Slashdot Mirror
How the iPod Nano's Video Abilities Stack Up
andylim writes "Recombu.com has pitted the iPod Nano's video capabilities against an iPhone 3GS, a Nokia 5530 XpressMusic and Flip Mino HD. This simple test shows how the camera deals with motion, colour and audio. The iPod Nano's camera seems to offer a basic yet decent video experience and some might say delivers a higher picture quality than the iPhone 3GS's camera. What's interesting is how well it deals with close-ups."
I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple. Strap some proper optics to the iPhone platform and you've got a killer product: photos automatically GPS tagged and seamlessly uploaded in the background to your iphoto library, with support via apps for any kind of online hosting, plus specialty stuff like time lapse or other artistic/scientific needs. Full HD video of course, perhaps even with wifi streaming to an apple TV for instant nostalgia. Price it to compete with entry level DSLR and they would capture a huge chunk of market share overnight. Maybe not the volume of the cell phone market, but great margins.
Shot some impromptu amateur porn with one today, and all the important bits look fine. I'm 100% serious, the mood came upon us and it was handy. It's not 1080p, but as the old saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. :)
When it comes to taking video the limiting factor on video quality/resolution in a handheld device is almost always the processing power needed to encode said video in realtime, not the optics, which is why most phones with 5+MP cameras can save pictures at the full resolution of the CCD but videos are often limited to 640x480 at 25fps because that is all the processor can handle. For example my netbook with 1.3MP webcam takes far better quality videos than my sony ericsson phone with 5MP camera simply because it has the power to encode the video at a higher resolution in realtime. Of course if you have the storage space available to store the video uncompressed then its less of a problem but again we're talking a handheld device where storage space is by no means plentiful. And simply stuffing in a faster processor won't help because the power requirements mean a larger battery which means a larger device, and the whole point in these things is compact size.
Its an MP3 player... Why the fuck does it have a camera on it?
Actual comparable sequences would be nice. For example, the iPod Nano appears to be more strongly affected by rolling shutter than the other cams, but it's hard to tell because the motion is different between the devices. (Rolling shutter is when the pixels are not all read at the same time but one row at a time, without a fast shutter stopping light from changing the picture on pixels which haven't been read yet while other pixels are already fixed by the read-out. This causes a wobbling effect for up-down motions and skew in horizontally moving objects. More detailed explanation on Wikipedia.)
I picked up a nano a couple days ago to replace an older one. The camera is kind of nice but I'm not sure it will get much use. The picture is very nice looking, colors seem okay both indoors and out, and motion is handled well. The "biggest" plus however is the size. The nano is so small I feel like I'm holding a credit card. I'm still in the market for a good case because the current ones out are pretty poor. A case should make it a bit less delicate.
There is a tendency to cover the lens with your finger because the ipod itself is so small, but you eventually get used to holding it a different way. The microphone and speaker are also somewhat poor but they told you it would be.
Overall it's very nice for its price, and the live-pause radio is a nice touch. The screen is also nearly the size of the one on the classic (same width, about 80% as tall) in case you want to watch podcasts or something. I've put some TV shows on mine, they play and look good. I wouldn't buy this however if I were looking for a camcorder primarily.
iTunes will play ogg and flac if you install a quicktime component for it. Just don't expect those files to work on the iPod. If there is enough consumer demand for ogg on the iPod (read: it will increase sales), they will add it.
iTunes does no file conversion before copying audio files to the iPod if it is in a format the iPod can play - AAC and mp3.
I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple.
Samsung, Nokia, and several other manufacturers already offer 5-8 Mpixel cameras with smart phone capabilities. They have automatic geo-tagging and automatic upload. You can get these phones with Symbian, Android, Windows Mobile, and (soon) Linux/Maemo. You can program them in C, C++, Java, and, in some cases, Python and C#. Samsung even has HD video.
I don't see anything that Apple brings to the table. Apple's iPhone already costs more than twice than what those other phones cost, it's less capable, has worse battery life, can only be programmed in Apple-approved languages, and has severe restrictions on the kind of software you can write for it. And Apple's overall market share is small compared to Symbian.
Price it to compete with entry level DSLR
An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees).
I got hung up on wondering who the hell buys canned meatballs in gravy and canned mackerel in brine.
I'm really surprised how poorly the HD did. Motion was poor and close ups were horrible. You do see quite a difference in calmer shots however the HD really looks much better then. Looking at the price I can't see any reason to buy the regular mino however the HD is still better if your not doing action or close ups. wont replace a $400 sony but for something you can keep in your pocket 24/7 and you wont cry if you destroy/lose it does actually rock.
many people have said that the mino would be better because it has a bigger lens but if you look closly at one most of that big round lens is superficial with the real lens being the same size as the iPods.
I'd like to strap one on to my motorcycle helmet and record my trips. I could then report the assholes texting, analyze the moves, etc. Nano wold work a lot better, sizewise, than a mino.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
After seeing what the new Nano is capable of, I can't help but think how easy it would be to turn it on and let it just record your life for 8 or 16 hours at a time. It's so small that you could easily carry it in such a way that the camera lens would be exposed, but the rest of the Nano would be hidden.
I've had plenty of incidents in my life when something interesting happens and afterwards I say "If only I'd had a videocamera with me." So now with the Nano, why not just record my entire day, download anything of interest, then start all over again the next morning? That way I'm never caught off guard. Anything I see, my Nano sees, and I have a permanent record.
The new Nano isn't just an MP3 player - it is a very inexpensive and compact video surveillance device. For a lot of people it will be worth buying just for that feature alone. The only questions are how long the battery will last in video record mode, and whether the screen can be shut off during recording.
Is this a corollary to the old adage about software bloat: "a piece of software will gain features until it is capable of reading email"?
"A piece of consumer electronics will gain features until it can take digital photographs".