Originally Posted by Rubis

Hello

THE Tuesday, January 29, 2013, _ It is said in a statement yesterday that the LTU (International Union of Telecommunications)announced the adoption of the new members parses video compression standard H.265 (HEVC).W: With a compression ratio of 60% to 70% more efficient than the H.264 standard (standard 80% ofIe videos on web according LTU) HEVC will allow first relieve networks
...
Although rapid adoption of this compression format is a certainty as high needs (bandwidth economy, VoD, IPTV, 3D Ultra HDetc.), it will take months to see the equipment appear compatible

Question : Is the manufacturer able to run the 808 # 16 with the H265 codec????
thank you
@+++

I think the last sentence before your question above answers this question. The compression is done and the codecs are resident in the Novatek DSP chip. Until a DSP chip with the H.265 codec resident in it with a price point in the same class as the #16 camera, we're "stuck" with H.264. And even if one appears, users would need the codec accessible by their players/editors to do anything with the recorded video. That would involve either licensing ($$$) or the appearance of an open source freeware version, such as the x.264 codec that can handle H.264 codec tasks. I would not expect to see this anytime soon.

Sparklet's method is good.

For AV it is best to have a lot of distant detail and not too much sky to get the best result. Sky is easily compressible by JPEG, so will give low numbers. A lot of foreground detail will give a "false positive", unless that's where you want focus to be. Here are a few examples, you can see as sky increases, the file size decreases, to the same point as a black room.

Same comment for large areas ofshadow which will compress to small size due to no contrast detail

Originally Posted by victapilot

Sparklet's method is good.

For AV it is best to have a lot of distant detail and not too much sky to get the best result. Sky is easily compressible by JPEG, so will give low numbers. A lot of foreground detail will give a "false positive", unless that's where you want focus to be. Here are a few examples, you can see as sky increases, the file size decreases, to the same point as a black room.

Same comment for large areas ofshadow which will compress to small size due to no contrast detail

I agree, and this confirms what I mentioned up front that the exact same scene and lighting needs to be in all the sample images for the file size to mean much. In the samples I posted, the images on either side of "best" vary by only 5k or less in size, but the eye can easily pick up the changes in various parts of the scene (near or far).

And as you implied, it's necessary for the scene to have objects at distances you want to be in reasonably good focus. For me, that's not all very distant objects since I use my camera on planes as well as a quad that I don't fly very high or very far out... mainly to capture closer in ground subjects. Even with my AV planes, I like the ground to have reasonably good focus on landing approaches, etc. The "far" outdoor image scenes I posted pretty much reflect that preference. So, I may need to compromise for my "best" focus, or have different cameras for different video objectives.

Everyone will have their own video needs, so they need to take all this into consideration for best results.

Originally Posted by Tom Frank

Everyone will have their own video needs, so they need to take all this into consideration for best results.

True! BTW the RCG rendition drops the resolution of the first image substantially, the original looks better

Just for comparison, I took a similar scene with my Bloggie set at 2MP (it does not have 1MP, this is the lowest other than 640x480). It is much clearer, which illustrates your point a while back about lens/sensor limits, even if OT

Nice going Tom.

I have never used the method with a wide angle lens such as the D lens. I don't like the distorted view they give.

I took a couple of each of your photo runs. I selected the first one from the outdoor and indoor scenes. I then selected the ones with the biggest file sizes. These were copied to my desktop.

The viewer I use on my Linux desktop is fast enough to give the effect of a "blink" comparison by flicking back and forth between photos with the arrow keys. It's also clear and uncluttered - just the image and no unnecessary "junk" around it.

"Blinking" the images shows the improvement very clearly. I did notice something a bit odd about the indoor scene though.

The plant on the left side of the start photo is reasonably focused. The photo with the largest file size shows a big improvement from foreground to distance ( in this case the railings outside). While most of the photo shows a big improvement in sharpness the pot plant has now gone a bit fuzzy !

On the outdoor photos the overall sharpness is evident and.... the large house on the left (2 rows of 3 windows) is showing improved sharpness and a bit of detail in the windows. This seems to be contrary to what I am seeing on the indoor photos.

