SD700 IS movie mode vs camcorder ?

Here is the S3-IS sample movie.

Simply Stunning!

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s3-review/MVI_0093.AVI

OK, you confused me here:-

mpgxsvcd said:

DCresource.com lists the S2-IS movie bit-rate at 1980kbps (for > 640x480@30fps) which is a far cry from the 16mbps you quote.

Click to expand...

I guess you meant '1980kBps' (kBytes/sec) not '1980kbps' (kbits/sec). So we agree the Canon is at approx 16Megabits/sec.

So what was meant by 'which is a far cry from...' ? To me that means "a big difference", but if fact everyone is agreeing with everyone else! Eh?
-------
Clive

Perhaps the DCresource.com (see link below) is wrong then. As I stated correctly previously, the review's "Movie Mode" section lists the S2-IS movie bit-rate at "1980 kb/sec". That kilobits rather than KiloBytes.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s2-review/

If the data reported is in error, you'd want to take that up with Jeff Keller.

mpgxsvcd said:

I think you are mistaken although that camera is so old I can't
even get the specs off of Canon's website. I am almost positive it
does not shoot progressive video to the MiniDV tape. It probably
shoots crappy 320x240 progressive to a memory card though.

Click to expand...

No it certainly does do progressive to the tape. It is one of the shooting modes. It is called P. Scan on the mode dial. I have the camcorder sitting right here next to me. I wish they did not take this wonderful feature away.

I looked up the 20mc and I must admit I was not aware of this camera before. It does look like it is recording progressive video to miniDV. Is there anyway you could post a sample video as it comes out of the camera? Even a few seconds would be enough. Just use something like yousendit.com. How does the 20MC do? Its sensor is very small so I wouldn't expect it to be as good as the S3-IS. I am interested though. Is it similar to the Sanyo HD1 quality at 640x480?

Mark said:

My Canon Elura 20mc MiniDV camcorder from 2002 has a full
progressive scan CCD and I can choose if I want to shoot interlaced
or progressive. Many high end MiniDV camcorders also shoot in
progressive. Sad to say but I don't know of any consumer camcorders
any longer that offer progressive. I guess it was too expensive to
do for the handful of customers who understand what it does.

After all of that I still usually shoot in interlaced since it
looks smoother on a standard TV.

Mark

Click to expand...

In general video camera sensors are smaller that still cameras but they have fewer pixels and are optimized for video. So they perform better in low light. Just don't ask for really good stills. That is what my 20D and SD300 are for. I will shoot a small video in the morning and I can put it up on my website. But remember MiniDV has a data rate of 3.5MB/sec. so I will have to scale it down to a WMV file unless you want to DL something really big.

Mark

I think the value the report is claiming is 1980 kiloBytes/sec, not kilobits. This should have been written as '1980 KBps'. This is indeed 1980x8=15840 kilobits/sec = approx 16Mbps (16 megabits/sec).
-------
Clive

This might not be what you want to hear, but listen listen listen...

I have a 3 year old and a 9 month old. Take a lot of pics and video. GET A NICE, SMALL SONY VIDEO CAM. Your baby will change everyday, and it's wonderful to have a little footage every day or so. You can then review and import what you want into your computer.

The issue about "low light" is BIG. You will be in bad light (for a camera anyway) all the time. And the video cam is much easier to hold steady.

You'll go mad having to constantly import your footage because the video runs out of space quick. Example to consider:

Let's say you're taping a family event with the kids and filming 4-5 minutes of random stuff. You realize the first minute was good, but the last 3 was not needed. With my video camera I rewind for 10 seconds and start again. With my camera, that file is there to delete or keep, and the space is taken.

IMHO - for all the years you have in front of you, you'll be very glad you got the cam. (quick advice - get a Sony) I have a $400 and $3000 version and love them both.

Just imagine filming your kid opening Xmas presents. That's a lot of SD cards!

Hope this helps

Here's my take. Whenever I visit family I used to carry my SD200.

(aside: Used to...until a TSA employee stole it from our baggage). I've caught lots of those unexpected memorable moments of my brother's kids because it was handy. Let's face it - you're more likely to have a pocketable camera than a minidv camcorder.

