640 x 480?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by J, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. J

    J Guest

    I'm not too clued up on video issues, but I always thought AVI meant '640 x
    480'. The thing is, my 'old' Sony P93 digicam produces a video which is 640
    x 480 and a 3 minute video would be app., 60MB in size. But...'I have a
    newer Canon SX130 IS which produces 720 HD video and also '640 x 480' video,
    but the later takes up 300MB for a 3 minute video. Why does the Canon's 640
    x 480 video take up SIX times the room of the Sony 640 x 480 video?

    J
     
    J, Nov 23, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 23.11.11 01:43, J wrote:
    > I'm not too clued up on video issues, but I always thought AVI meant '640 x
    > 480'. The thing is, my 'old' Sony P93 digicam produces a video which is 640
    > x 480 and a 3 minute video would be app., 60MB in size. But...'I have a
    > newer Canon SX130 IS which produces 720 HD video and also '640 x 480' video,
    > but the later takes up 300MB for a 3 minute video. Why does the Canon's 640
    > x 480 video take up SIX times the room of the Sony 640 x 480 video?
    >
    > J
    >

    it might be the different compression, very probably the SX130 takes a
    true 480P video whereas the p93 takes only interlaced.
    The picture might also be much crisper, with a lot more details, harder
    to compress.


    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One mobile and two operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
     
    Laszlo Lebrun, Nov 23, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. J

    J Guest

    "Laszlo Lebrun" <> wrote in message
    news:jai8at$32a$...
    > On 23.11.11 01:43, J wrote:
    >> I'm not too clued up on video issues, but I always thought AVI meant '640
    >> x
    >> 480'. The thing is, my 'old' Sony P93 digicam produces a video which is
    >> 640
    >> x 480 and a 3 minute video would be app., 60MB in size. But...'I have a
    >> newer Canon SX130 IS which produces 720 HD video and also '640 x 480'
    >> video,
    >> but the later takes up 300MB for a 3 minute video. Why does the Canon's
    >> 640
    >> x 480 video take up SIX times the room of the Sony 640 x 480 video?
    >>
    >> J
    >>

    > it might be the different compression, very probably the SX130 takes a
    > true 480P video whereas the p93 takes only interlaced.
    > The picture might also be much crisper, with a lot more details, harder to
    > compress.
    >


    Yes, it does look like the SX130 is producing a much more detailed video
    than the Sony does. How different might the audio be in these cameras in
    these cameras I wonder? The SX130 sounds more natural than the Sony and has
    better bass, but I don't know how different they are technically.

    J
     
    J, Nov 23, 2011
    #3
  4. J

    OG Guest

    On 23/11/2011 00:43, J wrote:
    > I'm not too clued up on video issues, but I always thought AVI meant '640 x
    > 480'. The thing is, my 'old' Sony P93 digicam produces a video which is 640
    > x 480 and a 3 minute video would be app., 60MB in size. But...'I have a
    > newer Canon SX130 IS which produces 720 HD video and also '640 x 480' video,
    > but the later takes up 300MB for a 3 minute video. Why does the Canon's 640
    > x 480 video take up SIX times the room of the Sony 640 x 480 video?
    >
    > J


    VGA means 640 x 480

    AVI is a file format (or altenatively a container format).
     
    OG, Nov 23, 2011
    #4
  5. J

    Joel Guest

    "J" <> wrote:

    > I'm not too clued up on video issues, but I always thought AVI meant '640 x
    > 480'. The thing is, my 'old' Sony P93 digicam produces a video which is 640
    > x 480 and a 3 minute video would be app., 60MB in size. But...'I have a
    > newer Canon SX130 IS which produces 720 HD video and also '640 x 480' video,
    > but the later takes up 300MB for a 3 minute video. Why does the Canon's 640
    > x 480 video take up SIX times the room of the Sony 640 x 480 video?
    >
    > J


    You can always search Google for more clue. The 640x480 is the 4:3 ratio
    aspect of MPEG-2

    Just like image, the 640x480 video has nothing to do with the SIZE, cuz
    it's just part of the whole format. Or it's *missing* some VALUE to be a
    complete value

    IMAGE has W x H x P (some prog calls Resolution)

    VIDEO has W x H x Frame x BitRate

    Just like IMAGE the value of "P" can change the SIZE, with VIDEO the
    BitRate can also change the SIZE of video

    Example, 640x480 will fit the old analog TV screen, the BitRate is the
    QUALITY of the video.

    And it doesn't always mean the higher BitRate the higher quality (only to
    the MAX of the original), but higher BitRate will create larger SIZE.

    Example if you have a 640x480x10000, and you tell the converter or author
    to change it to 640x480x8000 then the size will be around 8X larger. And
    the quality is still 1X or less comparing to the original.
     
