Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Video quality on Canon S1 IS compared to a digital camcorder

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:46:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm curious if the video quality on the Canon Powershot S1 IS is as
good as that on your average digital camcorder. In other words - if I
buy this camera, would I need a separate camcorder? Thanks for any
advice/testimonials.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:06:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

photohound@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm curious if the video quality on the Canon Powershot S1 IS is as
> good as that on your average digital camcorder. In other words - if I
> buy this camera, would I need a separate camcorder? Thanks for any
> advice/testimonials.

You'll need separate camcorder if you want to shoot long movies. Note that
S1 can only shoot short clips - if you have 1G card, about 7 -8 minutes, i
believe. Even if you buy bigger card (2 or 4 G), one clip can't be longer
than 1G -this is file system limit, so you'll have to end clip after 8
minutes and start again.
But, overall quality is quite good. Taking into account 640x480 at 30 fps -
size is almost as big as in camcorders, whihc is just over 500x something.
Sound is also pretty good, since it has 22k sampling rate.
Remember that S1 is mainly photo camera...
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:47:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

photohound@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm curious if the video quality on the Canon Powershot S1 IS is as
> good as that on your average digital camcorder. In other words - if I
> buy this camera, would I need a separate camcorder? Thanks for any
> advice/testimonials.
Whether or not you need a separate camcorder depends on how you use it.
For me, 90% of the time it works fine and I've used it for things like
recording the kids plays and family gatherings with good results. As the
previous post states the record time of each clip is limited to one gig,
which at the highest resolution averages about 9 1/2 minutes each. You
can drop to lower frame rates and resolutions, which extend each clip
time up to one hour each but these settings, are not comparable to an
average camcorder. Besides the time limitation, many camcorders have
zooms exceeding 10x and have low light shooting capability. If you are
use to using these features in your camcorder you will definitely miss
them as the S1 is limited to 10x and the recordings get grainy in low
light. Its important to make sure you get a compact flash card that
writes fast enough to record with having to use the buffer. If this
happens the record time of each clip is reduced. I read various posts,
which place this threshold at 12x to 16x, but I'm not sure if they are
accurate. Here is a helpful forum thread with individual results

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&m...

I'm using a 2gig 80x Lexar and have never had problems shooting long
movies. To transfer movies to your PC I suggest using a firewire card
reader, or at the very least USB 2, because of the large file size. I'm
using the Lexar firewire reader and I'm very happy with the speed of
file transfer.

You can find some sample movie clips and reviews here
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/s1is.html
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons1is/
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S1IS/canon-powers...
http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_loader.pl?p=http%3A...
Related resources
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:05:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:06:30 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>Even if you buy bigger card (2 or 4 G), one clip can't be longer
>than 1G -this is file system limit, so you'll have to end clip after 8
>minutes and start again.

SleeperMan,

which isn't much of a limitation. One scene longer than 8
minutes would be rather unusual.

Generally we will see the difference between camcorders and
cameras disappear. It's already happening.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:06:30 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> Even if you buy bigger card (2 or 4 G), one clip can't be longer
>> than 1G -this is file system limit, so you'll have to end clip after
>> 8 minutes and start again.
>
> SleeperMan,
>
> which isn't much of a limitation. One scene longer than 8
> minutes would be rather unusual.
>
> Generally we will see the difference between camcorders and
> cameras disappear. It's already happening.
>
> Hans-Georg

