The video to me isn't nearly as bad as the sound on it, you get Tyler the friendly ghost but on you can still identify him. The audio is barely inteligible
I agree for $100, it's really not that bad. I woonder if someone could take this and get s little better quality video. I still do nnt think it's worth the work to gey better video since I think an old cellhone wold get better video.. As for night mode, $100 night camera might be a fun project. I still would not want it.
Indeed, A little post processing and it'd be fine.... that said, I was watching at 1080p, so maybe the four pixels to one reduction fixed the worst of it.
Most of these cheap Chinese cameras are just repurposed dash cams, believe it or not. Not actually awful for what it’s originally SUPPOSED to be, but terrible for a supposedly high quality video camera.
It’s absolutely crazy how much things have changed. I remember back in like 2005-08 that company came out with something called the Flip video camera. And I still remember going to target and looking at them being sold for 99$ and everyone loved it. But now even with inflation the technology has improved so much that 100$ for a camera is going to get you something like that. I know it’s not “great” but damn technology is nuts.
For $100 it wasn't too bad at all. I am impressed that you actually got the 4k and 60fps though. I've reviewed a few of these lower budget cameras and I have only seen one that gave a true 4k resolution. So yeah, you got you a nice 4k 60fps $100 camera. Your neighbors kids would love it.
The biggest complaint I have with the cheap camera is the weird artificial sharpening, motion blur, and exposure. The sound wouldn't matter to me because I could record the audio separately and sync in post . . . . If the video isn't in a weird format.
Resolution doesn’t mean sh*t. 1080p res can outperform 4k, 8k etc. It comes down to compression and internal image processing from real-time raw sensor data. Sensor quality and pixel size also pose a role. I used to do astrophotography with dedicated astro cams which allow truly raw unprocessed data to stream and record to a drive. 30 seconds of video on those was about 25 gigs. And that wasn’t even 4K. resolution emphasis is a marketing tactic.
I really don't think that the video quality is that bad at all. The audio is pretty awful, the video isn't amazing, but for $100 it's maybe 1/4 as good, human eye visually, as your $3500 setup. It begs the question as to what you might be able to get for $400, but at that kind of cash I would imagine the answer would be an iPhone or last gen android flagship. The writing on the box of nails is actually slightly clearer on the cheap camera as you go further back btw
@@AtomSquirrelYou can get a lot for $100, but I’m not ignorant to the fact the lighting setup is a factor in why this cheap camera looks better than it should. I’m pretty sure even if I tried my hardest I would manage to make his $3500 camera produce an image akin to a $25 camera. There are more skills at work than the cameras alone
Quite the connoisseur of videography, bit rates and such. Adjusting the levels in post could simulate a richer colour range. I'm guessing the camera technology inside it is from phones from a few years ago. Or maybe CCTV. Is the actual lens tiny. A teardown would be interesting. If the sensor is around the size of a fingernail it could be adapted to use an array of c mount lenses. But it's likely smaller making the lens options less straightforward. 4k footage with a small file , size my 2010 laptop for editing likes the sound of that.
Any cheap camcorder from a real brand would be better than this trash. Could even get a second hand old second hand 1080p camcorder of decent quality that records to mini-dv tapes that would completely crush it in quality.
The thing on the front that "does nothing" is a lens hood, it blocks stray rays of light from going in from the sides and causing flare effects which reduce contrast.
I have a Canon XA45, which has night mode on with IR on it. I've used it for next to nothing. But it has a much better setup. The IR LED is right under the lens.
The biggest issue is not the bitrate. The main issue is that they slapped the same super cheap CCD sensors found in those cheap knockoff chinese smartphones. I also bet that the video is being interpolated to 4k and even if that is not the case the sensor is not able to capture those details anyways.
My main guess for the quality is a combination of sensor size, for that sweet dynamic range, as well as interpolated resolution which is more likely 720p or 1080p. It's the same with phone cameras these days where they promise, let's say 64MP but in the end the actual resolution it's from is somewhere at the ballpark of 16MP. The interpolated resolutions might do something in terms of sharpening as a filter but that's all you get.
That makes sense. If it were a lower resolution sensor that the camera upscaled to 4k, it would explain the weird sharpening and motion blur issues that I disliked.
