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. :)
Its an MP3 player... Why the fuck does it have a camera on it?
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.
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,
Nonsense. The encoding part is becoming trivial with modern processors. But a tiny sensor and pinhole-sized lens will always be problematic. There's a reason that pro video cameras have big lenses and sensors. How do you do selective focus with a pinhole lens that puts everything sort-of-in-focus? You can't. How do you get low light performance with a lens that doesn't admit much light? You boost the gain electronically, ruining the picture quality.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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'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.
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".