True, i guess.It's only...let's say you buy 4G card..first of all, you must
have rather fast one (at least 20x speed), then it's bloddy expensive, and
you have only about 4x4=16 min of video. On camcorder, you have (normally)
60 min cassette, it's way cheaper, you have extra spare in your pocket...
Don't get me wrong... i don't have camcorder and i don't plan to buy it any
soon yet. I have 256M card at the moment and i usually only make videos at
home, where i take 2.5 min long one, transfer to PC and do it again...
Like i said, i find S1 movie totally compatible with camcorder, and better
than most analog ones.
Currently, only downside i can find on S1 is that microphone is turned
towards me instead towards scene to be shot, so if i make at least a bit
noise, it's recorded bloddy loud...
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:53:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

tomcas wrote:
> photohound@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm curious if the video quality on the Canon Powershot S1 IS is as
>> good as that on your average digital camcorder. In other words - if
>> I buy this camera, would I need a separate camcorder? Thanks for any
>> advice/testimonials.
> Whether or not you need a separate camcorder depends on how you use
> it. For me, 90% of the time it works fine and I've used it for things
> like recording the kids plays and family gatherings with good
> results. As the previous post states the record time of each clip is
> limited to one gig, which at the highest resolution averages about 9
> 1/2 minutes each. You can drop to lower frame rates and resolutions,
> which extend each clip time up to one hour each but these settings,
> are not comparable to an average camcorder. Besides the time
> limitation, many camcorders have zooms exceeding 10x and have low
> light shooting capability. If you are use to using these features in
> your camcorder you will definitely miss them as the S1 is limited to
> 10x and the recordings get grainy in low light. Its important to make
> sure you get a compact flash card that writes fast enough to record
> with having to use the buffer. If this happens the record time of
> each clip is reduced. I read various posts, which place this
> threshold at 12x to 16x, but I'm not sure if they are accurate. Here
> is a helpful forum thread with individual results
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&m...
>
> I'm using a 2gig 80x Lexar and have never had problems shooting long
> movies. To transfer movies to your PC I suggest using a firewire card
> reader, or at the very least USB 2, because of the large file size.
> I'm using the Lexar firewire reader and I'm very happy with the speed
> of file transfer.
>
> You can find some sample movie clips and reviews here
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/s1is.html
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons1is/
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S1IS/canon-powers...
> http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_loader.pl?p=http%3A...

From my calculations, longest movie on 1G highest res is 8 min 20 sec (1980
kb/sec), while at a bit less quality is 11 min 28 sec (1440 kb/sec). Speed
of CF card must be at least 9.6x for normal 640x480, and at least 13.2 for
finest quality movie. (note that 1x speed is 150 kb/sec)
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:26:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:

>
> From my calculations, longest movie on 1G highest res is 8 min 20 sec (1980
> kb/sec), while at a bit less quality is 11 min 28 sec (1440 kb/sec). Speed
> of CF card must be at least 9.6x for normal 640x480, and at least 13.2 for
> finest quality movie. (note that 1x speed is 150 kb/sec)
>
>
Those numbers seem about right. The difference is due to the level of
compression because both are a 640 x480 30 FPS. The question now, even
though subjective, is how much better is the image quality when shot in
the lower compression mode?
January 3, 2005 12:17:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:45:42 +0100
In message <KwOBd.7680$F6.1335181@news.siol.net>
Posted from Slovenija OnLine - SiOL
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

> <snipage and phrase extraction>
>
> ...let's say you buy 4G card...it's bloddy expensive...
> ...you have only about 4x4=16 min of video...
> ...camcorder...(normally) 60 min cassette...

Things are about to change rapidly now that
JVC is finally testing the consumer waters:

http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027324&pathI...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...

From the pdf instructions, with a 4GB CF card/micro-drive:

ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
FINE - 90 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 5.5 Mbps (CBR)
NORMAL - 120 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 4.2 Mbps (VBR)
ECONOMY - 300 minutes 352 x 240 pixels, 1.5 Mbps (VBR)

It would be kinda fun to mount one on a flash bracket. I played with
it in a store and liked it. The swivel body is similar to the Nikon
900 series. First of it's kind. (as far as I know) Works as
expected for a small video recorder. Overpriced :-0

Some hands on testing (which the store is willing to set up) is
required to find out if the "WIDE" function will master an anamorphic
16:9 image in those 720x480 pixels. If it does...what a cool toy, eh?

