Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: Morgan_Moore on August 28, 2008, 02:16:38 pm
-
will any who understand moving images give me the pros and cons of this
a big pro is that I have both $999 and nikkors from 14 through to 400
could you make stuff for company promos on the web etc
I know that there is manual focus only but if the screen is like the live view on the D3 that would make it better than most camcorders I have played with
S
-
and sound ..
does anyone know about using a third party digital recorder like radio journalitsts use
could that easily be synched up
S
-
Things may have changed since I was in school, but it's always been my understanding that the sensors used in DV camcorders were engineered differently from those used in dSLRs.
Perhaps that is no longer the case?
-
DPReview claims that exposure is uncontrollably automatic during video recording, while Rob Galbraith claims that exposure can be locked before commencement of video recording. Hopefully RG is right, but the pessimist in me thinks that DPR may be correct. Someone with access to a production camera should confirm this, assuming that NDAs are up (with high res samples being posted, I'd assume so).
-
and sound ..
does anyone know about using a third party digital recorder like radio journalitsts use
could that easily be synched up
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Synching from two sources shouldn't be much of a problem with any of the available software.
-
Synching from two sources shouldn't be much of a problem with any of the available software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For the sort of durations that will be possible with the D90 (less than five minutes), drift over time shouldn't be a noticeable problem. When DSLRs are able to record video for an hour, then keeping audio in sync over time will become a major issue (I'm not anticipating Nikon adding timecode and genlock connections to the D99).
-
My major concern is that although video may seem to be just stills at least 24 frames per second, but there's much more to it than that. Things that "work" on stills, don't work on motion. For instance, compression artifacts that don't seem visible on a still appear to move and bubble upon motion, or aliasing which is bad enough on stills causes distribution codecs to freak out when they see detail moving in the opposite direction to the object it's part of. Or cross-colour artifacts that flicker upon motion. Or edge sharpening that looks fine on a still contributes to the perception of motion judder upon movement.
The other thing is that current DSLR sensors, may produce beautiful stills, but their read/reset time is too long which causes skew and even jello-cam on even the slowest of camera moves, or moving objects in a shot.
-
will any who understand moving images give me the pros and cons of this
a big pro is that I have both $999 and nikkors from 14 through to 400
could you make stuff for company promos on the web etc
I know that there is manual focus only but if the screen is like the live view on the D3 that would make it better than most camcorders I have played with
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think we'll really know the pros/cons until the D90 gets into the hands of more users. I do think we're going to be amazed at what creative people can do with its video abilities.
-
And there's still the problem of doing good tracking focus. Still camera lenses aren't made for motion in mind so there's the problem of 'focus breathing' where the image size changes slightly while adjusting focus - sort of like zooming in and out slightly. Not a problem when you're taking a single frame, but a bizarre and unnatural effect when seen in motion. 35mm Cine lenses have complicated (and expensive) internal optic mechanisms to eliminate this.
And focusing while maintaining composition is difficult... cine films have a crew member (the focus puller) that handles focus specifically mainly through distance measurements while the camera operator focuses (no pun intended) on composition. A special focus puller viewfinder might be used on difficult macro shots. Thus the lenses are designed for setting focus by distance specifically. Many still lenses have this, but its not nearly as refined or accurate.
I think that stills as movie cameras are a neat trick, but don't expect them to replace proper video devices. Likewise, I don't see video devices replacing still cameras.
-
Those knocking it
5mins - is an absolute age - I think the average clip length on MTV is 2 seconds probably from a 5 second 'rush'
Exposure not lockable could be a nightmare
Zooming in shot is a trashy effect so that is no worry to me
Manual focus - well Ive been doing that for a while, but my experience of video is that I cant see what is in or out, my experience of live view on the D3 is that it is very obvious what is sharp and what is not
720 is HD TV right ? sounds low to me
Still looking good to me
S
-
720p is HD. For all intents and purposes, it's as good as 1080i (see my section in Michael's article), and in ways better in that it compresses more efficiently. The demo clips I've seen from the D90 show, to me, objectionable compression artifacts which would make it an unsuitable acquisition format for professional level video work of movie making, especially when colour correction becomes involved. That and the very obvious skew issues will probably keep any "video" camera manufacturer from worrying about this product, but will not stop them thinking of the problems, benefits and solutions to the convergence of stills and motion images in general.
