Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Samsung Digimax V700

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 7, 2005 10:41:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Anyone tried it yet? How good is the flash with this camera? Is the video
stabilizer effective? I tried to find a video sample from this camera but
found none on the net...
Sylvain

More about : samsung digimax v700

Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 9, 2005 10:49:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sylvain Menard wrote:
> ...I tried to find a video sample from this camera but found none on the
> net...


Like you, I'm eagerly waiting.:)  By the way, do you know there is a V800
coming very soon, maybe in the next month or so?

--
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 11, 2005 12:31:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, I have just seen this yesterday! Another cool feature of the V700 is
that you can "pause" a video. I have just seen on dcresource a Kodak camera
that will be shipped in july. The camera is Kodak EasyShare V530 and it is
supposed to allow zooming during filming! Also coming is the Casio
introduces Exilim EX-S500
which is also equipped with digital image stabilizer for movie! Too many
camera with cool feature are getting out, I think I'll wait a couple of
month before choosing one...

Sylvain





"Lin Chung" <lin.chung@the.Water.Margin.com> wrote in message
news:4ERpe.17252$iy2.2458@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> Sylvain Menard wrote:
>> ...I tried to find a video sample from this camera but found none on the
>> net...
>
>
> Like you, I'm eagerly waiting.:)  By the way, do you know there is a V800
> coming very soon, maybe in the next month or so?
>
> --
> Lin Chung
> [Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 11, 2005 4:40:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sylvain Menard wrote:

> Yes, I have just seen this yesterday! Another cool feature of the V700 is
> that you can "pause" a video. I have just seen on dcresource a Kodak camera
> that will be shipped in july. The camera is Kodak EasyShare V530 and it is
> supposed to allow zooming during filming! Also coming is the Casio
> introduces Exilim EX-S500
> which is also equipped with digital image stabilizer for movie! Too many
> camera with cool feature are getting out, I think I'll wait a couple of
> month before choosing one...
>
> Sylvain
>
>
>
>
>
> "Lin Chung" <lin.chung@the.Water.Margin.com> wrote in message
> news:4ERpe.17252$iy2.2458@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>Sylvain Menard wrote:
>>
>>>...I tried to find a video sample from this camera but found none on the
>>>net...
>>
>>
>>Like you, I'm eagerly waiting.:)  By the way, do you know there is a V800
>>coming very soon, maybe in the next month or so?
>>
>>--
>>Lin Chung
>>[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Hi,
Digital stabilizer? What's good for it.
My old Sony TRV900 has optical stabilizer.(real thing)
Tony
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 12, 2005 11:23:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony Hwang wrote:
> Sylvain Menard wrote:
> > Lin Chung wrote:
> > > Sylvain Menard wrote:
> > > >...I tried to find a video sample from this camera but found
> > > > none on the net...
> > > Like you, I'm eagerly waiting.:)  By the way, do you know there
> > > is a V800 coming very soon, maybe in the next month or so?
> > Yes, I have just seen this yesterday! Another cool feature of the
> > V700 is that you can "pause" a video....Kodak EasyShare V530
> > and it is supposed to allow zooming during filming! Also coming
> > is the Casio introduces Exilim EX-S500 which is also equipped
> > with digital image stabilizer for movie!...
> Digital stabilizer? What's good for it. My old Sony TRV900 has
> optical stabilizer.(real thing)



Aha....Hwang, you have opened a whole bag of worms! Is an
optical solution to stabilization invariably superior to a digital, pixel
manipulating one? I'm not too sure. In theory, the optical solution
wins. In practice, it is not so clear-cut. For one thing, like any
mechanical device, the optical compensatory mechanism may not be
triggered when called for (low sensitivity) and, even when correctly
fired, the desired end result may not follow (blank gun shot). This is
seen in Panasonic FX7, for example. These hit-and-miss anomalies
do not happen with a software solution.

Sylvian, the Casio P505 permits a mechanically silent (in a sealed unit),
*optical* zoom during filming. And, of all the MPEG-4, the best clip I
have seen to date -- precisely one only, comparable to a Motion-MPEG
belonging to a Canon S2 -- is from a P505. The others allow only digital
video, if there is a movie filming zoom at all. Stop-and-start ("pause")
capability is also promised in the new models (those with MPEG-4; not
clear about the M-MPEG ones) just announced from Samsung. I believe
they'll all have digital image stabilization too, but no audio.