Jeff
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 12:32:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

tomcas wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>>
>> From my calculations, longest movie on 1G highest res is 8 min 20
>> sec (1980 kb/sec), while at a bit less quality is 11 min 28 sec
>> (1440 kb/sec). Speed of CF card must be at least 9.6x for normal
>> 640x480, and at least 13.2 for finest quality movie. (note that 1x
>> speed is 150 kb/sec)
> Those numbers seem about right. The difference is due to the level of
> compression because both are a 640 x480 30 FPS. The question now, even
> though subjective, is how much better is the image quality when shot
> in the lower compression mode?

Hm...to be honest, i didn't test it yet, although it seems a bit funny...
maybe i'll do that soon in future days..just to see
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 3:06:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7thgt0tebhcp5uja5cu5v1corbkavmn8nv@4ax.com>,
somebody@someplace.somenet says...
> From the pdf instructions, with a 4GB CF card/micro-drive:
>
> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
snip

but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 3:07:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

But isn't the S1 IS restricted to 2GB as it doesn't/cannot use NTFS? Or was
that a feature added in the 1.0.2 .0 firmware upgrade?
"Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4345c21e001df09897f3@news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <7thgt0tebhcp5uja5cu5v1corbkavmn8nv@4ax.com>,
> somebody@someplace.somenet says...
>> From the pdf instructions, with a 4GB CF card/micro-drive:
>>
>> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
> snip
>
> but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?
January 3, 2005 3:25:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

See this site
http://www.twenga.com/rev/861/1/1/0/0/CANON/PowerShot+S... .

They aggregate product reviews from the web. They have more than 40
reviews on the Canon S1 IS digital camera. Seems that it's a great
camera (however, be careful about the battery life !)
You would not probably need a separate camcorder.

Best

photohound@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm curious if the video quality on the Canon Powershot S1 IS is as
> good as that on your average digital camcorder. In other words - if
I
> buy this camera, would I need a separate camcorder? Thanks for any
> advice/testimonials.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:07:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

News wrote:
> But isn't the S1 IS restricted to 2GB as it doesn't/cannot use NTFS?
> Or was that a feature added in the 1.0.2 .0 firmware upgrade?
> "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c4345c21e001df09897f3@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> In article <7thgt0tebhcp5uja5cu5v1corbkavmn8nv@4ax.com>,
>> somebody@someplace.somenet says...
>>> From the pdf instructions, with a 4GB CF card/micro-drive:
>>>
>>> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
>> snip
>>
>> but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?

NOt that know off.. as far as S1 exists, it was told that 8G microdrive can
be used.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:07:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:IcdCd.7764$F6.1343313@news.siol.net...
> News wrote:
>> But isn't the S1 IS restricted to 2GB as it doesn't/cannot use NTFS?
>> Or was that a feature added in the 1.0.2 .0 firmware upgrade?
>> "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c4345c21e001df09897f3@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> In article <7thgt0tebhcp5uja5cu5v1corbkavmn8nv@4ax.com>,
>>> somebody@someplace.somenet says...
>>>> From the pdf instructions, with a 4GB CF card/micro-drive:
>>>>
>>>> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
>>> snip
>>>
>>> but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?
>
> NOt that know off.. as far as S1 exists, it was told that 8G microdrive
> can be used.
You're (probably) right: just found this link at Canon:
http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
relevant bit of which is "Compatible with 2GB memory cards & larger", which
is a comment affixed to "Memory card type: CompactFlash Type I/II
(Microdrive compatible)".
Being a cynic where promotional material is concerned, I note that it says
"compatible with", which may not mean that it can store/read up to 8GB, or
whatever the max MicroDrive is. I think I got the 2GB limit from Steve's
DigiCams sometime last year so, hopefully, that is out of date.
January 3, 2005 7:07:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"News" <Keith@nohtsystems.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:crbqb5$ttf$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:IcdCd.7764$F6.1343313@news.siol.net...
> > News wrote:
> >> But isn't the S1 IS restricted to 2GB as it doesn't/cannot use NTFS?
> >> Or was that a feature added in the 1.0.2 .0 firmware upgrade?
> >> "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1c4345c21e001df09897f3@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>> In article <7thgt0tebhcp5uja5cu5v1corbkavmn8nv@4ax.com>,
> >>> somebody@someplace.somenet says...
> >>>> From the pdf instructions, with a 4GB CF card/micro-drive:
> >>>>
> >>>> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
> >>> snip
> >>>
> >>> but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?
> >
> > NOt that know off.. as far as S1 exists, it was told that 8G microdrive
> > can be used.
> You're (probably) right: just found this link at Canon:
> http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
> relevant bit of which is "Compatible with 2GB memory cards & larger", which
> is a comment affixed to "Memory card type: CompactFlash Type I/II
> (Microdrive compatible)".
> Being a cynic where promotional material is concerned, I note that it says
> "compatible with", which may not mean that it can store/read up to 8GB, or
> whatever the max MicroDrive is. I think I got the 2GB limit from Steve's
> DigiCams sometime last year so, hopefully, that is out of date.

