S2's problematic (?) video mode [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page Forums

View Full Version : S2's problematic (?) video mode

lirand

06-13-2005, 07:20 AM

van_city

06-13-2005, 08:26 AM

Hey all,

As some of you over here mentioned, S2's movie mode, nice as it is, produces files that their size is nothing but extremely bloated...

It seems to me that having to use a whole 1GB for an 8 minutes video (!) is quite irrational and kinda makes the whole movie-mode thing much less usable...

Now, my questions are:

1. Do you agree?
2. Do you happen to have any ideas how this situation could somehow be improved? (besides lowering the quality to 15 fps, or 320x240...)
3. Do you know if it ever happened that a camera manufacturer released a firmware update that improved/replaced the movie codec of the camera?

Thanks for your advice...

I agree, but then again, if you want to store large amounts of video, purchase a DVD-camcorder for the same price...I never once factored in the movie-mode feature of either the S2 or the H1, if I did, I would have probably chosen the S2 if movie-features were important to me...however, if I really wanted a device for video I wouldn't even consider a digicam...Canon = AVI, Sony = MPEG...MPEG > AVI

lirand

06-13-2005, 08:53 AM

So the Sony's video would actually consume even more space than the S2's??

badbob001

06-13-2005, 10:52 AM

The s2 video uses Motion-JPEG compression, which simply means that each frame is just a jpeg image. So I suppose the camera is really taking 30 640x480 snapshots a second. Then all those frames are packaged in a container file called AVI.

Video compression technologies such as MPEG achieve their good compression by basing their compression on the changes between frames. Motion-JPEG, on the other hand, just tries to compress each individual frame.

I believe the S2 doesn't use any interframe compression such as MPEG because the chipset in the camera, the DIGIC II, doesn't support it. I think the DIGIC II chipset is not new and was used in some of their higher-end cameras for a year or two. If Canon wanted video compression, they would need to either create a new chipset or add another chip to the camera.

So to answer your question, if canon used Motion-JPEG and Sony used MPEG1/2/4/x, then most likely the Sony video allow longer video lengths in the same size storage media.

I would love for there to be some secret video compression component inside the S2 waiting to be unlocked by a firmware upgrade, but I doubt it.

badbob001

06-13-2005, 10:58 AM

Canon = AVI, Sony = MPEG...MPEG > AVI

AVI is really a container file and doesn't really specify the video compression used. Haven't you ever downloaded different AVI files and had to download a different codec to play it? I suppose it is very possible for an AVI file to contain an MPEG compressed video.

van_city

06-13-2005, 11:18 AM

AVI is really a container file and doesn't really specify the video compression used. Haven't you ever downloaded different AVI files and had to download a different codec to play it? I suppose it is very possible for an AVI file to contain an MPEG compressed video.

True - but for post processing with video software your limited with a .avi whereas your options are endless with a .mpg...You summed it up nicely, as I think a lot of people are oooooing and aaaaing over the video-mode of the S2, yet when it comes down to it, you can only record close to 10mins on a 1GB card...

bluevolume

06-13-2005, 11:19 AM

Badbob's explanation is correct. The video files created by the S2 are just raw AVIs, ready to be converted to another format. Video compression is a complex operation, so Canon needed to either put a massive CPU in the camera (which would hammer the batteries) or include a dedicated video compressor. The latter would have been a good idea, but would have probably added to the cost of the camera too.

After seeing a couple of the "gotcha's" in this camera, I can't help but think that Canon did them on purpose to set the stage for a future S3. The lack of a live histogram, the plastic tripod thread, low pixel viewfinder -- all could be easily fixed for a new model.

loeweman

06-13-2005, 11:59 AM

I'm waiting for my new S2 to arrive but before deciding for it I went through a lot of thoughts about the video format (among other things).

I watched quite a few samples of both MPEG-4 and M-JPEG and read in forums and articles about the subject.

I was very much attracted to the Casio EX-P505 which is said to have a great movie mode with MPEG-4 compression. A 1 GB SD card can hold up to 32 minutes of best quality video with stereo sound. Simply great!

The P505 has no IS so I looked for alternatives although I was willing to compromise on it.

My conclusion was that the P505 makes movies of very good quality but they have MPEG artifacts (noise). Just watch the sample in Jeff's review of the P505. You can see it in the sky.

I compared this to the movie made with KM Dimage A200 (M-JPEG but compressed more than the S2. A 1 GB card holds up to 15 min.). It is a bit grainy but seems more clear and sharp - no MPEG artifacts.

When the S2 was announced I was disapointed about the missing MPEG-4 at first but looking at the video quality I think it beats every other digicam. I don't think it would if Canon had chosen MPEG-4.

None of the formats are lossless but M-JPEG (a least the one on the Canon) has little artifact and noise compared to the MPEG-4 videos I've seen. This makes the videos of the Canon more suitable for editing and conversion into other formats. I need to convert my videos to MPEG-2 or DivX (my DVD plays those codecs with PAL picture format).

So, the S2 became my choice. Now I hope (and think) the price of SD cards will drop and that capacity will increase. Then no problem for me.

Flemming

Montana

06-13-2005, 12:02 PM

the H1 can store 4 more minutes on a 1 gig card of high quality than the S2.

If you want more space, drop down to the 300 resolution @ 30fps and you can do 20+ minutes on a gig card. This is probably the route I will go.

I think the movie mode seems pretty good. The quality at high res is really nice.

The best "movie camera" i have seen is the Olympus C770 which allows zooming in video and has 50 minutes per 1 gig using Mpeg4 at high quality. But the quality is not as good as the S2 because of the high compression.

Also, as memory prices come down, and portable storage gets cheaper, the 8 minute limit really wont be much of an issue. OF course, four 1 gig cards will get you a very good mini-dv cam these days......

I plan to have a 512mb card for photos, a 1 gig ultra for video, and a cintrex 30 gig card portable card storer (80$) for loading files.

rhinosaur75

06-13-2005, 12:12 PM

I understand the limitations and realize that I'll be limited to only a few minutes of usable video. That said though, I also don't plan on using this to shoot video of a birthday party or anything. But for taking small video snippets and editing them together I think it's perfect. I agree with previous posts, if you want to record video then get a camcorder, the video features of the S2, while limited, will suit some of us just fine. And while it wasn't the determining factor in which camera I purchased, it certainly influenced my decision. Now if only Dell would start shipping those suckers! :D

ajay67

06-13-2005, 06:38 PM

the way i see it, the movie mode is not supposed to replace video cam in terms of quality & capacity. it merely serves as a casual movie recording which probably last 1 min max at one go. but the capability of S2 for this casual movie recording (quality, zooming..) is better than most. in fact this is one of the reasons i prefer S2 over say, pana's FZ series.

i agree, of course, that an option to shoot mpeg4 (for longer movie recording) will be great, but you can't have all.

on the subject of .avi vs .mpg, i see no reason to choose between the 2 since there are freewares which can do file conversion, if needed. & many programs which can edit in .avi or .mpg format anyway.