I guess that is the penalty for using a distorting lens ? Or could it be the lens - I believe you are testing a possible replacement for the D lens ?

Tom,
I have just had another play and...

On the outdoor scene the camera has moved position very slightly between shots. Apart from that, which shouldn't cause a problem as it's only slight, the improvement in sharpness extends out to each side of the photo with improvement noticeable even at the edges.

The indoor scene improves markedly with the right side showing good improvement. The chair against the right wall and the boots below show improved focus. The left side from the plant to the left edge goes fuzzy. The glazing bars in the window above the plant drop detail.

Strange - but the outdoor shots seem to exhibit different behaviour to the indoor ones.

Originally Posted by victapilot

True! BTW the RCG rendition drops the resolution of the first image substantially, the original looks better

Just for comparison, I took a similar scene with my Bloggie set at 2MP (it does not have 1MP, this is the lowest other than 640x480). It is much clearer, which illustrates your point a while back about lens/sensor limits, even if OT

Yes, that's a perfect example. It's a 1920x1080 16:9 image rather than 1280x720, which accounts for twice as many pixels needed to fill all that extra space. But it's the much better glass lens that makes the difference in sharpness of detail. All that costs a bit more, but there's payback in the image quality.

Originally Posted by sparklet

Nice going Tom.

I have never used the method with a wide angle lens such as the D lens. I don't like the distorted view they give.

I took a couple of each of your photo runs. I selected the first one from the outdoor and indoor scenes. I then selected the ones with the biggest file sizes. These were copied to my desktop.

The viewer I use on my Linux desktop is fast enough to give the effect of a "blink" comparison by flicking back and forth between photos with the arrow keys. It's also clear and uncluttered - just the image and no unnecessary "junk" around it.

"Blinking" the images shows the improvement very clearly. I did notice something a bit odd about the indoor scene though.

The plant on the left side of the start photo is reasonably focused. The photo with the largest file size shows a big improvement from foreground to distance ( in this case the railings outside). While most of the photo shows a big improvement in sharpness the pot plant has now gone a bit fuzzy !

On the outdoor photos the overall sharpness is evident and.... the large house on the left (2 rows of 3 windows) is showing improved sharpness and a bit of detail in the windows. This seems to be contrary to what I am seeing on the indoor photos.

I guess that is the penalty for using a distorting lens ? Or could it be the lens - I believe you are testing a possible replacement for the D lens ?

Originally Posted by sparklet

Tom,
I have just had another play and...

On the outdoor scene the camera has moved position very slightly between shots. Apart from that, which shouldn't cause a problem as it's only slight, the improvement in sharpness extends out to each side of the photo with improvement noticeable even at the edges.

The indoor scene improves markedly with the right side showing good improvement. The chair against the right wall and the boots below show improved focus. The left side from the plant to the left edge goes fuzzy. The glazing bars in the window above the plant drop detail.

Strange - but the outdoor shots seem to exhibit different behaviour to the indoor ones.

Yes, the lens was a candidate for the D lens we now have. You'll recall from the my prior post(s) I mentioned the focal plane is not a flat plane, but rather has a slight curvature. In the outdoor shots, most of the scene is further away, but the indoor shot is much closer, with the left side closer than the right. So as I tweaked the focus slightly from image to image, the left side goes in and out of focus at a different lens rotation than the right side because they are different distances away. You can see this quite dramatically if you step through the three images at the "best" focus lens position. The window pane frames go dramatically into and out of focus on the left and right as you step through those three frames.

This shows how important it is to take photos of a scene showing objects you want to be in best focus if using this method, and how your eye can probably more easily determine what is best than any thing else.

But aside from that, the lens has slightly different focus to the right and left sides even in the distance photo sequence. This is a lens quality issue, possibly due to slight lens element misalignment in the tiny elements used in the lens.

The camera always recording me about 2 minutes and off, the program does not recognize N16, everything I do by editing the ASCII file is created, I just need to not stop recording, which does not recognize the program I do not, the v.16 camera lens is 120 degrees, thanks

Originally Posted by Meitzi

Of course +5 volts would be easy to connect but how much power you can put to startup signal without breaking it? I dont know specs.