The S1 IS supports FAT32 and can use CF cards of any size.

The size/length limit on movie clips is 1 hour or 1GB per clip,
whichever occurs first. Multiple clips can be stored on a
single CF card.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 11:58:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

News wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:IcdCd.7764$F6.1343313@news.siol.net...
>> News wrote:
>>> But isn't the S1 IS restricted to 2GB as it doesn't/cannot use NTFS?
>>> Or was that a feature added in the 1.0.2 .0 firmware upgrade?
>>> "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1c4345c21e001df09897f3@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> In article <7thgt0tebhcp5uja5cu5v1corbkavmn8nv@4ax.com>,
>>>> somebody@someplace.somenet says...
>>>>> From the pdf instructions, with a 4GB CF card/micro-drive:
>>>>>
>>>>> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>> but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?
>>
>> NOt that know off.. as far as S1 exists, it was told that 8G
>> microdrive can be used.
> You're (probably) right: just found this link at Canon:
> http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
> relevant bit of which is "Compatible with 2GB memory cards & larger",
> which is a comment affixed to "Memory card type: CompactFlash Type
> I/II (Microdrive compatible)".
> Being a cynic where promotional material is concerned, I note that it
> says "compatible with", which may not mean that it can store/read up
> to 8GB, or whatever the max MicroDrive is. I think I got the 2GB
> limit from Steve's DigiCams sometime last year so, hopefully, that is
> out of date.

I know i've read one review where they tested S1 with 4G microdrive, so it
must be working.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 3:08:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:33ta7vF44gumlU1@individual.net...
> "News" <Keith@nohtsystems.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:crbqb5$ttf$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:IcdCd.7764$F6.1343313@news.siol.net...
>> > News wrote:
>> >> But isn't the S1 IS restricted to 2GB as it doesn't/cannot use NTFS?
>> >> Or was that a feature added in the 1.0.2 .0 firmware upgrade?
>> >> "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.1c4345c21e001df09897f3@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> >>> In article <7thgt0tebhcp5uja5cu5v1corbkavmn8nv@4ax.com>,
>> >>> somebody@someplace.somenet says...
>> >>>> From the pdf instructions, with a 4GB CF card/micro-drive:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
>> >>> snip
>> >>>
>> >>> but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?
>> >
>> > NOt that know off.. as far as S1 exists, it was told that 8G
>> > microdrive
>> > can be used.
>> You're (probably) right: just found this link at Canon:
>> http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
>> relevant bit of which is "Compatible with 2GB memory cards & larger",
>> which
>> is a comment affixed to "Memory card type: CompactFlash Type I/II
>> (Microdrive compatible)".
>> Being a cynic where promotional material is concerned, I note that it
>> says
>> "compatible with", which may not mean that it can store/read up to 8GB,
>> or
>> whatever the max MicroDrive is. I think I got the 2GB limit from Steve's
>> DigiCams sometime last year so, hopefully, that is out of date.
>
> The S1 IS supports FAT32 and can use CF cards of any size.
>
> The size/length limit on movie clips is 1 hour or 1GB per clip,
> whichever occurs first. Multiple clips can be stored on a
> single CF card.
>
What I wanted to hear: now I KNOW I should have asked for an enormous
Microdrive (or two) from Santa.
January 4, 2005 6:50:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:33ta7vF44gumlU1@individual.net...

