New: Canon PowerShot TX1 -- hybrid HD

Balazs Rozsa · March 8th, 2007, 04:16 AM

To be exact the Varicam is 1.66 times less compressed if you consider that the Varicam has 1.25 times more data, but 1.33 times fewer pixels for the compression.

Wayne Morellini · March 8th, 2007, 11:38 AM

Depends where ever it is 35mb/s as reported, or around 40mb/s, and if it is 4:2:0 instead of 4:2:2. I checked on my calculator to verify, though at this time of night, maybe I am feeding it in wrong.

Van Cleave · March 8th, 2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Frankly I don't think bit rate has anything to do with quality or detail in an image. I've seen some very high bit rate stuff that looks like garbage, and some low bit rate stuff that looks amazing. As far as I'm concerned, it's all in the encoder. This thing is *no* replacement for an HD110 or any other HDV camcorder. It's just a digicam that has an interesting video mode if you ask me. Definitely in the Sanyo HD1/HD2 league... not that there's anything wrong with that...

I agree with Chris. Although the imaging block characteristics, electronics, lens, storage media, etc. are very important it's all about how the data stream is manipulated. That being said, perhaps that's why information about specific codec characterics are so closely gaurded. Digic1, Digic2, Digic3..... real catchy but where's the white paper's supporting all the claims and explaining exactly, and in detail, what each does. Hopefully everyone will finally begin to focus on the most important part of these new cameras, the encoder. If anyone has a link to substitive information regarding the Canon codecs I would be grateful.

Lorry Smyth · March 10th, 2007, 03:20 AM

From the first Japanese, I have to say that all the dreads of low bit rate Motion-JPEG are clear as mosquito/ fast moving random noise around contrasty edges on all video samples. Also very obvious color aberration issues from the lens. Pretty ugly stuff but one cannot expect miracles for a sub $500 camera that does so much. I'm staying optimistic and hoping these first video samples came from a pre-production model. Motion-JPEG is an extremely good, mature and editing-friendly compression method but only with proper bandwidth and quality settings, or, it looks as bad a compressed still JPEG images as used from the web that are painful to look at. At Canon stated bitrates, Digic-III or not, I cannot see how the results can be good. SD Video requires at least twice the maximum bandwidth spec'ed for the TX1 for near-DV quality... that's not HD where the image area and information size is much better... things are what they are, but Canon is surely not making $500 camera with image quality that can compete with their own other products costing twice to 4x more. As a still 7MP camera that as a novel curiosity also shoots (kind-of) HD video, it will no doubt be great. but for anything else as far as considering the expected video quality of this thing to be anything above barely acceptable to watch on a big screen... hmmmm... we are all probably hoping for something that is still a couple years away...

Wayne Morellini · March 10th, 2007, 06:15 AM

The industry can make and deliver it, probably around $300 today, but don't choose to. An lot of this pricing stuff is virtually imaginary, an illusion allowed to keep people thinking that they have to pay that much. If you look at the amount of models sold in video cameras and phones, etc etc etc, you realise that this is an inefficient way to manufacture, because of the limited volume runs. There should be, like, three consumer models, even three models for the entire consumer/prosumer range is possible to get away with, this greatly boosts the volume runs. The reason for this is that it convinces people that there is an need to pay more for an 1c/1$ feature, at the exclusion of real/new competitors from the shelf space, etc.

Lorry Smyth · March 10th, 2007, 06:39 AM

Right. When I say what's available to day or 2 years from now, I don't mean technology-wise. We could have affordable 4K camcorders for all that matters. Technology is cheap... hardware and mass production cost nothing. Manufacturing in enough quantities is almost free. Chips and electronics are basically worth zero. Its all about the politics of what to be made available, and flooding the markets at the pace that is more profitable. Its not people like RED that will never pump enough product to be affordable enough to bend the big guys that can dictate the industry though, they can certainly push the envelope. Its the other guys that move at nail speed and have their labs with innovations ready for production that will not see the light of day for another decade. This is not about revolutionizing with new products... this is actually about moving as slow as possible within the boundaries of what your competitors do. If there was no competition or alternative like what happaned with JVC (and, it was all about price), then there would have been no reason for it to last almost a quater century. DVD was old news when it came out. HD-DHD/Bluray? Those are dead on arrival. 1080p? Pre-historic. Cameras like the TX-1, shooting true Boardcast Quality 1080p video and 12MP stills for $500 could have been available last year... I said two years? And that's optimistic. Still as long as there is progress, its all good... and, thank God for Canon for some of the best stuff out there, that's for sure!

