You can use Movie Maker to convert them to .wmv so they are not as huge.
2006-12-29 16:25:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dovahkiin 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Do the math:
640x480=307,200 (1 frame - uncompressed)
times 15 fps (frames per second) = 4,608,000
times 180 seconds (3 minutes) = 829,440,000.
That's 830MB! Compression in the camera chops that to 170MB. That's a 5 to 1 ratio, pretty heavy compression.
Movies are still pictures strung together, 15 per second is the minimum rate to keep it from being jerky. By comparison, the per second rate of TV is 60 fps. Movies in the theater - 24 fps.
Other compression techniques will squeeze it down some but you sacrifice sharpness in the objects in the frame that are in motion.
A DVD holds about 4,700MB, do the math and you get 600,000 bytes per second. That seems to be about twice the compression ratio of your camera. Pretty good. Maybe the thing to do would be to carry a DVD recorder around to hook up to your camera. Bingo! That's what the new digital camcorders do!
2006-12-30 00:54:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ed F 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
The movie files on the A630 are quite large. Only 8 minutes of 'video' uses up 1GB (that's using the highest quality available, which is best).
The easiest way to make them smaller is to use MovieMaker, which is built into Win XP. It will compress them to a smaller size.
2006-12-30 10:06:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Petra_au 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because they are using uncompressed avi format. movie in camera comes in different frames per second, some of them come in 15 to 30 frames per second, plus the audio will generate a huge files. Resolution will play apart, 640x480 (highest in digital camera) will also cost you a lot of space, except you want to reduce the resolution of your movie to 320x240 (very low though). If you want to save space, go for camera with MPEG 4 format recording capability. (you can search the meaning of this format itself by searching it in google). Anyway nowaday Flash Memory is cheap, you can get an ordinary 2Gb kingston SD card for +/-45 Sin$.
2006-12-30 00:31:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by BigOne 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
becuase of the quality of the camera
2006-12-30 00:30:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by tyler 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
probably the mega pixels
2006-12-30 00:25:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Big C 6
·
0⤊
1⤋