My recommendation is buy both it you can afford it. Keep the camera handy more frequently, bring out the camcorder for the token events: birthdays, christmas and other home video moments.

socal5 said:

GET A NICE, SMALL SONY VIDEO CAM...(quick advice - get a Sony)

Click to expand...

While the Sony HC96 is indeed a very good consumer-grade camera (with an RGB primary color filter) the lesser HC26/36/46 (CMY complementary color filter) all have disastrous image quality in anything less the brightest light. It's therefore poor advice to recommend just any Sony camcorder. Just as in previous years - there are good ones and bad ones. This year, the Canon Elura 100 is a top choice in low-end consumer camcorders.

I got all the bandwidth in the world. Can you post the original file? Even a 300 meg file is fine. Use yousendit.com. I would really like to see what the original progressive footage looks like.

Mark said:

In general video camera sensors are smaller that still cameras but
they have fewer pixels and are optimized for video. So they perform
better in low light. Just don't ask for really good stills. That is
what my 20D and SD300 are for. I will shoot a small video in the
morning and I can put it up on my website. But remember MiniDV has
a data rate of 3.5MB/sec. so I will have to scale it down to a WMV
file unless you want to DL something really big.

Mark

Click to expand...

Well I just got a 4 Gig SD card for my soon to be S3-IS. That will take aproximately 30 minutes of video. I can easily delete any file with 2 button cliks on the camera and I can edit any of the videos on the camera also. Use your hard drive to store videos. A 300 gig hard drive holds alot even at the highest quality.

socal5 said:

This might not be what you want to hear, but listen listen listen...

I have a 3 year old and a 9 month old. Take a lot of pics and
video. GET A NICE, SMALL SONY VIDEO CAM. Your baby will change
everyday, and it's wonderful to have a little footage every day or
so. You can then review and import what you want into your
computer.

The issue about "low light" is BIG. You will be in bad light (for
a camera anyway) all the time. And the video cam is much easier to
hold steady.

You'll go mad having to constantly import your footage because the
video runs out of space quick. Example to consider:

Let's say you're taping a family event with the kids and filming
4-5 minutes of random stuff. You realize the first minute was
good, but the last 3 was not needed. With my video camera I rewind
for 10 seconds and start again. With my camera, that file is there
to delete or keep, and the space is taken.

IMHO - for all the years you have in front of you, you'll be very
glad you got the cam. (quick advice - get a Sony) I have a $400
and $3000 version and love them both.

Just imagine filming your kid opening Xmas presents. That's a lot
of SD cards!

Hope this helps

Click to expand...

mpgxsvcd said:

Well I just got a 4 Gig SD card for my soon to be S3-IS. That will
take aproximately 30 minutes of video. I can easily delete any file
with 2 button cliks on the camera and I can edit any of the videos
on the camera also. Use your hard drive to store videos. A 300 gig
hard drive holds alot even at the highest quality.

Click to expand...

30 minutes might be fine for many situations, but believe me it goes quick. That's considering you have nothing on the card to start. I think there is a 1 gig limit per file too.And although a 300 gig HD is big, that space goes quick too (I have 5 external drives).

And what happens when a HD goes bad? I've had 3 of the 8-10 HD's I've had over the last 5 years go bad. So you'll either have to back up your files like crazy (a ton of DVD's) or risk your kids 1st birthday party going corrupt.

And as I said, the low light capability of cams vs video cams is big.

I'm not knocking your camera, or saying it's not the right choice for you. I'm using the video on my SD550 sometimes when I have only that and it works just fine. BUT, for a person about to have a new kid, I would strongly recommend getting both.

Maxwell Smart said:

socal5 said:

GET A NICE, SMALL SONY VIDEO CAM...(quick advice - get a Sony)

Click to expand...

While the Sony HC96 is indeed a very good consumer-grade camera
(with an RGB primary color filter) the lesser HC26/36/46 (CMY
complementary color filter) all have disastrous image quality in
anything less the brightest light. It's therefore poor advice to
recommend just any Sony camcorder. Just as in previous years -
there are good ones and bad ones. This year, the Canon Elura 100
is a top choice in low-end consumer camcorders.

