17 Mbps vs 24 Mbps - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-14-2008, 06:45 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Ifandbut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi all,
I'm looking at getting a camcorder soon. I am debating between the Sony SR10/11/12 and the Canon HF11.

I was wondering what the difference in picture quality is at the higher bit rate on the HF11.

The only reason I am considering the HF11 is because it's the only camera out with the 24Mbps ability (however I do prefer the large storage space on the SR10/11/12).

Thanks for any information,
-Ifandbut
Ifandbut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-15-2008, 06:24 AM
Member
 
Rich127's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New Mexico USA
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The 24 Mbps does not seem to be a great improvement over 17 Mbps as so many have predicted....


http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...omparisons.htm



Rich
Rich127 is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 11:58 AM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
the problem with the video comparison that camcorderinfo.com did is that they failed to mention what the bitrate was for the video segments that they were comparing.

what if the hf11 wasn't using the full 24Mbps that it's capable of during the test recordings?

i can tell you from many years of encoding video for the web, and other things, that the difference between 17Mbps and 24Mbps is probably rather significant at a 1920x1080 frame size, but unfortunately it's the camera that decides when the bitrate is applied.

what i have seen with the hf11 is that it'll record at around 21-23Mbps on static scenes with leaves blowing in the background and such... so the bottom line is that you won't see the full 24Mbps unless motion in the scene demands it.
osv is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 12:20 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Ifandbut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OK, so unless I am filming sports or something else with alot of action and fast movement I should not notice the difference? If that's the case then I think I will go with the Sony because of the larger storage space.
Ifandbut is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 12:55 PM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
panning or zooming would also benefit from the higher bitrate.

remember that in a year sd cards will be much cheaper than they are now, and they are a bargain these days... camcorderinfo.com sure liked the handling of the sony, but i'd rather not shoot to a hard drive any more, even tho i've done it for years... it's just another moving part that can break.

tough call, you probably can't go too wrong either way.
osv is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 02:18 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Ifandbut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm going to try going to Best Buy or somewhere so I can get a hand on the HF11. I felt the SR10 at my local Ritz and it felt really nice in my hand. I got big hands so the HDD gave me something more to grab onto.

One more thing, what are the opinions on the Cannon HC20/21. I just recently found them and noticed they record on both HDD and SDHC card (according to Amazon) and it also records in 24 Mbps. I still need to do more research on it but I think it might be best of both worlds (24 Mbps + HDD).

Thanks.
Ifandbut is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 08:44 AM
Member
 
Rich127's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New Mexico USA
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think you mean the Canon HG20 and HG21:

HG20 has a 60GB Internal Hard Disk Drive
HG21 has a 120GB Internal Hard Disk Drive

HG20 has no Viewfinder
HG21 has a .27" (approx. 123,000 pixels) Viewfinder



Rich
Rich127 is offline  
Old 10-19-2008, 04:40 PM
Senior Member
 
pcdvdguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich127 View Post

The 24 Mbps does not seem to be a great improvement over 17 Mbps as so many have predicted....

Rich

I've played around with my Canon HG20, and I concur with that assessment. The optical-section of the camera doesn't really perform all the way out to 1920x1080. At the full-zoom (12x) end of the lens, there's substantial chromatic aberration (CA), giving white contrasty-objects an ugly purplish halo. The lens seems to perform best in the mid-range -- minimal CA and just a tad sharper than the two extremes of wide/zoom. IMHO, 1440x1080 (@ 17Mbps) was a sensible compromise in the HG10.

In daylight scenes with limited subject motion and no panning, I can see no appreciable difference between 17Mbps and 24Mbps. Here, 24Mbps is just a waste of bits. Perhaps if the camcorder-optics were higher-quality, we could extract more detail, but that's not realistic for a consumer-grade cam (where a bigger zoom-range is more useful to more people.)

In daylight 'busy scenes', under frame-by-frame analysis on a PC monitor, I can see an improvement with 24Mbps. The motion-disturbed area start to show macroblocking artifacts (depending on the amount of 'change' between the previous and current frames.) And at those hotspots, the higher-bitrate video consistently suffers fewer motion artifacts. So the extra bits are doing something useful.

