Video on S2 vs S1

[Akysten]

Someone pointed this out, and they might be right..

The S2 does not specify a 640x480 fine mode.. just a 640x480 30fps...

Maybe Jeff Keller knows? Anyone?

Did the video quality take a step back with the S2?
I see a couple improvements.. better auto focusing stereo sound and support for digital zoom, but I would gladly sacrifice the sound and digital zoom for the fine mode. I'm HOPING that this is the only mode offered on the s2.
I'm not encourages.. file sized for a 6 second clip are about the same between the two cameras.. but the s2 is recording in stereo at 44hz... I'm thinking that Canon eliminated the fine mode to support stereo.. which I feel is a BAD idea.

I'm still trying to decide whether to return the s2 and keep my s1. This would make the decision much easier.

[Samegapiz]

I have seen and read on other forums that people are pretty certain the S2 640x480 30fps mode is equilavent to the fine 640x480 mode of the S1.

This is because the S2 640x480 mode is slightly larger (memory wize) than the S1 fine 640x480 mode. (the reason it is slightly larger is because of better sound, then the compression is the same).

Hope this helps! :)

[dssmd]

The difference in audio bit rates: S1 = 352k bits per second, S2 = 1411 kbps

So the S2 should have 135,552 bytes per second extra for enhanced audio.

In a six second movie that would be 813,312 bytes (794K).

To compare compression on S2 and S1 we would need someone with both cameras to shoot the same scene for the same amount of time and compare the file sizes for at least 30 seconds of movie. The S2 should be about 4MB larger than the S1 movie

[Akysten]

I've done this.. 5 seconds... same movie...

s1 640x480 fine 9,992kb
s1 640x480 7,316kb
s2 640x480 9951kb

This.. to me.. would indicate that it's NOT the fine mode...

[Akysten]

This being said, I can't tell the difference between between any of the movies... but lets face it.. there isn't much going on my desk.... it's a monitor, a printer and a keyboard.... they just sit there.

I tired taking the video outside, but it was so humid today, that the s1 fogged up before I got to shoot the video. The digital video on the s2 came out pretty nice though... I might have finished before it fogged up... but both cameras were sitting side by side indoors, but one fogged up immediately, the other didn't.

[dssmd]

Thanks for testing. It may just be that with the Digic II the S2 can do better compression with no loss in image quality, and it could even look better. At least we know that it is different.

Can you post some samples of the same movie shot with both cameras?

[dssmd]

Someone posted an S2 video sample from a chinese review site, and the data rate is 2007kbps, which is 132kbps higher than the S1 samples from DCRP and Steve's

The stereo audio adds exactly 132kbps difference between S1 and S2, so the video compression rate is the same in both cameras.

Previous comparisons were based on 1865kbps data rate of Canon Japan web site movie sample, which has 8 blank frames following a snapshot.

Could S2 owners check their data rates (without snapshots taken during movie) to confirm this? In Windows, just right click over the file name, and look at Properties -> Summary -> Advanced

Thanks in advance

[cvicisso]

Someone posted an S2 video sample from a chinese review site, and the data rate is 2007kbps, which is 132kbps higher than the S1 samples from DCRP and Steve's

The stereo audio adds exactly 132kbps difference between S1 and S2, so the video compression rate is the same in both cameras.dssmd - I looked at the samples from Steve's too, but now I'm confused. Here's what I found:

S1 IS FINE video sample:
audio bit rate: 352kbps
video data rate: 1875 kbps

That adds up to 2227kbps - which is higher than the Chinese S2 sample you mentioned.

[cvicisso]

Could S2 owners check their data rates (without snapshots taken during movie) to confirm this? In Windows, just right click over the file name, and look at Properties -> Summary -> AdvancedC'mon S2 owners!! Please check out an S2 video and let us know what the video data rate is. :o I know you're out there! Give us the scoop! It's just a right-click away!

C-Digital?... JTL?... Akysten?... Bueller?... Bueller?... Anyone?...

