New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 22, 2007.

  1. Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    It has a bunch of really stupid limitations, such as max 13 minute
    movie clips (4GB) and max 1.5 hour audio (1GB), even though it takes
    SDHC cards (8GB cards are already available with 16GB coming). Plus
    it has a tiny sensor with too many pixels, and looks like it uses an
    internal lithium battery that's both proprietary and runtime-limiting.

    It's an indication of what's coming, though. Maybe they'll make an AA
    version sometime.

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022203canontx1.asp
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yes, there is definitely going to be a merger of at least some types of
    still camera and video. Both will likely still exist separately for a
    long time, but I can see a growing segment of crossover cameras. Why
    have two when one will do it all, I am sure, will be the marketing motto.

    Cheers,

    Wayne
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I used to be very opposed to that but I'm sort of ok with it now.
    However, this TX-1 seems to me to do a lousy job, for the reasons I
    mentioned. Basically I'd rather have a gadget that does one thing
    well than two things badly. And yikes, it seems to have no external
    mic input!

    I wonder how the TX-1's audio quality is. I've shot some video clips
    with my A530 and it's kind of fun, but the A530's audio is terrible.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Agreed. In theory it should be possible to make a camera that is good at
    both, but I think it is a long way till we get there, if ever in
    practice. That said, because I tend to mostly take a still camera with
    me (well usually two, my IR body and the normal one) I have had
    occasions when some decent video capability would have been nice. On the
    other hand if I could only get my wife to carry the video camera, I'd be
    set :)

    Cheers,

    Wayne
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Maybe the requirements are different. I'm never going to shoot a
    feature film with a pocket sized camera, and I'm not going to pixel
    peep video frames. So I'm ok with VGA resolution for video in a
    pocket camera. On the other hand I'm always after more and more low
    light performance.

    They are using a 1/2.5" sensor in that TX-1, so if they went for
    making it a pure video camera, at 640x480 that would give around 9
    micron pixels, beating all current DSLR's for pixel size. With a
    640x480 APS-C sensor (not so expensive any more, due to mass market
    consumer DSLR's) they could beat even professional video cameras.
    They just don't dare to make the resolution that low.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    Now that's a serious admission of failure on your part :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    Why would they want to. People here want at least 720*576 for video (or
    usually 1080 these days)
    Frankly I'd rather have a 3ccd hard drive hiDef video camera with the same
    size sensors :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 22, 2007
    #8
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    OK, SVGA or even 1080 then. But when I watch VGA video blown up to my
    1600x1200 screen it still looks fine.
    3ccd looks sort of obsolete to me. Larger single CCD's are getting
    cheaper and cheaper to make, but as the CCD's get larger the prisms
    and alignment systems for 3ccd systems get ridiculously expensive. So
    you've got the semipro Sony VX2100 or its HDV successor with 3x 1/3"
    CCD's at around $2000 and the next model up, with 1/2" CCD's is around
    $5000. But three 1/3" CCD's is around the same sensor area as 1/1.8".
    It avoids the light losses in the Bayer sensor but it still doesn't
    collect anywhere near as many photons as a 4/3" sensor much less an
    APS-C sensor. The $17,500, 12 MP, super duper Red digital cinema
    camera will apparently use an APS-C sized sensor but I seriously don't
    see the obstacle to doing that at the VX2100 price level and HDV
    resolution.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 22, 2007
    #9
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mark² Guest

    I'm not into shooting lots of video, but I did choose to leave the camcorder
    at home when I traveled to and worked in Ukraine last summer. I decided
    that the 30fps VGA video of my little pocket camera was enough for me, since
    I primarily shoot stills (5D). As it turned out, I actually figure I shot
    MORE video with it than I would have with my camcorder, simply because I
    could slip the tiny SD700IS into a pocket, where the camcorder would never
    have come along anyway. It's not as good as "real" video, but it was very
    usable for my purposes. There are plenty of folks who are tired of lugging
    around even the smaller tape-driven video cameras.
     
    Mark², Feb 22, 2007
    #10
  11. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Right, so why not make a "real" video camera that size, with video
    performance comparable to fairly high end consumer camcorders, if all
    it takes is slightly different electronics inside, plus ditching the
    ability to shoot high-resolution stills? The 1/1.8" CCD should be at
    least comparable to the 3x 1/6" CCD's in the current
    Sony/Pana/whatever lineup. You can always stick yet another digicam
    in your pocket if you want to also shoot stills.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 22, 2007
    #11
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    kosh Guest

    i thought it was going inevitable 5 years ago..... hell, my mobile will
    do 4o minutes of 640x480 @ 30fps!

    kosh
     
    kosh, Feb 22, 2007
    #12
  13. You bet :)
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 22, 2007
    #13
  14. Wayne J. Cosshall

    J. Clarke Guest

    4 GB is not a "weird limitation" at all, that's the FAT32 file size
    limit. To go higher than that they'd have to either split the video
    across two files or go to NTFS or some other file system on the card,
    which would, no matter what they chose, introduce compatibility
    problems.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 22, 2007
    #14
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    J. Clarke Guest

    You've never seen HD then. After you've seen 1920x1080 HD, SD analog
    video, no matter how well produced, looks like crap.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 22, 2007
    #15
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I don't see what's wrong with splitting the video or audio into
    multiple files. Audio recorders do it. Just start a new file every
    so often.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 22, 2007
    #16
  17. And the video on DVD discs is split into 1gig parts as well, nothing new here.

    My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte
    pieces..
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Feb 22, 2007
    #17
  18. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I suppose if one is a videophile that's true. I'm sure I could tell
    the difference, it's that I just don't care. I've seen 70mm film at
    the theater and I'm sure that looks even better than HD. But the
    actual experience of watching the movie isn't especially better than
    watching it on VHS in someone's living room. I really care a lot more
    about the quality of the script, the acting, whether the person in the
    next seat is coughing on me, etc., than I do about the pixels. The
    most successful documentary of all time (Fahrenheit 911) was shot
    mostly on SD video and I really doubt that anybody minded.
     
    Paul Rubin, Feb 22, 2007
    #18
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    J. Clarke Guest

    Is there a standard for doing that or does doing so lock you into a
    proprietary program for playback?
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 22, 2007
    #19
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mark² Guest

    Probably has to do with the huge amount of memory required to store high-def
    video. The Canon can only do 13 minutes(!) on 4GB, or so I was told...
     
    Mark², Feb 23, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.