NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and gentlemen of the Great NSG, I need your help to understand the black magic that powers the dark world of cameras.

As most of you know, there are now digital cameras, which are *slightly* more popular than the ''old'' 35mm ones.

Still, my point is not there. On the one hand, some cameras, such as the Canon G7, can take both widescreen (16:9) and fullscreen (4:3) pics, in resolutions like 3648 x 2736 (4:3) and 3648 x 2048 (16:9, or near that).

On the second hand, the Sony DSCW80HDPR can take 1080i pics in a ratio of 16:9, at 1920 x 1080 pixels. It can also take pics in a resolution like 3072 x 2304, which happens to be 4:3.

So I made 2 paragraphs for nothing, as they both reveal the same facts. Just wanted to use ''on the one hand'' ;)

My question is: seeing both the G7 and the DSCblablabla can take pics in 4:3 as well as 16:9 ratios, that should not be a problem. Then you might wonder, ''is that guy drunk, he said he had a question but he doesn't even ask one, and he makes grammar mistakes left and right! At least make logical sentences!''. And you should think that. I do. :D

So. The Sony is advertised as HD (1080i) but, in 16:9 ratio, has less pixels than the Canon (resp. 1920 x 1080 and 3648 x 2048). Strictly speaking about image quality, only in terms of pixels (not colours and all that crap), which one would be the best?

Yes, I'm tired. And confused :confused:

And please, try to keep the spam to a relatively low level. And I'm sure I'm messing something up, I always do when I start a new thread.

Get whichever has the best optical zoom, assuming they are similar price. Remember, your computer can do digital zoom, so don't waste your time worrying about it.

Oh come on! That's exactly what I wanted not to be told -.-

I mean, I just want to know if the Canon can be considered HD, despite not being one... I don't even understand myself :'(

Oh come on! That's exactly what I wanted not to be told -.-

I mean, I just want to know if the Canon can be considered HD, despite not being one... I don't even understand myself :'(
HD is simply a marketing term that means even less than "All New!"

The Sony DSCW80HDPR (http://www.abtelectronics.com/product/28579.html) is a PACKAGE containing a normal Sony DSCW80 camera along with a portable printer and some other accessories. The DSCW80 is no more 'HD' than any other Sony.

It's a middle-of-the-pack 7.1MP point and shoot.

If you want to compare them side by side, use this link (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_g7%2Csony_dscw80&show=all)

Then bookmark the site. DPReview is the best site for independant review of digital camera equipment - bar none.

Aha, thank you, dear Silli. :D

Ladies and gentlemen of the Great NSG, I need your help to understand the black magic that powers the dark world of cameras.

As most of you know, there are now digital cameras, which are *slightly* more popular than the ''old'' 35mm ones.

Still, my point is not there. On the one hand, some cameras, such as the Canon G7, can take both widescreen (16:9) and fullscreen (4:3) pics, in resolutions like 3648 x 2736 (4:3) and 3648 x 2048 (16:9, or near that).

On the second hand, the Sony DSCW80HDPR can take 1080i pics in a ratio of 16:9, at 1920 x 1080 pixels. It can also take pics in a resolution like 3072 x 2304, which happens to be 4:3.

So I made 2 paragraphs for nothing, as they both reveal the same facts. Just wanted to use ''on the one hand'' ;)

My question is: seeing both the G7 and the DSCblablabla can take pics in 4:3 as well as 16:9 ratios, that should not be a problem. Then you might wonder, ''is that guy drunk, he said he had a question but he doesn't even ask one, and he makes grammar mistakes left and right! At least make logical sentences!''. And you should think that. I do. :D

So. The Sony is advertised as HD (1080i) but, in 16:9 ratio, has less pixels than the Canon (resp. 1920 x 1080 and 3648 x 2048). Strictly speaking about image quality, only in terms of pixels (not colours and all that crap), which one would be the best?

Yes, I'm tired. And confused :confused:

And please, try to keep the spam to a relatively low level. And I'm sure I'm messing something up, I always do when I start a new thread.

Sorry I would love to answer you and give you some helful advice, I really would but your post is sooo full of technosepak that even after three attempts of finishing it I find myself dozing off.

Could you link to the specs, because you've confused some terms I think.

1080i is 1080X720 interlaced, which is how your tv normally operates (though at 720X480), which is to say that it draws half of the picture and then the other half to make a frame. It's a video resolution, not a still resolution, and thats HD. Still pictures, as you noted, have a much higher resolution even on the cheapy point and clicks but aren't often reffered to as 'HD.' Unless they were talking about the video capture of the camera being able to capture in HD.

Canons are lovely cameras and I recommend them highly. My current and former ones were Canons and they have great features, including high ISOs and blur control. Yesterday I was taking pictures of MY MEETUP WITH GRAVLEN IN BALTIMORE (aaaaaaaa yes it was fun!) and he had a big ol' fancy camera but my little unassuming Canon was taking much better pictures, even in very very low light. So, that's my 2 cents.

And yes I will be posting those pictures if a) Gravlen gives me permission to do so, and b) when I get home on Saturday to upload them with my special cord that is not here right now.

i would totally ignore the 1080i thing. if the pixels are lower then they're lower. what's the problem? why take pictures in "widescreen" anyway when 4:3 appears to have higher pixel count anyway and can be cropped to make them 16:9 or whatever. i have a canon 20D and am very happy with it. it has an option to take photos in a resolution that's 16:9 (i guess) but the notion of using it has never crossed my mind. just use the full frame photo and be happy with the extra vertical pixels :)

but of course pixel pushing isn't necessarily the most important thing. as long as they're both above 5 megapixels you should be ok. however, that 1080i nonsense doesn't look like its 5mp.
just beware of the lens, too.

i guess i don't really get your question (if you could call it that ;))



DPreview is the best site. look at it lots.

1080i is 1080X720

Actually it's 1920x1080 interlaced; the number is the number of horizontal lines, not the number of columns.

Either way, it's bugger-all pixels for a digital camera and just marketing bollocks.

Actually it's 1920x1080 interlaced; the number is the number of horizontal lines, not the number of columns.

Either way, it's bugger-all pixels for a digital camera and just marketing bollocks.

Bah, I fuck that up all the time. The important part is that HD is a video format and has nothing to do with stills, which as everyone is pointing out, have far far far more resolution because cheifly you're only taking one picture, not 24-60 a second. So if HD is being applied to a still, it's being mis-used.

Get whichever has the best optical zoom, assuming they are similar price. Remember, your computer can do digital zoom, so don't waste your time worrying about it.

Agreed. The "digital zoom" feature some digital camers use to claim a "10x zoom" is unbelievably crappy. Optics are now, and will be, for the forseeable future, the best way to get close to a subject from far away. Choose good optics.

Yeah well, umm... okay... thanks kids, but anyways I'm not buying a new camera, I just wanted to know. ;)

And yeah... I read the Sony had a 1080i output, and that it was compatible with HDTV. Anyways I don't have one (yet) so it doesn't matter. Hmm. Now I have plenty of facts to analyse and meditate on.

And the Canon is so pretty :D



I wish I could defragment my brain. I'm all confused in the inside. I can't even think properly... time for a tea cup I guess.