hd video camera

iusedtoberich said:
The camera I got streams on your LAN to an iOS device. I have my iPad with a cracked screen dedicated to it. The streaming works very well. Very high quality. Thats actually why I picked this Panasonic. The only thing is for analyzing stroke and such, you can't advance a frame or even a second at at time like you could from a hard drive. And I wish I could stream it to my computer with the bigger screen, but it only works on iOS using a free app. But the quality is such on the iPad that the numbers on the balls are readable, and there is no jerkiness whatsoever.

Also regarding quality, the optics of the lens and the size of the sensor chip behind the lens that captures the light is actually where the quality originates. That to my understanding is actually why the Canon HV20, 30, 40 have the cult followings. You can get a used cheap one, and they have very good lenses and sensors. And if you use the HDMI out and a capture card, you bypass their tape mechanism. I got the HV20 for 130 used a few months ago from ebay. Their original retail a few years ago was close to 1000. You have to spend at least 500 on a new camera to get one with the same ballpark lens and sensor (from what I found).

The Panasonic I pointed to earlier also has very good optics and an even bigger sensor chip behind the lens to capture the light. That's what you pay for when you go up from the retail price of 200 to 500. The quality of the lens and the size of the sensor chip. These are big deals in low light, which is any indoor shot on a pool table.
Click to expand...

Is the HV 20/30/40 superior quality to the HF R30/40? That is what I tried and was not satisfied with the video quality. [edit] just looking at price, they are much higher so I'll assume that is a yes :)

As for streaming to iOS device, that isn't really useful to me as my devices don't have a lot of space on them to begin with. However I am able to go the other direction: use an iOS device to do the recording and use AirPlay to record the video directly to a Mac [lookup an app called AirBeam]. This works fairly well, but there is some degradation in the video quality when streamed. But bottom line, I don't want to tie up my phone while recording a straight pool session.
 
Last edited:
I just recorded a practice session, I'll upload it for you to see it.

LINK (to follow)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMUvqtUyks

It was 20 minutes long.
File size is 600MB
Record setting was worst on my camera: 1920x1080, 4Mbps
Camera was in manual focus mode and manual aperture and other settings (I'm not sure if I got them all right, cause I'm color blind, so I can't really tell if the colors are true).

When the file is being read from my SD card by the computer, I can move it in crystal clarity all 30 frames per second using the arrow keys in Quicktime playback. So actually, if you want, you can leave the files on the card forever, as they are pretty cheap.

To get on Youtube, the file needs to be local.
It took 30 seconds to get it off my camera and into my computer using the built in SD card reader on my computer. I did this by using Quicktime to export it to my hard drive. But it was exported as its original format, not encoded, so the export process took just 30 seconds or so.

Then I sent that movie file directly to Youtube's upload page, without having to encode the file. I don't think Youtube does anything crazy with it, because as soon as its done uploading, its ready to view. I know from my limited encoding experience when I was using the Firewire cameras, it would take hours and hours and hours to encode video. So I can't imagine Youtube can be doing much with the original file. But within the first few minutes, only one resolution is available. Then after a few more minutes, youtube adds the other resolutions. My Youtube is set to HTML5, so I didn't know if a flash user sees other resolution settings.

Edit* now that the file is uploaded, youtube indeed removed many frames. Still, when in 1080 setting on youtube playback, it looks excellent, imo. It looks the same as the local file played on Quicktime. The major difference is with the local file, I can advance each individual frame using the arrow keys. On Youtube, on arrow key seems to advance maybe 10 frames (just a guess). But for normal viewing, this still looks great to me.

You can see on the video I put "scene markers" on the table to know what the recording is of. You can't name the files when they are being recorded, so this helps later knowing what they are. Now, I have specific drills I record and have my own naming convention.
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
Is the HV 20/30/40 superior quality to the HF R30/40? That is what I tried and was not satisfied with the video quality. [edit] just looking at price, they are much higher so I'll assume that is a yes :)

As for streaming to iOS device, that isn't really useful to me as my devices don't have a lot of space on them to begin with. However I am able to go the other direction: use an iOS device to do the recording and use AirPlay to record the video directly to a Mac [lookup an app called AirBeam]. This works fairly well, but there is some degradation in the video quality when streamed. But bottom line, I don't want to tie up my phone while recording a straight pool session.
Click to expand...

Disclaimer, htis is just from reading specs, and every single review on Amazon, but I read them all for months, lol...
Yes, the HF is the bottom end. In the new Canon camera's, the M500, M50, M52 are equivalent to the lens and sensor of the HV series. And the Panasonic I got is a slight step up from the new Canon M series.

The best bang for the buck is the Canon M500. It has the good optics, and its like $400 or even less if you find a deal on it. (new, not used). The M50 and 52 add wifi and internal memory. If you find a way to work in your workflow without the need for the wifi, then the 500 is the way to go.

I went with the Panasonic cause its a brand new model, and wanted to give the Wifi a shot. The Canon M series also complained that the LCD was very hard to press in order for the buttons to work.