Lorry Smyth · March 10th, 2007, 04:14 PM

There is new video footage of the TX-1 for download taken at Canon's booth at PMA:

http://curtisjoewalker.com/MVI_0001.AVI

Wayne Morellini · March 15th, 2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aanarav Sareen

Wayne,

I'll take a look. I may have to purchase some extra SD cards, but it will be interesting to see what these cameras are capable of.

- Aanarav

Aanarav,

What did you find at PMA?

Thanks

Wayne.

Aanarav Sareen · March 15th, 2007, 11:27 AM

Wayne,

Here is some info

a) PowerShot TX1:
- Looks good, but it is tiny! The images that you may have seen from press-releases and other sources make the camera look too big. I could easily hold up the camera in my palm.
- Features/functions: The menu navigation is very similar to other powershot cameras.
- Quality: I didn't have a chance to insert my own memory card and play with it, as there were TONS of people surrounding the camera, so I can't really report on the quality. However, take a look at the following links to see if the samples help you out:
http://tinyurl.com/yulp56
http://tinyurl.com/36wax5

b) Canon HV20:
- The HV20 really looks like an old school family camcorder. I think design wise its a step backwards, but it sure is a lot more convenient and traditional in terms of handling and ergonomics.
- HV10 and HV20: Canon was actively promoting the HV10 and HV20 cameras side-by-side. From their promotional material, it doesn't look as if the HV10 is going out anytime soon.

- Aanarav

Wayne Morellini · March 15th, 2007, 02:36 PM

Thanks Aanarav, did you find any other h264 cameras?

Boyan Dob · March 16th, 2007, 07:17 AM

Is it possible to mount/attach other lenses (e.g. wide angle lens) to Canon TX1 as it is to Sanyo HD2?

Ayman Hussein · March 16th, 2007, 09:50 AM

has anyone seen this review?
http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/revi...camcorder.html

i think the video is pretty impressive.

Alexander Wrana · March 16th, 2007, 09:53 AM

It is, I only wish that finally somenone would post some raw footage. Or is the .avi compression actually representative?

Ayman Hussein · March 16th, 2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Wrana

It is, I only wish that finally somenone would post some raw footage. Or is the .avi compression actually representative?

just going by my math (which isnt really scientific)

(the 11 second video is about 50mb)
(4000mb is a 4gb card)

Code:

11    x
-- = --
50  4000

44000=50x
x=880 seconds
880sec= 14.666 minutes

which is about the limit that canon/dpreview said it would be.

Chris Hurd · March 16th, 2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

I only wish that finally someone would post some raw footage. Or is the .avi compression actually representative?

Yes, the .avi format is what the camera produces, from Motion JPEG compression. There is no "raw" mode for this camera. The various .avi files that have been made available are what's actually coming out of the camera. Hope this helps,

March 15th, 2007, 11:27 AM	#69
Aanarav Sareen Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NJ, US Posts: 183	Wayne, Here is some info a) PowerShot TX1: - Looks good, but it is tiny! The images that you may have seen from press-releases and other sources make the camera look too big. I could easily hold up the camera in my palm. - Features/functions: The menu navigation is very similar to other powershot cameras. - Quality: I didn't have a chance to insert my own memory card and play with it, as there were TONS of people surrounding the camera, so I can't really report on the quality. However, take a look at the following links to see if the samples help you out: http://tinyurl.com/yulp56 http://tinyurl.com/36wax5 b) Canon HV20: - The HV20 really looks like an old school family camcorder. I think design wise its a step backwards, but it sure is a lot more convenient and traditional in terms of handling and ergonomics. - HV10 and HV20: Canon was actively promoting the HV10 and HV20 cameras side-by-side. From their promotional material, it doesn't look as if the HV10 is going out anytime soon. - Aanarav __________________ http://www.sareen.tv

March 16th, 2007, 07:17 AM	#71
Boyan Dob Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Slovenia Posts: 45	Additional lenses... Is it possible to mount/attach other lenses (e.g. wide angle lens) to Canon TX1 as it is to Sanyo HD2?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

March 8th, 2007, 04:16 AM	#61
Balazs Rozsa Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Budapest Posts: 48	To be exact the Varicam is 1.66 times less compressed if you consider that the Varicam has 1.25 times more data, but 1.33 times fewer pixels for the compression.