> The S1 IS supports FAT32 and can use CF cards of any size.
>


Well, almost any size. Here's a Canon rep's response to an inquiry about CF
size:

"Any card with a capacity up to 2048GB that adheres to the Type I or Type II
CompactFlash card standard should work in your camera."

It was a little hard for me to believe at first so I asked them again "Are
you sure you mean GB?!?"

They assured me they did.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 6:50:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> writes:

> "Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:33ta7vF44gumlU1@individual.net...
>
> > The S1 IS supports FAT32 and can use CF cards of any size.
> >
>
>
> Well, almost any size. Here's a Canon rep's response to an inquiry about CF
> size:
>
> "Any card with a capacity up to 2048GB that adheres to the Type I or Type II
> CompactFlash card standard should work in your camera."
>
> It was a little hard for me to believe at first so I asked them again "Are
> you sure you mean GB?!?"
>
> They assured me they did.

However, if I remember the S1 manual, a single video on the S1 cannot be more
than 1 gigabyte, and FAT32 doesn't allow files to be greater than 2 gigabytes.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 6:50:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:

>
> However, if I remember the S1 manual, a single video on the S1 cannot be more
> than 1 gigabyte, and FAT32 doesn't allow files to be greater than 2 gigabytes.
>
Fat32 file size limit is 4 gig.
January 4, 2005 6:50:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"tomcas" <tomcas@mjwebsitedesign.com> wrote in message news:7%pCd.6584$d66.5712@fe12.lga...
> Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> >
> > However, if I remember the S1 manual, a single video on the S1 cannot be more
> > than 1 gigabyte, and FAT32 doesn't allow files to be greater than 2 gigabytes.
> >
> Fat32 file size limit is 4 gig.

Correct, although since the S1 is limited to either 1GB or 1 hour
per clip (whichever comes first), this limitation isn't relevant.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:44:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

info@twenga.com wrote:
> See this site
> http://www.twenga.com/rev/861/1/1/0/0/CANON/PowerShot+S... .
>
> They aggregate product reviews from the web. They have more than 40
> reviews on the Canon S1 IS digital camera. Seems that it's a great
> camera (however, be careful about the battery life !)
> You would not probably need a separate camcorder.
>
> Best
>
> photohound@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm curious if the video quality on the Canon Powershot S1 IS is as
>> good as that on your average digital camcorder. In other words - if
>> I buy this camera, would I need a separate camcorder? Thanks for any
>> advice/testimonials.

What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with single
2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:02:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bruce Graham <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> writes:

>> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
>snip

>but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?

Yes, consumer mini-DV is 25 Mbps. Pro DVCAM is 50 Mbps. But both of
these are basically motion JPEG encoding: each frame is compressed
independently. I expect that all of the video recorders with CF output
are using either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 format, which gives much higher
compression ratios for the same visual quality by making use of
similarities from one frame to the next.

