Sony Cybershot P100 VX '640x480' movie mode is fake
 

I bought a Nikon Coolpix 3700 for its 640x480/30fps movie mode. I
returned it because of the notorious sync problem (audio lags video by
270ms). Got the P100, but 640 movie images appeared soft, 3700's were
much more detailed (chalk and cheese). Some research on the web found
the claim below, that Sony's 640 VX is only interpolated 320x240.
Suspiciously, the P100 offers only 640 and 160 modes--no 320
option--I'm guessing to prevent direct comparison.

Is this outright deception from "It's a Sony"? I was unhappy about
this enough to return an otherwise very good P&S camera and buy back
the 3700 (AU$200 cheaper, and I'll correct the lag with an editor; I
want and use true hi res video).

See also:

"Here's the skinny on the new MPEG-VX 640 x 480 movie recording mode.
It doesn't look any better than 320x240 movies!!!!

"The MPEG-VX mode is an interpolated MPEG-HQX 320x240. And trust
me.....I have tried and tried and tried to look for any difference
between the VX and HQX (320x240) or even HQ (also 320x240) movies.
There just simply isn't any discernable difference. I've even done
back to back comparisons between the three (using a DSC-P1 and
DSC-P9), and I have yet to find any difference.

"The most compelling evidence of interpolation is that the recording
times for a 128MB memory stick are identical for MPEG-HQX and MPEG-VX.
"

http://howstuffworks.shopping.com/xP...D-104205946500

Mark


PS Fine mode refers to frame rate, not resolution. The three P100
movie modes a

1. VX Fine - 640 x 480 pixels, 30 fps
2. VX Standard - 640 x 480 pixels, 16 fps
3. Low res mode - 160 x 112 pixels, ? fps

My comments refer to 1.

It's not the first time Sony's marketing department got the best
of them... Our F-717, with its "16FPS" movie mode for example..
We wondered why it was horribly jerky, and discovered it's
because every third frame is simply a duplicate of the second
frame. Net result = jerky video.

"Mark Elkington" wrote in message ...
I bought a Nikon Coolpix 3700 for its 640x480/30fps movie mode. I
returned it because of the notorious sync problem (audio lags video by
270ms). Got the P100, but 640 movie images appeared soft, 3700's were
much more detailed (chalk and cheese). Some research on the web found
the claim below, that Sony's 640 VX is only interpolated 320x240.
Suspiciously, the P100 offers only 640 and 160 modes--no 320
option--I'm guessing to prevent direct comparison.

Is this outright deception from "It's a Sony"? I was unhappy about
this enough to return an otherwise very good P&S camera and buy back
the 3700 (AU$200 cheaper, and I'll correct the lag with an editor; I
want and use true hi res video).

See also:

"Here's the skinny on the new MPEG-VX 640 x 480 movie recording mode.
It doesn't look any better than 320x240 movies!!!!

"The MPEG-VX mode is an interpolated MPEG-HQX 320x240. And trust
me.....I have tried and tried and tried to look for any difference
between the VX and HQX (320x240) or even HQ (also 320x240) movies.
There just simply isn't any discernable difference. I've even done
back to back comparisons between the three (using a DSC-P1 and
DSC-P9), and I have yet to find any difference.

"The most compelling evidence of interpolation is that the recording
times for a 128MB memory stick are identical for MPEG-HQX and MPEG-VX.
"

http://howstuffworks.shopping.com/xP...D-104205946500

Mark


PS Fine mode refers to frame rate, not resolution. The three P100
movie modes a

1. VX Fine - 640 x 480 pixels, 30 fps
2. VX Standard - 640 x 480 pixels, 16 fps
3. Low res mode - 160 x 112 pixels, ? fps

My comments refer to 1.

"Seymore" wrote in message
...

If you want video, buy a DV camcorder... If you want stills, buy a still
cam. It's that easy!

They used to say if you want wide angle, buy a wide angle lens,
if you want telephoto, buy a telephoto lens - zooms are no good.

But the technology got better and today almost all cameras
are sold with zoom lenses.

Your advice about still and video would have been right
two years ago. Maybe it's right today, and maybe not.
In a couple of years it will be dead wrong.