March 8th, 2007, 11:38 AM	#62
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Depends where ever it is 35mb/s as reported, or around 40mb/s, and if it is 4:2:0 instead of 4:2:2. I checked on my calculator to verify, though at this time of night, maybe I am feeding it in wrong.

March 10th, 2007, 03:20 AM	#64
Lorry Smyth Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: San Fracisco, CA Posts: 49	From the first Japanese, I have to say that all the dreads of low bit rate Motion-JPEG are clear as mosquito/ fast moving random noise around contrasty edges on all video samples. Also very obvious color aberration issues from the lens. Pretty ugly stuff but one cannot expect miracles for a sub $500 camera that does so much. I'm staying optimistic and hoping these first video samples came from a pre-production model. Motion-JPEG is an extremely good, mature and editing-friendly compression method but only with proper bandwidth and quality settings, or, it looks as bad a compressed still JPEG images as used from the web that are painful to look at. At Canon stated bitrates, Digic-III or not, I cannot see how the results can be good. SD Video requires at least twice the maximum bandwidth spec'ed for the TX1 for near-DV quality... that's not HD where the image area and information size is much better... things are what they are, but Canon is surely not making $500 camera with image quality that can compete with their own other products costing twice to 4x more. As a still 7MP camera that as a novel curiosity also shoots (kind-of) HD video, it will no doubt be great. but for anything else as far as considering the expected video quality of this thing to be anything above barely acceptable to watch on a big screen... hmmmm... we are all probably hoping for something that is still a couple years away...

March 10th, 2007, 06:15 AM	#65
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	The industry can make and deliver it, probably around $300 today, but don't choose to. An lot of this pricing stuff is virtually imaginary, an illusion allowed to keep people thinking that they have to pay that much. If you look at the amount of models sold in video cameras and phones, etc etc etc, you realise that this is an inefficient way to manufacture, because of the limited volume runs. There should be, like, three consumer models, even three models for the entire consumer/prosumer range is possible to get away with, this greatly boosts the volume runs. The reason for this is that it convinces people that there is an need to pay more for an 1c/1$ feature, at the exclusion of real/new competitors from the shelf space, etc.

March 10th, 2007, 06:39 AM	#66
Lorry Smyth Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: San Fracisco, CA Posts: 49	Right. When I say what's available to day or 2 years from now, I don't mean technology-wise. We could have affordable 4K camcorders for all that matters. Technology is cheap... hardware and mass production cost nothing. Manufacturing in enough quantities is almost free. Chips and electronics are basically worth zero. Its all about the politics of what to be made available, and flooding the markets at the pace that is more profitable. Its not people like RED that will never pump enough product to be affordable enough to bend the big guys that can dictate the industry though, they can certainly push the envelope. Its the other guys that move at nail speed and have their labs with innovations ready for production that will not see the light of day for another decade. This is not about revolutionizing with new products... this is actually about moving as slow as possible within the boundaries of what your competitors do. If there was no competition or alternative like what happaned with JVC (and, it was all about price), then there would have been no reason for it to last almost a quater century. DVD was old news when it came out. HD-DHD/Bluray? Those are dead on arrival. 1080p? Pre-historic. Cameras like the TX-1, shooting true Boardcast Quality 1080p video and 12MP stills for $500 could have been available last year... I said two years? And that's optimistic. Still as long as there is progress, its all good... and, thank God for Canon for some of the best stuff out there, that's for sure!

March 10th, 2007, 04:14 PM	#67
Lorry Smyth Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: San Fracisco, CA Posts: 49	There is new video footage of the TX-1 for download taken at Canon's booth at PMA: http://curtisjoewalker.com/MVI_0001.AVI

March 15th, 2007, 02:36 PM	#70
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Thanks Aanarav, did you find any other h264 cameras?

March 16th, 2007, 09:50 AM	#72
Ayman Hussein Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 34	has anyone seen this review? http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/revi...camcorder.html i think the video is pretty impressive.

March 16th, 2007, 09:53 AM	#73
Alexander Wrana Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Old Europe (a.k.a. Germany) Posts: 33	It is, I only wish that finally somenone would post some raw footage. Or is the .avi compression actually representative?