Digital Cameras with movie function

[bb]

A few years ago the only consumer devices that could take moving pictures were camcorders. With the rise of digital cameras movie functions have been added to many models, and there is a constant improvement in quality.

While the first fun clips had a low resulution of 320x240 and an awful quality (usually MJPEG compressed, often 15 fps only, often limited to 30 sec shots), nowadays cameras and flash chip camcorders are available offering higher resolutions like 640x480 @ 30 fps, MPEG-1 or even DivX compressed.

I recently bought a credit card sized Casio Exilim 600D, which falls into the latter category. It is a descendant of the Exilim 600 with DivX movie function, which allows for shooting DivX/MP3 AVIs in decent quality as long as your flash memory lasts (ca. 1 hour with a 1 GB SD card).

If I remember correctly, the first digital camera with DivX option was a Pentax Optio S6, which was followed by another model. Other DivX camcorders are the Archos Gmini 402, the Mustek DV9300, and the Mustek DV5300SE.

What is your experience with this type of cameras / flash chip camcorders?

bb

[Chainmax]

Ah, the Casio Exilim Card EX-S600D, eh? That's what I was recommended after asking for something like the Nokia N93 but with a sane pricetag :).
There's a difference between digicams with movie functions and all-in-one "toy cameras" like the Mustek DV5000 or the Nisis Supacam, which are probably the same kind as the Musteks you mentioned. As for the Archos you mention, it's quite big and heavy, doesn't have optical zoom and apparently has no image stabilization either).
The all-in-one type devices use old sensors and are generally very crappy, dedicated devices like the Casio you have will be much better regarding video and photo quality. If you want some more info, take a look at the advice the nice people at CamcorderInfo gave me:

Thread 1 (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=115704).

Thread 2 (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=116168).

[bb]

Thank you for the links. They listed a lot models, many have a CMOS sensor instead of a CCD chip. But I guess that does not necessarily mean that the quality is worse, because - as far as I know - even some modern HDTV camcorders have a CMOS chip, so I guess with these you can get decent quality as well.

I'd be interested in some comparison between classic DV camcorders or MPEG-2 camcorders versus the new digital cameras. Many young parents won't need to buy a camcorder anymore, if all they want is some good-quality shots of their babies. The Exilim 600D provides real good standard DivX/MP3 AVIs, ready to burn on CD and play on a DivX capable DVD player. Of course you may connect the camera directly to the TV set, too, just as you can do with camcorders.

bb

[Chainmax]

Well, I know very little about electronics so I can't comment on CMOS vs CCD. I think some modern cameras still have CMOS sensors, but these toy devices apparently have obsolete, bought-in-bulk ones. Take a look at the following link from the first thread I linked to:

http://zyvid.com/smf/index.php?topic=36.msg82#msg82

Dedicated equipment like this Casio digicam will feature much better video and photo quality than the toy devices. Comparing it to miniDV and DVD camcorders is another ballgame though: the Casio will have much better photo quality, but video quality won't be nearly as good. Still, video quality should be good enough so that an average person probably won't be able to tell the difference when displayed on a regular TV provided you don't stress the camera (like shooting on low light conditions).

P.S: as for good places to find reviews, I recommend DCResource (http://dcresource.com/), DPreview (http://dpreview.com/) and CamcorderInfo (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/).

[bb]

Agreed. It seems obvious that the recent MPEG-4 capable cameras can be divided into two categories: the rubbish your linked thread Invasion of the no-name SD-multicam/mp3/recorder "toys" refers to, and decent designs like my Casio cam, and probably the Pentax models, too. While the former are out of discussion in terms of quality, the latter are worth to be compared to DV/MPEG-2 camcorders.

Don't misunderstand me in this point: I don't say that a camera like the Exilim 600D can deliver the same quality as a camcorder. But the difference is no longer as big as it used to be. I believe that such a camera may be good enough for many people that might have bought a camcorder otherwise.

