Brain-dead video capture has been embraced by a company whose high-end cameras capture much of the professional video you see on the tube: Sony. Bare-bones video was essentially invented by Pure Digital Technologies, makers of the Flip Video line. Cisco liked the idea so much - and, undoubtedly, the fact that the proliferation …
"Bare-bones video was essentially invented by Pure Digital Technologies"
No it wasn't. Since when does the Reg employ writers who think that the first time they hear about something must be the first time it happened?
Hitachi were doing small-form-factor straight-to-storage video cameras in the mid nineties. I bought one in the states, and still have it.
It'll be interesting to see what that $199 translates to by the time it's traversed the Exchange-Rate-Reality-Distortion field that is the Atlantic. There are a few VERY similar devices available over here for around £150. If Sony can get that over here and keep the price south of £200 (say £180) then that would be pretty tempting. It seems reasonable to assume the image quality from a Sony is going to be £30 better than an AipTek or any of the other Chinese/Far-East brands.
Aren't there loads of similar cameras, eg. the Sanyo Xacti (720p and 10 megapixel stills) at under £150, or are you specifically after 1080 HD?
too long sucking blu-ray torrents from a 100mbit pipe?
640x480 is low quality these days? The Beeb's own iPlayer defaults at 640x360 (or lower) and will only go up to 832x468 if your connection passes the high-speed streaming test. Their 720p HD output just about runs reliably on my base-level Virgin Media connection.... when they're not doing their evening bandwidth restriction that is, when it descends into an endless cycle of buffering. I'd say full-motion VGA is just fine for online sharing at the moment - it's better quality than both iPlayer and definitely YouTube's defaults, and if you get a good framerate it's only a gnat's away from broadcast quality.... or even perceptually better if you don't overcompress it. (It's also the _highest_ that my otherwise good digicam will spit out ;)
That said, I'm still not a fan of the nano, because it seems like they're out to spite those who complained about the iPhone not being able to do video: It can't take still images!
Sensor on the nano not worth taking stills with
I suspect the sensor on the nano is a video optimised chip - probably doesn't have much (if any) resolution beyond 640x480 and the Apple marketing people are not going to try and sell anyone a 0.3MP still image are they?
Is it a web camera or a bowel movement?
I was surprised
as I entered the page and started to read the article, that the first picture I saw was of a professional-looking upright camera that could not have less suited a juvenile name like the "Bloggie". My first thought on seeing that picture was that I wanted some of whatever Sony's marketing department was on. With a name like that surely the thing should come in pink since it has to be targeted at teenage girls. WTF is that black professional-looking thing doing with a name like that?
Ah, that's more like it! A pretty pink Bloggie. I'm sure my 13-year-old niece would love one for her birthday, coming soon...
- Review Samsung Galaxy Note 8: Proof the pen is mightier?
- Nuke plants to rely on PDP-11 code UNTIL 2050!
- Spin doctors brazenly fiddle with tiny bits in front of the neighbours
- Game Theory Out with a bang: The Last of Us lets PS3 exit with head held high
- Flash flaw potentially makes every webcam or laptop a PEEPHOLE