However, I should point out, when I watched my testclips or a regular HDTV, at normal (1x) speed, the differences weren't perceptible to me. Perhaps a professional with a trained eye could reliably identify the better video, but not me! No doubt there are creative shots where 24Mbps offers a clear and obvious improvement (for example, a panning shot through a chain-link fence.) As I said earlier, the bitrate isn't the bottleneck, it's the HG20's camera-optics. (That's probably true for most of today's HD-camcorders.)

In low-light scenes, video-noise dominates the compression-engine. Ironically, 24Mbps once again offers a noticeable improvement, mainly because random video-noise is hard to compress, and a lot of bits are wasted on those random dots. 24Mbps has better 'grain retention', which is another way of saying, it does a better at faithfully capturing the limitations of the CMOS sensor (without adding a lot of macroblocking effects.)
pcdvdguy is offline  
Old 10-20-2008, 08:30 AM
Member
 
Rich127's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New Mexico USA
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
pcdvdguy:

Thanks for that asessmment.


Rich
Rich127 is offline  
Old 10-25-2008, 06:44 AM
Newbie
 
bemx2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London SW19 . UK
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In my opinion 24Mbit/s should be used only with recerding detailed scenes
for example , forest , garden in the sun ( good light condition )
or when you recording lots of motion - crowd on the street .

Mostle users use 7-12 Mbit/s

SAMSUNG UE65HU8500
bemx2k is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 04:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gljvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You want to think about the future. I'm currently recording old home videos off my fathers old vhs tapes. the 17 vs 24 arguement may be pretty close right now , but do you really want to save that extra $400 now when in 15 or 20 years from now you'll want to transfer the video to a new medium meant for new tvs in which any bump in quality will be very apparent on the higher quality screens of the time. Just look at all the major changes the last few years with just lcd tech. Its only going to keep going that way.
gljvd is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 38
In AVCHD, I doubt there is any noticeable improvement in 24mbs over 17mbs, assuming both are 1080x1920. The Advanced Video Codec was designed to give impressive results at as low as 1mbs! Just as the DVCAM tape format is exactly the same quality as DV, with a 30% faster tape speed, it's for people who buy on specs and numbers. Admittedly, DVCAM is slightly less prone to dropouts, it was all about numbers. Watch DV(LP), DV(SP) and DVCAM side-by-side, and you will not be able to pick the difference.
Chevypower is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 03:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NJ3118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

In AVCHD, I doubt there is any noticeable improvement in 24mbs over 17mbs, assuming both are 1080x1920. The Advanced Video Codec was designed to give impressive results at as low as 1mbs! Just as the DVCAM tape format is exactly the same quality as DV, with a 30% faster tape speed, it's for people who buy on specs and numbers. Admittedly, DVCAM is slightly less prone to dropouts, it was all about numbers. Watch DV(LP), DV(SP) and DVCAM side-by-side, and you will not be able to pick the difference.

I hear your logic..but it is strictly speculation.
Mathematically, there is a great improvement. Infact its almost a 45% improvement from 17Mbps...
I have the HF11 and can 100% see the difference.

I set up a Control Scene with both 17 and 24 settings..Even with scenes or little movement I feel like it is able to give a clearer picture...

Look at BD movies that are at like 45Mbps...your telling me you cant see the difference? I know there are other factors there...

You comment irked me about how people buy on specs and numbers...no offense but that made no sense at all

I have a fever and the only cure is more Blu-Ray....
NJ3118 is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 03:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 38
No offense taken, but people do buy on specs and numbers. They all want a 24mbs AVCHD camera without even seeing if there is a difference. What I said about DVCAM was also true. Stop trying to be mathematical about it, and look at the bloody video. Can you tell the difference?
Chevypower is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
nickoakdl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ3118 View Post

Look at BD movies that are at like 45Mbps...your telling me you cant see the difference? I know there are other factors there...