Click to expand...

Not poor advice at all. I've done a fair amount of research and I think he'll be happy with my recommendation (it was general - he can ask or do his own further research). I've use the VX2000 and BETASP at work, but have a small Sony at home for vacations. Although I haven't looked at the newest crop of cams (including the Canon's), the most recent Canon's were terrible low light performers - terrible! The Sony's aren't great at it, but nothing is below $1000. Here is an early review for the Canon you recommend:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Elura-100-First-Impressions-Camcorder-Review.htm

QUOTE: One of the frustrations with the low-end Eluras has been that their low light performance leaves something to be desired. In dim lighting conditions the Elura 80 produced fairly bright images with good color representation. Unfortunately, the image was plagued by a significant amount of noise. The new Elura 100, which has an inferior imager to its predecessors, will most likely share the similar problems in low light. The camcorder’s Mega Video Light (2 LED lights on the front of the camcorder) will offer some help in undesirable lighting conditions, but how much remains yet to be seen.

Conclusion

The Elura 100 is the sole survivor of the Elura series. It has placed more emphasis on convenience and ease of use, and regressed in imager specs. Canon’s gamble is that the chic design, user-friendly joystick navigation system, and shiny new coating will appeal to you more than the need for great performance.

But this model’s navigation system is only easy in comparison’s to last year’s cumbersome design. Trimming the imager size and lowering the still resolution will most likely produce images that are not up to par with images from last year’s camcorders. Even though this model’s imager specs are not comparable to last year, the camcorder admittedly provides a bigger imager than its competitors. Both Panasonic and Sony’s entry level camcorders offer the standard 1/6-inch CCD with 680K gross pixels, while Canon has a 1/5” CCD with 1.3 gross MP. Budget-minded consumers will gravitate towards this camcorder. While the $399 price tag is the strongest selling point in this rapidly dwindling series, one must ask whether it is wise to invest in a camcorder that the manufacturer seems so ready to turn its back on.

Here's a link to the FULL review from 3/31/06. The preview you linked from the CES show (dated 1/7/06) was full of guesses and assumptions:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Elura-100-Camcorder-Review.htm

QUOTE: "The Elura 100 has an excellent picture for a $400 camcorder....At 15 lux, the Canon Elura 100 is surprisingly similar to the camcorder’s performance at 60 lux....The Sony HC26 was darker, and also lost most of the color information in favor of something approaching grayscale."

Personally, I have a hard time recommending any entry-level camcorder model. For only $420, the Optura 50 has a vastly better feature-set than anything else near that price. Still, the Elura 100 easily outperforms the Sony HC26/36/46. Consumer feedback posted on the forums at Camcorderinfo.com support that statement.

Sony's consumer-range camcorders have their detractors. The proprietary memory card format (Sony Memory Stick), requirement for proprietary batteries (Sony InfoLithium only), proprietary accessory shoe (Sony accessories only), and reliance on docking stations and LCD touchscreens combine to put off many potential buyers. Despite those disadvantages, the HC96 is still often recommended because it's images are very good, especially in low light. Unfortunately, the HC26/36/46 models don't share that advantage and the advice to buy just any Sony camcorder is thus highly suspect.

The ability to maintain a permanent copy of 13GB worth of video on a single $4 MiniDV tape is certainly a major plus.

On the other hand, if a new parent is unable or unwilling to take on the task of real-time firewire capture and time-consuming editing and publishing, the convenience of getting quick video clips on a SD card might be a better solution. Mini-DVD camcorders provide an alternative but then you're into low (9mbps) bit-rates and harder to edit MPEG2 encoding.

I'm willing to bet that a LOT of first-time camcorder buyers are less fulfilled in their ownership experience than they envisioned on purchase day. Compare that with the ownership experience of first-time digital camera buyers - I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't very pleased and rewarded by having made the jump into digital cameras.

IMHO, it's a mixed bag and which camp you fall into depends on how much money, time and technical expertise one has available.

Sorry didn't get a chance today. I will try to shoot something and post it tomorrow.

