I was looking around online for digital cameras and realized that I am also doing some crazy amount of googling for what the hell a CCD is and how it relates to pixel dimensions (if at all) and various other things. I look at a paragraph describing a digital camcorder, like

Quote:Product Features Mini Size: 103 x 63 x 29 (mm) 10M Pixels (3648 x 2736) Interpolated Resolution 2.0 Color TFT LCD Display 4X Digital Zoom 16MB Built-in Internal Memory Movie Mode With Audio Recording MP3 Player Specification Image Sensor OmniVision 3620 1/2" 2048 x 1536 CMOS Image Resolution 4000 x 3000 (Interpolation); 2048 x 1536; 1600 x 1200 1024 x 768; 640 x 480 Lens f=9.6mm F=2.8 Focus Range Normal: 1.5m ~ Infinity; Macro: 200 ~ 250mm Digital Zoom 4X Exposure Auto(Manual: - 2.0 ~ 2.0 EV) White Balance Auto/ Sunny/ Tungsten/ Fluorescent/ Cloudy LCD 2.0" Color Rotatable TFT LCD Flash Auto, Off, Compulsion, Red-Eye Reduction Storage Media Built-in 16M

and my mind translates it directly into alien writing. So... considering this could take forever and that perhaps people here are feeling helpful, here's the old-school version of what I would like in a digital camera/camcorder: - Pictures at a minimum of 1024x768 pixels - Movies at 640x480 recorded at 24 frames per second recording for at least several minutes at a time - At least an hour's worth of movie storage at 640x480 (preferably 2) - Preferred AVI or MPEG recorded movies (though I can convert others) - USB transfer (probably standard) - And, of course, "reasonably priced," a.k.a. cheap I think that's it. Simple requirements (except for maybe the minium storage - I know videos aren't small in size, especially 640x480 at 24fps). It's for personal use, family gatherings and whatnot. I'm not a photographer. How this relates to the stuff in quotes, I have no idea. Also, I heard somewhere that some cameras only record for a few seconds at a time. Don't know if that's still relevant in today's world but that's why I mentioned "recording for at least several minutes at a time." Any help/suggestions are appreciated.

How much are you willing to spend, and do you actually want a crash course in camera mechanics or do you just want recommendations on good cameras?

I don't have a specific budget beyond trying to save money but I was hoping not to have to spend more than $500, if I can pull that off. I really don't need any features beyond what I mentioned above. I suspect I would need a camcorder for the long recording time but if a camera is cheaper and does the job, I'll go with that. I'd also rather not settle for "poor quality" movies.

I think I have only three questions at this point (google has been pretty helpful with time so I think I can get away with not bugging anyone for a crash course but I'm really looking forward to any supplied links for suggestions):
Why is it that camcorders don't tend to mention megapixels, just CCDs whereas almost the reverse is true with cameras? How does a "8.0 megapixel CCD" camera compare with a "1/6" CCD Imager with 290K effective pixels" camcorder?
And is it fair to assume that, unless otherwise mentioned, the cameras and camcorders take pictures and video at a 4/3 ratio (compatible with 640x480 and whatnot)?

Thanks.

Quote:Original post by GameCreator
Why is it that camcorders don't tend to mention megapixels, just CCDs whereas almost the reverse is true with cameras?

Cameras take still pictures. Each pixel is captured to be distinct, and the megapixel rating is an easy way to assess the fidelity of the output image to film or the naked eye (some say that over 16 megapixels you can't tell the difference).

Camcorders, on the other hand, record continuously, and the prime determinant of their video quality is how much information is recorded for each of the base color frequencies red, green and blue. A 3-CCD camcorder dedicates a CCD (charge-coupled device; basically, a photo-sensitive electronic sensor) to each of red, green and blue, meaning that more picture information is available, while a single-CCD camera captures only fractions of the incident information.

Additionally, the size of the CCD indicates how much light it can capture, so larger is better. A too small CCD can result in dull, dark images, and the sort of image correction typically included in such camcorders will yield an overexposed-looking image: the colors all look sort of "washed out."

Finally, camcorders record images in standard formats - PAL, NTSC, HDV. Indicating megapixels would not only be unhelpful, it would be nonsensical. There is no meaningful use for such data.

Quote:How does a "8.0 megapixel CCD" camera compare with a "1/6" CCD Imager with 290K effective pixels" camcorder?

It doesn't. Cameras are not camcorders. Multifunction devices generally shortchange one of the functions, unless they have two barrels and lenses like a recent Samsung camera/camcorder combo does.

Quote:And is it fair to assume that, unless otherwise mentioned, the cameras and camcorders take pictures and video at a 4/3 ratio (compatible with 640x480 and whatnot)?

Yes.

Quote:Original post by GameCreator
I don't have a specific budget beyond trying to save money but I was hoping not to have to spend more than $500, if I can pull that off. I really don't need any features beyond what I mentioned above. I suspect I would need a camcorder for the long recording time but if a camera is cheaper and does the job, I'll go with that. I'd also rather not settle for "poor quality" movies.

I think I have only three questions at this point (google has been pretty helpful with time so I think I can get away with not bugging anyone for a crash course but I'm really looking forward to any supplied links for suggestions):
Why is it that camcorders don't tend to mention megapixels, just CCDs whereas almost the reverse is true with cameras? How does a "8.0 megapixel CCD" camera compare with a "1/6" CCD Imager with 290K effective pixels" camcorder?
And is it fair to assume that, unless otherwise mentioned, the cameras and camcorders take pictures and video at a 4/3 ratio (compatible with 640x480 and whatnot)?

Thanks.

290K effective pixels is somewhere around 620x465 (or 680x425 widescreen). I don't know how 'effective pixels' compares to the camera's megapixels, though.

If you want good, quality video, you should get a device that's designed to take videos, not one that just has video thrown in as an extra feature for the box. I don't know whether cameras are good about that, though.

When talking about camcorders the ideal is to have 3 CCDs. As I understand it, the CCD is what picks up the colours of the footage. When you have 3 CCDs, each CCD picks up the three primary colours (red, green, blue) which results in very clear images. So yeah, if you can afford a video camera with 3 CCDs, it's worth the money.
Although I don't have a 3 CCD camera myself. This is just what I've been told by very reliable sources.

Quote:Original post by GameCreator
I don't have a specific budget beyond trying to save money but I was hoping not to have to spend more than $500, if I can pull that off. I really don't need any features beyond what I mentioned above. I suspect I would need a camcorder for the long recording time but if a camera is cheaper and does the job, I'll go with that. I'd also rather not settle for "poor quality" movies.

You need to know what you need from this camera. For 1024x768, anything that is >4MP is good for you. My rule of thumb is to get a camera that can store pictures at least twice the size of 1024x768 (2048x1536). If you need smaller images, you can always shrink them.

What I find important in a point-and-shoot digital camera is optical zoom, the battery life, some sort of shutter speed and exposure controls, and its size. Optical zoom will help in certain circumstances but not always, sometimes you need wide angle too. It's obvious why you need good battery life. I need manual focus and exposure control in certain situations when the auto controls don't do a good job. And lastly since it's point-and-shoot, it should be simple, compact, and not bulky.

edit: it should be optical not digital. gosh i must have been really tired.

[Edited by - alnite on January 29, 2006 3:57:01 PM]