Then why don't you use a voltage divider from the 5V at the USB plug to ground?
For instance, 27K plus 10K would give you 1.85V.

I've been trying out different sized lipos in an attempt to downsize the camera's battery and save a little weight.

first I tried a 30mAh 20C lipo. I heard a couple instances on the forum people using a 30mAh lipo with enough recording time to last 1 flight (5+ min). in my 2 attempts the recording only lasted around 45sec before the camera shut off. each battery was fully charged and fresh off the charger. the battery voltages afterwards were each around 3.95v.

next I tried a 70mAh 25C lipo. to my surprise the recording only lasted 40sec before the camera shut off. the battery voltage after was 4.14v.

could something else be at play here causing the camera to shut off early? some setting on the camera I could change? I don't see why the camera would've shut off if the voltage on the 70mAh was still that high.

it's mounted on my micro quad. I initially tried running the camera off the flight battery, but the camera only recorded 3 minutes before shutting off. I'd prefer use a second battery for the cam. ideally I'd like 7-10 min of recording.

btw the few grams really makes a difference, even with the 70mAh battery it flies like a fat cow.

Originally Posted by beerassassin

next I tried a 70mAh 25C lipo. to my surprise the recording only lasted 40sec before the camera shut off. the battery voltage after was 4.14v.

If you have a multimeter, hook it up and watch the voltage with the camera running. I would guess the voltage is dropping under load, causing the camera to shut down. Is it a new Lipo? If not be aware that these small cells 'age' pretty quickly ... I've just had to throw away a bunch of 70/110/120s that charged fine but would no longer deliver any useful current.

I'm always a bit doubtful when I see ratings like '25C' applied to tiny cells. Would a 70 mAh really give 1.75A continuous current for over 2 minutes?

Originally Posted by facoba30

The camera always recording me about 2 minutes and off, the program does not recognize N16, everything I do by editing the ASCII file is created, I just need to not stop recording, which does not recognize the program I do not, the v.16 camera lens is 120 degrees, thanks

Which program does not recognize the camera? That could be caused by a bad USB cable. Try a different cable and/or a different USB port on your computer.

The short recording time could be cause by an incompatible memory card, Some higher speed cards are not compatible (Use a known good brand, Class 4 speed is enough and is most reliable). Try a different card.

Originally Posted by beerassassin

I've been trying out different sized lipos in an attempt to downsize the camera's battery and save a little weight.

first I tried a 30mAh 20C lipo. I heard a couple instances on the forum people using a 30mAh lipo with enough recording time to last 1 flight (5+ min). in my 2 attempts the recording only lasted around 45sec before the camera shut off. each battery was fully charged and fresh off the charger. the battery voltages afterwards were each around 3.95v.

next I tried a 70mAh 25C lipo. to my surprise the recording only lasted 40sec before the camera shut off. the battery voltage after was 4.14v.

could something else be at play here causing the camera to shut off early? some setting on the camera I could change? I don't see why the camera would've shut off if the voltage on the 70mAh was still that high.

it's mounted on my micro quad. I initially tried running the camera off the flight battery, but the camera only recorded 3 minutes before shutting off. I'd prefer use a second battery for the cam. ideally I'd like 7-10 min of recording.

btw the few grams really makes a difference, even with the 70mAh battery it flies like a fat cow.

BA, in all my recent videos I'm using a 90 mAh battery out of a Symma IR (I think I sent the link before). I have absolutely no problems with this battery running the full length of my runs. You're right about the weight. 3 grams shed off the quad itself makes it feel like a completely different quad.

Hi folks,

I'm having some problems with a new Lexar 16GB Class4 card under Linux, the OS can't see the camera as an external card reader with this card, although it works fine with a Samsung 8GB card. Both cards work fine in Windows7 and XP.

Not trying to clog up the thread (I've been through all the formatting options with the OS gurus) so, is there a link to the older firmwares for the camera, I'd like to try the 0.49 or earlier as a last resort before buying another card?

Thanks.