I don't think that relates at all. There were HD DVDs with lower bitrates than there Blu-ray counterpart and the video was considered to be the same in quality. Reviewer couldn't see a difference, nor could the general public. Those who could were the people who watched their bitrate meters and saw that the Blu-ray produced a higher number, therefore must have a better picture. So I would say there definately are people who buy on specs and numbers.
nickoakdl is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NJ3118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

No offense taken, but people do buy on specs and numbers. They all want a 24mbs AVCHD camera without even seeing if there is a difference. What I said about DVCAM was also true. Stop trying to be mathematical about it, and look at the bloody video. Can you tell the difference?

I understand, and your statement does hold some water. People do buy on "marketing tactics" alone. We do agree there.
Also, I wasnt commenting on the DVCAM part of the post as I am not educated enough on the DVCAM format. But as far as the AVCHD, I can see the video difference.

This is the world we live in. Sly marketing efforts always win in the long run. But Chevy, in this case I will argue end users of the HD Camcorders have full knowledge (from either previous camcorder use) or even previous AVCHD format use...

I have a fever and the only cure is more Blu-Ray....
NJ3118 is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NJ3118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickoakdl View Post

I don't think that relates at all. There were HD DVDs with lower bitrates than there Blu-ray counterpart and the video was considered to be the same in quality. Reviewer couldn't see a difference, nor could the general public. Those who could were the people who watched their bitrate meters and saw that the Blu-ray produced a higher number, therefore must have a better picture. So I would say there definately are people who buy on specs and numbers.

see above post...but to add to that..I dont disagree with that...

There is a improvement in Blu-Ray over HD DVD...Yes the average person wont be able to tell. But when you check the numbers in a lab, they are different. J

I have a fever and the only cure is more Blu-Ray....
NJ3118 is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ3118 View Post

I understand, and your statement does hold some water. People do buy on "marketing tactics" alone. We do agree there.
Also, I wasnt commenting on the DVCAM part of the post as I am not educated enough on the DVCAM format. But as far as the AVCHD, I can see the video difference.

This is the world we live in. Sly marketing efforts always win in the long run. But Chevy, in this case I will argue end users of the HD Camcorders have full knowledge (from either previous camcorder use) or even previous AVCHD format use...

Sure, but don't give me some mathematical argument. Tell me what you see, and don't see in the comparison. You could have 1 Billion TerraBits per second, but would there be any visible improvement? We are talking cheap lenses, single 1/3 inch image sensor, with the same resolution. Generally speaking if there are no motion artifacts from compression, then less compression won't be much of a noticeable improvement. I haven't seen compression artifacts in 17mbs AVCHD.
Chevypower is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NJ3118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

Sure, but don't give me some mathematical argument. Tell me what you see, and don't see in the comparison. You could have 1 Billion TerraBits per second, but would there be any visible improvement? We are talking cheap lenses, single 1/3 inch image sensor, with the same resolution. Generally speaking if there are no motion artifacts from compression, then less compression won't be much of a noticeable improvement. I haven't seen compression artifacts in 17mbs AVCHD.

I diddnt give you a mathematical argument, what I said was it is a improvement and the way to measure that is through MATH...not really an argument just a statement...

I see the the edges of subjects and moving objects to be smoother and clearer especially when panning for one....when i have time I will try and post a comparision....until then 24Mbps is superior to 17Mbps albeit in the form of the visual enhancement or just the plain old mathematical improvement...

I have a fever and the only cure is more Blu-Ray....
NJ3118 is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Some say there is an improvement and some say not really.... so I think it would at minimum be fair to say that it's a heck of a jump in bitrate for what could only be described as a debatable increase in quality.

One thing is for sure, you still can't burn an edited video at 24m so from my perspective it makes the whole 24m thing kind of useless.

As for bottlenecks with lens quality and other such things.... these are consumer cams. You want something better, then start looking at the EX1 or similar.
bigbarney is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 09:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NJ3118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Some say there is an improvement and some say not really.... so I think it would at minimum be fair to say that it's a heck of a jump in bitrate for what could only be described as a debatable increase in quality.

One thing is for sure, you still can't burn an edited video at 24m so from my perspective it makes the whole 24m thing kind of useless.