--
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 12, 2005 6:09:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lin Chung" <lin.chung@the.Water.Margin.com> wrote in message
news:BpRqe.6616$a5.5217@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Tony Hwang wrote:
> > Sylvain Menard wrote:
> > > Lin Chung wrote:
> > > > Sylvain Menard wrote:
> > > > >...I tried to find a video sample from this camera but found
> > > > > none on the net...
> > > > Like you, I'm eagerly waiting.:)  By the way, do you know there
> > > > is a V800 coming very soon, maybe in the next month or so?
> > > Yes, I have just seen this yesterday! Another cool feature of the
> > > V700 is that you can "pause" a video....Kodak EasyShare V530
> > > and it is supposed to allow zooming during filming! Also coming
> > > is the Casio introduces Exilim EX-S500 which is also equipped
> > > with digital image stabilizer for movie!...
> > Digital stabilizer? What's good for it. My old Sony TRV900 has
> > optical stabilizer.(real thing)
>
>
>
> Aha....Hwang, you have opened a whole bag of worms! Is an
> optical solution to stabilization invariably superior to a digital, pixel
> manipulating one? I'm not too sure. In theory, the optical solution
> wins. In practice, it is not so clear-cut. For one thing, like any
> mechanical device, the optical compensatory mechanism may not be
> triggered when called for (low sensitivity) and, even when correctly
> fired, the desired end result may not follow (blank gun shot). This is
> seen in Panasonic FX7, for example. These hit-and-miss anomalies
> do not happen with a software solution.
>
> Sylvian, the Casio P505 permits a mechanically silent (in a sealed unit),
> *optical* zoom during filming. And, of all the MPEG-4, the best clip I
> have seen to date -- precisely one only, comparable to a Motion-MPEG
> belonging to a Canon S2 -- is from a P505. The others allow only digital
> video, if there is a movie filming zoom at all. Stop-and-start ("pause")
> capability is also promised in the new models (those with MPEG-4; not
> clear about the M-MPEG ones) just announced from Samsung. I believe
> they'll all have digital image stabilization too, but no audio.
>
> --
> Lin Chung
> [Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
>

Invariably? Yes. Digital is limited to increments of the pixel
spacing unless it interpolates. Optical is not. Can closed.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 12, 2005 9:11:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SamSez wrote:
> Lin Chung wrote:
> > Tony Hwang wrote:
> > > Digital stabilizer? What's good for it. My old Sony TRV900
> > > has optical stabilizer.(real thing)
> > Is an optical solution to stabilization invariably superior to a
> > digital, pixel manipulating one? I'm not too sure. In theory,
> > the optical solution wins. In practice, it is not so clear-cut....
> Invariably? Yes. Digital is limited to increments of the pixel
> spacing unless it interpolates. Optical is not.


One way to gather spare pixels is to shrink the effective pixel count. In
effect, the camera zooms in slightly. An optical image stabilizer does not
compromise on the pixel count. In theory, the optical solution wins. You
are quite right.

--
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 13, 2005 12:16:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> writes:

>Invariably? Yes. Digital is limited to increments of the pixel
>spacing unless it interpolates. Optical is not. Can closed.

Shifting an image by a fraction of a pixel is pretty easy. I wouldn't
conclude that no camera with digital stabilization is capable of this.

I think the important difference is this: When optical stabilization is
working properly, the image is stationary on the sensor, and each
individual frame of video is sharp. When only digital stabilization is
used, the image is continuously moving on the sensor, and each single frame
is blurred by that motion. The stabilization process can remove the
large-scale movement over many frames, but it can't fix that blur.

All of the still cameras that I know of with image stabilization use
optical stabilization in the lens, except for the one that does the
stabilization by mechanically moving the sensor.

Nobody uses digital image stabilization in a still camera, because if
you're taking one still image you want that one image to be sharp.
It's not useful to be able to align a sequence of blurry images.

Dave
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 13, 2005 12:22:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
[]
> Nobody uses digital image stabilization in a still camera, because if
> you're taking one still image you want that one image to be sharp.
> It's not useful to be able to align a sequence of blurry images.

I can cite one possible exception to this - when taking video the Nikon
Coolpix 8400 can use electronic image stabilisation (it has no optical
stabilisation). However, when it does this the video resolution is a
maximum of 640 x 480 pixels, far lower than the basic sensor resolution
(8MP).

Of course, you could argue that this /isn't/ a still camera in this mode,
and in any case the slight blur may be much less noticeable in a moving
image!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 13, 2005 5:52:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 8jfdh$agt$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >Invariably? Yes. Digital is limited to increments of the pixel
> >spacing unless it interpolates. Optical is not. Can closed.
>
> Shifting an image by a fraction of a pixel is pretty easy. I wouldn't
> conclude that no camera with digital stabilization is capable of this.
>
> I think the important difference is this: When optical stabilization is
> working properly, the image is stationary on the sensor, and each
> individual frame of video is sharp. When only digital stabilization is
> used, the image is continuously moving on the sensor, and each single frame
> is blurred by that motion. The stabilization process can remove the
> large-scale movement over many frames, but it can't fix that blur.
>
> All of the still cameras that I know of with image stabilization use
> optical stabilization in the lens, except for the one that does the
> stabilization by mechanically moving the sensor.
>
> Nobody uses digital image stabilization in a still camera, because if
> you're taking one still image you want that one image to be sharp.
> It's not useful to be able to align a sequence of blurry images.
>
> Dave

Actually, shifting an image by a fraction of a pixel is impossible
-- 'unless it interpolates' -- as I originally said.