Mark

I've used several digital cameras and camcorders for movies/video. I can tell you that my Fuji F10 (which has very high ISO) was able to take brighter and sharper videos in dim lighting than both my camcorders (including a 3 chip camcorder). The newest Panasonic camcorders use pixel-binning which adds the brightness of all the pixels. The sensor on many digital cameras are actually much larger than those on most consumer camcorders, however some take advantage of that and some don’t (the S80 has terrible 640x480 video, for example). I'm not sure how the SD700 does, but I know the Fuji (F10/F11/F30) and Panasonic TZ1 and FX01 do great in low light with very good video. The TZ1 lets you zoom in video and is stabilized like the S1/S2/S3. However, the audio on anything but the S1/S2/S3 is pretty bad. That is one area that needs a lot of improvement (in my case the Fuji audio was acceptable, better than most, but not even close to the S2IS).

Also, I have a media center PC attached to my home TV. I quickly upload the digital camera movies to it and can watch them instantly (minutes from getting home). I actually find us watching them MUCH more because 1) they are instantly accessible via remote control 2) they are organized by thumbnail on the TV (hundreds of clips) and 3) they tend to be much shorter because you are aware of the time constraints when recording to digital memory (15 minutes in my case). I think of them as video snapshots. I find that it forces me to be more selective of what I video, and thus I don't have to edit footage afterwards. You also tend to watch short footage more than long boring videos. I still have hours and hours of older miniDV footage I've never uploaded to the computer. It’s too time consuming to upload and edit after the fact (and difficult for me to decide what to chop).

-vissa

Correction - the newest Panasonic Digital Cameras (NOT CAMCORDERS) use pixel-binning to vastly improve light sensitivity of their videos.

-vissa

vissa said:

I've used several digital cameras and camcorders for movies/video.
I can tell you that my Fuji F10 (which has very high ISO) was able
to take brighter and sharper videos in dim lighting than both my
camcorders (including a 3 chip camcorder). The newest Panasonic
camcorders use pixel-binning which adds the brightness of all the
pixels. The sensor on many digital cameras are actually much
larger than those on most consumer camcorders, however some take
advantage of that and some don’t (the S80 has terrible 640x480
video, for example). I'm not sure how the SD700 does, but I know
the Fuji (F10/F11/F30) and Panasonic TZ1 and FX01 do great in low
light with very good video. The TZ1 lets you zoom in video and is
stabilized like the S1/S2/S3. However, the audio on anything but
the S1/S2/S3 is pretty bad. That is one area that needs a lot of
improvement (in my case the Fuji audio was acceptable, better than
most, but not even close to the S2IS).

Also, I have a media center PC attached to my home TV. I quickly
upload the digital camera movies to it and can watch them instantly
(minutes from getting home). I actually find us watching them MUCH
more because 1) they are instantly accessible via remote control 2)
they are organized by thumbnail on the TV (hundreds of clips) and
3) they tend to be much shorter because you are aware of the time
constraints when recording to digital memory (15 minutes in my
case). I think of them as video snapshots. I find that it forces
me to be more selective of what I video, and thus I don't have to
edit footage afterwards. You also tend to watch short footage more
than long boring videos. I still have hours and hours of older
miniDV footage I've never uploaded to the computer. It’s too time
consuming to upload and edit after the fact (and difficult for me
to decide what to chop).

-vissa

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for all the posts !!!! I believe a lot of people now are asking the same questions, as the camcorder / digicam technologies converge.

Now I do see a problem that, in this transition phase, so to speak, most reviewers give little attention to the video part of the digital camera (consider the CNET review of the SD700, for example). Also Jeff at dcresouce.com has normally only one sample video, compared to a truckload of sample photos. Obviously the file size is a constraint, but still I'd like to see more comments on, for example, low-light video performance.

So, anyone with out there with a SD700 could try to shoot some low-light video and post for us to see ? If it's not possible to post, at least some subjective impressions could also help.

In the end I might do it myself and return the camera if I don't like the results, but neither the SD700 nor the Panny FX01 (my second option) are in stock where I live ...