Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
More from AOL Travel:
Airline tickets,
Hotel reservations,
Car rental,
Vacation packages,
Discount cruises,
Last-Minute Deals
Travel Guides:
Las Vegas,
New York City,
Los Angeles,
Boston,
Chicago,
Washington, DC,
London,
Rome,
Paris,
Tokyo,
Minneapolis,
Phoenix,
Austin,
Charlotte,
San Diego,
Mexico City,
Copenhagen,
Sydney,
Bangkok,
Bogota,
Toronto,
Costa Rica,
Bermuda,
Puerto Rico
All contents copyright © 2003-2009, Weblogs, Inc. All rights reserved
Gadling is a member of the Weblogs, Inc. Network. Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, Notify AOL
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-06-2008 @ 6:41PM
Secret Asian Man said...
I don't know why you're so excited about this. Companies love to boast unbelievable specs at unbelievable prices. But odds are, what you get is an unbelievably colossal waste of cash.
Recording a 720p at 60 FPS is pointless if the lens and sensor are terrible giving you grainy pictures and piss-poor color accuracy. And what about the compression codec it's using? You really think a cheap sub $200 recorder can write full uncompressed HD footage fast enough? No, it has to compress it.
For $200 you can get a decent pocket camera with video recording capability. You'll get two units in one.
I'm sure the Kodak recorder can take pictures but odds are, like all video recorders, it's < 1 megapixel sensor won't deliver anything half as good as a camera half it's price, let alone a decent $200 camera.
If you want a good camcorder that's not a waste of cash, right now you gotta cough up bat least another $100-$150. It won't be HD but you'll be able to recognize what you're recording in less than ideal lighting conditions as well as zoom in optically at up to 40x.
Reply