Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Size of video file in Digital Camera
Old 02-29-2012, 08:26 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,925
Size of video file in Digital Camera

I have a simple inexpensive point and shoot Canon digital camera. If I have a 2GB SD
card installed, the camera tells me that there is a potential for
somewhat less than a thousand pictures (say 800) at default settings making the average size about 2MB/photo which roughly agrees w/ what I have read.
I have avoided doing video assuming this would fill the memory in no time at all. Is there a rough general multiplier that applies to estimate the MB/min.
when doing video vs photos? Just looking for some ballpark figure.
__________________

__________________
kaneohe is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-29-2012, 09:17 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,274
You gotta check the manual. Depending on the format, and what kind of compression they use, it can be all over the map. I have two Casio cameras, similar models, purchased ~ a year apart, and the old one compresses much more, much smaller files, yet looks as good. No rhyme/reason.

Take a video, time it and check the file size. There are usually multiple quality settings, this will affect it a lot. SD cards are ~ $1/GB, maybe a bit more if you need a higher speed one (also in the manual).


-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 09:26 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,267
Heck, change it to video and it will also tell you how much time you can record... at least all of the ones I have owned has....
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 09:40 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,643
I shot a number of short videos (20 sec - 2 min) on my recent trip to Africa and they averaged about 1M/sec. It had it set on the larger video size (640x480?). I kept about 700 photos and two dozen videos and only used one 4G card. One of my traveling companions shot about 2000 photos and dozens of videos and had tons of room to spare on her 16G card.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 07:26 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,925
Thanks all for the info. ERD50....the answer may very well be in the manual but it wasn't immediately obvious. TP.....good suggestion. Looks like 20+ min for 2GB so 0.1GB/min or 100MB/min or 1.5MB+/sec which is in the ballpark of donheff's 1 MB/sec. Another way of thinking about it if a still
pic is 2.5MB , then a minute of video equivalent to 40 pics stored (I guess there really are more pics if they are compressed?)
__________________
kaneohe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 09:46 PM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneohe View Post
Thanks all for the info. ERD50....the answer may very well be in the manual but it wasn't immediately obvious. TP.....good suggestion. Looks like 20+ min for 2GB so 0.1GB/min or 100MB/min or 1.5MB+/sec which is in the ballpark of donheff's 1 MB/sec. Another way of thinking about it if a still
pic is 2.5MB , then a minute of video equivalent to 40 pics stored (I guess there really are more pics if they are compressed?)
Actually you can not compare them to a still pic.... still pics are much higher resolution than video...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 05:57 AM   #7
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,511
Much depends on the resolution. On my Nikon D7000 with a 16 GB card the number of still exposures ranges from 452 shooting RAW to just over 4.2k shooting at the lowest resolution jpg.

Of course that low resolution jpg will make a lousy 8x10 print.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:59 AM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Actually you can not compare them to a still pic.... still pics are much higher resolution than video...
Not only resolution, but with video, they use one shot as a 'key frame', and then they can follow with several shots with only 'difference' information. As an extreme example, if you take a video of a still scene from a tripod, there is no added info, other than to code the digital equivalent of "the same", until something changes or the system calls for a 'refresh' with another key frame. If a ball rolls across a fixed scene, only the changes along the ball path are recorded in the new frames.

You can see this easily on some high compression videos. Slow moving stuff will look quite detailed (I think they use the extra frames to keep adding detail progressively). But fast moving, or the whole screen moving moderately fast causes a lot of 'pixelation'/blurring.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 11:56 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
BigMoneyJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DFW
Posts: 2,627
It depends.

I had a camera that stored video in mJPEG format which really is just a series of static JPEGs and not very efficient. It depends on the camera's video hardware encoding format and resolution.
__________________

__________________
BigMoneyJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Top five regrets of the dying MichaelB Other topics 81 04-25-2012 03:15 AM
Asset Allocation for drawdown phase: Keep "cash" in IRAs or taxable? samclem FIRE and Money 14 03-03-2012 04:54 PM
Canon says refilled ink cartridges don't work in PIXMA MX882 TrvlBug Other topics 24 03-03-2012 01:39 PM
Rear view monitor in new cars required by 2014? easysurfer Other topics 64 03-03-2012 12:40 PM
NYT Article re: high consumers of healthcare Buckeye Health and Early Retirement 13 03-01-2012 07:34 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:58 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.