Canon SX1 IS 1080@30p

[lordtangent]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091703canon_sx1is_sx10is.asp

There are some sample videos on Vimeo:

http://www.vimeo.com/videos/search:Canon%20SX1%20IS

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Yeah, it's a known little gem in Europe (sells below 600 Euros atm). It does not sell in the US, and yet, while it only sells in Europe, Canon did not tweak these cameras to record in 25p instead...

The real problem is that except exposure compensation, there are no other manual controls in the video mode. Add to that the fact that its bitrate goes only up to 16 mbps, it makes more sense to buy the HF-10 or HF-11 instead. At least you are getting something that's more suitable for video.

Unless Canon gets a clue and adds higher bitrate (24mbps), possibly the option to record in AVCHD instead of just MOV h.264 (unbearably slow on PC editors compared to AVCHD), sensible frame rates (e.g. 24p, 25p, and 29.97 instead of 30.00 that creates ghosting in most editors when dropped to an NTSC timeline), and manual controls, there's little to gain here other than nice still pictures. For the money it costs, you are better off with a real camcorder.

[Ian-T]

This is just more proof to me that they will never supply a 24p firmware update for the 5D MKII. What use does Europeans have with 30p?

[lordtangent]

My gut feeling was that it probably would have the same crippling in video mode as the 5d mkII. Way to go Canon.

To me it's really maddening, since cameras like this pretty much prove that if Canon had any interest in it, they could be shipping a "Scarlet" like camera TODAY. All they would need to do is license Cineforms technology for RAW recording (or just adapt JPEG2000 as RED has done) and they would be in business. JPEG2000 is really not any more computationally expensive than h.264 and there are even already OFF THE SHELF chips (http://www.analog.com/en/audiovideo-products/video-compression/ADV212/products/product.html) for doing it. Perhaps Canons own DIGIC chip could even be adapted to do wavelets.

I've been saying it since the Red One came out. The only reason why what RED is doing is amazing in any way is that they are doing it with such a small development team. In spite of all the David and Goliath rhetoric, NONE of Reds technology is anything truly revolutionary or something the "Big Guys" don't have access to. It's clear the "Big Guys" simply don't WANT to make cameras that are flexible enough to potentially undermine their carefully, artificially stratified product line ups.

The only thing Red really brings to the table is the audacity to release an un-encumbered camera. But they only really did it by the most simple means possible: Recording RAW. (Don't get me wrong, I Love RAW, RAW is great. But nothing could be more simple than shooting RAW to unlock a cameras full potential) They were not even the first out of the gate with the idea of lossy Compressed RAW. Nikon and Cineform had done it long before Red.

Anyway, it just burns me up that even with the specter of Scarlet waiting in the wings Canon STILL can't be bothered to step up to the plate and deliver something comparable at a competitive price. Canon could crush Red like a bug in the "Scarlet" market segment. They could produce a camera that could shoot RAW and/or high bitrate AVCHD as required by the user. Heck, why stop at just AVCHD for "ready to edit" formats. Why not go for something like 10 bit 4:4:4 I-frame "High 4:4:4 Predictive h.264" or Cineform. Really, I-frame only is actually CHEAPER computationally and gives better quality. Sure, it's at the expense of higher storage requirements... but disk space is getting super cheap these days.

Granted, RAW shooting will never be the best solution for everyone. For example, I can see how an industrial video or ENG shooter might not really see the value in it. Though, honestly, with Cineforms "Active Meta Data" and work flow, there really is no speed or work flow penalty for shooting RAW rather than one of the "ready to edit" formats. But the advantage with RAW is you have a lot more of a safety net if you do accidentally mess up on your white balance or mess up your exposure a little. So perhaps the upside outweighs the down sides of shoot RAW on a system as well thought out as Cineform.

[nobbystylus]

Does this camera use the full size of the sensor when shooting HD? it says its got a 1/2.3" sensor, which is ( a bit) bigger than the HFS10 Hv20 etc So a slight improvement in control of DOF should be noticeable.

Also the press release says its movie mode captures to Motion Jpeg (not h264). Which is a very old, but decent codec. Not hugely efficient for size saving, but quality remains high.

[JCM_GDL]

I find this camera (the SX1) very interesting for many reasons:

The 1/2.3” sensor, that is used in its full size for video, added to the huge 100 mm zoom (equivalent to a 560 mm in a 35mm format) delivers it a very good DOF capabilities, when shooting in medium to low light conditions (that because one cannot adjust manually the aperture to the minimum, 2.8)
Also, using its big 10mp sensor, and a feature that canon names Advance Teleconverter, one can increase a 40x zoom or 1120 mm equivalent telephoto without loss of HD resolution using the inner area of the sensor, More zoom is possible via digital zoom, up to 4x (that is 160x total) losing the resolution. Here a tripod is needed in order to obtain an stable image.
One of its cons is the f2.8 lens max aperture in comparison with the f1.8 of almost all the Canon video dedicate cameras , limiting the amount of light captured, being no as good as video cameras for low light conditions.
But I thing it is a great camera, that some of its features (like the huge 20x zoom and large sensor) could be in the next generation of canon hd video cameras.

[spideralex90]

i wish this was an DSLR though. If so it'd be perfect! Soon maybe.

[VidmakerEC]

My limited chinese tells me this is spam...

[Caprico]

Hi

I happen to have an HV20 & an SX1 IS.

1. Using a Mac I found out that the SX1 produces produces videos @ 44mbits/sec . Which is considerably better than the HV20 that does HDV NOT Full HD.

2. SX1's video capture is remarkably better when shooting fast motion.

3. Unfortunately - for some silly reason - the 3M Pixels still pictures taken by the HV20 are far better than the still pictures taken by the SX1 !!!

I ended up with a video camera that shoots still pictures better than my still picture camera & a still picture camera that shoots better video than my video camera ....

I showed the Canon service centre the still pictures taken by both cameras & they wanted to check my SX1. I'll take both cameras to the centre this week & see if it's an SX1 malfunction or is it just a screwup from a brand that I've been loyal to for over 30 years.


Yeah, it's a known little gem in Europe (sells below 600 Euros atm). It does not sell in the US, and yet, while it only sells in Europe, Canon did not tweak these cameras to record in 25p instead...

The real problem is that except exposure compensation, there are no other manual controls in the video mode. Add to that the fact that its bitrate goes only up to 16 mbps, it makes more sense to buy the HF-10 or HF-11 instead. At least you are getting something that's more suitable for video.

Unless Canon gets a clue and adds higher bitrate (24mbps), possibly the option to record in AVCHD instead of just MOV h.264 (unbearably slow on PC editors compared to AVCHD), sensible frame rates (e.g. 24p, 25p, and 29.97 instead of 30.00 that creates ghosting in most editors when dropped to an NTSC timeline), and manual controls, there's little to gain here other than nice still pictures. For the money it costs, you are better off with a real camcorder.

[Noir]

It's clear the "Big Guys" simply don't WANT to make cameras that are flexible enough to potentially undermine their carefully, artificially stratified product line ups.

The only thing Red really brings to the table is the audacity to release an un-encumbered camera.

exactly.