I bought a similar one from amazon, I paid 300 well worth it because it actually works fine in all settings and even came with a remote, even had Wi-Fi if you got the app, I don't find the Wi-Fi useful tho because you can just take as card out and put it in a reader or pc.
People have got to stop seeing "4K" and thinking it means something special. 4K is just a resolution, 3840 × 2160. There is so much more that needs to go into a monitor/TV or camera to make it actually good. Likely the main reason that this camera looks so bad is because of the quality of the digital sensor used. I saw someone say that many of these types of cameras just use repurposed parts from cheap dashcams, which would make a lot of sense. This camera is just a typical "you get what you pay for" type product.
As they say, you get what you pay for. It's probably 1080p upscaled. I can't see much of a use for it, perhaps as a security camera? I'd much rather record in 2k at high quality and have a nice final product than junk 4k for the sake of it being 4k.
I'm slightly disappointed - usually the reviews of "Welcome" devices that I watch come with teardowns at the end. Granted, those are usually cellphones, but perhaps there is a way we can have a followup to this video with a rapid teardown of the camera via some sort of blunt instrument?
I think part of the issue is that the audio isn't synced perfectly to the video lmfao - there's a lag on the cheap one. So that makes it feel like it looks even worse than it really is - it feels like it's 20 times worse than your proper camera but it's really, in technical terms, only 10 times worse.
I see it the other way round: The picture is pale and not the sharp, but you could fix much of it when editing the video, i guess. But the sound is bad: Much background noise. Trying to fix that would muffle the sound, i think. Remember the Dolby switch on cassette decks? The good thing: even a 1,50$ lavalier mike would fix the audio issue! Take a video with the cheap cam and a lavalier mike, edit picture and mix the sound and show the results. I'm sure, the result would be pretty ok! But maybe Tyler isn't the (right) guy to do that?
off-course your more expensive camera is to be expected to have a better performance, but overall not too bad of a little camera. There is lot of noise in the sound of the microphone. Also most of my playback from my computer is on 720P maybe 1080P. So the whole 4K is not what i can see.
the video isn't that bad. you can still see things very clearly, it's just the color needs to be adjusted, maybe while editing it can be done to make things warmer. the mic however, is complete ass. it's like those 90s homemade camcorder type videos. you can still hear what's being said, but there's a ton of static. for its price, it might be a good beginner camera for someone starting out making youtube videos. albeit, they'd be better off just using the camera on their phone. but if they get this camera and use a different mic with decent quality, it wouldn't be a bad beginner's setup
From 4:27 to 4:47, you have to be blind, it read the same as the prior. Might not be as pretty, but it's fine. No offense, but do you even view the final edits on your vids? Some people don't, and I get it, but jeez you need to if so... and before anyone gets pissy, yes I watch all his vids and I know some are dumb for fun.
For $100 it's actually not to bad if you don't want the best quality during the day. I think it could be a cheap solution to a night camera. Plus the mic isn't all to bad. I've heard shitty mics most of my life lol an this one is acceptable.
Either I'm blind or for some reason I could almost read it better with the cheap camera like on the other one I could only read like the top part in the bottom part and with the cheap one I cut it sort of see what the white stuff in the middle said then again I am watching this on the phone and not on the TV so I don't know
The video to me isn't nearly as bad as the sound on it, you get Tyler the friendly ghost but on you can still identify him. The audio is barely inteligible
This is not even the cheapest 4k Camera on amazon..
I agree for $100, it's really not that bad. I woonder if someone could take this and get s little better quality video.
I still do nnt think it's worth the work to gey better video since I think an old cellhone wold get better video.. As for night mode, $100 night camera might be a fun project.
I still would not want it.
Indeed, A little post processing and it'd be fine.... that said, I was watching at 1080p, so maybe the four pixels to one reduction fixed the worst of it.
Yeah, other than the crappy sound I thought it looked OK
@@mortoopzthat's not how audio works..? audio is separate from resolution
Most of these cheap Chinese cameras are just repurposed dash cams, believe it or not. Not actually awful for what it’s originally SUPPOSED to be, but terrible for a supposedly high quality video camera.
That actually makes alot of sense
It’s absolutely crazy how much things have changed. I remember back in like 2005-08 that company came out with something called the Flip video camera. And I still remember going to target and looking at them being sold for 99$ and everyone loved it. But now even with inflation the technology has improved so much that 100$ for a camera is going to get you something like that. I know it’s not “great” but damn technology is nuts.