As for bottlenecks with lens quality and other such things.... these are consumer cams. You want something better, then start looking at the EX1 or similar.

yea..i forgot to mention the camera doesntg even record at 24Mbps the entire time..it hovers around 21-23 then when there is more movement or action in the scene it jump to 24....

But yes, more increase in bitrate than quality I agree...17Mbps is still great picture

I have a fever and the only cure is more Blu-Ray....
NJ3118 is offline  
Old 11-12-2008, 10:21 PM
Senior Member
 
August1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

We are talking cheap lenses, single 1/3 inch image sensor, with the same resolution. Generally speaking if there are no motion artifacts from compression, then less compression won't be much of a noticeable improvement.

I generally have to agree with Chevypower.

A first point is that we are discussing AVCHD compression (as opposed to HDV). Other compression techniques will give different results even with a similar bit rate.

All things considered, a higher bit rate for a given compression technique should lead to a better image/better sound. IME however, with AVCHD at 17 mbps and a high end consumer camera, other factors come into play that matter more than the bit rate.

For example, I am surprised by the number of posters who discuss here PC and AVCHD issues. It is largely impossible to appreciate an AVCHD video on anything but a large LCD/plasma screen. I edit AVCHD files on my laptop but I watch them on my large screen.

A higher bit rate (say 24 mbps or even 48 mbps) may matter if the image is changing rapidly. Nevertheless, I think far too much attention is given to bit rate - assuming a certain threshold is met. To make a comparison with sound quality, at 192 kbps most mp3 audio files cover the gamut. Above that, the earphones probably matter more than a higher bit rate unless the original sound is exceptional in some way.
August1991 is offline  
Old 11-13-2008, 12:56 AM
Senior Member
 
elifino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ3118 View Post

I hear your logic..but it is strictly speculation.
Mathematically, there is a great improvement. Infact its almost a 45% improvement from 17Mbps...
I have the HF11 and can 100% see the difference.

I set up a Control Scene with both 17 and 24 settings..Even with scenes or little movement I feel like it is able to give a clearer picture...

Since you've invested yourself into the superior technology, and you have the knowledge of which 'control' is which, I wonder if your selection is completely unbiased . Until someone else runs a live double blind comparison, with the same conditions, same shot, same focal length, etc. It's unknown if you could always tell the difference.

I am not suggesting that you're not objective, but when one pays the price of admission their Kung Fu is strong.

Remember when stereo shops could convince customers that certain speakers were better by simply goosing the volume? Remember when AT&T tried to sell audio superiority on their phone lines by turning up the bass?

Linn makes a turntable that puts quality CD players to shame. How many golden ears knew that vinyl record was a digital recording?
elifino is offline  
Old 11-13-2008, 09:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NJ3118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by elifino View Post

Since you've invested yourself into the superior technology, and you have the knowledge of which 'control' is which, I wonder if your selection is completely unbiased . Until someone else runs a live double blind comparison, with the same conditions, same shot, same focal length, etc. It's unknown if you could always tell the difference.

I am not suggesting that you're not objective, but when one pays the price of admission their Kung Fu is strong.

Remember when stereo shops could convince customers that certain speakers were better by simply goosing the volume? Remember when AT&T tried to sell audio superiority on their phone lines by turning up the bass?

Linn makes a turntable that puts quality CD players to shame. How many golden ears knew that vinyl record was a digital recording?

if it make you feel better after that.....I diddnt buy the camera alone based on the 24Mbps bitrate (but justifying my purchase or my techniques are not my intention on this thread)

Your multiple analogies are indeed relative, but maybe we got off track somewhere. In my initial post I did say there were many other factors beside the bitrate....

