HF S11 Camcorderinfo review

I've had the S11 for about a month now, so was looking forward to reading this review. Some things I like about the S11, some not (a focus ring like the Panasonic would've been great, but the different frame rates are good for example), and after reading this review and its comparisons with other models - regrets, I have a few, but then again, too few to mention. I didn't mind spending the extra yen. Looking forward to an S11 message board.

I'm disappointed with the stabilization test. I've seen a lot of footage including WatchImpress side-by-side test and you can clearly see how much stabilization improved.

There's also a side-by-side walking test on youtube between Sony, Panasonic and Canon. There were all pretty close. The shaking in this test is just way too violent and it even causes clearly the CMOS wobble effect. So I hope ccinfo revisits since last thing we wants is potentially manufacters adjusting their stabilization for this test.

Although I welcome CCInfo tests I wouldn't rely on these for full guidance. I.e. Panasonic last time was top rated but when someone on vimeo did a side-by-side test with the Canon it just didn't look good for Panasonic.

There are a few other (non-English) sites like slashcam.de. Often they reach a different conclusion which tells you should look at multiple sources. That said I do like slashcam more thorough scientific image evaluation. They do show a graph of vertical and horizontal dynamic range and always shoot exact same image (all indoors though).

I'm disappointed with the stabilization test. I've seen a lot of footage including WatchImpress side-by-side test and you can clearly see how much stabilization improved.

There's also a side-by-side walking test on youtube between Sony, Panasonic and Canon. There were all pretty close. The shaking in this test is just way too violent and it even causes clearly the CMOS wobble effect. So I hope ccinfo revisits since last thing we wants is potentially manufacters adjusting their stabilization for this test.

Although I welcome CCInfo tests I wouldn't rely on these for full guidance. I.e. Panasonic last time was top rated but when someone on vimeo did a side-by-side test with the Canon it just didn't look good for Panasonic.

There are a few other (non-English) sites like slashcam.de. Often they reach a different conclusion which tells you should look at multiple sources. That said I do like slashcam more thorough scientific image evaluation. They do show a graph of vertical and horizontal dynamic range and always shoot exact same image (all indoors though).

So far I've tried walking with the in-built stab, using a tripod as a counterweight with and without stab, and a Glidecam 4000 with stab. Best results so far were with the tripod with stab on. Probably with practice the Glidecam would justify it's price tag ... I guess. Another thought was that as a smooth walking movement is absolutely necessary whatever you do, MBT shoes might be an interesting accessory.

There was only one small thing in the review I thought was mistaken - there are two fixed zoom speeds and a variable zoom speed which increases as you increase pressure on the toggle. Apart from that I think the S11 was given a fair shake. I was a little surprised by the evaluation of noise, given that the sensor is 1/2 inch, though can't agree or disagree as I don't have the Panasonic or a Sony Exmor sensor camcorder to play with. The other thing was colour; after playing about a bit I found the most pleasing natural colour was when I used a custom mode and dialled colour way down. Even the 'neutral' setting looked too saturated for me.

Will check slashcam - thanks, as always, for the tip.

There are 2 reasons why there is little bit more noise with the larger sensor:

1. Pixel pitch: even though larger sensor, the pixel density is higher which increases noise. I would have preferred if Canon would have used lower pixel count. In their latest digital camera's (S90/G11) they actually have now lowered pixel count which also increased light sensitivity. Downside would be lower quality digital zoom and less pixels for photo's (which I could live with).
2. Less noise removal. You can see more blotchy artifacts in other camcorders. I rather take more noise and remove if I would want to in PP. Also it does retain detail better with less noise removal.
You can set manually gain which is quite powerful to control noise bit better.

Have you checked out Hague steadicam MMC? Cheap solution and I like it a lot. They ship worldwide I believe. See example video here:

http://vimeo.com/722995

One video I shot with it: http://vimeo.com/5501086

The review states the following (in the 'Motion and Sharpness'):

..."The Canon's 24p and 30p modes are not natively progressive and are instead converted using a 2:3 pulldown. This pulldown system removes certain frames from 60i footage in order to create a clip that runs at 24 frames per second (24p) or 30 frames per second (30p)."