Furthermore it is clear that an MPEG-4 AVI is not very suitable for editing, although you can do it by compromising quality. You can even create DVDs from your MPEG-4 shots, if you like, but in this field DV camcorders are clearly superior. I wonder how MPEG-2 camcorders compare in this area, though.

bb

[smok3]

well, HDV cameras are basically mpeg2 camcorders (Although i only tested HD; hvx-200, which is not HDV, but i did saw some footage from that sony hdv cameras and it does look really cool.)

The problem with small cameras remains the same thought, that is small sensor and its huge DOF (even if they fix the noise issues eventually that will still remain the reason for that 'cheap video' look.)

[bb]

Here's a small sample (2.8 MB):
http://rapidshare.de/files/25833152/rabbit.avi.html

bb

[Chainmax]

...
Don't misunderstand me in this point: I don't say that a camera like the Exilim 600D can deliver the same quality as a camcorder. But the difference is no longer as big as it used to be. I believe that such a camera may be good enough for many people that might have bought a camcorder otherwise.

Furthermore it is clear that an MPEG-4 AVI is not very suitable for editing, although you can do it by compromising quality. You can even create DVDs from your MPEG-4 shots, if you like, but in this field DV camcorders are clearly superior. I wonder how MPEG-2 camcorders compare in this area, though.

bb

I understand what you're saying and kindof agree with it, but taking into account that miniDV cameras like the Canon Elura 100 (one of the most recommended low cost cameras) can be bought for less than U$$350, the point becomes moot.
Also, DVD (calling them simply MPEG-2 one can be misleading like smok3 said) camcorders will still have an edge as the starting footage is of higher quality: MPEG2 @ 8MBPS is probably better than MPEG4 @ 2MBPS, besides a dedicated camera is likely to have better video capabilities than a hybrid digicam/camcorder (and worse photo ones, of course).
Still, the movie mode in these digicams like the Exilim is very useful because they can be carried 24/7 and therefore you can shoot any spur-of-the-moment situation while having enough quality to be able to make a very bice looking DVD.


P.S: I'll make a DVD version of your sample as soon as I can.

[scharfis_brain]

bb, the disadvantage with these cameras will be that they only support 30 fps, which is neither PAL nor real NTSC.

so you need to do a conversion of framerate in each case if you want to go to DVD.

slightly slow down for NTSC,
convert (preferrably mocomped to 50 or 25 fps) for PAL

[bb]

scharfis_brain,

GSpot claims that the Exilim records at 29.970 fps. The sample's bitrate is 3778 kbps (best quality possible; the docs say the bitrate should be around 4 MB/s). I'd go for an NTSC DVD, if DVD at all. I guess the easiest way is to burn the file on a disc (CD-R or DVD+-R) and play it on a DivX capable player.

The video codec is reported as DivX5. The audio codec is MP2 mono @ 128 kbps CBR / 44.1 kHz, by the way, not MP3.

Did I mention that the camera has a steadyshot function? There is a 3x zoom, but you can't zoom in and out slowly (fixed zoom speed). The video is progressive, which I appreciate very much.

But the best thing is, as Chainmax pointed out, that you can take the cam anywhere anytime.

bb

[Chainmax]

The sample looks good enough to be watched on a regular TV at a medium distance. If, however, you decide to make a DVD or just make it look a bit better, try this script:

DirectShowSource("X:\wherever\rabbit.avi",fps=29.97,audio=false)

DeBlock(quant=35)

DeGrainMedian()

Lanczos4Resize(656,448)

dull=last
sharp=dull.LimitedSharpenFaster(SMode=4,Strength=500)
Soothe(sharp,dull,25)

AddGrain(5,0,0) <== optional, depends on how visible grain movement is to you

AddBorders(24,16,24,16)

ConvertToYUY2()

I used DirectShowSource because ACM can't find a good codec for the MP2 audio. Also, I had trouble extracting and decoding the audio, so if you want to process it (like, say, to convert it to 5.1 which is very easy to do) then use audio=true, set SSRC(48000) at the beginning of the script and extract it with VDub.