[cvicisso]

Jeesh! As popular as this camera is right now, I figured that the lucky few who already have theirs would be all over this! Since no one answered, I searched and searched for an online sample of a S2 IS video, and finally found one on the official Canon site here: http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/spl/data/MVI_0716.AVI. Unfortunately, the video is horrible - dropped frames and an obvious still shot taken during the video... maybe one because of the other - who knows - but the bottom line is that this is a very poor example of the S2 IS's video capabilities (at least I PRAY that it is!). I can't believe that Canon actually posted it!

Anyway - the numbers will be off because of that still shot, but here's the data rate info:

video data rate: 1956 kbps
audio bit rate: 1411 kbps (16 bit)

Since this doesn't clear anything up - and n fact only makes it more confusing - can someone PLEASE do a 'good' test of their S2 IS's video capability? Akysten - I figured you would be interested the most, since you own an S2 and actually asked the question. C'mon, man! Yer killin' me! :(

[vancouverislander]

Sorry, all I know is that the video was really a pleasant surprise, and I'm too thick to know how to give you the info you want.

[cvicisso]

Sorry, all I know is that the video was really a pleasant surprise, and I'm too thick to know how to give you the info you want.Nonsense! You were smart enough to buy the S2! :D

But seriously, do you have the videos on your computer? If so, just click the file with the RIGHT mouse button and choose 'Properties' from the menu that comes up. Then click (LEFT-click, that is) on the 'Summary' tab. You may or may not need to click on 'Advanced' after this (my version of Windows XP doesn't have an 'Advanced' choice, but dssmd describes one in his post. This is all assuming of course that you're NOT using a Mac. Then, I have no idea.

THANKS A MILLION for offering to help out!! Wait... did you offer? Or did I just volunteer you?? :D Anyhoooo... I hope you can help us out!

[vancouverislander]

video data rate 1981 kbps
audio bit rate 1411 kbps (16 bit)

[cvicisso]

video data rate 1981 kbps
audio bit rate 1411 kbps (16 bit)Wow - thanks, that was quick! Unfortunately, I don't know if this clears anything up or not (who's the thick one now??). I was hoping that dssmd would chime in here to help us out. He appears to know this stuff better than most (certainly better than me). According to one of his posts, we might have to wait for someone with BOTH the S1 and S2 to take a similar video for the same amount of time, blah blah blah... but that seems kind of unscientific to me. I thought we could just look at the video data rates of each?

Anyway - hopefully someone who knows something will answer up. If not, Steve's review of the S2 IS is supposed to be out tomorrow (Sunday). Thanks again.

[C-Digital]

Checked 3 video files taken with S2 set to 640x480 at 30 frames per second. Audio rate for all three was 1411 kbps at 16 bit sample size with PCM format.

Video rate for 1st video reported at 2001 kbps with 24 bit sample size.
Video rate for 2nd video reported at 1993 kbps
Video rate for 3rd video reported at 1981 kbps

Third one was taken inside minutes ago. First two were taken outside earlier.
Video compression PVMJPG for all three.

[Akysten]

I don't get dropped frames..

It looks about like the s1... only with stereo and better audio quality. I really couldn't care much about stereo on this camera, I'd rather have record time, but I do like the wind filter.

[Montana]

the beauty is in 1 year the 2 gig and 3 gig SD cards will be alot cheaper, maybe 50-60$ a pop. Stock up on them and your around an hour or so of video. That's pretty good.


If I need lots of footage without need for high qualiy, I will drop it down to the lower res at 30 or 15 fps and double or quadruple the time. As long as I have something that can match 8mm I'm fine.

[woffles]

What I don't understand about this is that it states in the manual that the video has three settings of compression. Normal, fine, and superfine. It looks like the normal picture settings effect video settings by what I'm reading.

[Brendak]

I have 3 video clips
2000 kpbs
1990 kpbs
1989 kpbs

[Akysten]

It's just a case of bad editing for the user guide.

This comment (fine/superfine recordings)is actually refering to the still image chart above the video chart... it was placed under the video chart, which makes it confusing. I tested this on the camera to make sure....