-
720p is HD. For all intents and purposes, it's as good as 1080i (see my section in Michael's article), and in ways better in that it compresses more efficiently. The demo clips I've seen from the D90 show, to me, objectionable compression artifacts which would make it an unsuitable acquisition format for professional level video work of movie making, especially when colour correction becomes involved. That and the very obvious skew issues will probably keep any "video" camera manufacturer from worrying about this product, but will not stop them thinking of the problems, benefits and solutions to the convergence of stills and motion images in general.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So you think it is a toy rather than a tool ?
What about web use, lets say web use gets quite a lot better than you tube but not TV standard
You think the artifacts ruin it
My mission with the camera, should I get one, is to start creating a bit of movie around my still shoots for commercial small to medium clients - those clients would then probably use on the web or in the background at trade shows or whatever
also to learn a new skill
Do you think I would be better to spend $1000 on a handy cam considering the crap look from mini chips and lack of lens choice compared to my nikkors from 14 to 400
I think this could be cool with some nikon primes shot wide open 50 1.2 MF is one that I have gathering dust for instance
S
-
The main issue you'll see on even a YouTube quality video is the skew. If you're shooting locked off shots and the shots are talking heads, or have little inherent movement, then you'll be fine. It doesn't seem to take much movement, action, a pan or a zoom to head into jello-cam though.
-
The HD video of this camera looks kind of like a BETA. I am not sure it will be incredibly useful for any substantial production, although someone will make a feature length movie with it and show it at Sundance or something. I can imagine using it to capture short snippets to make montages, but substantially more care will be needed to overcome the exposure and focusing limitations that have been discussed.
It is undoubtedly an exciting step. I honestly wonder how long it will be before someone makes a dedicated video body that fits with DSLR lenses. Canon is unlikely to do this because they have a real video business that they need to protect, but Nikon seems to have little to lose.
Another thought on this topic is that you could also do a lot of digital zooming to extend the range of the installed lens. if all you want is 720 lines of resolution, a 1.5x cropped sensor has lots of room to digitally scale and still get that size image.
Another interesting problem will be with the displays. As much care as we take to ensure sharpness and color rendition, the HD televisions will be well outside of our normal expectations.
This transition may help sell more high-end PCs. Processing these videos could really suck up some processing power.
-
The main issue you'll see on even a YouTube quality video is the skew. If you're shooting locked off shots and the shots are talking heads, or have little inherent movement, then you'll be fine. It doesn't seem to take much movement, action, a pan or a zoom to head into jello-cam though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are there links any examples yet ?
(ive seen chase jarvis plug and the nikon main site)
good or bad
S
-
http://eyevio.jp/movie/159289 (http://eyevio.jp/movie/159289) shows this quite clearly.
Graeme
-
http://eyevio.jp/movie/159289 (http://eyevio.jp/movie/159289) shows this quite clearly.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can see some novel MTV-type videography, but that wobble effect is really problematic.
The camera sets a cool new direction. Nikon is throwing the gauntlet down to Canon, but this is at a very early-adopter stage.
Not yet game-changing.
-
http://eyevio.jp/movie/159289 (http://eyevio.jp/movie/159289) shows this quite clearly.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you mean the building uprights waving as the camera is moved - does indeed look a bit cr*p
also from this vid the exposure appears not to be locked causing the building to change brightness as subject move in front and away from it
can anyone confirm the exposure lock or lack of
it would appear to me that a lack of exposure lock is a fatal flaw too
So graham - in your opinion $1000 on this or a $1000 on a handycam as an introduction to the world of the moving image
(not exactly an introduction as I do hang out with quite a few TV boys who are giving me some pointers)
S
-
Now remember I work with RED, so I'm biassed....
I don't think we know enough yet how manual video controls work on the Nikon. Indeed, that will define how well it can be used for different situations.
The image skew will limit use for action use for sure, but does it matter for talking head shots? Probably not. The compression and image artifacts may not matter on the web, but will not stand up to large colour correction.
We all know that "good enough" will always be used to make movies and TV. But we also know that many will not settle for good enough. What we know for sure is that although this is the first such product, it's not the last.
