like to bring something up that is often forgotten about under > $200 camcorders. These camcorders were originally designed for point > and shoot users. > > Having said that the features of the Zi8 are stunning: > > # 1080p (1920 × 1080, 30 fps) > # 720p/60 fps (1280 × 720, 60 fps) > # 720p (1280 × 720, 30 fps) > USB 2.0 (high speed), AV out, HDMI, DC in, external microphone jack > (support stereo) > > in an under $200 camcorder. I don't expect it to do low light > shooting. I don't have expectation of white balancing. There is no > optical zoom. I won't ever use the digital zoom. > > I've owned a Xacti camcorder, never a problem with it. I have a Zi6 > and I love it. But I understand the constrictions these camcorders > by imposes on me. > > If I shoot hand held I'm gonna get jerky video unless I'm really > careful. I have to be next to the person I'm talking to or no more > than 4 feet away. > > I have to be creative in finding ways to stabilize the camcorder as > I walk; like having the camcorder on a very small tripod braced in a > handbag pocket. This may or may not work for you. > > If I am recording an event or lecture I'm taking my 30x optical zoom > JVC Hard Drive Camcorder and a tripod. > > My point is that comparing $1,200 features to a $200 camcorder is > inherently frustrating. > > If you need more stuff then you'll have to willing to jump to the > next price class. > > Gena > http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com > http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Jones <david.jo...@...> > wrote: > > > > My quest for a cheap new videoblogging camera continues... > > I came across the Kodak Zi8 HD pocket camcorder: > > http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/Zi8_Pocket_Video_Camera/productID.156585800 > > Test footage looks really good: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX-raL4iQoY > > and the main benefit is that it has an external mic jack. > > It even has a remote which is essential for solo video blogging. > > Only downside seems to be lack of swivel head, so I won't be able to > > see myself in the video. That would be annoying, but not a > > showstopper. At least it would stop me looking off-lens all the > > time... > > > > The real test will always under my own conditions of course, I shoot > > in mostly the same location indoors in a fluoro lit workshop. > > > > I was considering the Canon FS200 SD card camcorder (looking for > > second hand because new is out of my price range), but the sensor is > > only 1/6" so most likely has fairly horrible low light performance, > > and the reviews mention this as well. > > > > I don't need the full HD, but 720 HD would be nice. > > > > Any comments on the Zi8 for video blogging? > > Anyone know of any other pocket video cams with an external mic jack > > like the Zi8? > > > > My current cam is an old Canon Optura60 DV (NTSC), not exactly a > > stand-out performer, so I figure a good pocket cam today will likely > > beat it. > > > > Thanks > > Dave. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