Dave
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:53:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <crg6uc$of0$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, davem@cs.ubc.ca says...
> Bruce Graham <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> writes:
>
> >> ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
> >snip
>
> >but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?
>
> Yes, consumer mini-DV is 25 Mbps. Pro DVCAM is 50 Mbps. But both of
> these are basically motion JPEG encoding: each frame is compressed
> independently. I expect that all of the video recorders with CF output
> are using either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 format, which gives much higher
> compression ratios for the same visual quality by making use of
> similarities from one frame to the next.
>
> Dave
>
Thanks Dave
January 6, 2005 1:12:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote:

> Bruce Graham <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> writes:
>
> > > ULTRA FINE - 60 minutes 720 x 480 pixels, 8.5 Mbps (CBR)
>
> > but isn't DV on tape 25 Mbps?
>
> Yes, consumer mini-DV is 25 Mbps. Pro DVCAM is 50 Mbps. But both of
> these are basically motion JPEG encoding: each frame is compressed
> independently. I expect that all of the video recorders with CF output
> are using either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 format, which gives much higher
> compression ratios for the same visual quality by making use of
> similarities from one frame to the next.

Thanks. I knew the answer, but it was hidden
behind a neurological firewall of sorts... ;^)

Jeff
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 1:34:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <vJzCd.7868$F6.1351697@news.siol.net>,
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

> What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with single
> 2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.


I must be doing something wrong. Even with 2300mAh Energizer NiMH cells
I get nothing like that. And I ALWAYS have to replace them within 6-10
shots if I haven't used the camera for several weeks, even if the cells
were fully charged or nearly so last time.

--
Nigel C ....(rearrange address for email)
January 6, 2005 1:34:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nigel Crompton" <ihug@ncrompton.co.nz> wrote in message news:ihug-64FAEE.22344405012005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In article <vJzCd.7868$F6.1351697@news.siol.net>,
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with single
> > 2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.
>
>
> I must be doing something wrong. Even with 2300mAh Energizer NiMH cells
> I get nothing like that. And I ALWAYS have to replace them within 6-10
> shots if I haven't used the camera for several weeks, even if the cells
> were fully charged or nearly so last time.

NiMH batteries are not the best choice if you normally go several
weeks between camera uses. They slowly lose their charge even
when they aren't used. Use regular alkaline batteries, or the new
Nicad AA's.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 1:34:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The manual for the Canon S1 IS says to avoid the use of lithium AA primary
cells. And I too have had your experience with NiMH recharagable AA cells.

OK, I said it. Now I'm going to tell you that I use lithium AA primary cells
in my S1 IS and they work great. There is no self-discharge. I can leave the
camera on the shelf for weeks, pick it up and shoot hundreds of shots and it
comes back for more. I typically get 1,500 shots on a set of lithium AA
primary cells over a period of many weeks or months. Yes, they typically
cost $10 a set and you have to throw them away after 1,500 shots. I say OK
to that, and they weigh virtually nothing.

Bye.

"Nigel Crompton" <ihug@ncrompton.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ihug-64FAEE.22344405012005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In article <vJzCd.7868$F6.1351697@news.siol.net>,
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with single
>> 2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.
>
>
> I must be doing something wrong. Even with 2300mAh Energizer NiMH cells
> I get nothing like that. And I ALWAYS have to replace them within 6-10
> shots if I haven't used the camera for several weeks, even if the cells
> were fully charged or nearly so last time.
>
> --
> Nigel C ....(rearrange address for email)
January 6, 2005 1:34:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:341tp2F467gneU1@individual.net...
> "Nigel Crompton" <ihug@ncrompton.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:ihug-64FAEE.22344405012005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In article <vJzCd.7868$F6.1351697@news.siol.net>,
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>> > What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with
>> > single
>> > 2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.
>>
>>
>> I must be doing something wrong. Even with 2300mAh Energizer NiMH cells
>> I get nothing like that. And I ALWAYS have to replace them within 6-10
>> shots if I haven't used the camera for several weeks, even if the cells
>> were fully charged or nearly so last time.
>
> NiMH batteries are not the best choice if you normally go several
> weeks between camera uses. They slowly lose their charge even
> when they aren't used. Use regular alkaline batteries, or the new
> Nicad AA's.
>
>
>

I probably get about 2 CF cards (256 MB ea) of pictures on a charge of each
of my battery sets . It seems like I can go a long time before having to
swap them out. My NiMh's are the Panasonics from Costco and Digital brand
from Walmart.