And if it does interpolate, then it is going to give a worse image
than one created by shifting the optical path.

That's one factor.

Add to that your point -- to state it somewhat differently -- the fact
that optical stabilization can keep the image centered on the
same pixels over the entire duration of the exposure, and the
advantage of optical is obvious.

The only way a digital scheme would even come close to optical
would be if were able to capture many frames over the duration
of the exposure, shift each slightly to eliminate the motion, and
composite them into a single image. But if you really could
capture multiple frames over the exposure, that implies that the
longer exposure wasn't really necessary in the first place. And
even if it is done that way, there is still the issue of image
degradation due to interpolation effects.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 13, 2005 7:39:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> writes:

>I can cite one possible exception to this - when taking video the Nikon
>Coolpix 8400 can use electronic image stabilisation (it has no optical
>stabilisation). However, when it does this the video resolution is a
>maximum of 640 x 480 pixels, far lower than the basic sensor resolution
>(8MP).

>Of course, you could argue that this /isn't/ a still camera in this mode,
>and in any case the slight blur may be much less noticeable in a moving
>image!

If you're shooting video, it's useful to remove the large-scale motion
even if the camera can't fix the blur.

Dave
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 13, 2005 7:47:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> writes:

>Actually, shifting an image by a fraction of a pixel is impossible
>-- 'unless it interpolates' -- as I originally said.

>And if it does interpolate, then it is going to give a worse image
>than one created by shifting the optical path.

"Interpolation" is a vague term that can refer to any method to
calculate new values from existing data. It may lose information, or
it may not - it depends on the technique used.

Shifting an image by a fraction of a pixel would be done by an image
resampling technique. Image resampling is a type of interpolation, but
it's done with well-studied algorithms and on data whose spatial
frequency content is known. *This* can be done with no visible loss of
information at all.

Your argument is basically that shifting using resampling will
necessarily make the image quality worse - and that's just not true.

Dave

>Add to that your point -- to state it somewhat differently -- the fact
>that optical stabilization can keep the image centered on the
>same pixels over the entire duration of the exposure, and the
>advantage of optical is obvious.

This is the real reason that optical stabilization is better.

Dave
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 13, 2005 7:49:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> writes:
>
>> I can cite one possible exception to this - when taking video the
>> Nikon Coolpix 8400 can use electronic image stabilisation (it has no
>> optical stabilisation). However, when it does this the video
>> resolution is a maximum of 640 x 480 pixels, far lower than the
>> basic sensor resolution (8MP).
>
>> Of course, you could argue that this /isn't/ a still camera in this
>> mode, and in any case the slight blur may be much less noticeable in
>> a moving image!
>
> If you're shooting video, it's useful to remove the large-scale motion
> even if the camera can't fix the blur.
>
> Dave

Yes, indeed. The results on video are very good for a stills camera!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 14, 2005 1:21:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 8k9pl$f3h$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >Actually, shifting an image by a fraction of a pixel is impossible
> >-- 'unless it interpolates' -- as I originally said.
>
> >And if it does interpolate, then it is going to give a worse image
> >than one created by shifting the optical path.
>
> "Interpolation" is a vague term that can refer to any method to
> calculate new values from existing data. It may lose information, or
> it may not - it depends on the technique used.
>
> Shifting an image by a fraction of a pixel would be done by an image
> resampling technique. Image resampling is a type of interpolation, but
> it's done with well-studied algorithms and on data whose spatial
> frequency content is known. *This* can be done with no visible loss of
> information at all.
>
> Your argument is basically that shifting using resampling will
> necessarily make the image quality worse - and that's just not true.

No, not any resampling -- partial pixel shift resampling. I've never
seen it done that doesn't result in diagonals looking worse than prior
to the resampling.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
June 14, 2005 9:27:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> writes:

>No, not any resampling -- partial pixel shift resampling. I've never
>seen it done that doesn't result in diagonals looking worse than prior
>to the resampling.

What algorithm was used for the resampling?

I'd offer to run a test on some sample image of your choice using my own
resampling software (which is nothing special, but I know how it works
internally) except my Linux machine is currently being reconstructed.

If you're interested in the experiment, send a sample image with
diagonals and I'll try it when the software is running again.

Dave
!