Video camera nzuri....

Mathias Byabato said:
Video kamera ni kuanzia 500,000 hadi 15,000,000 baada ya hapo ni zile za studio au HDV camera za kisasa kabisa au tazama avantar yangu hapo juu<br />
<br />
hivyo unataka ya bei gani nikiwekeee pcha hapa
Click to expand...
<br />
<br />
Nataka iwe na uwezo wa kupiga picha kwa uwezo wa wastani tu.Ni kwa ajili ya matumizi ya kwenye sherehe za uswahilini.Uwezo wangu ni kuanzia laki mbili na nusu mpaka laki tatu.
Msaada jamani.
 
Tafuta sony zinazotumia mini dv tapes nadhani zinaanzia laki tatu
 
mhhhh hata mtaaani siku hizi hawataki picha zinazosinzia leta hela nikuuzie kitu cha kisasa kinaitwa SONY HD (AVCHD) HDR-CX550 ikiwa na wide convensional lens bei 1,300,000. Ni kitu cha kisasa cha uhakika na kinabebeka, aidha nina vifaa vya sauti microphone professional wireless system with its transmitter zake aina ya senheineser ikiwa na boom mic hivi nauza 1Milion hivyo vyote kwa pamoja ni 1,300,000 nikipunguza labda nitaondoa hizo 300,000!! vipya vyote
 
Mlendamboga said:
mhhhh hata mtaaani siku hizi hawataki picha zinazosinzia leta hela nikuuzie kitu cha kisasa kinaitwa SONY HD (AVCHD) HDR-CX550 ikiwa na wide convensional lens bei 1,300,000. Ni kitu cha kisasa cha uhakika na kinabebeka, aidha nina vifaa vya sauti microphone professional wireless system with its transmitter zake aina ya senheineser ikiwa na boom mic hivi nauza 1Milion hivyo vyote kwa pamoja ni 1,300,000 nikipunguza labda nitaondoa hizo 300,000!! vipya vyote
Click to expand...

kati ya hizi unasema ipi?

kamera 1.jpg
Sony-Handycam-HDR-AX2000-Full-HD-Camcorder.jpg
 

Attachments

  • kamera 2.jpg
    kamera 2.jpg
    4.9 KB · Views: 205
Rutunga M said:
acha uongo wewe! labda used au unasema still kamera
kwa laki tatu huwezi kupata kamera ya maana,kwanza haipo
Click to expand...
sasa mkuu mi ndio nayoitumia na niliinunua dola 250 tu sawa na sh ngapi za tz na ni mpya sio used
 
Osaba said:
sasa mkuu mi ndio nayoitumia na niliinunua dola 250 tu sawa na sh ngapi za tz na ni mpya sio used
Click to expand...

Kwa exchange rate ya 1600 tsh. hizo dola 250 zinakua 400,000 tsh. Hivyo sio sawa na 300,000 tsh. kama ulivyosema hapo juu.
 
Ubora wa picha za video hauji kutokana na kamera yenyewe tu bali software utakayotumia kuedit hizo video,ya kwangu iko poa sana na wala hainisumbui
tizo1 said:
ya kwako uliyonunua dola 250 ina ubora katika picha?
Click to expand...
 
Osaba said:
Ubora wa picha za video hauji kutokana na kamera yenyewe tu bali software utakayotumia kuedit hizo video,ya kwangu iko poa sana na wala hainisumbui
Click to expand...

Hivi mkuu unachosema ni kweli au unasema tu !

ubora wa picha unategemea sana kamera yenyewe,Editing sana sana utaongeza effect au animation tu.
sijui kama upo katika hii field kwani unayojibu ni kama nadharia tu mkuu
 
Rutunga M said:
Hivi mkuu unachosema ni kweli au unasema tu !

ubora wa picha unategemea sana kamera yenyewe,Editing sana sana utaongeza effect au animation tu.
sijui kama upo katika hii field kwani unayojibu ni kama nadharia tu mkuu
Click to expand...

ebu turudi tena darasani
[h=1]
generate.php
[/h]
One frequent question that I have heard many times during the last years is: What is the video quality needed for users to be satisfied? Another related question is: What bitrate is needed for HDTV video?

As many other areas, this is an area where I feel that "The more you know, the harder it is to give an answer". I will here try to explain some of the factors which make it really hard to give one answer.
  • First of all, good or appealing content is more important than good quality. One example, the quality of the YouTube clips was really poor as the service was launched. Still, it became very popular because there was a lot of fun content. Over time, the quality has improved, but it is still not the most important factor.
  • The pricing plays a role. If you have paid, you want better quality, or at least a more reliable service. However, even when paying, it's hard to influence the video quality since it is determined by the broadcasters, who have another economic agenda.
  • People get used bad quality. Many people have strange aspect ratios on the TV sets at home (elongated picture to fill the screen) or strange color settings, but after some time they don't notice, in contrast to someone visiting. The same goes for other static quality degradations, but not for temporary degradations.
  • Video quality vs. still-image quality. An ordinary DVD has 0.4Mpixel resolution, and is often perceived as quite good and sharp. However, if the video is frozen, then the low resolution is quite apparent. This is also true for static parts of the video like subtitles. Some years ago, there were quite a few trials of mobile-TV in Sweden, and one of the key "quality dividers" was whether the subtitles were readable or not. This turned out not to be so much coupled to the bitrate, as to the resolution of the video. The interesting part here was that as long as there was no text, the resolution did not matter so much, or the video was even better at lower resolution due to fewer block artefacts. However, as soon as there was text, higher resolution was perceived as better. A nice way out of this problem is to send the subtitles as metadata in a separate stream and render them as an overlay on top of the video. However, this is unfortunately not deployed in mobile terminals, although we have a standard called "Timed Text".
paul_ktichen_reuters.png
Figure 1 The quality may be good enough for the man, but what about the text?