[dssmd]

Thank you all for replying with data rate values for your S2. The conclusion so far is that the S2 640x480@30fps setting is the same as the S1 Fine.

The Video data rate actually includes audio and image data combined. The S2 audio rate is fixed at 1411kbits/sec or 176kbytes/sec. The image data rate is variable, and depends on the scene complexity - which is why we see variable numbers for the totals.

The S2 should have 132kbytes/sec higher video data rate than the S1 from the stereo audio.

I averaged all the data rates I have from S2 and review site rates for S1 and got an average difference of 123kbytes/sec (range 106 to 147) - which probably means that the video image compression rates for S1 FINE and S2 are very similar.

We would need samples of the same scene shot with both cameras at the same time to compare image quality. Nobody has posted that yet.

[seppo57]

Funny thing: I just looked at this movie on my PC and then on my MAC, and it is absolutely horrible on the PC (dropped frames etc.) and smooth as butter on my MAC. Not a camera problem, obviously!

Seppo57

[cvicisso]

Funny thing: I just looked at this movie on my PC and then on my MAC, and it is absolutely horrible on the PC (dropped frames etc.) and smooth as butter on my MAC. Not a camera problem, obviously!

Seppo57
That's odd (and worrisome). Can you give some specs on what kind of machines you're using? Processor, memory, video memory, etc.

Thanks.

[bluevolume]

Funny thing: I just looked at this movie on my PC and then on my MAC, and it is absolutely horrible on the PC (dropped frames etc.) and smooth as butter on my MAC. Not a camera problem, obviously!

Seppo57

You are seeing the differences in the video players you are using. The AVI file created by the S2 is a series of jpg snapshots (aka motion jpeg), not really a 'final product' compared to many of the more common video formats used today. The file is similar to a flip-book of pictures, and some video players are better at 'flipping' the images than others.

Converting the file to a mpeg or divx can actually make the video look better. The compression used in these formats can effectively blend the transitions between the frames, making the video appear more smooth.

Some people see this as a downfall of this camera, but I think it is a good thing. Since the video file is "raw" you have a lot more options as to what you can do with it. My last few cameras all wrote directly to MOV -- try using that in an editing/converting application.

[seppo57]

Agreed. But that means posts regarding the quality of S2 movies downloaded have to be taken with a grain of salt. As in my case, it could be the player (or even the machine - boy do I hope I get to throw out that crappy old Athlon and get myself a second G5... ;)

Seppo57

[bluevolume]

Agreed. But that means posts regarding the quality of S2 movies downloaded have to be taken with a grain of salt. As in my case, it could be the player (or even the machine - boy do I hope I get to throw out that crappy old Athlon and get myself a second G5... ;)

Seppo57

That's fine if you want to get another Mac -- but this isn't a Mac vs PC issue. If you use the Quicktime viewer on the PC you'll have a result that is just as good as the Mac.

[ajay67]

i wonder why 2 movie samples i downloaded from S2 review page (i think it's dpreview or steve's) with the filename "MVIxxx" can't be played on windows media player. i've downloaded at least 4 other video files taken of S2 & played smoothly on my PC. the error msg links me to windows media help page which says the problem comes from my video card. can't be it becoz the other files can be played on the same PC. in fact I brought those 2 files to another PC with the same failure result. very strange...

[seppo57]

Checked 3 video files taken with S2 set to 640x480 at 30 frames per second. Audio rate for all three was 1411 kbps at 16 bit sample size with PCM format.

Video rate for 1st video reported at 2001 kbps with 24 bit sample size.
Video rate for 2nd video reported at 1993 kbps
Video rate for 3rd video reported at 1981 kbps

Third one was taken inside minutes ago. First two were taken outside earlier.
Video compression PVMJPG for all three.

Just to clarify: kbps usually refers to kilobits per second, the rates you quote for video are (unfortunately) in kilobytes per second, kBps. So: kbps=8*kBps.

The audio rate is really 1411 kbps, so the total transfer rate is about 1411 + 2000*8 kbps = 17000 kbps ~ 2200 kBps. A 1GB file size limit then corresponds to roughly 8 minutes of video+audio.