If you just want to play with moving images, this Nikon seems as good as anything. But if you have a specific job in mind, you may want to look at video camera tools specific to that job.
Graeme
-
Now remember I work with RED, so I'm biassed....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know you are biased but also knowledgable
The question $1000 on this or $1000 on a video camera will not include red or scarlett so there is no bias
In fact you should be steering me towards the nikon and keeping my initial investment $ down and glass $ in nikkors - which of course fit RED
A red is not out of the question for me - as a video newb that may sound stupid but I have used enough video to know
- that I need a decent wide which with a decent camera cost a lot almost as much as a simple red rig
- small chip cameras look crumby and are hard to focus
both pushes me towards just getting the Red and sticking with the nikkor lenses rather than getting a $10k vid rig
There are other factors; resale value, possible rental income, and obselecense of low res stock footage
My most likely route is to go D90, learn, be annoyed, then go Red and nikkors
Are people working with Red and nikkors or is the focus travel all wrong ?
If you had a $6000 NikkoRed camera with a decent chip size I would just get that
D4X-Af-60fps is what you need to worry about ! ?
So $1000 on D90 or a handycam
S
-
You're right that for the $1000 there's probably not much that will get you what you need other than the Nikon.
Small chip cameras are, however, usually easier to focus as with the focal lengths used, DOF tends to be deep. I'd expect that the Nikon route to be tricky to focus unless you stop down, but also the downsampling to 720p should help though.
You can work with stills lenses on RED, and I'm sure you can get follow focuses that really help make focusing with them much easier.
I always think that for learning, the cheapest camera that offers the controls you need (ie manual controls, not auto-everything) is the best way to go, because by the time you get to wanting something "proper", it'll be a lot cheaper....
Graeme
-
let me add my 2 cents in
for starters its a good real good still camera that can get you nice "vacation" family video happenings .. the d90 most likely wont be replaceing a real honest video cam although with a larger chip and real lenses its up to your imagination how far you can take this camera
bottom line i may like and buy a d90 for other reasons but i wot be shooting any wedding or bar mitsvah videos with it
I know you are biased but also knowledgable
The question $1000 on this or $1000 on a video camera will not include red or scarlett so there is no bias
In fact you should be steering me towards the nikon and keeping my initial investment $ down and glass $ in nikkors - which of course fit RED
A red is not out of the question for me - as a video newb that may sound stupid but I have used enough video to know
- that I need a decent wide which with a decent camera cost a lot almost as much as a simple red rig
- small chip cameras look crumby and are hard to focus
both pushes me towards just getting the Red and sticking with the nikkor lenses rather than getting a $10k vid rig
There are other factors; resale value, possible rental income, and obselecense of low res stock footage
My most likely route is to go D90, learn, be annoyed, then go Red and nikkors
Are people working with Red and nikkors or is the focus travel all wrong ?
If you had a $6000 NikkoRed camera with a decent chip size I would just get that
D4X-Af-60fps is what you need to worry about ! ?
So $1000 on D90 or a handycam
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219217\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
let me add my 2 cents in
for starters its a good real good still camera that can get you nice "vacation" family video happenings .. the d90 most likely wont be replaceing a real honest video cam although with a larger chip and real lenses its up to your imagination how far you can take this camera
bottom line i may like and buy a d90 for other reasons but i wot be shooting any wedding or bar mitsvah videos with it
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219259\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with this. In many ways, its a solution looking for some problems to fix. Certainly there are some people who will benefit from it, but not to a huge extent...
Serious videographers and filmmakers are not going to start ditching their equipment for this - too many compromises in the entire system. From the camera itself, but also the lenses, lack of accessories etc
I think calling it "game changing" and other cliches of the season are a little exaggerated.
-
i see it as a nice family camera to take on vacation and maybe act as a backup still camera to my d300 (even tho it uses a different memory card)
I agree with this. In many ways, its a solution looking for some problems to fix. Certainly there are some people who will benefit from it, but not to a huge extent...
Serious videographers and filmmakers are not going to start ditching their equipment for this - too many compromises in the entire system. From the camera itself, but also the lenses, lack of accessories etc
I think calling it "game changing" and other cliches of the season are a little exaggerated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Graeme,
thanks for the link. I definitely have to agree that the skew is way too much.
