HD format and display resolution

[Davidk]

Try this
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=F ... 26A1%21107

and the filename is 20140209_073723 (MS conveniently doesn't add the filetype. but this is one of those .mov files in the screenshot in the original post).

Just to remind viewers - what I was concerned about was the lack of HD textures/details in the imagery captured on a new camera, of which this is one file.

Davidk

[Ken Berry]

Well, all I can say is that I tend to agree with you about the quality. There is a degree of clarity in the foreground which indicates that it is higher definition than normal standard def. But after that, I think the image is very grainy (lens quality???); it seems rather over-exposed; contrast not particularly good -- though that of course can be improved with software filters. The depth of field is pretty bad with not much from behind the back of the boat in focus. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but these little cameras -- or at least the GoPro series -- would normally have a better depth of field in order to display clearly a wide field of action.

A couple of thoughts: can you change any of the Properties in the camera, particularly the bitrate? My Hero 3 films at over 24 kbps and the quality, contrast etc (and depth of field!) are all excellent. Your bitrate of around 12 Mbps automatically indicates a significant quality hit. Maybe the camera can be set, say, to 1280 x 720p but using a higher bitrate? 1280 x 720 is of course a lot smaller than 1920 x 1080, but is still capable of producing very high quality output. It can usually also be set to 50/60p which ups the quality a bit further. And don't forget that for quite some time 1280 x 720p was the preferred high def broadcast format for TV stations around the world (and still is in some places...)

Does the camera allow different view sizes? That video looks like a pretty normal view i.e. there is little or no fish-eye effect, which you get with the GoPros set to either the widest or medium views. Widening the view might improve depth of field, if this is what you want. And there are programs out there which can deal with fish-eye very professionally, though they cost money. My preferred program is proDad's proDrenaline for this. GoPro's own Studio program (free) I think can deal with video like yours as it too can produce things in .mov format. It claims to be able to correct fish-eye, though I have never experimented with that, and indeed have only played with the program once or twice, as I prefer VS as my editor.

While fiddling with formats and bitrates might improve things somewhat, I think, however, that your basic problem is that you are getting what you paid for -- and I don't mean that to sound as narky as it might look. Just an objective judgment.

[Davidk]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the feedback.

This is really my 1st venture into the world of HD, so whilst I generally am expecting a finer quality picture (as compared to a standard camcorder) from a camera with that ability, I really have nothing to compare with. And I certainly would not want to rig up any normal camcorder on these models. One attraction for this item is the waterproof case. And it may be I'm expecting a bit much, but OTOH, it doesn't have the things that takeup space and $ in a standard camcorder like lens protectors, zoom switches, re-play facilities etc. For that, take the recorded image to a computer with the necessary software. So while $130 (98 for the camera and 30 for the memory card to go in it) isn't really expensive, it's not cheap either. Compared to GoPro, its a much more cost effective unit. And I would not be surprised to find that both of them are made in the same factory . . . .

As to the camera, it has 3 video modes and 2 photo modes. The lens is a fixed focus thing (which is what I'd expect) and it's labelled "fixed focus lens F3.1 f=2.9mm". It's mounted in a clear plastic casing, and I suppose that extra layer of plastic in front of the lens has an impact. There's a lot of adverse comment on the camera's microphone on the migear forum but for an item intended for use in xtreme conditions, a watertight casing is guaranteed to reduce the sensitivity of the mic, which is the usual pinhole in this sort of equipment.

The video modes are:
HI (or full HD): 1920x1080, 30fps
Lo: 1280x720, 30fps
HILO: 1280x720, 60fps

There's no comment in the limited doco supplied on which one to use in any circumstance. My understanding is that the image size (eg 1920x1080) is the resolution, fine detail, textures et al of the image and the frame rate is simply how many copies of it per second the camera takes. Which was why I set it at that rate out of the box. A faster frame rate would smooth out or slow down something that was quite fast (slow motion cameras simply take frames at a very fast rate and then replay them at the usual 25 or 30fps, which is why the resulting view is "slow motion") or very jerky, but ordinarily 30fps ought to do. I'm not with the logic of how a lower resolution image taken at twice the speed improves the quality of the result, so some clarity on that point would be appreciated. The file on the onedrive site was taken with the 1920x1080 setting.

View sizes? No, at least there's no control for that (eg 16:9 or 4:3). There may be one defaulted to the image setting. But what you saw is what you get for the full HD setting.

Some of the larger files have motion over water sections, but they are much bigger and getting them on to the site for access is just so time consuming - that 16 sec 26Mb item took about 10 minutes to upload. Would using VS to create a 20 sec file with that sort of action be useful?

The manufacturers site doesn't list this item, so it may well be a branded item for Dick Smith (which is where I got it) and it is on their website here
http://www.dicksmith.com.au/point-shoot ... sau-xg8230

Davidk

[Ken Berry]

I'm not with the logic of how a lower resolution image taken at twice the speed improves the quality of the result, so some clarity on that point would be appreciated.

Curious that the camera is not on the Migear website (I double checked!) But Dick Smith at least confirmed that the 1280 x 720p format films at 60 fps. Leaving aside just for the moment the question of quality/resolution, having more frames per second notionally means better output, especially in videos which have high action content, which yours presumably would. Having 60 full frames of the same action every second will give a tad more clarity than 30 fps.

But my point above was really about quality flowing from bitrate, rather than frame format/resolution size. Unfortunately, Dick Smith (and all the other sites I quickly looked at about this camera) don't mention bitrates. So I guess the only way to go is for you to set it at 1280 x 720p, test it, and then see in its Properties in VS what the bitrate is. If it is significantly higher than 12 Mbps, then together with the 60fps, you might get (much?) better quality than you are currently getting, regardless of the smaller frame size. (And I have to say I have some 1280 x 720p footage which looks simply great on my 46 inch HDTV -- I can't tell the difference between it and 1920 x 1080 footage!) But in the end, only you can decide if it is satisfactory to your needs or not.

[Davidk]

I'll try it out at that setting.

Concerning the bit rate - this is a screenshot of the clip properties, and I am perplexed about how you arrive at the 12Mbps bitrate when nothing I can see in the properties list comes out at that number (there isn't a bit rate statement, so it has to be something like frames/sec x bits/frame, and with 24bits per pixel that came out at something like 1.4Gbps which is ridiculous. I've got it wrong somewhere).

Davidk

[Ken Berry]

Yes, it's curious that VS does not record a bitrate. However, you will recall in your first post in this thread, you highlighted the Properties of that file, and it lists the bitrate as 11.9 Mbps. I also looked at the file in QuickTime Player (since it was a .mov file), and its 'Movie Inspector' lists the bitrate/datarate as 12.86 Mbps. So I just talked in terms of 12 Mbps.

[Davidk]

Fair enough. And a re-check of the 1st post does say that in the file metadata windows exposes in the screenshot.

I'll let you know how the vids with the 720 setting turnout.

Davidk

[Davidk]

Tried it with the 1280x720, 60fps setting.

Not a great deal of difference visually and the file metadata still seems to indicate around 11.9-12mbps, so it seems that's the capability of the product. As Ken outlined . . .

I am intrigued by the specs vs result tho - the manual says video is .avi format, yet the result on the memory card is .mov which the computer interprets as mpeg-4. Is there a reason for that a dunderhead like me could understand?

Davidk