nosnoop
04-09-2007, 03:20 PM
Thanks for your thorough review of TX1.
I agree with most of the faults you found including ergonomics, battery, noise etc. But there are a few comments I would like to make regarding other issues.
One of the main criticism of the TX1 was the use of Motion JPEG codec. You pointed out the inefficiency and large file size. You also pointed out the large bit rate. But you have not mentioned the potential advantages.
It's like pointing out the large file size of RAW or TIFF as compared to JPEG for still images, without saying why some prefer the large file format. OK, I admit that there is some flaw in this analogy as it is not a lossless vs lossy; it is more like lossy vs very lossy. But the fact remains that you throw away more data to obtain the higher lossy compression.
One area where Motion JPEG excels is when you want to edit the video footage (I'm sure you'd appreciate watching a short and well edited video, rather than sitting through 1-2 hours of your friend's raw video footage from a recent vacation :-) ) Motion JPEG does not have inter frame compression, it is frame based, just like DV. Video editing is simple and frame accurate, and no deterioration after multiple edits. Most editors can do the job, including Windows Movie Maker.
H.264 or MPEG-4 involved inter frame or temporal compression. While it saves a lot of disk space, it is a bit of a pain to edit. You probably need to buy a new editor (or live with a rudimentary one which may come with the camera), and there will be deterioration after each edits or render. And a number of people run into frustrating problem like audio syncing problem.
For me anyways, when I want to purchase a hybrid, digital camera video mode or a camcorder, I would prefer DV or Motion JPEG rather than H.264 or MPEG-4, which are great as a final output media, but not as a source material to work with. And I have seen too many artefacts in MPEG-4 video shot by the camera/camcorder. Don't take it for granted that the video quality of the real time H.264 or MPEG-4 compression done by the hardware in the camera/camcorder is equivalent to the slow render by your powerful PC. Similarly, a highly compressed Motion JPEG can also look very bad. So the video quality depends on how each codec is implemented.
Free space on your memory card disappears at a whopping 4.4 MB/sec in 720p mode, which means not only means do you need a huge memory card for recording video, but also that you'll need to downsize and recompress the videos for sharing with others.
Well, you are talking about 720p HD video here... is there any other way to share video? File size of a 720p video will be large, and sharing it on line would be difficult no matter what codec you use.
If huge movies aren't as important to you, then you could save a bundle by looking at something like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 -- a camera that offers many of the same features in a more traditional (but still compact) body.
The main selling point for TX1 is real HD video. So the only fair comparison should be limited to HD camera or camcorder. If you don't need HD video, you should not be looking at this class of gadgets at all. As for TZ3, it does not even allow zooming during video mode. And you forgot to mention that TZ3 uses the exact same codec as TX1 - Motion JPEG!
I agree with most of the faults you found including ergonomics, battery, noise etc. But there are a few comments I would like to make regarding other issues.
One of the main criticism of the TX1 was the use of Motion JPEG codec. You pointed out the inefficiency and large file size. You also pointed out the large bit rate. But you have not mentioned the potential advantages.
It's like pointing out the large file size of RAW or TIFF as compared to JPEG for still images, without saying why some prefer the large file format. OK, I admit that there is some flaw in this analogy as it is not a lossless vs lossy; it is more like lossy vs very lossy. But the fact remains that you throw away more data to obtain the higher lossy compression.
One area where Motion JPEG excels is when you want to edit the video footage (I'm sure you'd appreciate watching a short and well edited video, rather than sitting through 1-2 hours of your friend's raw video footage from a recent vacation :-) ) Motion JPEG does not have inter frame compression, it is frame based, just like DV. Video editing is simple and frame accurate, and no deterioration after multiple edits. Most editors can do the job, including Windows Movie Maker.
H.264 or MPEG-4 involved inter frame or temporal compression. While it saves a lot of disk space, it is a bit of a pain to edit. You probably need to buy a new editor (or live with a rudimentary one which may come with the camera), and there will be deterioration after each edits or render. And a number of people run into frustrating problem like audio syncing problem.
For me anyways, when I want to purchase a hybrid, digital camera video mode or a camcorder, I would prefer DV or Motion JPEG rather than H.264 or MPEG-4, which are great as a final output media, but not as a source material to work with. And I have seen too many artefacts in MPEG-4 video shot by the camera/camcorder. Don't take it for granted that the video quality of the real time H.264 or MPEG-4 compression done by the hardware in the camera/camcorder is equivalent to the slow render by your powerful PC. Similarly, a highly compressed Motion JPEG can also look very bad. So the video quality depends on how each codec is implemented.
Free space on your memory card disappears at a whopping 4.4 MB/sec in 720p mode, which means not only means do you need a huge memory card for recording video, but also that you'll need to downsize and recompress the videos for sharing with others.
Well, you are talking about 720p HD video here... is there any other way to share video? File size of a 720p video will be large, and sharing it on line would be difficult no matter what codec you use.
If huge movies aren't as important to you, then you could save a bundle by looking at something like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 -- a camera that offers many of the same features in a more traditional (but still compact) body.
The main selling point for TX1 is real HD video. So the only fair comparison should be limited to HD camera or camcorder. If you don't need HD video, you should not be looking at this class of gadgets at all. As for TZ3, it does not even allow zooming during video mode. And you forgot to mention that TZ3 uses the exact same codec as TX1 - Motion JPEG!