I really think the HDMI live capture might be the way to go if you can dedicate a computer to the job. I think the live streamers would know the most on this topic, however. I never did that, and not sure I want to spend the money just to try and not be what I want, after I already spent so much time and money on the setup thus far.
 
mohrt said:
...
As for streaming to iOS device, that isn't really useful to me as my devices don't have a lot of space on them to begin with. ....
Click to expand...

The Panasonic I just got has built in wifi, that streams to the iOS device (or Android) directly from the SD card when the card is inside the camera. It doesn't save to the iOS device, so no need to have lots of room on it. Everything stays on the SD card inside the camera in this mode.

Its also supposed to stream directly to ustream and upload to youtube. I spent 3 days messing around with that, and couldn't' get it to work so I gave up.
 
cameras.

mohrt said:
For those that record straight pool runs, etc. What camera do you use? Recommendations? Budget minded cameras that work well?

Right now I'm mounting my iPhone 4S on a tripod. It records 1080p video and does a fine job, but is limited in filesystem space and can be interrupted by calls. Surprisingly I cannot find an app that lets me stream the video to a PC. [edit] found one called AirBeam, but it's certainly not 1080p or 30fps streamed.
Click to expand...




If you really want have some fun go with a canon rebel or D series and download twixtor,
being able to do slow motion will help alot.

A canon t2i with a grip for about 350.00 to 400.00 used. with twixtor down load
and you in business.


canon t2i/550 D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIh6jsaeSjc

I have a canon rebel t3i/ 600D and love it.
The t2i/550 D is everything the t3i except for the flip out tilt screen, canon is now offereing the t4i with flip out touch screen , and the t5i just hit the market,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxvX3smqgBI


If you have kids , better buy 2 , because they will not leave yours alone.

A camera with a bigger lens will be able to operate better in a room with low light..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxh0Qc7vYO4

I use my t3I for still photography but it does killer video.



MMike
 
Last edited:
I added link on post #23 of practice session using the Panasonic HC-V20. The final quality to me looks about the same as on the Canon HV20, except it was exponentially easier and faster to get it on Youtube.

Again, I'm far from an expert, I'm new to video trying to figure out something that works for me, so take everything I say as such.

Oh, one more thing, the Panasonic has a much wider angle than the Canon (even the brand new Canon's). In the video I actually have it zoomed in. I could zoom out to get more of my mechanics in the picture if I wanted to. ON the Canon, with it zoomed all the way out, the table just fit in the picture.

Thats another thing the $500 cameras will have that the $200 ones don't: A lens that can accept threaded accessories. So you can get a wide angle lens to increase your field of view if necessary. And of course if you go the SLR route, the sky is the limit in lenses. But then you are also in another price range (I think).

Btw, I know I suck at pool, we are just talking cameras in this thread:grin-square:
 
Fast Lenny said:
I shot this with a Canon HF G10 which is a very good camera and under $1000 now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxWqDl4Wg5Y&hd=1

I shot the with my Windows HTC 8X cell phone, I am sure it would be much better if I got the camera mounted up above the lights so you can reduce glare and see the table better obviously but I was just messing around in the poolroom. Oh and it does film in color too, haha. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuM_HTxW0HU&hd=1
Click to expand...

Lenny, did you ever mess around with HDMI output directly to a computer from the camcorder? How do you stream stuff when you do (in lay terms). How do you get the signal from the camera to the computer? And, can you live encode it into any bit rate you want, and then save it locally to a hard drive?
 
iusedtoberich said:
I added link on post #23 of practice session using the Panasonic HC-V20. The final quality to me looks about the same as on the Canon HV20, except it was exponentially easier and faster to get it on Youtube.

Again, I'm far from an expert, I'm new to video trying to figure out something that works for me, so take everything I say as such.

Oh, one more thing, the Panasonic has a much wider angle than the Canon (even the brand new Canon's). In the video I actually have it zoomed in. I could zoom out to get more of my mechanics in the picture if I wanted to. ON the Canon, with it zoomed all the way out, the table just fit in the picture.

Thats another thing the $500 cameras will have that the $200 ones don't: A lens that can accept threaded accessories. So you can get a wide angle lens to increase your field of view if necessary. And of course if you go the SLR route, the sky is the limit in lenses. But then you are also in another price range (I think).

Btw, I know I suck at pool, we are just talking cameras in this thread:grin-square:
Click to expand...
Sorry but it says the video is private.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Lenny, did you ever mess around with HDMI output directly to a computer from the camcorder? How do you stream stuff when you do (in lay terms). How do you get the signal from the camera to the computer? And, can you live encode it into any bit rate you want, and then save it locally to a hard drive?
Click to expand...

I use a Blackmagic Shuttle to capture out of the HDMI, I can capture to disk using the Media Express which is what comes with it. You need a computer with USB 3.0 for it.
 
mohrt said:
...So if you want top-notch video (practically film-making quality) AND the utility of a DSLR camera for taking professional quality photos, you may as well go with a DSLR camera which start around $550 these days. On the other hand if you want a video recorder that is also useful for home videos (autofocus/stabilization important) then the route of a camcorder would be a more fitting choice.

....
Click to expand...

