OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/19052/Kodak_V1253_12MP_and_720p_HD_Camera Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:29:21 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com The noise in the video seems pretty bad http://osnews.com/thread?290962 http://osnews.com/thread?290962 What use is 720p video if its that noisy (witness the ground, especially)? Was that filmed from a tripod? Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bimbo) Comments RE: The noise in the video seems pretty bad http://osnews.com/thread?290963 http://osnews.com/thread?290963 Yes, it was filmed with a tripod. However, as I explain on Vimeo, it has a gracious amount of color grading on it. Sometimes grading creates noise. Download the other sample, the straight out of the camera one, to make your assertion about noise. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments RE: The noise in the video seems pretty bad http://osnews.com/thread?290976 http://osnews.com/thread?290976 The quality of those photos seems pretty bad to me. They seem like a slight blur has been added in Photoshop.

Nice review though. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flanque) Comments Still pictures? http://osnews.com/thread?290982 http://osnews.com/thread?290982 Why are you mostly filming 95% still pictures with some leaf moving slightly? Would be much more interesting to see how it handles moving objects, e.g. by shooting people passing by on a busy street. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (djst) Comments nice, but ... http://osnews.com/thread?291030 http://osnews.com/thread?291030 Since these reviews at OSNews I know just one thing for sure, the difference between a nerd and a geek. A geek just buys everything out there and doesn't know much about it, a nerd doesn't buy everything because he does know that most of the goodies a real crap :-) And this el cheapo cam, well nice review, but what's the point? Why not test some real geekware like the Casio Exilim (V7/V8) with 800p resolution, h264 recording, better quality with less MP for just a couple of bucks more?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/casio_ex-v8.html

It's just an example for some really special stuff, but this cam above is more or less nothing special at all. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Oliver) Comments Thank you http://osnews.com/thread?291049 http://osnews.com/thread?291049 Thank you, Eugenia, for your review. I am saddened by those who feel they must attack any article or author who doesn't conform to their world view. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Jon Dough) Comments FPS? http://osnews.com/thread?291050 http://osnews.com/thread?291050 When playing the 720p version it seems to be playing back at a low FPS (15 or so) while the standard def is much higher. Is that the playback software limit? Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Machster) Comments RE: FPS? http://osnews.com/thread?291095 http://osnews.com/thread?291095 No, it does not play in low fps, it seems that you just don't have a powerful enough PC to run 720p. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments RE: Still pictures? http://osnews.com/thread?291097 http://osnews.com/thread?291097 I don't live close to busy streets, and i would need image release license for that anyway. ;) Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments RE[2]: FPS? http://osnews.com/thread?291105 http://osnews.com/thread?291105
No, it does not play in low fps, it seems that you just don't have a powerful enough PC to run 720p.


My Mac Dual G5 2ghz is fast enough to do 1080p. Nope, that is not the problem. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Machster) Comments RE[3]: FPS? http://osnews.com/thread?291107 http://osnews.com/thread?291107 If you are talking about the sample from the camera, it should playback fine on your Mac. If not, then there's something wrong with your Mac.

If you are talking about the downloading version from Vimeo, this was re-encoded in h.264 with CABAC in it. Quicktime does not support CABAC well. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments RE[2]: Still pictures? http://osnews.com/thread?291109 http://osnews.com/thread?291109 No you wouldn't, the photos would be editorial use. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (i3X171UM) Comments You color corrected the sample video? http://osnews.com/thread?291112 http://osnews.com/thread?291112 You color corrected the sample video? Since it's a review and all, I would kind of like to see the video uncorrected to gauge the device's color ability. I could tell it was corrected the moment I hit play (unfortunately the world is not that vibrant).

Was the weird plant photo also corrected? If not, there is a /lot/ of bleeding coming from this camera in bright scenes. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (i3X171UM) Comments RE: You color corrected the sample video? http://osnews.com/thread?291114 http://osnews.com/thread?291114 I have a non-color corrected video to download. All other normal videos that are meant for *presentation* will get color graded (NOT color corrected, these are different terms). Everyone who is serious about video should color grade. Besides, I had to re-encode anyway (because the camera files are huge), so you would not get the "straight out of the camera" look to evaluate the true quality of the video. Which is why I uploaded the short unretouched video.

As for the pictures, they are all unretouched, straight out of the camera.Edited 2007-12-15 21:25 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments Stop commenting off topic http://osnews.com/thread?291123 http://osnews.com/thread?291123 To some around here: before you post another comment of "why is this osnews" and "where my comment went", please read article 8 of our Forum Terms and Conditions. Any other such comment will be removed by either myself *or* Thom, no questions asked. If you want to comment, comment ONLY about the product. Discussion about the topics only via email please.Edited 2007-12-15 22:43 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments More Megapixels == More noise. http://osnews.com/thread?291133 http://osnews.com/thread?291133 The video's pretty good, although it has a tendency to blow out the highlights a bit-- some negative exposure compensation might help. Also in several scenes there appears to be a hot spot (pinkish circle) in the middle of the images, usually when strong sunlight is involved.

Unfortunately, however, the still images are terrible. The palm trees in the background are just a green smear on the horizon, with almost no visible detail.

Looking at the specs on the camera, it's easy to see why-- 12.1 million pixel sites on a (roughly) 7.6mm x 5.7mm sensor.