All previous Vixia models capture 24 true, progressive frames; then the DiG!C chip breaks them down into 48 fields, duplicates some of those fields and inserts the result into 60i AVCHD file, using 2:3 pulldown. With proper software, one could take this 60i AVCHD file, break it apart into fields, discard duplicate fields and re-compose the original 24 progressive frames. It's a hassle, but can be done with NeoScene or similar.

According to the review, the S-11 no longer captures 24 progressive frames. Instead, it can ONLY capture 60 interlaced fields. If user selects 24p, the camcorder will take the 60 interlaced fields, discard some of them and shoehorn them into 24 progressive frames. The result will be visibly bad 24p video.

I was hoping that Canon will come to their senses and make new Vixia(s) capture 24p as, well, 24p. It looks like they not only did not do that; they even eliminated 24p capture alltogether, making the "24P" feature completely useless.

Please, someone tell me this isn't the case.

not completely useless - it does allow Canon to sucker those of us who are looking for 24p and such when choosng our next camera to see "24p" on paper - even if it's hobbled. Thy can also proudly declare "manual focus" too - but just try achieving a nice depth of field pull focus with their sh!tty little thumbwheel. Would a nice simple focus ring on the front barrel be too much to ask?

For me the focus control is ok. I actually use the LCD screen to achieve change focus:

http://vimeo.com/930336

If the HF-S11 really would record 60i and then discard frames, it would mean that 30p and 24p would be not be as light sensitive as 60i. However that can't be true looking at their low-light tests. So I seriously doubt that's the case. Where did they say that?

Slight correction - it has 3 fixed zoom speeds and one variable zoom setting.

If the HF-S11 really would record 60i and then discard frames, it would mean that 30p and 24p would be not be as light sensitive as 60i. However that can't be true looking at their low-light tests. So I seriously doubt that's the case. Where did they say that?

They said exactly that in the "Motion & Sharpness" page of the review (second paragraph):

..."This pulldown system removes certain frames from 60i footage in order to create a clip that runs at 24 frames per second (24p)"

I currently have HF-100. It captures 24 progressive frames, breaks them up into fields, duplicates some of those fields using telecine method and inserts the result into a 60i stream. When I use Cineform's NeoScene, it can detect the 2:3 pulldown cadence, remove the duplicate fields and encodes the remaining, pure 24p stream into Cineform Intermediate, AIC or ProRes (user's choice). If the review of S-11 is correct, this will not be possible anymore, as there are NO 24p progressive frames in this stream, just some mangled, chopped up fields that came from a 60i stream. Canon's site mentions 24p and 30p with exactly the same text as in all other Vixia models (..."captures 24 progressive frames, recorded in 60i"). This is giving me hope that the review is wrong and that the progressive frames will still be there, together with some duplicate fields inside that 60i stream.

If any reviewer is reading, can they confirm, or correct the review to clarify this confusion?

I submitted a comment and hopefully someone from CCInfo reviews it. I can't see how that can be true. Look at the low-light tests:

60i 17 Lux
30p 8 Lux
24p 6 Lux


Clearly not simply 60i...

There are 2 reasons why there is little bit more noise with the larger sensor:

1. Pixel pitch: even though larger sensor, the pixel density is higher which increases noise. I would have preferred if Canon would have used lower pixel count. In their latest digital camera's (S90/G11) they actually have now lowered pixel count which also increased light sensitivity. Downside would be lower quality digital zoom and less pixels for photo's (which I could live with).
2. Less noise removal. You can see more blotchy artifacts in other camcorders. I rather take more noise and remove if I would want to in PP. Also it does retain detail better with less noise removal.
You can set manually gain which is quite powerful to control noise bit better.

Have you checked out Hague steadicam MMC? Cheap solution and I like it a lot. They ship worldwide I believe. See example video here:

http://vimeo.com/722995

One video I shot with it: http://vimeo.com/5501086

Yes - the Hague looks good, but I've read quite a few comments about steadicams in general that it's difficult to avoid the swaying effect, even with a pro set-up, so ... I probably won't go there.

