New 720p Pocket cam $169. Aiptex A-HD

Alan Galbraith · October 25th, 2007, 04:44 PM

Just got one for $110 from Best Buy. My intent is to use it as a high action POV camera on cars and bikes. From what I've seen so far from the footage is that there is indeed some blockiness to the footage, but for $100 its basically a disposable camera. When you consider the next camera on my list was the Sanyo HD1000 (at ~$800). The Sanyo may give better footage, but I wouldnt have to risk the $ the way I will risk the A-HD. Plus, I will just throw the A-HD in my car and leave it there. Always having a camera around might be nice.

Steve Nunez · October 25th, 2007, 04:55 PM

How did you get it for $110- they're $149.99 here in NYC local Best Buy(s)???

Alan Galbraith · October 25th, 2007, 06:11 PM

A had to flash my eyelashes at the sales boy and tell him what a big handsom hunk he was... no wait.... :D

I dunno. Thats just what they sold it to me for.

actually, looking at the receipt it was $119.

Duane Steiner · October 25th, 2007, 08:18 PM

They are on sale at Best Buy right now for $119. I just picked one up as well as a 4GB Kensington SD card for $40. Going to try it out for a week and see how it does. Any requests for footage?

Alan Galbraith · October 26th, 2007, 11:15 AM

after using mine a little....

it is best suited as a 2nd or 3rd POV cam. The fotoage isnt baaaaaaad... but it aint great. You do see some blockiness with high action. A rock solid mount is needed, with any camera shake the compression blockiness becomes distracting.

I used it with a suction cup mount in my pickup and went for a drive. Pointed out the front window at freeway speed the picture of the passing scenery and cars going by was acceptable. Was it as good as my HVX200? No way. There was some compression blockiness, however if you watched the areas where the eye was going to be following... the action, the cars going by and the road. It looked fine.

I say 2nd or 3rd POV cam. I'm going to use it for mostly motorsport related shoots. One GOOD camera to give the main in car shot, then the A-HD perhaps as the "gear shift" camera, or mounted on the floorboards looking back up at the driver, or mounted down low on a motorcycle pointed at the front tire so you can see the suspension working, or under a 4x4 as you go over rough terrain.... that sort of thing.

at ~$120 its not a HUGE loss if one bites the dust. The footage is passable, just. I wouldnt use it as an "A" camera, but it can be cut in with others. Viewers are used to seeing lower quality footage from different vantage points.

The footage was well saturated, but a little soft looking. The dynamic range wasnt the best. A little better than an old VHS camcorder.

the bad....

the mic sucks monkey butt. If you want any usable audio from the area this camera is in you will need some other form of audio capture.

No manual controls.

again... remember its a ~$120 camera.

The footage looked decent played back on my 60" Sony rear projection HD set, as it did on my Magnazox 19" LCD. It held up pretty well.

all in all its a toy, but its a useful toy.

Alan Galbraith · October 26th, 2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duane Steiner

They are on sale at Best Buy right now for $119. I just picked one up as well as a 4GB Kensington SD card for $40. Going to try it out for a week and see how it does. Any requests for footage?

Yo Duane, Alan from the F-Chat podcasts here!!! Howdy !!!

I'll get some F-Car footage with this camera on Sunday. Will report back.

Duane Steiner · October 28th, 2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Galbraith

Yo Duane, Alan from the F-Chat podcasts here!!! Howdy !!!

I'll get some F-Car footage with this camera on Sunday. Will report back.

Hi Alan. Looking forward to seeing the footage. Is there a new F-Chat podcast in the works?

I did a quick test with it in my car (mounted to a headrest mount). It was not that bad. Actually better then my Canon HV20 on the same mount. And I think for uploading to YouTube the lower quality of YouTube works in it's favor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exIsy8nrV74

Some videos clips from a car show today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypJF5m9pC-Y

Joshua Frye · October 31st, 2007, 06:30 AM

Does anyone know if it is possible to transcode movies from regular HDV 720p to the H264 4 Mbit codec this device uses? I have access to MPEG Streamclip, and this little camera might be useful as a low quality playback device for HD clips.

