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.

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.

Codecs
 

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.

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...

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.

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!

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

http://curtisjoewalker.com/MVI_0001.AVI

Aanarav,

What did you find at PMA?


Thanks

Wayne.

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

Thanks Aanarav, did you find any other h264 cameras?

Additional lenses...
 

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

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

i think the video is pretty impressive.

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

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

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,