For $100 it wasn't too bad at all. I am impressed that you actually got the 4k and 60fps though. I've reviewed a few of these lower budget cameras and I have only seen one that gave a true 4k resolution. So yeah, you got you a nice 4k 60fps $100 camera. Your neighbors kids would love it.
it actually isnt 4k. its upscaled. meaning its prob 720p, just the file reports it as 4k.
The whole '4K' thing is one of the biggest scams in modern times.
Soon to be replaced by 16K
Man, I was hoping they would go for a 6.9k.
The biggest complaint I have with the cheap camera is the weird artificial sharpening, motion blur, and exposure. The sound wouldn't matter to me because I could record the audio separately and sync in post . . . . If the video isn't in a weird format.
love this unique style of video
As soon as he switched cameras, I felt like I was watching his proof of life video. Ransom demands inbound.
The night mode looks like a horror flick 💀
Resolution doesn’t mean sh*t. 1080p res can outperform 4k, 8k etc. It comes down to compression and internal image processing from real-time raw sensor data. Sensor quality and pixel size also pose a role. I used to do astrophotography with dedicated astro cams which allow truly raw unprocessed data to stream and record to a drive. 30 seconds of video on those was about 25 gigs. And that wasn’t even 4K. resolution emphasis is a marketing tactic.
I literally came on here to say that exactly
I really don't think that the video quality is that bad at all. The audio is pretty awful, the video isn't amazing, but for $100 it's maybe 1/4 as good, human eye visually, as your $3500 setup. It begs the question as to what you might be able to get for $400, but at that kind of cash I would imagine the answer would be an iPhone or last gen android flagship. The writing on the box of nails is actually slightly clearer on the cheap camera as you go further back btw
I agree with everything you wrote.
You could do better for $100
@@AtomSquirrelYou can get a lot for $100, but I’m not ignorant to the fact the lighting setup is a factor in why this cheap camera looks better than it should. I’m pretty sure even if I tried my hardest I would manage to make his $3500 camera produce an image akin to a $25 camera. There are more skills at work than the cameras alone
Quite the connoisseur of videography, bit rates and such. Adjusting the levels in post could simulate a richer colour range.
I'm guessing the camera technology inside it is from phones from a few years ago. Or maybe CCTV. Is the actual lens tiny.
A teardown would be interesting. If the sensor is around the size of a fingernail it could be adapted to use an array of c mount lenses. But it's likely smaller making the lens options less straightforward.
4k footage with a small file , size my 2010 laptop for editing likes the sound of that.
Loving this steady stream of content
Tbh not as bad as your saying it it
It's bait
@@jonathanyanez9434 Not everything is "bait" redditor
my webcam is better, and it was also $100.
im so glad you made this video lol..the band im in was about to buy 4 or 5 of those exact cams just because they're cheap
Any cheap camcorder from a real brand would be better than this trash. Could even get a second hand old second hand 1080p camcorder of decent quality that records to mini-dv tapes that would completely crush it in quality.
The date on the video is over 4 years old, so that shows its an old build (in my mind at least)
I don't if it's that old or Tyler just didn't bother to set the time on it.
Or maybe the video has been made in 2020 and just upload it. 😂
Perhaps it took 4 years to process and upload the video? 😆🤪😂
You can still read the box at 4:46... it clearly says "Poland Mercury Units"
Underrated comment
3:00 hum mainly extrapolation, not bitrate! if I had to guess, 360p raw signal but recorded as 4K footage
6:45 Tyler learns the five times table.
06:52 gives me little horror movie vibes 🤣😂
Record an entire video with the cheap camera 😂😂
Do you have the link of where you bought it? I think that camera is actually pretty good for a first "TH-camr camera" or "blogging camera"
I'm willing to bet its like a 720p or 1080p cheap sensor that the cheap camera is just interpolating to 4k bc theres no way thats actually 4k loll
Honestly the video isn't the worst. Color grade it a bit and it's not horrid. The audio is trash tho.
if i had to guess, it probably records on like 720p60fps then converts it to 4k60fps
The thing on the front that "does nothing" is a lens hood, it blocks stray rays of light from going in from the sides and causing flare effects which reduce contrast.