I even compared the LCD selling tactic of 60hz vs 120hz (miniscule improvement, but nevertheless overhyped in their marketing efforts)

the technology is better, its a fact from the hf10 to the hf11, whether that correlates to "superior" picture quality can be "subjective" yes....

then again, you even proved how "subjective" a/v comparisons can be....it will be that way forever

I have a fever and the only cure is more Blu-Ray....
NJ3118 is offline  
Old 11-13-2008, 03:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ3118 View Post

I even compared the LCD selling tactic of 60hz vs 120hz (miniscule improvement, but nevertheless overhyped in their marketing efforts)

That goes along with one of my comments that you didn't agree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ3118 View Post

You comment irked me about how people buy on specs and numbers...no offense but that made no sense at all

Chevypower is offline  
Old 11-13-2008, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NJ3118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

That goes along with one of my comments that you didn't agree with.

well LCD TVs and HD Camcorders are two different goods....with two totally separate consumer bases....

Chances are the HD Camcorder consumer does a little more research than say the LCD TV consumer.....i thought you directed that comment at me because I bought the HF11....nevertheless this is going nowhere....

it is true that there are "some" people who buy based on these (shall I say) minor improvements...but its their money....if they feel more satisfied that they got the best out there....more power to them

if your a bargain hunter and feel satisfied with the previous model which is just as good and end up saving a few bucks...great more power to you as well

now back to the OP.....


umm errr ok im drawing a blank....lol....ill talk to you guys laterr

I have a fever and the only cure is more Blu-Ray....
NJ3118 is offline  
Old 11-13-2008, 11:39 PM
Senior Member
 
elifino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
folks talk about how they see the differences between this and that camcorder, but they usually say this after handing the products in different times and places. How can that be accurate? I've never figured out why these stores don't lock these cameras onto one spot, adjust them for similar viewfinder, and let the customer walk the row and pick the best according to their preference. By handling several camcorders one after another, but not looking at the same reference, is difficult to compare 'video'. While we think we see differences, we are being influenced by the operation, ergonomics, intuitive design. Our sight alone should be what determines the best picture, not the mechanics or the execution of controls. Would you put up with awkward hand position if your video was truly exceptional? just a thought
elifino is offline  
Old 11-14-2008, 12:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
nickoakdl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by elifino View Post

never figured out why these stores don't lock these cameras onto one spot, adjust them for similar viewfinder, and let the customer walk the row and pick the best according to their preference.

I'm pretty sure there are people who make large amounts of money who have made the decision to not do that same exact thing for the reason being many people would see that the camera or camcorder that is a few hundred dollars more is not necessarily worth the extra money. As long as people can't do these exact tests they will believe the product with the larger number is the better product. I mean I had two Best Buys right by me torn down so they could build new ones of similar size within half a mile of the old ones. The reason being: better lighting and ambiance. If someone doesn't think they think of these things they are wrong. I am sure they determined it would be more profitable if people had to stare at the specs and guess.
nickoakdl is offline  
Old 11-14-2008, 06:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NJ3118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by elifino View Post

folks talk about how they see the differences between this and that camcorder, but they usually say this after handing the products in different times and places. How can that be accurate? I've never figured out why these stores don't lock these cameras onto one spot, adjust them for similar viewfinder, and let the customer walk the row and pick the best according to their preference. By handling several camcorders one after another, but not looking at the same reference, is difficult to compare 'video'. While we think we see differences, we are being influenced by the operation, ergonomics, intuitive design. Our sight alone should be what determines the best picture, not the mechanics or the execution of controls. Would you put up with awkward hand position if your video was truly exceptional? just a thought

i think the conversation is more of a difference in two different recording modes...sure its tought to see any difference between 7 Mega Pixel and 8 Mega Pixel...but there is one...and fyi I bought the HF11 without even playing with it in any store....

I have a fever and the only cure is more Blu-Ray....
NJ3118 is offline  
Old 11-14-2008, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ3118 View Post

i think the conversation is more of a difference in two different recording modes...sure its tought to see any difference between 7 Mega Pixel and 8 Mega Pixel...but there is one...and fyi I bought the HF11 without even playing with it in any store....

Actually total megapixel is a misleading way of measuring the resolution. You would think that going from 2mp to 4mp would be a double improvement visually. You actually have to go from 2mp to 8mp to see that level of difference. Then from 8mp to 32mp. So all these slight increments they do, is not even worth talking about.
Chevypower is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off