Getting sharp image from video camera

[sear...@my-deja.com]

Can anyone tell if an anolog videocamera hooked up to a PC, and with
the proper software can give me sharp images of *static* subjects?(I'm
talking about images for website and e-mail).

I figure that the limitations of one of these video cameras should be
able to be extended by using some sort of interpolation and clean-up
(sharpening) feature in software. For obvious reasons this would not
work with moving subjects, so therefore everything would have to be
perfectly still when taking a picture.

I was hoping that there was software that could use multiple frames of
the dame picture to make one good sharp one.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Darren Harris

Sear...@mail.con2.com

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

[Chris Phillipo]

sear...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Can anyone tell if an anolog videocamera hooked up to a PC, and with
> the proper software can give me sharp images of *static* subjects?(I'm
> talking about images for website and e-mail).
>

I asked a similar question, apparently the Snappy is the way to go for
this:

http://www.play.com

--
_______________________________
Remove "X" from email to reply.

[Stephen]

I believe that the Progressive Scan mode, if your camcorder has the feature,
will give you a sharper image too.

--
Stephen
Alberta, Canada
<sear...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93610m$o9k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

[Thomas Kranz]

pretty much any video camera image that you can capture will be as good as
you can e-mail or post on a website - the limitation is the display
capabilities of the web and e-mail.

My TRV-900 takes progressive scan pics that can be saved to computer disk as
JPG's. Very low res compared to modern digital still cameras, but perfectly
suited to website use. See my website, www.longacres.com for numerous
examples.
- Tom
sear...@my-deja.com wrote in message <93610m$o9k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

[sear...@my-deja.com]

I know nothing about Progressive scanning, But what I have is a JVC
"LOLUX" GX-N7 video camera, and an ATI All-In-Wonder Pro PCI(8 megs). I
guess that what you are saying is that for my purposes it will not make
a difference in image quality between what I have and a top of the line
digital camera, because my analog video camera will not be the "weak
link", and therefore is capable of "recording" a still image that is at
least as good as what my monitor can reproduce?

I still need specifics on hooking it up as well as the video software
needed. Perhaps freeware recommendations (for a starting newbie)? :-)

Thanks

Darren Harris

Sear...@mail.con2.com

************************************************************************

In article <Wow56.17528$7f3.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

[John Montgomery]

Daren,
I have an analogue 8mm camcorder (Canon E60) and a miniDV camcorder (JVC
GR-DVL25).
The miniDV camcorder provides a very much sharper image both on a TV set and
on my computer monitor for moving or still images.
Analogue VHS class camcorders have typical resolutions of about 300 by 200
pixels, whereas a modern miniDV camcorder is approaching the resolution of
standard TV, which is 768 by 576 (PAL).
It is extremely difficult to improve the spatial resolution of a camera by
frame to frame integration. This will improve signal to noise but not the
resolution. Methods have been used for spatial resolution increase, that
involve dithering the image sensor by about a pixel or so then carrying out
some powerful processing on the results. Extremely difficult for an amateur
to do.

regards
John

<sear...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:936bkh$8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

[Richard Crowley]

As has already been stated, all video formats (NTSC, PAL./SECAM, etc.) are
significantly lower resolution than most modern still digital cameras.
Furthermore, they are optimized for fast (1/60th sec) repeating exposure.
All these factors combine to make video cameras less suitable for good still
photos.

Try doing REALLY GOOD lighting with your video camera and see how much
difference it makes. With some cameras, the difference is quite dramatic.

You could also look into the Play Snappy capture "dongle" It uses some
sophisticated interpolation algorithms to achieve quite dramatic still
images from conventional video cameras. There are some impressive examples
on their web pages (www.play.com). Note that the Snappy uses a much
different method of capturing the video signal information than "video
input" cards as the latter are optimized for a continuous stream of frames,
and the Snappy averages many frames to produce higher-resolution and lower
noise.

RC

<sear...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:936bkh$8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

[sear...@my-deja.com]

Thanks a lot.

I'm assuming that even with the "Snappy", images from an anolog video
camera still would not match up to a digital camera? And that even a
640 x 480 digital still camera with the proper software would produce
better images?

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris

Sear...@mail.con2.com

************************************************************************

In article <bfI56.14386$1e4.1...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com>,

> > In article <Wow56.17528$7f3.1278486@bgtnsc07-

[Richard Crowley]

<sear...@my-deja.com> wrote ...

> I'm assuming that even with the "Snappy", images from an anolog video
> camera still would not match up to a digital camera? And that even a
> 640 x 480 digital still camera with the proper software would produce
> better images?

Not necessarily! Snappy outputs images up to 1500x1125 (from standard NTSC
video!) I believe it does this only with live streaming video from a video
camera aimed at a non-moving scene ("still-life") They use some pretty
nifty algorithms to derive the image in three dimensions (H, W, and time) by
averaging over many frames of video. See the samples on their web page if
you have any doubts.

As an owner of one of the first Sony Mavicas in town, I can attest that the
Snappy with an average video camera (or camcorder) can easily produce
better pictures than at least the first generation 640x480 digital still
cameras.

RC

[Chris Phillipo]

sear...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Thanks a lot.
>
> I'm assuming that even with the "Snappy", images from an anolog video
> camera still would not match up to a digital camera? And that even a
> 640 x 480 digital still camera with the proper software would produce
> better images?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Darren Harris

I have a 640x480 digital still camera, it produces inferior images to my Hi8
camcorder even without a snappy. But my digital camera is pretty cheap.

[sear...@my-deja.com]

Thanks. I guess I'd better look into getting a "Snappy". Evidently,
there is no advantage to me having the ATI caard in my system.

Thanks again.

Darren Harris

Sear...@mail.con2.com

************************************************************************

In article <m8N56.16077$1e4.2...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com>,

[Chris Phillipo]

sear...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Thanks. I guess I'd better look into getting a "Snappy". Evidently,
> there is no advantage to me having the ATI caard in my system.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Darren Harris
>
> Sear...@mail.con2.com
>

Be aware that there is the Snappy 3.0, 3.0 Deluxe and 4.0. The 3.0 should
be around $80 US or less.

[Richard Crowley]

<sear...@my-deja.com> wrote ...

> Thanks. I guess I'd better look into getting a "Snappy". Evidently,
> there is no advantage to me having the ATI caard in my system.

Quite the contrary, if the ATI is what I am thinking of, it will input
MOVING video.

The Snappy does ONLY STILL. It is optimized for it and that is why it does
it better.

[Chris Phillipo]

Richard Crowley wrote:

Still images are what he is looking for.

[Xmas I Am § @idon'tthinkso § Xmas I Am §]

Yes, you can make SVCD with MSP 6..... You will have to create the template
but that only take a few minuets. Make it MPEG-2 480x480..... Then go to
it!!

§ Xmas I Am §

"John Montgomery" <john_mo...@benderloch.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:93757b$ass$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...