Canon does not recommend NiCads. (Pg 16, Para 1 of User Guide)

The regular alkaline batteries Canon supplied with the camera seemed to
deplete after a half hour or so of shooting. Alkalines have very poor
performance with this camera.
January 6, 2005 1:34:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Sommers" <dsommers@acm.org> wrote in message
news:4oQCd.49034$nP1.12830@twister.socal.rr.com...
> The manual for the Canon S1 IS says to avoid the use of lithium AA primary
> cells. And I too have had your experience with NiMH recharagable AA cells.
>
> OK, I said it. Now I'm going to tell you that I use lithium AA primary
> cells in my S1 IS and they work great. There is no self-discharge. I can
> leave the camera on the shelf for weeks, pick it up and shoot hundreds of
> shots and it comes back for more. I typically get 1,500 shots on a set of
> lithium AA primary cells over a period of many weeks or months. Yes, they
> typically cost $10 a set and you have to throw them away after 1,500
> shots. I say OK to that, and they weigh virtually nothing.
>
> Bye.
>

Not everyone may be so lucky. They're supposed to prone to over-heating in
the camera.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 1:34:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:27:42 -0800, "Mike" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>"Nigel Crompton" <ihug@ncrompton.co.nz> wrote in message news:ihug-64FAEE.22344405012005@lust.ihug.co.nz...

>> In article <vJzCd.7868$F6.1351697@news.siol.net>,
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>> > What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with single
>> > 2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.

>> I must be doing something wrong. Even with 2300mAh Energizer NiMH cells
>> I get nothing like that. And I ALWAYS have to replace them within 6-10
>> shots if I haven't used the camera for several weeks, even if the cells
>> were fully charged or nearly so last time.

>NiMH batteries are not the best choice if you normally go several
>weeks between camera uses. They slowly lose their charge even
>when they aren't used. Use regular alkaline batteries, or the new
>Nicad AA's.

Mike,

what do you mean by "the new Nicad AA's"? Have I missed
something? I thought the really new stuff is Lithium Polymer.

As to NiMH batteries, they are not quite as bad as your message
sounds. They discharge themselves over something around half a
year or a little less, while NiCd cells take maybe three
quarters of a year until total self-discharge, but only when
they are new.

In other words, a few weeks are no big problem for a NiMH cell.
Besides, what prevents you from recharging them before you use
them?

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 1:34:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:41:52 GMT, "David Sommers"
<dsommers@acm.org> wrote:

>Yes, they typically
>cost $10 a set and you have to throw them away after 1,500 shots

David,

a total waste of money and an unnecessary load on the
environment. Use rechargeable cells, probably NiMH, instead, and
enjoy the savings and also the need to go shopping for them.

Try them, I'm pretty sure you'll like them. The only condition
is that you want to have a good charger.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 1:34:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike wrote:
> "Nigel Crompton" <ihug@ncrompton.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:ihug-64FAEE.22344405012005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In article <vJzCd.7868$F6.1351697@news.siol.net>,
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>>> What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with
>>> single 2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.
>>
>>
>> I must be doing something wrong. Even with 2300mAh Energizer NiMH
>> cells I get nothing like that. And I ALWAYS have to replace them
>> within 6-10 shots if I haven't used the camera for several weeks,
>> even if the cells were fully charged or nearly so last time.
>
> NiMH batteries are not the best choice if you normally go several
> weeks between camera uses. They slowly lose their charge even
> when they aren't used. Use regular alkaline batteries, or the new
> Nicad AA's.