Damn Tyler really pushing out some videos before the years up!
One looks like it filmed the Blair Witch Project and the other looks like it films on the food network.
I have a Canon XA45, which has night mode on with IR on it. I've used it for next to nothing. But it has a much better setup. The IR LED is right under the lens.
The biggest issue is not the bitrate. The main issue is that they slapped the same super cheap CCD sensors found in those cheap knockoff chinese smartphones. I also bet that the video is being interpolated to 4k and even if that is not the case the sensor is not able to capture those details anyways.
not CCDs. but Cheap CMOS. CCDs are more expensive to make and havent been made much recently. would also be bigger.
Didn't know Tyler was in the blair witch project :P
“ThIs IsNt ThE cHeApEsT” it’s almost like prices change and fluctuate. Great vid my guy. Haters don’t have a life.
Um… yes, the camera that costs 35X more is 10X better. Not sure anyone is flabbergasted by that.
looks like it is a model 3-4 years ago.. i wonder if there are smatphones for 100 money that can 4k ?
My main guess for the quality is a combination of sensor size, for that sweet dynamic range, as well as interpolated resolution which is more likely 720p or 1080p. It's the same with phone cameras these days where they promise, let's say 64MP but in the end the actual resolution it's from is somewhere at the ballpark of 16MP. The interpolated resolutions might do something in terms of sharpening as a filter but that's all you get.
That makes sense. If it were a lower resolution sensor that the camera upscaled to 4k, it would explain the weird sharpening and motion blur issues that I disliked.
What kind of camera are you using as your main camera?
Yea that camera honestly wasn’t even bad, i bet you could make a whole main channel video using it and no one would know 😂😂
Or maybe don't waste 100 and use that new tech called a phone 🤳😲
Maybe this is what Tyler looks and sounds like and his camera he uses everyday is junk
true
I bought a similar one from amazon, I paid 300 well worth it because it actually works fine in all settings and even came with a remote, even had Wi-Fi if you got the app, I don't find the Wi-Fi useful tho because you can just take as card out and put it in a reader or pc.
People have got to stop seeing "4K" and thinking it means something special. 4K is just a resolution, 3840 × 2160. There is so much more that needs to go into a monitor/TV or camera to make it actually good. Likely the main reason that this camera looks so bad is because of the quality of the digital sensor used. I saw someone say that many of these types of cameras just use repurposed parts from cheap dashcams, which would make a lot of sense. This camera is just a typical "you get what you pay for" type product.
As they say, you get what you pay for. It's probably 1080p upscaled.
I can't see much of a use for it, perhaps as a security camera? I'd much rather record in 2k at high quality and have a nice final product than junk 4k for the sake of it being 4k.
$100 special looks like 720p upscaled.
Love to see this camera with some external “IR lights” may be worth it just for the night vision
I can read the box on both cameras. It would be great to shoot night mode for a horror movie.
Ok so the night mode is perfect for those horror flicks where the camera dude following people around etc. lol
I'm slightly disappointed - usually the reviews of "Welcome" devices that I watch come with teardowns at the end. Granted, those are usually cellphones, but perhaps there is a way we can have a followup to this video with a rapid teardown of the camera via some sort of blunt instrument?
Lol, I would say the audio is far worse than the video! That hissing sound drives me crazy, and you sounded like you were in a trash can.
Will buy this just so I can make my own paranormal activity fan made movie o/
What is your setup to get your quality Tyler?
100 bucks is not bad and its seems to give more light then most cameras in its price range.
That “more light” is overexposure
I actually think that the video quality is not that bad. The audio isn't great but that could maybe be fixed with an external microphone.
The cheap camera turns tyler into a FLASHBANG 😂
I think part of the issue is that the audio isn't synced perfectly to the video lmfao - there's a lag on the cheap one. So that makes it feel like it looks even worse than it really is - it feels like it's 20 times worse than your proper camera but it's really, in technical terms, only 10 times worse.
Tyler, my man, Love Love Love the new shirt. In the words of the great Billy Crystal: You Look Marvelous!
What camera do you use?
Actually, the view of the Box-o'-Nails on the back wall was pretty much a tossup.
