All,

Any positive feedback after using Canon VIXIA HF S100 Flash Memory High
Definition Camcorder or how it is called in Europe? Its price is getting
down, it's around $900 now, I just made one company drop $200 from the price
because of the competitors. But I'm still not sure if it makes sense to buy
it. On one hand - it's the very best in this class, it's HD, it's using SDHC
and a 32GB card gives almost 3 hours of HD video. On the other hands it's
not perfect, the matrix is small, artefacts should be visible, the color
contours are significant, there is no a viewfinder, only a panel, although
it's bright, it's not that convenient, especially after using GL2 for
several years. The most significant PROs for me are HD, using SDHC with the
random access to read/write so that I can delete some fragment and get this
space back immediately, it also should be very convenient and fast if I need
to copy the content to the computer and edit it. I will not need to wait for
the same amount of time that was used for recroding, everything depends on
the SDHC speed, nothing else. So, people, what is your opinion, maybe
experience of using this camcorder?

Just D.

"Just D" wrote in message
...
All,

Any positive feedback after using Canon VIXIA HF S100 Flash Memory High
Definition Camcorder or how it is called in Europe? Its price is getting
down, it's around $900 now, I just made one company drop $200 from the
price because of the competitors. But I'm still not sure if it makes sense
to buy it. On one hand - it's the very best in this class, it's HD, it's
using SDHC and a 32GB card gives almost 3 hours of HD video. On the other
hands it's not perfect, the matrix is small, artefacts should be visible,
the color contours are significant, there is no a viewfinder, only a
panel, although it's bright, it's not that convenient, especially after
using GL2 for several years. The most significant PROs for me are HD,
using SDHC with the random access to read/write so that I can delete some
fragment and get this space back immediately, it also should be very
convenient and fast if I need to copy the content to the computer and edit
it. I will not need to wait for the same amount of time that was used for
recroding, everything depends on the SDHC speed, nothing else. So, people,
what is your opinion, maybe experience of using this camcorder?

Just D.




You are falling for marketing hype!
In another post you detail you have a DV camcorder. Keep that until all
the "Hi-Def" crap settles and an acceptable standard is achieved.
"Hi-Def": Ask anyone who bought a HD flatscreen large TV in recent years.
Standard definition on such displays is dreadful. (And SD is still what most
of us view)
And Hi-Def material is plaqued by smearing and pixel drop.
Your IP reveals you are stateside in Arizona, look up why Walmart refused
to stock anymore Plasma's/LCD because of the problems, hence the intro
of HDMI v1.3, which was only in past 20 months. But that only solves audio
sync problems.
Audio via HDMI is the worst format for a digital Hi-Def audio stream, see
Miller
audio research tests for the awful jitter measurements. But suckers fell for
the marketing hype and purchased "Hi-Def" recievers, ask them - does the
on-board decoding sound better then off-board via HDMI - Yes it does. Send
an audio stream via HDMI and jitter is rampant!
It is still not resolved, OEM's are marketing new flatscreens that claim
200khz
or higher, intelligent backlighting and a whole heap of other techno guff,
as
they accept that current "Hi-Def" is too problematic and far from
satisfactory.
But the masses fell for the hype, now the "Hi-Def" spin passes into other
areas, such as hand-held domestic camcorders.....
Do you have any grasp of the actual differing compression techniques,
how will you be viewing your new camcorder captured HD footage, on your
PC? If so it won't look any different then a youtube flash clip, and
certainly
won't better your DV camcorder. The best such HD camcorders can manage
is 720p using H264 compression, will you be using your PC to edit to Blu-Ray
and playback on an upscaling (1080p) blu-ray player? It will look crap.
Regardless of format and marketing claims for "Hi-Def", there is more to it
then resolution, compression technique etc etc. There is also compatibility
issues, playback hardware and importantly it is just a handheld device,
do you really think you will discern Hi-Definition imaging with such a
devices
lens, the lighting and ambiance?
Stick with your DV camcorder.
Learn about the basics of home video.
Find out about the hardware and software and minimum requirements.
Use the internet to find out how disatisfied most are, apart from the dumb
who fall for the marketing.

