I have seen videos from the 1970s-1990s that look higher quality than some of today's cell phone quality cameras.
Example from 1991: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KYEyqi2H84
Example from 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1tfBjlnqQ&lc
Example from 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E6gPQhwke4
Example from 1991: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KYEyqi2H84
Example from 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1tfBjlnqQ&lc
Example from 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E6gPQhwke4
So, your observation is that a standalone video camera looks better that the shitty camera in your cell phone?
Compression has killed a lot of music and video. I agree with CleverHans though, a cellphone is not a good comparison.
Sparkle
64 Posts
13 years, 7 months ago
Really? I would rather use a modern sleek camcorder with HD video then a bulky one that uses tapes. Take off those rose tinted glasses.
The 'Sony Hanycam' Digital 8 was the best camcorder ever made. Sadly no 64 bit OS supports it at the moment.
Tapes are better quality than digital video due digital video's automatic compression. I had a 1080p camcorder that looked really shitty when compared to my DV tape camcorder from 10 years ago. You just gotta find the right camcorder, but a good one will cost a lot.
Sparkle
Really? I would rather use a modern sleek camcorder with HD video then a bulky one that uses tapes. Take off those rose tinted glasses.
Then you're comparing the actual use of a camcorder, not the result. Yes, if you can render full HD into an editing program go for it.
darthmunk
Tapes are better quality than digital video due digital video's automatic compression. I had a 1080p camcorder that looked really shitty when compared to my DV tape camcorder from 10 years ago. You just gotta find the right camcorder, but a good one will cost a lot.
DV tapes are still digital.
Come to think of it, it's a bit scary seeing videos from the early 2000s and seeing the grainyness of them.
Makes you think how much technology has advanced.
Makes you think how much technology has advanced.
CleverHans
darthmunkTapes are better quality than digital video due digital video's automatic compression. I had a 1080p camcorder that looked really shitty when compared to my DV tape camcorder from 10 years ago. You just gotta find the right camcorder, but a good one will cost a lot.
DV tapes are still digital.
technically, yeah but you know what i mean. its still film vs not film.
randomuser2349
Come to think of it, it's a bit scary seeing videos from the early 2000s and seeing the grainyness of them.
Makes you think how much technology has advanced.
The technology has been around for awhile, it's just the price has come down. Digital camera's in most people's price range back then were total crap.
Camcorders tend to have lower colo(u)r quality, yet the framerate is much better.
New digital cameras usually have better colo(u)r quality, but they have crap framerates.
New digital cameras usually have better colo(u)r quality, but they have crap framerates.
It's a vicious circle.
Actually, the top of the line phones will soon outpace modern digital cameras. Aside from professional grade cameras, camera phones are keeping up quite well with the competition. But that's comparing digital to digital, not some of the older stuff of the last decade.
Sunriser
Actually, the top of the line phones will soon outpace modern digital cameras. Aside from professional grade cameras, camera phones are keeping up quite well with the competition. But that's comparing digital to digital, not some of the older stuff of the last decade.
For people who don't really need much of a camera, other than convenient, facebook-destined snapshots, many of the new cellphone cameras will do the trick. If you want good, print-worthy quality or some manual control over your exposures, you will still need to shell out some money for a good compact camera, or even more money for a mirrorless interchangable lens camera or DSLR.
I have a Nokia N8 phone which has a 12mp camera in it with carl zeiss optics and what they call "advanced features", but it still frustrates the hell outta me to not really be able to control everything that it's doing.
Shazbot
SunriserActually, the top of the line phones will soon outpace modern digital cameras. Aside from professional grade cameras, camera phones are keeping up quite well with the competition. But that's comparing digital to digital, not some of the older stuff of the last decade.
For people who don't really need much of a camera, other than convenient, facebook-destined snapshots, many of the new cellphone cameras will do the trick. If you want good, print-worthy quality or some manual control over your exposures, you will still need to shell out some money for a good compact camera, or even more money for a mirrorless interchangable lens camera or DSLR.
I have a Nokia N8 phone which has a 12mp camera in it with carl zeiss optics and what they call "advanced features", but it still frustrates the hell outta me to not really be able to control everything that it's doing.
A 12mp camera in a phone is a lot. That kind of resolution can give you print-quality pics. Sure, is not the same as a compact camera with lenses but I would be content with one of those. Only an enthusiast could tell right away the difference of a print.
The irony is that the I saw 3 films made in 2002, and the films were grainier than many of the ones I saw that were made in 1995-1999,
Actually, yes. Except for iPhones, though. The quality is super!
stake_n_sheak
:roll:randomuser2349colo(u)r
EDIT: Well it looks like he is Canadian, but I know they're kind of on the border regarding how they spell it.