Alan

Its hard to say that something will always be so...but its hard to imagine a
day that a camera will be able to do both well. Of course it only needs to
please the person who bought it...and some people are easily pleased.

"Alan Meyer" wrote in message
...
"Seymore" wrote in message
...

If you want video, buy a DV camcorder... If you want stills, buy a still
cam. It's that easy!

They used to say if you want wide angle, buy a wide angle lens,
if you want telephoto, buy a telephoto lens - zooms are no good.

But the technology got better and today almost all cameras
are sold with zoom lenses.

Your advice about still and video would have been right
two years ago. Maybe it's right today, and maybe not.
In a couple of years it will be dead wrong.

Alan

Its hard to say that something will always be so...but its hard to imagine a
day that a camera will be able to do both well. Of course it only needs to
please the person who bought it...and some people are easily pleased.

"Alan Meyer" wrote in message
...
"Seymore" wrote in message
...

If you want video, buy a DV camcorder... If you want stills, buy a still
cam. It's that easy!

They used to say if you want wide angle, buy a wide angle lens,
if you want telephoto, buy a telephoto lens - zooms are no good.

But the technology got better and today almost all cameras
are sold with zoom lenses.

Your advice about still and video would have been right
two years ago. Maybe it's right today, and maybe not.
In a couple of years it will be dead wrong.

Alan

"Seymore" wrote in message ...

If you want video, buy a DV camcorder... If you want stills, buy a still
cam. It's that easy!

I'm afraid it isn't. I own a Sony digital video camera. Too often it
simply isn't with you: compact as it is, it's just not a
shirt-pocket/belt-pouch/hand-bag option.

The convergence of video and stills in an ultracomact digicam has
*revolutionised* my family's recording of events. The 35mm SLR and
MiniDV are technically superior, but the little Coolpix 3700 is in
practice light years ahead - i.e. we regularly take it with us and
actually use it.

Mark

I just got one of these and look forward to comparing its video mode to that
of my Fuji S602 which DOES apparently have 640x480 resolution and IS a
lousy interpolated 3.2 megapixel still mode camera??

I wonder why none of the review sites mention the reasonably obvious point
you state, if it is true? They all review these cameras to the Nth degree
and all say that the video mode is great??

(I cant explain why those file sizes should be the same)

I just got one of these and look forward to comparing its video mode to that
of my Fuji S602 which DOES apparently have 640x480 resolution and IS a
lousy interpolated 3.2 megapixel still mode camera??

I wonder why none of the review sites mention the reasonably obvious point
you state, if it is true? They all review these cameras to the Nth degree
and all say that the video mode is great??

(I cant explain why those file sizes should be the same)

"Maria Ripanykhazova" wrote in message ...
I just got one of these and look forward to comparing its video mode to that
of my Fuji S602 which DOES apparently have 640x480 resolution and IS a
lousy interpolated 3.2 megapixel still mode camera??

I wonder why none of the review sites mention the reasonably obvious point
you state, if it is true? They all review these cameras to the Nth degree
and all say that the video mode is great??

Some digicam reviewers don't even test the video mode, and often those
that do give it a disproportionately small coverage. "Oh yeah it has
X video mode and I recorded a clip you can download here, only 15MB."

Believe me, the difference is real and obvious, enough for me to
choose the Coolpix 3700 over the generally superior (though more
expensive) P100. Perhaps one third of my holiday images were movies,
so true hi-res support matters to me.

Mark

"Maria Ripanykhazova" wrote in message ...
I just got one of these and look forward to comparing its video mode to that
of my Fuji S602 which DOES apparently have 640x480 resolution and IS a
lousy interpolated 3.2 megapixel still mode camera??

I wonder why none of the review sites mention the reasonably obvious point
you state, if it is true? They all review these cameras to the Nth degree
and all say that the video mode is great??

Some digicam reviewers don't even test the video mode, and often those
that do give it a disproportionately small coverage. "Oh yeah it has
X video mode and I recorded a clip you can download here, only 15MB."

Believe me, the difference is real and obvious, enough for me to
choose the Coolpix 3700 over the generally superior (though more
expensive) P100. Perhaps one third of my holiday images were movies,
so true hi-res support matters to me.

Mark