View Single Post
Old Jun 20, 2011, 05:43 PM
Tom Frank is offline
Find More Posts by Tom Frank
Dance the skies...
Tom Frank's Avatar
United States, MA, Walpole
Joined Dec 2003
19,007 Posts
Originally Posted by Normandy5 View Post
If you like the #11 you probably won't be interested in the #13.

The FPS is only 15 but the missing frame rate is zero, the image sensor seems to be 1920x1080 and the AVI file is 1920x1080.

It has a slightly different case than the #11 but is about the same size.

Preliminary information comes from one outdoor video sample provided by a camera seller. Although the video exposure is dark and high contrast, the video frames are sharp and the shutter speed is much faster than the FPS.

Information about camera features like composite video output and battery life are unknown until somebody does some bench tests.

-- Chuck at
Thanks for the heads up, Chuck. We definitely want to know whats new or better in the #11 camera's class.

I D/L the video clip from the link you gave and ran it through G-spot (report image below). As I suspected, the video codec is MJPEG, not H.264. And the video bit rate averaged a tick less than 18,000 kbps to capture the larger amount (2.25 times more) data per frame, with no dropped frames as you mentioned. So it's no surprise the frame rate had to be dropped to 15 fps to do that.

For AV purposes, my take on this new camera is:

The Good:
  • The price point is a tick LESS than the #11 ($38 US delivered)
  • The larger frame size almost fills up my widescreen monitor at it's native resolution (with no upsizing)
The Bad:
  • The file size is a little over twice as large as the #11 for the same duration video
  • Even though this camera has a higher density CMOS sensor, the lens still produces some light drop-off and discoloration at the right/left frame edges, just like the #11
  • The image detail appears to be no better (and maybe a little worse, if not focus related) than the #11.
  • There is a sudden exposure shift (image darkening) when the image panned to a much darker area in the example.
  • Even though my video players will play the native .AVI file, some editors may not be able to edit it (e.g. Vdub will load it, but complains it can't edit a file with a frame dimension not divisable by 16... i.e. 1080). AviDemux, WLMM, VideoPad, MAGIC MEP17+ work fine, though.
The Ugly
  • The 15 fps is unwatchable to my eye with even a small amount of motion in the frame (objects moving or panning)
The Potential
  • If the firmware could be toggled to subsample this larger CMOS array at 1280x720 frame size at 30 fps, this could reduce the recorded image size such that it is inside the vignetting of the lens, and produce an image that is much more uniform in color and brightness and focus across the entire recorded frame... something that could make this better than the #11 is now.
FWIW, the developer of the #11 recently told me he is developing a 1080p camera that could be ready within a month or two. I don't know if this might be the prototype or not... the eBay seller is not one of his that market the #11, but he has a couple other sellers and was developing other sales outlets. I gave him early feedback on the issues of 1080HD video that mimick my observations of this one I outlined above.

Also FWIW, I do like to see a post that gives readers a heads up on new competing or better products in this size and price range. But I do not plan to support this new camera in this thread, and do not encourage more posts or more video samples from it here. It only confuses the discussion of the #11. Other different cameras should have their own support threads IMHO.
Tom Frank is offline Find More Posts by Tom Frank