You know, rereading this, a DSLR might be the way to go if using a capture card. I've never used one, but they are supposed to have the best optics and lens attachments of any camera type. If they have HDMI out, it woudn't matter mcuh what their video recording method is (I think).

I recall in my research, broadcast TV networks are very rigid in what cameras they will accept footage from. Video from DSLR's are types they allowed, but not camcorders unless they were the professional models (5K and higher price tag). This information might have been a few years old..

Anyway, I'm very happy with the video quality on my Panasonic camera now. Not looking to swap it now. I'm just looking to improve my work flow.
 
Has anyone tried out a GoPro for this? The video quality I've seen from them on the recent X Games and Supercross races was amazing,from helmet-mounted versions. Tommy D.
 
Is that a GoPro mounted on Shane's cue at the end of the SVB instructional videos?
It's pretty cool.

If they mounted it on mine you'd get a 3D view of rattled balls and then the camera would suddenly
lunge forward over the edge of the table and you'd end up seeing a sideways view of the pool hall
from floor level.
 
Tommy-D said:
Has anyone tried out a GoPro for this? The video quality I've seen from them on the recent X Games and Supercross races was amazing,from helmet-mounted versions. Tommy D.
Click to expand...

GoPro is definitely some quality for the money, but they are built for a very specific purpose (action shots). I don't believe they have any sort of zoom capability, so I don't know how they'd work out for a pool table. I'd like to hear from someone that has tried one.
 
Fatboy said:
its amazing how little, GREAT cameras cost now.
Click to expand...

It is. When I first started getting into cameras, I was in 9th grade (1999) right when things were starting to go over to the digital format. I had bought several hi8 and dig8 cameras throughout highschool. I had several jobs just to buy these $900 cameras. By my senior year, I bought a Canon GL-1. At the time, it was awesome and cost me several thousand hard earned dollars. Also bought a Century Optics .3x fisheye lens. (I was making skating videos and it was the nuts)

Fastforward a few years and now I'm actually making some money with cameras, I buy a Panasonic HVX-200 for several thousand dollars and at the time, it was just the stone cold nuts. First pro-sumer cam that shot 24fps and you could adjust the scene files to look like nearly every film look out there.

But just a few years after that, for $300, you could have a much higher res better looking picture than all those thousands I threw away over the years for MiniDV tape cameras. lol I mean, for great quality, you still have to spend good money, but it's just crazy to me how quickly things got good. Hell, my phone camera is pretty damn good.

Now, I have several cameras. A cheap Canon HD cam, a Sony ActionCam and a Canon 7d. All serve their purpose. I'm not nearly into cameras like I used to be.
 
mohrt said:
GoPro is definitely some quality for the money, but they are built for a very specific purpose (action shots). I don't believe they have any sort of zoom capability, so I don't know how they'd work out for a pool table. I'd like to hear from someone that has tried one.
Click to expand...

For the SVB Instructional series we use a Sony ActionCam (similar to a GoPro) for several shots. We taped it to a cue and Shane hit some balls with it. It was really cool.

We also got some 120fps shots of Shane breaking. I'd lay the camera on the table front different angles as you shot. I wasn't worried about the balls breaking the camera, it's just solid. I put the camera beside the 1ball as he broke... super cool shot. Can see the cueball skipping across the table.
 
mohrt said:
Great post! What I'm finding this this:

For cameras in the $200-$500 or range, you are looking at decent video but not film-quality crisp clear 1080p footage like you find in the higher dollar camcorders. Especially low-light, a lot of them start to get noisy. For many that are just posting vids to youtube, these are probably adequate.

For cameras in the $500-$2500 range, at that point I'd rather sink my money into a DSLR camera with HD video. Something like the Canon Rebel T3i has phenomenal sensors and optics, so it makes sense it would also have superior video quality. DSLR does have some drawbacks: there is little to no autofocus or image stabilization. However, those two items are not important for recording pool games.

So if you want top-notch video (practically film-making quality) AND the utility of a DSLR camera for taking professional quality photos, you may as well go with a DSLR camera which start around $550 these days. On the other hand if you want a video recorder that is also useful for home videos (autofocus/stabilization important) then the route of a camcorder would be a more fitting choice.

I'm also finding that a lot of point-and-shoot cameras have quite decent HD video capabilities. I haven't dug too deep yet, but good ones with crisp video and low-light capability seem to be in that same $400+ price range.

This is all assuming you are recording to an SD card. For streaming, that is a whole different story. I have yet to find anything that will stream film 1080p without a lot of effort.
Click to expand...

I have a Nikon D90 with several thousand dollars worth of various prime and telephoto lens'. The HD video is a gimmick compared to almost any dedicated camcorder. For one thing there is no on the fly auto focus. It focus' one time before starting the filming and that's where the focus remains until you stop. I have not tried to film pool with it I have to admit. There are way better options though. I would not go this route if I were you.

JC

PS: I also have two point and shoot camera's that I have filmed pool with. My most recent one is a Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ-35. It takes really good video outdoors but in the pool room it has trouble with both focus and lighting. Plus no remote so you have to start and stop it by hand.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top