08-02-2014 09:21 AM - edited 08-02-2014 11:32 AM
What I'm doing now is to test my cheap 32 GB sd (from my 'platta' as we call it in Sweden) or tablet in English. This thread made me wonder about whether I could get out more use of a faster read and write but in smaller chunks for some types of photographing, especially the one where the camera first make a short movie (if I got it correct?) to then make that still, to show the subject as he/she really might be before they start to 'pose' ..Never thought of that one, but it seems possible that we all do so?
And thanks guys, was feeling like I'd gotten into the wrong place for a moment. The price I paid was 1990 kr, for this little engineering marvel. And to me it beats whatever camera systems I ever used before. I know there should be better stuff out there now, but I'm tired of bulky equipment. if I see that lovely maiden as I'm out wandering I think I would want that photo 'now', not in three minutes of frantically assembling the 'correct equipment' for making that perfect shoot. We all know how hard it is to capture those shy animals in the wild, ahem...
Ridiculous at my age, naturally. On the other tentacle, don't we all live on hope?
Here's the thread on SD cards I liked. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=14456360&postcount=42 The guys there are experimenters, and I enjoy reading them.
As for the questions iamgeorge
1. Well, could be? But I hope not, as I want to use it as a camera firstly, I'm looking at my sandisk 32 GB (class 4) now testing it out, and that will take some time for me as I mostly goes on if it feels better in the long run. So far this class 4 card seem to be the same as the class 10 when it comes to video taking. Meaning that I haven't tested the time fully out yet But I won't use that highest setting anyway, I think? Can't see a reason for it, except maybe to show of my new bike, eh, if I could afford one, that is
2. Yep, the highest settings you can get, and I totally missed it growing so fast.. That's why I first referred to that one, as I prematurely associated the big file size with the time taken later at 30. Don't remember if the camera closed down after making those 4 GB on 60. but I think it did? And if that is the case then I guess it has to do with limitations of file size I read someone write about when it comes to Canon movies?
Or heat too? As it got really warm there? Anyone that have tried it with better batteries?
Like 1400 or 1600? Seems both types exist but not here in Sweden.
Using NoScript here, and forgot to 'allow' all of this page, that's why the 'edit'..
And starting to hate those smileys I keep using here too
Ok IAG, reading you "With my Pana, I did about 14 minutes of video with some zooming and the battery still shows 100%." I'm going to take some wild guesses here.
I think a partial answer is that the new processor on the SX isn't optimized for videos at all, and also that it is because of that we see the batteries getting so hot on those cameras. The developers got carried away by its newfangled possibilites I think, and I suspect it to be a really good processor.
They thought it fast enough, and it probably is, but didn't count on heat, as the processor got 'carried away' by the videos demands. Heat can do some really weird things to IC (intergrated circuits) equipment, damaging it so that you get intermentent errors 'for ever' if you're unlucky.
That's why I really would like someone having those new batteries I've read about, testing the video, and how hot it becomes. For me half an hour of video is good enough, but for a really good concert I might want to shoot more? Not that I do a lot of concerts but, who knows? I think you made a fine choice if it's videos you primarily want from your camera. But I also think this one have real capabilities there, with a correct battery for its power consumption. And naturally , a more adapted software? Otherwise it might be a hardware problem, not neccesarily the processor though, but, I can live with that, and still want to know if a better battery gives you a better video time, and less heat?
'optimized' here meaning that the code controlling the processor might be slightly slower/bulkier than it need to be? Maybe taking updates in real time adapting them as it is faster? Then you have the zoom added to that. I don't really care for video myself, half an hour seems ok to me, although I definitely would prefer less heat when using it.
Maybe that is what the update is about, making a slimmer faster code, without so many 'real time' updates involved? But that is only the processor, then we have this fast zoom. Making it that fast crave some power consumption. In fact, most of this camera reminds me of a porsche carrera. Everything reacting 'instantly'. And then there is the placement of the processor, relative what heat generated by the battery, etc etc. It's small, and we all want it small those days, don't we?
It's perfect, so far, for my own needs, that doesn't state that it is a perfect cam recorder though
08-02-2014 12:35 PM
08-02-2014 12:49 PM
We all wanted to like this camera since we bought it, but we had to return it (at least the ones that were able to). Canon has not provided a fix. There is a way around this but you won't know how much time you have left and might be risky (Canon got very hot).
It should had been recalled.
I have since then bought a pocket size SONY with incredible zoom, long lasting video recording on a single battery, very nice outdoor pictures, zero issues.
Friendly advice, return it if u can - I know in Europe returning lemons can be difficult....good luck
08-02-2014 01:21 PM - edited 08-02-2014 01:23 PM
Hmm, made a new 30 minutes video now, testing my cheap Sandisc 32 GB class 4 video cappabilities. It stopped the video, in aproximately the same time as that last one I made, had it on the same settings 1280x720 at 30 bps too. Directly after the video died I turned the camera off, and then on again, to start a new recording. That one I closed manually after aproximately twelve minutes, after reading the last comments.