[Belrick]

FYI i use StoikVideoConverter 1.1 which is freeware. (i got the link from tucows) and it allows you to use any type of compression or output.

It takes my 300Mb movies and compresses them to 20Mb with no loss in quality using wmv output. (either 768 or 1500kbps) i dont bother compressing the audio.

[seppo57]

FYI i use StoikVideoConverter 1.1 which is freeware. (i got the link from tucows) and it allows you to use any type of compression or output.

It takes my 300Mb movies and compresses them to 20Mb with no loss in quality using wmv output. (either 768 or 1500kbps) i dont bother compressing the audio.

Could you post short samples of compressed vs. uncompressed files? It seems too good to be true, since MJPEG is already a lossy compression format. What algorithm do you use?

Seppo57

[St. Chris]

Seems to me that the a reliable way to compare S1 and S2 video is not on computers but by hooking their video outputs directly to a TV. The TV output from the S2 is really impressive.

[dssmd]

My S2 videos indoors are very grainy - is this also a problem with the S1?

I even see noise in rooms with plenty of ambient light. Movies outdoors are noise free.

I have attached a frame of video with noise

[bluevolume]

My S2 videos indoors are very grainy - is this also a problem with the S1?

I even see noise in rooms with plenty of ambient light. Movies outdoors are noise free.

I have attached a frame of video with noise

This is exactly what has gone wrong with this group. Instead of people posting questions about how they can improve their picture taking, or how to use the various functions of their cameras, everyone wants to point out how the cameras are to blame for the crappy output they are getting.

The S2 takes video at 320x240 or 640x480 at best quality. When you take video that is created at those resolutions and blow them up full-screen on your 1600x1200 monitor, there is no way it is going to look good. Even a decent camcorder can't provide that level of quality.

Before we spend any more time dragging Canon through the mud for their "failures" on the S2, maybe we should all spend a little more time getting realistic about what we should expect from a $500 digital camera.

[dssmd]

I actually think the S2 video quality is excellent for the price, so that is not the issue. I realize that all digital cameras will have more noise in videos shot indoors.

This thread is about a comparison of the S2 and S1 video quality, and I just want to know if the S1 has similar noise indoors as S2. I used an enlarged frame of the video so it would be easier to see the noise.

The best response would come from people who have both cameras and can compare videos shot in the same conditions. Other people have commented about S2 noisy indoor videos and I just want to know if this is worse in S2 than S1.

[bluevolume]

...This thread is about a comparison of the S2 and S1 video quality, and I just want to know if the S1 has similar noise indoors as S2. I used an enlarged frame of the video so it would be easier to see the noise. ...


I understand what you are asking about, but you will need to post a frame that is original size. The pic you posted has been enlarged and interpolated by Quicktime -- that makes the pic useless for comparison.

[dssmd]

Here is a frame grab of non-zoomed video, with the same frame as posted previously.

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the unzoomed frame has less noise, even when enlarged to the same size as the quicktime zoomed frame.

This was suggested by the previous poster.

So some of this noise comes from quicktime zooming.

Thanks

[melcrose]

I used nerovision express to make a few clicks and dump AVI's from the s2 to a dvd.
Even at 320x240.. wow. WOW wow. 11KHz audio as well, and it sounded great.
Looked beautiful, even on a 57" toshiba. :)

This was one of my concerns, I have an S602z and a 4gb microdrive and used that for 640x480 video, but this looks amazingly crisp! It did have some trouble focusing, but on kids running around like psychos.. I don't blame it. .

[bubble.tea]

does the S2 have focusing issues when recording as does my POS S1? I'm really frustrated with it. I want the macro, and faster processor with S2..as it seemed when I played with it at BB, but I'm biting my time as for the upgrade cost and new card format to buy...it may just NOT be worth it.

All I'm hoping I'm getting better in the S2 is faster focusing in video? and macro?

I've read that the flash is a big weaker, I know the camera is fairly heavier as well, and there's a marginal increase in LCD..anyother improvements