Hi Baird,

You are falling for marketing hype!

Well, I read many reviewes before I asked this question here. Some of them
were very positive about this exact camcorder. Btw, maybe you're not aware,
it was said that it has the same diameter of the lens like GL2 has.

Your IP reveals you are stateside in Arizona, look up why Walmart refused

You're a very detailed person, I like that!

of HDMI v1.3, which was only in past 20 months. But that only solves audio
sync problems. Audio via HDMI is the worst format for a digital Hi-Def
audio
stream, see Miller audio research tests for the awful jitter measurements.

[Emotions are skipped]

Actually that's why I asked here if anybody had experience playing with
these toys.

It is still not resolved, OEM's are marketing new flatscreens that claim
200khz or higher, intelligent backlighting and a whole heap of other
techno guff, as they accept that current "Hi-Def" is too problematic and
far from satisfactory.

Even more, I read one article that the European Community will stop selling
devices above some critical resolution because the\y are comsuming too much
energy, believe or not. So everything is not ideal for sure.

But the masses fell for the hype, now the "Hi-Def" spin passes into other
areas, such as hand-held domestic camcorders.....

Well, GL2 is also a "domestic" one. Some people call it semi-pro, some
companies call it pro just to sell for more money. It's not bad for sure,.
although it has some limitations.

Do you have any grasp of the actual differing compression techniques,
how will you be viewing your new camcorder captured HD footage, on your
PC? If so it won't look any different then a youtube flash clip, and

I really do because I'm a professional software developer and know these
things much better than the most people in the world. And the PC is not the
worst device to watch the footage and edit it, especially if you have a good
enough hardware. I saw many HD TV sets, some of them are more or less
acceptable, but most of them are crappy, that's true. But I also have a HD
source at home to compare the quality of the same movie coming in SD and HD.
Even a regular TV shows the difference if the receiver downscales the stream
for it.

The codec is a very important part for sure. I tested many different apps
and got stuck on Vegas, thanks to Jerry, who recommended me this Vegas
several years ago here in this newsgroup. It's able to provide me a very
good broadcast quality, producing a 2-hr movie written on 1 regular 4.5GB
DVD.

certainly won't better your DV camcorder. The best such HD camcorders can
manage
is 720p using H264 compression, will you be using your PC to edit to
Blu-Ray
and playback on an upscaling (1080p) blu-ray player? It will look crap.

Maybe you're absolutely right, especially if you're writing here so
emotionally.

Regardless of format and marketing claims for "Hi-Def", there is more to
it
then resolution, compression technique etc etc. There is also
compatibility
issues, playback hardware and importantly it is just a handheld device,

Compatibility issues always exist.

do you really think you will discern Hi-Definition imaging with such a
devices lens, the lighting and ambiance?

Does same lens size mean anything? It's not a micro hole made for video
shooting, I know about difraction, lens sizes and sensor sizes since I
started playing with photo and video many years ago.

Stick with your DV camcorder.
Learn about the basics of home video.

"Leaving learn, die like a fool!"

Find out about the hardware and software and minimum requirements.
Use the internet to find out how disatisfied most are, apart from the dumb
who fall for the marketing.

The Internet is my second home... or the first?

http://alatest.com/apps/reviews/2067...-33483228.html

\ "Staring us straight in the face is a massive Canon HD Video lens with a
58mm filter diameter, the same diameter as Canon's GL2 prosumer
standard-definition camcorder from a few years back. This means a
compatibility with advanced filters and lens attachments that most consumer
camcorders with smaller filter diameters are not capable of supporting."