A bit off-topic but I agree Canon's decision to lower the pixel count in the G11 was a smart move and people complaining about Canon going 'backwards' are missing the point. In terms of the Vixia S11, I must admit I didn't check pixel pitch, but carried over my experience with stills cameras and assumed that 1/2 inch and 8 megapixels to be a reasonable balance. The noise levels are acceptable for me, given that this is a consumer camcorder and I'll be working with lights anyway.

I think like digital camera's noise should be measured as chroma and luminance seperately (e.g. dpreview testing). The chroma noise isn't as visible as many other camcorders and in moving video often the noise becomes less apparent.
I have no complaints about the noise levels either. In low-light and default settings noise is certainly bad but with the manual controls you can control it fairly well.

'Noise' or rather artifacts can also be caused by compression and the 24Mbps bit rate is certainly a big plus. There's still room for improvement since in dark areas I do see sometimes 'blotching' artifacts something the review also found.

With practice you typically can control most swaying in Steadicams and use your 2nd hand to prevent too big movements if needed. That said it's not well suited for windy conditions or in a car making a sharp turn. Otherwise you really can achieve great shots including dolly shots.

See here by the way for article on tips using a Merlin steadicam which is similar to other steadicams (> page 29):

http://www.steadicam.com/images/content/Merlin%20Manual%20Nov8_Lo.pdf.

They said exactly that in the "Motion & Sharpness" page of the review (second paragraph):

..."This pulldown system removes certain frames from 60i footage in order to create a clip that runs at 24 frames per second (24p)"
...


They responded to my comment and clarified it:

"Luc: I guess there was some confusion in our wording. What we were trying to say is simply that the footage captured by the HF S11 in 24p and 30p mode is recorded to the memory as 60i, which means the camcorder is converting it using a pulldown system. The new Canon HV40 does offer what Canon calls a "native 24p mode" that allows the camcorder to capture and record 24 frames per second to MiniDV tape."

I do have the HV20 and I wouldn't want to go back to tape based due to the sound issues (picking up motor noise). Even with mic it's tough not to pickup some noise. The pull-down shouldn't be a big problem but potentially Canon might change it next years models.

I would like to hear personally from any new HF S11 owners in regards to the DYNAMIC setting using the stabilzer.


I notice that it works well in the wide mode.

I would like to hear personally from any new HF S11 owners in regards to the DYNAMIC setting using the stabilzer.


I notice that it works well in the wide mode.

It works pretty well in tele as well - the image of the plant was taken at full zoom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_RjvpFVoDA,

as was the close-up of the bamboo water pipe here:

http://www.vimeo.com/6793831

Thanks. Anyone else want to share their experience(s)?

.Q: How is the DYNAMIC setting performing during FAST pans?

It works pretty well in tele as well - the image of the plant was taken at full zoom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_RjvpFVoDA,

as was the close-up of the bamboo water pipe here:

http://www.vimeo.com/6793831

Having had a go on all three, the stabilisation on the Sony is No.1 IMHO (and CCinfo's), the screen is also better on the Sony than the other two. Canon's screen has a strong cyan bias. The focus wheel on the Everio is much smoother than the Canon. The touch screen on the Sony and Everio are horrible, which reminded me why I chose the S11 over the TM300 in the first place.

I submitted a comment and hopefully someone from CCInfo reviews it. I can't see how that can be true. Look at the low-light tests:

60i 17 Lux
30p 8 Lux
24p 6 Lux


Clearly not simply 60i...
So it would seem that for all Canon HF-series cameras (except possibly the brand-new HF-S21 in 24p mode), the sensor _always_ captures at 60i (50i in some countries), then do in-camera deinterlacing and temporal denoising to produce a range of formats?

If that is the case, observations about better sensitivity for 24p/30p would make sense.

A simple difficult scene should be able to determine if the signal was captured as true progressive or true interlaced (unless Canon have invented the perfect deinterlacer that at the same time is low-cost and does realtime. Unlikely...). Note that there are at least two common methods of interlaced sensor behaviour, one filtered and one unfiltered.

-k