Also, I picked the camera up to try out, and I'm impressed with the image it can make in static shot situations. I plan to velcro it to basketball goals to get "slam dunk" POV shots.

Michael Maier · November 3rd, 2007, 06:35 PM

Well, with the blockness and all the short comings, would you guys say it is at least better than a DV camera in the same price range like a Canon ZR series?
How's low light and dynamic range? How long can you record?
Thanks.

Ken Hodson · November 3rd, 2007, 09:23 PM

Well for a start the image blockage is greatly reduced, if not erased with static shots. Read tri-pod.
If you want to run around like an amature a frame based codec cam will do much, much better.
Image detail is definately higher then low cost SD cams, and has decent latitude.
Low light is suprisingly good. Very little video noise, and colour is quite natural. As far as recording, it is limited by memory card or power. If you use wall power you are only limited by the SD card memory. For example an 8GB SDHC card (about $70) gives you 4.5hrs 720p30 or 10hrs 480p30. If you run of the battery you get 90min record with LCD active. Good new is replacement batteries are about $10. Nice!
Try viewing a few clips for most of your answers.

Michael Maier · November 4th, 2007, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

Well for a start the image blockage is greatly reduced, if not erased with static shots. Read tri-pod.
If you want to run around like an amature a frame based codec cam will do much, much better.
Image detail is definately higher then low cost SD cams, and has decent latitude.
Low light is suprisingly good. Very little video noise, and colour is quite natural. As far as recording, it is limited by memory card or power. If you use wall power you are only limited by the SD card memory. For example an 8GB SDHC card (about $70) gives you 4.5hrs 720p30 or 10hrs 480p30. If you run of the battery you get 90min record with LCD active. Good new is replacement batteries are about $10. Nice!
Try viewing a few clips for most of your answers.

I saw the clips but it's hard to tell from an internet clip.
So, from all that you have said, should I take it as:
Latitude, low light perfomance, image detail and color, are all better than a DV camera? I'm specially worried about latitude and low light.

Michael Maier · November 4th, 2007, 04:40 AM

By the way, what is the Aiptex A-HD-200? The PAL version?

Ken Hodson · November 5th, 2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

I saw the clips but it's hard to tell from an internet clip.
So, from all that you have said, should I take it as:
Latitude, low light performance, image detail and color, are all better than a DV camera? I'm specially worried about latitude and low light.

It depends what DV camera right? As you can imagine there is quite a difference between the low end $200 and the high end $10,000. Personally I find the low light and latitude adequate especially for the price. But it isn't exceptional.
Try to get native format clips (I believe there were some at the beginning of the thread) not recompressed web clips.

Ho-Jong Wong · November 5th, 2007, 08:07 PM

Has anybody tried using these for a helmet cam? Particularly for mountain biking? Seems like a cam with less moving parts than one using a tape transport would be ideal.

Ken Hodson · November 12th, 2007, 08:26 PM

It depends on what level of quality you expect.
The lack of image stabilization and a very low bitrate with the Mp4 codec from what has to be a less then stellar encoder, can provide very poor quality when the image is bounced/panned around.
That said I have seen some very nice in-car speed footage, at it looked quite nice. But an in car mount will be many times more stable then a bike. The cost is so low I would say give it a go. Chances are that most shots will turn out well, depending how it is mounted.

October 25th, 2007, 04:55 PM	#47
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	How did you get it for $110- they're $149.99 here in NYC local Best Buy(s)??? __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

October 25th, 2007, 08:18 PM	#49
Duane Steiner Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: CA Posts: 195	They are on sale at Best Buy right now for $119. I just picked one up as well as a 4GB Kensington SD card for $40. Going to try it out for a week and see how it does. Any requests for footage? __________________ www.speedandmotion.com

November 3rd, 2007, 09:23 PM	#55
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Well for a start the image blockage is greatly reduced, if not erased with static shots. Read tri-pod. If you want to run around like an amature a frame based codec cam will do much, much better. Image detail is definately higher then low cost SD cams, and has decent latitude. Low light is suprisingly good. Very little video noise, and colour is quite natural. As far as recording, it is limited by memory card or power. If you use wall power you are only limited by the SD card memory. For example an 8GB SDHC card (about $70) gives you 4.5hrs 720p30 or 10hrs 480p30. If you run of the battery you get 90min record with LCD active. Good new is replacement batteries are about $10. Nice! Try viewing a few clips for most of your answers. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