Sorry, no lemon here.
08-02-2014 02:11 PM - edited 08-02-2014 03:25 PM
The point is that the time it really got hot was the time when I had it on its highest settings (at 60 bps) and that was at the end of the movie. I didn't like that at all, but I also believe that the camera should be able to stand it. When I have it on the standard above (1280x720 at 30 bps) it gets hot too, in the end, but nowhere the same temperature as when on the highest. I don't like batteries getting that hot, especially not with the SD card so close, but that is my preference. Doesn't mean the camera can't stand it from a manufacturer point of view.
What I would want is a faster focus, zooming in video mode, though.You can always help it out by going back a little and then zoom in again, but that's about it.. Its ability to produce good video in all light conditions I have no doubt about after testing it both nighttime and day at home and out. And I'm actually, almost embarrassingly, impressed with the software that controlls the processor. You can take it up to 80 x zooming, and it still looks good on my computer screen. Only 20 of them are optical, the rest is all software.
So far I haven't noticed any difference between my class 10 and my cheap card, except that I have this nasty suspiccion that I will find the cheap one the best in the end. Those are all practical tests to me, to find out what will work the best for what I like. And no, unless it breaks down on me it's a keeper. That the battery meter f**s up I will live with, partly that is what those tests are for, for me to know what I can expect. I doubt I will keep staring at the battery meter, in a concert for example, but I, well hopefully so, will be able to stay sober enough to remember the time
Btw: For those wondering why I keep referring to 'bps' instead of 'fps'. http://camcorders.about.com/od/camcorders101/a/guide_to_bit_rates.htm Had to read up on it myself, although I worked, quite some time, with networks, etc.
A modern digital camera is somewhat like owning part a computer, part a conventional camera (optics). For us 'analogue old-timers' it can become quite confusing knowing what the he* all those abbreviations refer to.. A little like that scene in Startrek where the guy lifts the mouse to try to speak into it 'Hallo Computer', but slightly reversed, sort of.
08-02-2014 03:29 PM
There are plenty of cameras that can shoot HD video in 30fps 1080p. One of the SX280 selling points was 60fps 1080p HD video in a good still picture camera.
And I'll bet if you drop the video mode to LD, 640x480, you'll probably have a cooler battery and even longer battery life than shooting 1080p 30fps. But, you may still not know when the battery is actually going to expire and shut the camera down.
08-02-2014 04:49 PM - edited 08-02-2014 08:23 PM
Got to admit to not being sure here, but to know the FPS I don't really think you need to involve bps, all as I get it? Frames are the amount of squares (frames) passing my eye in a given time (frames per second).
bps on the other hand is the amount of bits (information) each frame, theoretically, can consist of. The more possible bits you allow to exist for/in each 'dot' of a given frame, the better the quality to us viewing it. More possibilities for different colors to appear.
"1280x720 at 30 bps" for example.
If I would use my computer screen as a example of a bit rate, then it is set on 1280x 800 screen resolution, each 'dot' in that rectangle owing a possible color depth, consisting of 32 bits differnt colordefinitions. It's not perfectly, technically, true when it come to my screen depth, or anyones else, but as I gather it the idea is though.
And I know I get a headache from it.
And if that one didn't give you one too, you might try this one.
Now to what I don't understand.
So what you have with bps are 'bits pes second'?
If I then presume that each second press in 30 differnt bits of color information, does it also mean that each 'bit' there in its turn represent a preferred colordepth too (like on my 'static' screen)? And how does it fit 'frames'? Practically you have for example rgb in where there are three colors, each colors 'tones' represented through 256 values, as the first link refered too.
Anyway, each time you add a bit, from 1 to 2, and from 2 to 3 bits for example, (aka .2, 4, 8, decimally ...) you also double its possible values. So, which ever way it works, the jump from 30 bps to 60 is a really big one as I see it, information wise. That as you have 29 bits in between, each one doubling the information content of the previous bit. And all processed inside a second.
That's also why my 4 GB movie only took 12 minutes to make, the info each minute contained here was ridicolusly large. Assume you want an hour at those settings (60 bps), what will your file size be? Somewhere around 20 GB, for a one hour movie? Compare that to 30 minutes creating one 1.7 GB file size (at 30 bps). That's what I think I will use if I want a normal video.
(Kept writing BPS instad of bps I noticed, think they mean two different things, so I better keep to the one I mean)
08-02-2014 07:08 PM
So you lost all your money, and now you sit there, staring at a camera you don't want?
Or you got it solved for you?
Don't trust Cannons products, stop buying them.
I knew about this before I bought it, and I made up my mind while testing it.
I'm gonna keep it.
08-02-2014 09:09 PM