Poor Man's HD

matt24671b wrote on 8/22/2008, 11:14 AM

Folks,

I've been eyeing the Panasonic Lumix FX37, which is a 10MP digital still camera that also "makes it easy to shoot high-definition 1280 x 720p motion images at 30 fps with outstanding detail." Of course, how much of it you can shoot depends on card space. But it also has a (35mm equivalent) wide angle 25mm lens - wider than most video cameras.

It looks like it shoots Quicktime, which should be Vegas compatible. (It's not clear whether it's interlaced or progressive. Or if there's sound.)

It only costs $350 - anybody else tried using these type HD video-shooting still cameras?

Comments

fldave wrote on 8/22/2008, 11:19 AM

One thing I learned on these and other forums: it is mostly in the "glass" (lenses)

If you are shooting for fun/family things, they are very handy and convenient. If you intend to make money using it, then go to plan B.

Coursedesign wrote on 8/22/2008, 2:32 PM

These cameras, and Canon's later pocket size ultracompact PowerShot models like the SD950IS especially, shoot amazing HD video that is great for web use.

The sharpness really rocks.

Color rendition is great, far better than cheap DV cameras.

But you can't zoom during shooting, and it shouldn't be seen as a replacement for a full video camera for general use

For shooting something on the quick to put up on a web site though, it can be inconspicuously in your pocket waiting for the right moment., and because they look like a little pocket still camera, they will usually not increase people's blood pressure.

John_Cline wrote on 8/22/2008, 4:28 PM

It is progressive. It's also only 30 frames per second, which is only half the temporal resolution of 60i or "real" 1280x720-60p HD. The motion at 30p just isn't very fluid if that's what you're after.

On a total impulse a few months ago, I bought an AIPTEK Action-HD camcorder from Walmart for $200. It shoots 1280x720 60p, it also shoots 1440x1080 30p (which interpolates to 1920x1080 just like HDV), 720x480 60p and 352x224 30p. It has a 3x optical zoom and also shoots 5 megapixel stills. It will record over an hour of h.264 HD and mono audio to a 4gig SD card and will support up to 32GB cards. The thing looks WAY better than a $200 toy should. It has HD component and SD composite outputs and hooks up directly to an HD or SD TV. There are no manual adjustments available, it's all automatic, so it gets what it gets. It will also record analog SD at 640x480 with stereo audio via composite line inputs. In a few circumstances, I've used the Aiptek for B-roll and the resulting footage has cut much better that I expected with footage from cameras costing 30-50 times as much.

For $350, you may find some practical video uses for the Lumix as I have with the $200 Aiptek.

decaffery wrote on 8/22/2008, 9:43 PM

Two weeks ago I bought the Aiptek A-HD+ (same model but without the optical zoom) and this camera is a blast. Alot of fun to use- the sound is not that great but what a great picture for $150!

GlennChan wrote on 8/22/2008, 11:39 PM

It is progressive. It's also only 30 frames per second, which is only half the temporal resolution of 60i or "real" 1280x720-60p HD. The motion at 30p just isn't very fluid if that's what you're after.
IMO, I would prefer progressive over interlaced.

- An interlaced camera will need to filter the image vertically to avoid interlace nasties (e.g. flicker); on 3-chip cameras, doing this increases sensitivity (when it's simple line-pair summation). This will reduce vertical resolution.

- De-interlacing also doesn't really work. Low cost deinterlacers tend not to be very good.

- Interlaced motion also doesn't really work... interlaced motion looks weird to me.
An obvious situation where interlacing doesn't work if with CG graphics with 1-pixel tall lines... this will flicker on a CRT.

- Interlace doesn't compress as efficiently.

John_Cline wrote on 8/23/2008, 12:59 AM

I, too, much prefer progressive, but 30p doesn't have enough temporal resolution to provide stutter-free motion. 60p, on the other hand, is plenty fast enough.