November 12th, 2007, 08:26 PM	#60
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	It depends on what level of quality you expect. The lack of image stabilization and a very low bitrate with the Mp4 codec from what has to be a less then stellar encoder, can provide very poor quality when the image is bounced/panned around. That said I have seen some very nice in-car speed footage, at it looked quite nice. But an in car mount will be many times more stable then a bike. The cost is so low I would say give it a go. Chances are that most shots will turn out well, depending how it is mounted. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 25th, 2007, 04:44 PM	#46
Alan Galbraith Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 98	Just got one for $110 from Best Buy. My intent is to use it as a high action POV camera on cars and bikes. From what I've seen so far from the footage is that there is indeed some blockiness to the footage, but for $100 its basically a disposable camera. When you consider the next camera on my list was the Sanyo HD1000 (at ~$800). The Sanyo may give better footage, but I wouldnt have to risk the $ the way I will risk the A-HD. Plus, I will just throw the A-HD in my car and leave it there. Always having a camera around might be nice.

October 25th, 2007, 06:11 PM	#48
Alan Galbraith Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 98	A had to flash my eyelashes at the sales boy and tell him what a big handsom hunk he was... no wait.... :D I dunno. Thats just what they sold it to me for. actually, looking at the receipt it was $119.

October 26th, 2007, 11:15 AM	#50
Alan Galbraith Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 98	after using mine a little.... it is best suited as a 2nd or 3rd POV cam. The fotoage isnt baaaaaaad... but it aint great. You do see some blockiness with high action. A rock solid mount is needed, with any camera shake the compression blockiness becomes distracting. I used it with a suction cup mount in my pickup and went for a drive. Pointed out the front window at freeway speed the picture of the passing scenery and cars going by was acceptable. Was it as good as my HVX200? No way. There was some compression blockiness, however if you watched the areas where the eye was going to be following... the action, the cars going by and the road. It looked fine. I say 2nd or 3rd POV cam. I'm going to use it for mostly motorsport related shoots. One GOOD camera to give the main in car shot, then the A-HD perhaps as the "gear shift" camera, or mounted on the floorboards looking back up at the driver, or mounted down low on a motorcycle pointed at the front tire so you can see the suspension working, or under a 4x4 as you go over rough terrain.... that sort of thing. at ~$120 its not a HUGE loss if one bites the dust. The footage is passable, just. I wouldnt use it as an "A" camera, but it can be cut in with others. Viewers are used to seeing lower quality footage from different vantage points. The footage was well saturated, but a little soft looking. The dynamic range wasnt the best. A little better than an old VHS camcorder. the bad.... the mic sucks monkey butt. If you want any usable audio from the area this camera is in you will need some other form of audio capture. No manual controls. again... remember its a ~$120 camera. The footage looked decent played back on my 60" Sony rear projection HD set, as it did on my Magnazox 19" LCD. It held up pretty well. all in all its a toy, but its a useful toy.

October 31st, 2007, 06:30 AM	#53
Joshua Frye New Boot Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Johnson City Tenn. Posts: 15	Does anyone know if it is possible to transcode movies from regular HDV 720p to the H264 4 Mbit codec this device uses? I have access to MPEG Streamclip, and this little camera might be useful as a low quality playback device for HD clips. Also, I picked the camera up to try out, and I'm impressed with the image it can make in static shot situations. I plan to velcro it to basketball goals to get "slam dunk" POV shots.

November 3rd, 2007, 06:35 PM	#54
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Well, with the blockness and all the short comings, would you guys say it is at least better than a DV camera in the same price range like a Canon ZR series? How's low light and dynamic range? How long can you record? Thanks.

November 4th, 2007, 04:40 AM	#57
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	By the way, what is the Aiptex A-HD-200? The PAL version?

November 5th, 2007, 08:07 PM	#59
Ho-Jong Wong New Boot Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Cedar Rapids, IA Posts: 6	Has anybody tried using these for a helmet cam? Particularly for mountain biking? Seems like a cam with less moving parts than one using a tape transport would be ideal.