Could I give us a brief on what u currently use
That is just Jeff, helping alibaba resell china "#¤"# lol
This is definitely a for your needs case. Random stuff it’ll be fine, specific or continuous uses probably should spend more on a better one
I mean I run the video through Adobe premiere or after effects,.I could get the cheap one to look like the expensive one ..
I see it the other way round: The picture is pale and not the sharp, but you could fix much of it when editing the video, i guess. But the sound is bad: Much background noise. Trying to fix that would muffle the sound, i think. Remember the Dolby switch on cassette decks? The good thing: even a 1,50$ lavalier mike would fix the audio issue!
Take a video with the cheap cam and a lavalier mike, edit picture and mix the sound and show the results. I'm sure, the result would be pretty ok! But maybe Tyler isn't the (right) guy to do that?
It's pretty legit with the handle though, studio quality.
With the comparison using the box of nails... the cheap camera looks like 90's TV< on a good day at best
To me the video quality isn't bad but I would get a better mic.
Love the videos
I love that the date on the camera file is my 25th birthday
Hi Tyler too I love your channel
I'm glad you stopped at 20 feet, was worried there was a cliff there.
He shoulda kept going
6:20 the camera they used to spot big foot
I kinda feel like the new camera is way better not as dark and I can hear him better
DO Dash cams PLEASE!
off-course your more expensive camera is to be expected to have a better performance, but overall not too bad of a little camera. There is lot of noise in the sound of the microphone. Also most of my playback from my computer is on 720P maybe 1080P. So the whole 4K is not what i can see.
the video isn't that bad. you can still see things very clearly, it's just the color needs to be adjusted, maybe while editing it can be done to make things warmer.
the mic however, is complete ass. it's like those 90s homemade camcorder type videos. you can still hear what's being said, but there's a ton of static.
for its price, it might be a good beginner camera for someone starting out making youtube videos. albeit, they'd be better off just using the camera on their phone. but if they get this camera and use a different mic with decent quality, it wouldn't be a bad beginner's setup
Lol, I always tell people just go and buy a DJI Pocket camera you'll be set!
Looks like 360p 😂
Can't believe your camera cost more then $3,000 when that $100 camera is not as far from your $3,000 as you would expect with that price difference.
External IR would probably make it better for night videos.
The night mode looks the the camera in phasmaphobia.
Had to help test gear like this not long ago for some older people who wanted to start a podcast. It was horrid
Just imagine how much that would have cost in 2000!
this is the camera they use on finding bigfoot.
Yes record an entire video with the cheat cam!
Can we get a video of the current camera and see what a $3500 set up looks like
Night mode would be great for any spööktuber
Wait you're saying that your camera automatically zooms and focuses on the box? I seriously figured you had someone behind the camera. 😮
Ngl I prefer the brightness of the cheap camera. For sure not 35x worse than your normal camera
you can change the exposure on the real camera. you prob cant on the Chinese special.
7:12 thats nightmare mode
So what about using that with an external mic. Cause the video wasn't horrible. Just washed out
It looks like an early 2000s camcorder quality.
LOL That is exactly the camera I have ! It is ok but 4k is not real on this thing . My best videos using it look like mid 1990's tv .
Really not bad for 100$
Tyler is a white walker. RUN
From 4:27 to 4:47, you have to be blind, it read the same as the prior. Might not be as pretty, but it's fine. No offense, but do you even view the final edits on your vids? Some people don't, and I get it, but jeez you need to if so... and before anyone gets pissy, yes I watch all his vids and I know some are dumb for fun.
I honestly thought the audio quality was worse than the video quality..
Watching this at 480p, your $3,500 setup doesn’t matter 😂
For $100 it's actually not to bad if you don't want the best quality during the day. I think it could be a cheap solution to a night camera. Plus the mic isn't all to bad. I've heard shitty mics most of my life lol an this one is acceptable.
The tubi movie camera. Don't get me wrong i love when tubi gets the classics or newer movies but... some of these tubi movies lol.
Either I'm blind or for some reason I could almost read it better with the cheap camera like on the other one I could only read like the top part in the bottom part and with the cheap one I cut it sort of see what the white stuff in the middle said then again I am watching this on the phone and not on the TV so I don't know
what a troll. that’s not what bit rate means and that’s not the reason why similar resolution capture devices may not have the same quality.
The box of nails looked the same to me