Just ignore the price - it's already $900 from yesterday. And I'm not sure
if I can trust this company since I've never heard about it before.
http://rogerscamera.com/catalog/prod...oducts_id=6154

There are many promising companies, but realistically only a few
could/should be used.

As for 58mm - I see it's tricky.

http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews...vixia-hf-s100/

It's the filter diameter, the lens is much smaller, we can see that. Maybe
it's still not very bad as a backup camcorder or as a present for wife. I
guess I need to take my own SDHC to the nearest store and test this toy
myself.

I don't care about bad TV sets. If the footage is good, then it's good. If I
like it on my computer, then I will be able to get a similar quality sooner
or later on a regular HD TV, it depends on years only.

Just D.

"Just D" wrote in message
...
Hi Baird,

You are falling for marketing hype!

Well, I read many reviewes before I asked this question here. Some of them
were very positive about this exact camcorder. Btw, maybe you're not
aware, it was said that it has the same diameter of the lens like GL2 has.

You're obviously are very naive', reviews are dictated by advertisers,
underwriters,
authors undisclosed associations etc. Long established in the audio/HiFi
sectors,
now in every consumer electronics areana.


It is still not resolved, OEM's are marketing new flatscreens that claim
200khz or higher, intelligent backlighting and a whole heap of other
techno guff, as they accept that current "Hi-Def" is too problematic and
far from satisfactory.

Even more, I read one article that the European Community will stop
selling devices above some critical resolution because the\y are comsuming
too much energy, believe or not. So everything is not ideal for sure.

This is a UK group, we are European. The issue you floated on is global not
just
European.


But the masses fell for the hype, now the "Hi-Def" spin passes into other
areas, such as hand-held domestic camcorders.....


Do you have any grasp of the actual differing compression techniques,
how will you be viewing your new camcorder captured HD footage, on your
PC? If so it won't look any different then a youtube flash clip, and

I really do because I'm a professional software developer and know these
things much better than the most people in the world.

I don't believe you. In the thread below this one which you authored
entitled
"DV = Computer" you reveal how little you know, you can't even get the
terms
correct stating "fireware" for firewire etc. Basically archiving DV footage
is best
done to DVD, long established. But though you own a camcorder your request
was for a device to copy to PC, exactly what your existing camcorder can do!


The codec is a very important part for sure. I tested many different apps
and got stuck on Vegas, thanks to Jerry, who recommended me this Vegas
several years ago here in this newsgroup. It's able to provide me a very
good broadcast quality, producing a 2-hr movie written on 1 regular 4.5GB
DVD.

ALL authoring software will produce 2 hr DVD's at the set criteria for the
DVD standard bitrate. And again you betray your lack of knowledge, one
"regular" DVD is 4.7gb not 4.5gb


do you really think you will discern Hi-Definition imaging with such a
devices lens, the lighting and ambiance?

Does same lens size mean anything? It's not a micro hole made for video
shooting, I know about difraction, lens sizes and sensor sizes since I
started playing with photo and video many years ago.


You obviously learned very little from so many years experiance.
So it's claimed "Hi-Def" capabilities make it viable for Hollywood and
broadcasters to use.


The Internet is my second home... or the first?

I don't doubt you on that one.

Baird

You're obviously are very naive', reviews are dictated by advertisers,
underwriters,
authors undisclosed associations etc. Long established in the audio/HiFi
sectors,
now in every consumer electronics areana.

It depends on the source of the info. There are consumer reviews as well.
Here is one of the examples at www.newegg.com. This web site is very
efficient, people write about their own experience, I do too, and negative
if required as well. But it doesn't mean that I absolutely trust this
source, it just gives me some food, the direction to make my own tests. If I
read about some serious troubles with this or that I never step on the same
rakes. But there were some situations when the customer was not simply able
to correctly understand and test the device and published a serious
complaint. The devices were better that it was published and I could verify
and confirm that.

This is a UK group, we are European. The issue you floated on is global
not just European.