    Joel, Nov 24, 2011
    #5
  6. "J" <> wrote:
    >
    > I'm not too clued up on video issues, but I always thought AVI meant
    > '640 x 480'. The thing is, my 'old' Sony P93 digicam produces a video
    > which is 640 x 480 and a 3 minute video would be app., 60MB in size.
    > But...'I have a newer Canon SX130 IS which produces 720 HD video and
    > also '640 x 480' video, but the later takes up 300MB for a 3 minute
    > video. Why does the Canon's 640 x 480 video take up SIX times the room
    > of the Sony 640 x 480 video?


    AVI is a container format, it can be any resolution and the video can be
    compressed with one of many codecs. Another common picture size is
    320x240.

    The most likely reason for the Canon using 300MB for a 3 minute video is
    that it will be using MJPEG compression, which is effectively a stream
    of jpegs (25 or 30 a second) wrapped in an AVI container. This is very
    easy for a stills camera to produce without special hardware being
    required, but is also very inefficient from a compression POV. The Sony
    was probably using an MPEG4 format in which only the frame-to-frame
    differences are stored which would certainly achieve the 5-fold space
    saving you mention.

    There is an advantage to the inefficient MJPEG compression method
    though: every frame is a keyframe (whole picture) so it is easy to edit
    the video without re-encoding, whereas with MPEG4 there is typcially
    only a keyframe once every 10 seconds or so which means edits either
    have to be cruder or else you have to recompress some or all of the
    video which loses quality and takes many times longer. So if space is
    no object, MJPEG is more flexible, but the penalty is that you only
    get about 10 minutes of video per gigabyte, whereas MPEG4 may give you
    an hour or more per gigabyte (depending on what quality and resolution
    you use).
     
    Gordon Freeman, Nov 24, 2011
    #6
  7. J

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-11-24 00:52:28 +0000, Gordon Freeman said:

    > "J" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> I'm not too clued up on video issues, but I always thought AVI meant
    >> '640 x 480'. The thing is, my 'old' Sony P93 digicam produces a video
    >> which is 640 x 480 and a 3 minute video would be app., 60MB in size.
    >> But...'I have a newer Canon SX130 IS which produces 720 HD video and
    >> also '640 x 480' video, but the later takes up 300MB for a 3 minute
    >> video. Why does the Canon's 640 x 480 video take up SIX times the room
    >> of the Sony 640 x 480 video?

    >
    > AVI is a container format, it can be any resolution and the video can be
    > compressed with one of many codecs. Another common picture size is
    > 320x240.
    >
    > The most likely reason for the Canon using 300MB for a 3 minute video is
    > that it will be using MJPEG compression, which is effectively a stream
    > of jpegs (25 or 30 a second) wrapped in an AVI container. This is very
    > easy for a stills camera to produce without special hardware being
    > required, but is also very inefficient from a compression POV. The Sony
    > was probably using an MPEG4 format in which only the frame-to-frame
    > differences are stored which would certainly achieve the 5-fold space
    > saving you mention.
    >
    > There is an advantage to the inefficient MJPEG compression method
    > though: every frame is a keyframe (whole picture) so it is easy to edit
    > the video without re-encoding, whereas with MPEG4 there is typcially
    > only a keyframe once every 10 seconds or so which means edits either
    > have to be cruder or else you have to recompress some or all of the
    > video which loses quality and takes many times longer. So if space is
    > no object, MJPEG is more flexible, but the penalty is that you only
    > get about 10 minutes of video per gigabyte, whereas MPEG4 may give you
    > an hour or more per gigabyte (depending on what quality and resolution
    > you use).


    That makes a lot of sense. However, the Canon spec for the SX130 IS
    says the file type for movies is MOV [H.264 + Linear PCM (stereo)],
    which is MPEG-4 AVC.

    For images with a lot of movement, H.264 gives little compression
    advantage of M-JPEG. H.264 reduces file size when inter-frame changes
    are small.
     
    Pete A, Nov 24, 2011
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bernard Peek

    Agfa 640 flashgun`

    Bernard Peek, Jan 9, 2006, in forum: UK Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    244
    Bernard Peek
    Jan 9, 2006
  2. Ric K.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    385
    Ric K.
    Oct 17, 2003
  3. Ted Kerin

    MPEG1 at 640 X 480?

    Ted Kerin, Jan 14, 2005, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    650
    V Green
    Feb 10, 2005
  4. Gary

    Best CODEC for 300 kbps, 640 x 480 resolution

    Gary, Nov 21, 2005, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    335
  5. tomcas
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    274
    Alf92
    Jan 21, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page