  • When it comes to bitrate, the characteristics of the content is very important. High-motion content like sports typically require twice as many bits as a studio show to give the same perceived quality. However, since the content is often of more direct interest in the sports case, the operators seem to get away with providing rather low quality, so that the actual image quality is often worse on sports channels compared to other programs. At least, that reflects what I have heard from a lot of people in Sweden.
  • Technical limitations are always present. These may be screen size, color gamut, resolution, bitrate, bandwidth, decoder complexity or other issues. The technology choices are of course partly an economic decision. Device manufacturers, network providers, and content-providers must get paid for what they offer, but the total payments from the users are limited. Therefore, the "enough quality" is always a compromise.
Another quality question that we have considered quite recently is, is adaptive streaming needed or not? This has to do with two basic ways of providing video:
  1. Streaming, where the video is consumed while being received after some slight buffering. Interruptions are considered really bad, and adaption of the video bitrate and quality is a way to adapt to the network in order to give a continuous viewing session. Streaming also gives some advantages regarding uncontrolled content distribution, since the content is never readily available in the device.
  2. Progressive download, where the video may be consumed while being received, but the whole content is stored or buffered. In this case, the user typically has indicators of both the play-out point as well as how much video has been received. If the reception is not fast enough, the playout point reaches the buffer level, and the video stops. The user can then choose to buffer for a shorter or longer period, before trying to watch again. This is the typical scenario when watching video on YouTube. Of course, there may still be different quality versions to start with, but there is typically no adaptation during the viewing session.
The quality-related question here is: "Is uninterrupted video better than rebuffered video with constant quality"? I don't know the answer, but I think it depends on habits, the content, and personal preference.
Coming from the mobile side, where memory has been scarce, and the mobile links are varying, streaming has been the first choice. However, the Internet side has been dominated by progressive download. For live content, we actually see some convergence now with progressive, adaptive HTTP streaming in terms of Microsoft's SmoothStreaming, Apple's live HTTP streaming and standardization efforts in 3GPP SA4 and Open IP TV Forum. The adaptivity is mainly useful for live content, but also of interest for Video On Demand, where long waiting times are bad. For cellular networks, we have the extra desire to be able to lower the bandwidth for video for users who are at the cell edge, since these require an unproportional amount of resources to keep the bandwidth up. This is an extra motivation for adaptive streaming, also when going to new cellular technologies as LTE.
The trend towards HTTP streaming is not originating from quality considerations, but from issues with firewalls as well as the wish to reuse content distribution networks for web content.
On Ericsson Labs, we have a streaming enabler that can provide streaming video to mobiles. We have been working quite a lot with adaptive streaming, and we hope to be able to interactively demonstrate this on labs quite soon. We at Ericsson Research are also actively working in 3GPP to take forward a new adaptive HTTP streaming standard.
This far, the focus for the Streaming Enabler has been to investigate content/device compatibility, but it is maybe time to start looking more into quality issues, and provide examples of how content influences quality etc. Please share with us any thoughts you have on what type of quality questions you would like to see addressed?



chanzo: hapa
 
Osaba said:
Ubora wa picha za video hauji kutokana na kamera yenyewe tu bali software utakayotumia kuedit hizo video,ya kwangu iko poa sana na wala hainisumbui
Click to expand...

UNATUMIA SOFTWARE GANI?MIMI NINAYO PINNACLE na Ulead
 
Rutunga M said:
Hivi mkuu unachosema ni kweli au unasema tu !

ubora wa picha unategemea sana kamera yenyewe,Editing sana sana utaongeza effect au animation tu.
sijui kama upo katika hii field kwani unayojibu ni kama nadharia tu mkuu
Click to expand...
Najua ninachokijibu na kukieleza wewe unafikiri Adam Juma wa visual lab kwa nini huwa anaringa sana katika kupiga picha za video za bongo flava wewe unafikiri anatumia kamera kali sana na ya gharama sana kushinda watu wengine ndio maana video zake zinakuwa gharama sana yaani kuanzia 1m na kuendelea,hapana anachoringia yeye ni hiyo software anayotumia kuedit hizo video anazopiga ndio maana zinaonekana bora kuliko nyingine ndio maana zinapigwa hadi channel O,nadhani hapo umenielewa nini nazungumzia.
 
Osaba said:
Najua ninachokijibu na kukieleza wewe unafikiri Adam Juma wa visual lab kwa nini huwa anaringa sana katika kupiga picha za video za bongo flava wewe unafikiri anatumia kamera kali sana na ya gharama sana kushinda watu wengine ndio maana video zake zinakuwa gharama sana yaani kuanzia 1m na kuendelea,hapana anachoringia yeye ni hiyo software anayotumia kuedit hizo video anazopiga ndio maana zinaonekana bora kuliko nyingine ndio maana zinapigwa hadi channel O,nadhani hapo umenielewa nini nazungumzia.
Click to expand...

hiyo software ni ipi?
 
Osaba said:
Najua ninachokijibu na kukieleza wewe unafikiri Adam Juma wa visual lab kwa nini huwa anaringa sana katika kupiga picha za video za bongo flava wewe unafikiri anatumia kamera kali sana na ya gharama sana kushinda watu wengine ndio maana video zake zinakuwa gharama sana yaani kuanzia 1m na kuendelea,hapana anachoringia yeye ni hiyo software anayotumia kuedit hizo video anazopiga ndio maana zinaonekana bora kuliko nyingine ndio maana zinapigwa hadi channel O,nadhani hapo umenielewa nini nazungumzia.
Click to expand...

hiyo software ni ipi?nadhani ni vema ukatuambia mkuu....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Discussions

3 Reactions
Reply
Back
Top Bottom