I know, but sometimes the laws are so different, that we could expect
absolutely different approaches to the same issues.

I really do because I'm a professional software developer and know these
things much better than the most people in the world.

I don't believe you. In the thread below this one which you authored
entitled
"DV = Computer" you reveal how little you know, you can't even get the
terms
correct stating "fireware" for firewire etc. Basically archiving DV
footage

You never make typos, right? Take a closer look at your own text below and
smile. Did you type all words right?

You obviously learned very little from so many years experiance.

done to DVD, long established. But though you own a camcorder your request
was for a device to copy to PC, exactly what your existing camcorder can
do!

I think you didn't read another thread or focused on something else. I just
wanted to finally trade this camcorder in and replace it with something
else. I'm really tired working with the tapes, it's not only slow and
inconvenient, but I already had problems with the camcorder when it
destroyed one important record and I had to send it to Canon to fix it. It
suddenly stopped working with the tapes chewing them. Sounds like Ooops! Or
maybe F.. in your style. Also the SDHC card is more convenient because you
can simply delete something randomly and use this space right away. You
can't do that wi the tapes. The problem is that I already got many tapes I'd
like to keep the access to. That's why I posted another thread asking for a
possible device. I know if exists it can be very simple and cheap,
especially comparing to semi-pro camcorders that are pricey. That was the
idea. If we're talking about digital record, then the quality of the record
should not be affected when we use a heavy GL2 vs. something cheap to copy
it from the DV tape to the computer.

The codec is a very important part for sure. I tested many different apps
and got stuck on Vegas, thanks to Jerry, who recommended me this Vegas
several years ago here in this newsgroup. It's able to provide me a very
good broadcast quality, producing a 2-hr movie written on 1 regular 4.5GB
DVD.

ALL authoring software will produce 2 hr DVD's at the set criteria for the

Yes, but the results are very different because different software uses
different algorithms and even different implementations of same algorithms
can bring you absolutely different results. Even different settings in just
one codec can make you happy or unhappy if you really have access to them. I
don't think you're very surprised here. And btw, if you compare a more
compressed higher resolution photo or video frame it visually brings you
more details that the file of the same size with less compression and lower
resolution. Try that out.

DVD standard bitrate. And again you betray your lack of knowledge, one
"regular" DVD is 4.7gb not 4.5gb

I know how to divide by 1024*1024*1024 or by 1000*1000*1000 It reminds me
one joke:
- How much is 2 times 2?
- Are we selling or buying?

Well, I usually overburn disks getting greater capacity. But taking that
more seriously, the CD/DVD standards require an additional info like TOC,
lead out, etc., so the real size of what you record is a little smaller that
you want. If you want to place a video menu it already eats a serious amount
of space, etc. I don't want to stop at these obvious things. But you can say
it's not related to 4.5 vs. 4.7 for sure. Well, you can buy a 1 TB drive,
realistically it's smaller because of the 1024 vs. 1000 trick and you should
know that. Some applications calculate sizes more realistically. For example
if you know what Acronis is you can try to split files by 4.7GB as you wrote
before. You'll never be able to record these files to the DVD because they
are bigger than the capacity of the disk. I just restarted this app
especially for you. You will be surprised, but it shows the DVD size as 4.34
GB and this number is real. If you burn this file and look at the working
side of the DVD the whole surface is occupied by the file. But realistically
the file size made by this app is 4,660,039,516 bytes. If you want to make a
better impression and sell this size then it can be easily rounded to 4.66GB
or even to 4.7GB (ignoring 1024). You can't disagree that 4.7GB sounds much
better than 4.66GB - such a strange number! But even 4.66 is incorrect. But
like you wrote before - don't be naive and make your math!

So I never trust the label on the disks showing me 4.7 GB. It's just a part
of the game that we all play and most of us know the real situation.

And please be more tolerant if you already understood what somebody wrote
about, life is short, but we get that only when we're getting older.

Good luck!

Just D.