Sure, it keep glass costs down to use such a tiny sensor, but digital imaging has been getting *worse* for the last 5 years, not better. Smaller sensors mean less light gathering, more interference, more noise, and of course, cranking up the ISO (amplifying a weak signal) introduces *more* noise, resulting in increasingly paranoid noise-reduction.

A 5 or 6 megapixel camera will produce smaller images, but they'll have just as much detail-- and more importantly, they'll look just as good (if not better) when printed at 8x10 or 5x7.

I notice on the site that it says "Prints up to 40x30 inches!"-- proving that somewhere, someone at Kodak has lost their minds. While I'm sure you can print at that resolution, it's going to look like something by Monet, only less inspiring.

For something you're going to hang on a wall, having it professionally printed/framed at 200 dpi will still look great, and with a 6-8mp camera, producing a 17x11 print is no problem. With a package like Genuine Fractals, you can get some *REALLY* large prints. Panorama stitching can also produce really large images if desired.

Finally, "HD" (720p) in this case means "1280x720". That's smaller than my desktop resolution, less than 1 megapixel, and produces really nice video. 1080p, being 1920x1080, of course looks better, and comes in at just over 2 megapixels.

So why does this camera need to be 12mp? 6mp, and it would take superb photos, and videos. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (grat) Comments RE: More Megapixels == More noise. http://osnews.com/thread?291135 http://osnews.com/thread?291135 You are of course very right in your comment. Part of the smearing look is the kind of compression Kodak uses. They don't want to get rid of it, because it looks good when pictures are printed with their printers. But for general picture-taking, if you are not interested in their printers, you aren't gonna like this look. There was a hack once, for an older kodak model, to take the smearing out, that's how far some people have gone to "fix" that look.

As for 720p video vs 1080p, 720p is plenty enough IMO, it's just needs to be better. The video too has the smearing you see. And there is no exposure controls for when in video mode. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia) Comments Eugenia great review http://osnews.com/thread?291322 http://osnews.com/thread?291322 I just ordered this camera.

BTW Kodak Australia get your act together for your brick and mortar suppliers pretty please. Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stormloss) Comments RE: More Megapixels == More noise. http://osnews.com/thread?291379 http://osnews.com/thread?291379
So why does this camera need to be 12mp? 6mp, and it would take superb photos, and videos.


Because more megapixels == more better, in the minds of many. The best way to disabuse people of that notion is to show them a picture from something like a Rebel XT ("only" 8MP) and compare it with a picture from one of the high MP cheap cameras. Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments Pretty much like most digital compacts... http://osnews.com/thread?291555 http://osnews.com/thread?291555 I have several worries about this camera (and most digital compacts):

1. Actual speed of use. Most (even modern) digital compacts are still slow to use, taking a second or so between shots. Kodak says 1.7fps for up to 3 frames, does it actually live up to this?

2. Slow/inaccurate autofocus

3. High noise at higher ISOs

4. Fastest shutter speed is 1/1200 second, and the slowest, 8 seconds, that's rather limiting in my eyes.

5. Kodak's compression ratios have been dodgy for quite some time.

6. No RAW file ability - a necessity for any serious photography, in fact, any semi serious photography.

Kudos to Kodak for making a smallish camera, that's sexy, and has a nice large LCD screen, and also has a variety of manual adjustments.

I suspect that the macro modes aren't true macro - which is 1:1 or greater. This is a specialty area of mine (see my website and my flickr pro account), so I would like to think that I know what I'm talking about ;-)

My final comments are that Kodak says it's a "1 / 1.72 in. CCD". Well, 1.72" is 4.3 or so centimeters. I doubt very much that the sensor is that large, especially since Canon's full frame sensor DSLRs cost a LOT more (due to fabrication issues), and that Canon up until the release of the Nikon D3 has been the only full frame competitor (other than a single Kodak DSLR 5 years or so ago).

The smaller sensor sizes of digital compacts causes several issues:

1. loss of resolution
2. High increase in noise at all ISO settings, but especially so at higher ISO ratings.

The usage of a CCD sensor instead of CMOS also causes several technical issues (higher power consumption, hower noise per pixel than equivalent CMOS technology).

The only real advantage that smaller sensor sizes have over the larger ones in DSLRs is the increased DOF due to the circle of confusion having less affect on the final image.

For the money, and for the average "snapper" it does seem good value.

Dave

PS Kodak's software totally blows - at least with my dad's version of software that he has...it screws up jpeg association, screws up EXIF information etc etc. Maybe newer versions of the Kodak software are better. Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (melkor) Comments RE[2]: More Megapixels == More noise. http://osnews.com/thread?291556 http://osnews.com/thread?291556 Unfortunately, you have the marketing departments in all of the major manufucters to blame for this lie. This is one of the reasons why I have an extreme dislike for marketing people - they knowingly lie, and generally have no technical knowledge of the products that they are marketing. Sorry guys, but every marketing person at every company that I've worked for in near 20 years has been what I consider useless.

Dave Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (melkor) Comments RE[3]: More Megapixels == More noise. http://osnews.com/thread?291602 http://osnews.com/thread?291602
Sorry guys, but every marketing person at every company that I've worked for in near 20 years has been what I consider useless.


++

The old saying should be revised to: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, work in sales and marketing." Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments You call that EasyShare? http://osnews.com/thread?292046 http://osnews.com/thread?292046 "The only technical issue I had was that while XP would recognize the camera, it wouldn't mount it as an external drive, I had to use the EasyShare software or a flash reader to get my media out of the camera."

You're right. That's easy. No thanks. Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (franz) Comments