Canon SD300 Digital Elph

[c2ironfist]

Hey guys

I just recently traded in my Optio S40 for SD300 and I have a few questions regarding its video storage.

:|

Here is the problem

The SD300 uses up more memory then the Optio S40 when taking videosat 320x240 at 30fps.

On a 512mb card I'm using the ATP X60I can get up to 19'30'' ( minutes' seconds'' ) on the Optio S40 when recording 320x240 at 30fps. Video is saved as AVI file and the audio is the same which is PCM

Where as I can only get 11'19'' ( minutes' seconds'' ) with my SD300 when recording 320x240 at 30fps. Video format is AVI and the audio is PCM

The Optio nearly gets twice as much video as the SD300

I'm wondering why the SD300 uses up more memory when both use the same video size, video format and audio format?

Is there a difference in video quality?

Does the extra space make the quality of the video bettor?

Is the SD300inferior to the Optio S40 when recording videos?

Here are some things that I've researched and found out. I don't understand them entirely but here goes. I was told the amount of kbps in video probably is the reason why the storage is higher thus making it bettor video quality but my source wasn't sure. The audio is slightly bettor on the Optios S40 but again I'm not sure

this is a thread to confirm an answer to my quetsion.

SD300

Video Format: AVIformat,Video kbps is nearly twice as much as the Optio S40, on a 512mb card you get 11'12'' of video

Audio Format:PCM bit rate is 88kbps, Audio Sample Size 8bit

Optio S40

Video Format: AVI Format, Video kbps is half as much as the SD300 on a 512mb card you get 19'30'' of video.

Audio Format: PCM bit rate is 128kbps, Auido Sample is 16 bit

Possible Factors involved

- Canon uses a less efficient or a less aggressive compression algorithm

- Video quality on the SD300 is much higher

- Different Camera opersating system, meaning different way of storing data

- Possibility of lower frame rate then stated for Optio S40

My Observations

I've compared video quality they both look the same to me, sound sounds the same and the only difference I notice is that.... the SD300 takes up way more space then the Optio S40 almost 50% more space.



Anyways for those who may know or have a very good guess please let me know thanks. I will finaly sleep bettor if I get an answer. :|

[Sivaram Velauthapillai]

If the kbps (kilobits per second) is different then that would explain it. Higher bit rate (kbps) means that more data is being shown in a given amount of time. I guess this means that the Canon has lower compression.

People may or may not be able to notice the differences in bit rates. This goes for video as well as sound.



c2ironfist wrote:

Hey guys

yo sup...

Possible Factors involved

- Canon uses a less efficient or a less aggressive compression algorithm

yeah.. I think this is it... Canon compresses less it seems...

- Video quality on the SD300 is much higher

Less compression means better quality. However, the human eye may not be able to tell the difference. Just like people often can't tell the difference between a JPEG image compressed at 95% versus another at 90%, you may not be able to tell the difference in video.

- Different Camera opersating system, meaning different way of storing data

AVI is a standard and assuming that the codec used to compress is the same (I don't know enough about video formats to say if the codec is always the same) then the OS shouldn't make any difference.

- Possibility of lower frame rate then stated for Optio S40

Unlikely... I can't see why a company would LIE and label one frame rate while producing another. It CAN happen (especially if the company is a no-name one from the middle of nowhere) but I don't think that's the case here. The camera likely produces what the specs say...

[c2ironfist]

Sivaram

Fellow Canadian eh.. I live in Ottawa

Thanks a lot for clearing it up.

One more qustion

Is compresing the video or any picture harder to do on a camera or is it that they preffer it that way?

Ahh one of the reasons why I'm so bothered by it is because I end up spending a lot of cash on the newer camera :?Sold off my Optio S40 3 months after eek..

And we all know SD cards are really pricy... so losing a lot of memory sorta sux especialy when its expensive and your pretty much taking the same footage.

There are trade offs..

anyways thanks for answering my questions

[Sivaram Velauthapillai]

c2ironfist wrote:

Sivaram

Fellow Canadian eh.. I live in Ottawa

Cool... how are you liking the weather? I don't remember it being this cold in Toronto...but then again, it IS January...

Is compresing the video or any picture harder to do on a camera or is it that they preffer it that way?

Sophisticated compressions, such as MPEG4 video compression, requires more chips (if I'm not mistaken). But the normal compression we are talking about is pretty easy with what cameras have nowadays. The camera manufacturer picks something that they feel is best. Sometimes they offer a few choices but it is still limited. For example, my Canon S1 IS has 640x480 FINE and 640x480 "standard", with the FINE taking up more space.

And we all know SD cards are really pricy... so losing a lot of memory sorta sux especialy when its expensive and your pretty much taking the same footage.

SD cards aren't THAT bad... look at the bright side: hey, at least you aren't paying for xD or Memory Stick Pro SD and compactflash are the cheapest so it isn't that bad... in any case, I agree that these things can get expensive. Best thing to do is to buy a large memory card when they go on sale (especially with those manufacturer mail-in-rebates). Once you buy a fairly large card, you'll keep it forever so it is a one time cost...

[c2ironfist]

Ha it has been this cold before but not for this long. Freezing here I tell yhaaa :?

hehe to me though SD card still pretty expensive but I rememeber about 5 months ago when I bought my Optio S40 prices of SD cards dropped dramaticly about 50% that weekits original price. I got the 512ATPX60 for 100$ when it was 200$ a few days before.. so I guess I'm lucky then :blah:butI still consider them expensive.

Thanks a lot for clearing things up for me.