Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Canon touts 64GB Vixia HF S11 camcorder

updated 11:40 am EDT, Wed August 19, 2009

Canon Vixia HF S11

Not content to stop with still cameras, Canon today added a lone HD camcorder to its range. The Vixia HF S11 is treated as the new flagship and is regarded as the closest to a professional video camera. It adds a new extra long-range optical image stabilization system that corrects the image across all of the lens' reach, and extra manual controls for focus and gain give veterans more input as to the final image. Internal memory has been given a lift to 64GB and gives the HF S11 enough storage for up to 24 hours of HD with enough compression; SDHC cards are an option for more.

Additional tricks include a video snapshot mode that records successive 4-second clips rather than one continuous stretch, the option of recording in 24p for film-speed capture, and 8-megapixel still photos. Canon delivers its premium Vixia in mid-September for $1,500 ($1,400 on its website) and will also ship an accessory, the $120 RA-V1 Remote Control Adapter, at the same time to provide support for wired remotes.





By Electronista Staff
Post tools:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. vasic

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: May 2005

    +3

    It's all great...

    Unfortunately, Canon (along other makers that provide 24p on their HD camcorders) continues to refuse to encode 24 progressive frames into an AVCHD file as, well, 24 progressive frames. Instead, it inserts pull-down (telecine) fields and packages that 24p stream in 60 interlaced fields. Editing this material in a 24p timeline is a serious nuisance, requiring third-party software. Free solutions are extremely cumbersome, buggy and unstable. Paid solutions are stable, but cost money. All that, just so that we can wrestle those 24 progressive frames out of 60 interlaced fields, before we can properly edit them.

    I'd love to hear Canon's explanation, why is this the case.

  1. jheagy

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2008

    +5

    24p is...

    so overrated. The main reason people like it is because they feel 24p puts their production in the same league as feature films. 24p is the minimum frame rate that an optical audio track will play at and sound good. Before sound, films were shot at 18fps.

    There are so many restrictions in how one can move the camera to avoid "steppy" pans and close up visual effects - .i.e. Transformers are nothing but motion blur in close action scenes - pause one on a DVD sometime.

    There's no denying 24p looks different from 60i or even 30p... it looks worse... people have just gotten used to it. 3D films look like terrible in 24p. IMHO 30p is a perfect compromise, ask James Cameron and he'll say 48p.

    Prediction: When digital projectors replace film projects and directors don't have to shoot 24p... they won't.

    The reason Canon inserts 3:2 is because 60i is our broadcast standard and will work on all TVs. Another reason to shot 30p... same signal as 60i.

  1. shawnde

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 2008

    +3

    re: 24p is ....

    @jheagy

    Thanks for the well-researched and informed response. It was good info.

    Though I must say, that the whole "interlace" idea is really stupid as well. I do realize that it's being used in broadcast, but I think that should be scrapped all together (much easier said than done).

    Interlacing is also a function of the original limitation of Cable TV, back in the 50's with RCA TV's, where some engineer thought that in order to overcome the bandwidth limitation, why not up the frequency, and send 60 half-frames? .... and the rest is history

    Of course, just like four-color printing it turned out that in the end it was a bad idea, because merging those frames ended up being a huge headache in many parts of post-production, and of course they look like c*** on TV and monitors.

    While we're in the evolutionary mode, we should drop all the 30i and 60i standards, and just settle on 30p or 48p with float color space.

  1. bluejammm

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2006

    0

    Good posts

    Thanks for the informative posts.I have been on the side that 24fps was more "film like". Like 35mm. The look of a filmed movie does have a richer look than the perfectly clear video seen in TV shows, such as afternoon soaps.If 30fps produces the same and James Cameron even prefers faster, then I am all for it.So, in your expert opinions, would this still be a good pro-sumer camera to use?....particularly with iMovie and Final Cut Express?

  1. bluejammm

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2006

    +1

    Good posts

    Thanks for the informative posts.I have been on the side that 24fps was more "film like". Like 35mm. The look of a filmed movie does have a richer look than the perfectly clear video seen in TV shows, such as afternoon soaps.If 30fps produces the same and James Cameron even prefers faster, then I am all for it.So, in your expert opinions, would this still be a good pro-sumer camera to use?...particularly with iMovie and Final Cut?

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Razer Taipan mouse

The list of gaming devices is growing larger with each passing day. A large number of companies have entered the gaming input arena, a ...

Cambridge Audio DacMagic XS

Every computer with a microphone or headphone port has one -- a digital to analog converter (DAC). There are nearly as many chipsets a ...

D-Link Wi-Fi Smart Plug

Home automation fans have been getting their fair share of gadgets and accessories in the last few years. Starting with light bulbs, a ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News