I didn't see your last part of the post...
You recommend NICd---i'd say not, since they have about half smaller
capacity and they have big memnory effect.
There are hi-capacity NiCd cells out, but they have considerable less
charging cycles available (NiMH have around 1000), so definitely NOT
worthed.
Alkaline...DEFINITELY not...unless you/he wants to change them every 10-20
shots...
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 1:34:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike wrote:
>
> "Nigel Crompton" <ihug@ncrompton.co.nz> wrote in message news:ihug-64FAEE.22344405012005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > In article <vJzCd.7868$F6.1351697@news.siol.net>,
> > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
> >
> > > What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with single
> > > 2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.
> >
> >
> > I must be doing something wrong. Even with 2300mAh Energizer NiMH cells
> > I get nothing like that. And I ALWAYS have to replace them within 6-10
> > shots if I haven't used the camera for several weeks, even if the cells
> > were fully charged or nearly so last time.
>
> NiMH batteries are not the best choice if you normally go several
> weeks between camera uses. They slowly lose their charge even
> when they aren't used. Use regular alkaline batteries, or the new
> Nicad AA's.

Or leave one set in a smart charger, so that you always have a fresh set
ready to use.

Lisa
January 6, 2005 1:34:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:1KQCd.196948$Oc.173319@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "David Sommers" <dsommers@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:4oQCd.49034$nP1.12830@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> The manual for the Canon S1 IS says to avoid the use of lithium AA
>> primary cells. And I too have had your experience with NiMH recharagable
>> AA cells.
>>
>> OK, I said it. Now I'm going to tell you that I use lithium AA primary
>> cells in my S1 IS and they work great. There is no self-discharge. I can
>> leave the camera on the shelf for weeks, pick it up and shoot hundreds of
>> shots and it comes back for more. I typically get 1,500 shots on a set of
>> lithium AA primary cells over a period of many weeks or months. Yes, they
>> typically cost $10 a set and you have to throw them away after 1,500
>> shots. I say OK to that, and they weigh virtually nothing.
>>
>> Bye.
>>
>
> Not everyone may be so lucky. They're supposed to prone to over-heating in
> the camera.
>

I have my own version of the English language -- that's "They're supposed to
*be* prone to over-heating."
January 6, 2005 1:34:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote in message news:mjsnt0pf6eus8qiejd3magf7n9tanf232h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:27:42 -0800, "Mike" <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Nigel Crompton" <ihug@ncrompton.co.nz> wrote in message news:ihug-64FAEE.22344405012005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> >> In article <vJzCd.7868$F6.1351697@news.siol.net>,
> >> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
> >> > What's wrong with battery life? I can make some 500-600 shot with single
> >> > 2300 mAh charge - mixed with and without flash.
>
> >> I must be doing something wrong. Even with 2300mAh Energizer NiMH cells
> >> I get nothing like that. And I ALWAYS have to replace them within 6-10
> >> shots if I haven't used the camera for several weeks, even if the cells
> >> were fully charged or nearly so last time.
>
> >NiMH batteries are not the best choice if you normally go several
> >weeks between camera uses. They slowly lose their charge even
> >when they aren't used. Use regular alkaline batteries, or the new
> >Nicad AA's.
>
> Mike,
>
> what do you mean by "the new Nicad AA's"? Have I missed
> something? I thought the really new stuff is Lithium Polymer.

Sorry, I did mean Lithium AA, not Nicad.

> As to NiMH batteries, they are not quite as bad as your message
> sounds. They discharge themselves over something around half a
> year or a little less,

I've found the shelf life/discharge rates of NiMH batteries to be
widely variable, even among sets of the same model from the
same manufacturer. We have several sets of PowerEx 1800's
that go from full capacity to dead (or at least unusable) within
six weeks.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 1:34:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:56:46 -0800, "Mike" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>I've found the shelf life/discharge rates of NiMH batteries to be
>widely variable, even among sets of the same model from the
>same manufacturer. We have several sets of PowerEx 1800's
>that go from full capacity to dead (or at least unusable) within
>six weeks.

Mike,

these are defective. Return them and switch to another brand.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
!