As far as the D90 goes, I would rate the image quality as lower than the Canon HV20 (which is under a grand now). (The HV20 is a HDV camera... 1440x1080, can record 24p but with pulldown)
A great example of HV20 footage:
http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/06/go-naked.html (http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/06/go-naked.html)
The video folks happen to be big on things like 35mm DOF adapters since they give the DOF of 35mm film (I believe this is less than the DOF of 35mm still photography... because 35mm doesn't actually refer to 35mm as measured by a ruler). Those adapters definitely add an interesting aesthetic to the look of a film... but heck, you don't even need them as the clip above shows.
2- But anyways, where I think the interesting stuff is at is when you can shoot your film (or video) and be able to pull high quality stills out of it.
If you want to shoot cheap video and stills, you can do that now. It's being able to shoot video and pull stills out of that, I think, is what will be interesting.
Shooting stills and pulling video out of that would be cool but... not possible. (Or rather, it might be the same thing?)
Anyways, I'm rambling on here.
-
The video folks happen to be big on things like 35mm DOF adapters since they give the DOF of 35mm film (I believe this is less than the DOF of 35mm still photography... because 35mm doesn't actually refer to 35mm as measured by a ruler). Those adapters definitely add an interesting aesthetic to the look of a film... but heck, you don't even need them as the clip above shows.
2- But anyways, where I think the interesting stuff is at is when you can shoot your film (or video) and be able to pull high quality stills out of it.
If you want to shoot cheap video and stills, you can do that now. It's being able to shoot video and pull stills out of that, I think, is what will be interesting.
Shooting stills and pulling video out of that would be cool but... not possible. (Or rather, it might be the same thing?)
Anyways, I'm rambling on here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can shoot video and pull stills out of it, the problem is those frames are usually shot at the 1/30th of a second and with imperfect focus (especially if its a scene with motion). Video works because the moving frames allow us to look past that each frame is slightly blurry or has inexact focus because it all blends together as a whole.
This is why every film made has a stills photographer on set standing next to the camera for making those crisp marketing shots.
The alternative is to shoot everything at a high frame rate... but this becomes senselessly expensive to post produce...
I think the most interesting thing about the D90 is that its an inexpensive APS-C sized video sensor. You'll be sure to see it (or some variation) in less costly actual video cameras with lenses designed to take advantage of the shallow DOF possible and also have all the other features a good video lens needs.
-
If video has inexact focus you can notice it. (Though people will still use those shots in theatres.)
On Hollywood productions, there's a focus puller whose job it is to handle focus (and some other camera department duties).
Shooting everything at a higher frame rate wouldn't affect focus. Perhaps you're talking about motion blur???
-
If video has inexact focus you can notice it. (Though people will still use those shots in theatres.)
On Hollywood productions, there's a focus puller whose job it is to handle focus (and some other camera department duties).
Shooting everything at a higher frame rate wouldn't affect focus. Perhaps you're talking about motion blur???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You misunderstand... and didn't really read my post I guess. Or maybe I wasn't clear. So I will repeat. There are 2 big problems with taking stills from videos.
FOCUS: On a frame to frame basis, any scene with some tracking motion going on is going to have several frames (or perhaps most) somewhat out of focus as the focus puller makes his adjustments, even though as a whole the key part of the scene appears in focus. Sum of the parts. Our brain ignores these spurious defects because there is movement going on and completes the image mentally. Persistence of vision etc
But if you pull one of those frames out and turn it into a still photograph - then we notice it, just like we notice problems with focus and blur in any other still. It's distracting. It's unusable for anything beyond documentary purposes.
It's simple to see this, just go do a frame grab on a movie scene involving tracking. And of course, the higher the resolution of the frame, the worse it appears.
SHUTTER: Most scenes are shot around 1/24th to 1/30th of a second per frame. Different effects and situations might have faster speeds, but its still really quite slow, compared to what stills photographers trying to capture motion are used to.
Therefore, there is motion blur in each frame. Again, our persistence of vision puts them all together so it appears alright. But again, if you pull out a still - your main actor is going to have a mushy face or something else.
Like I said, this is why movies have a stills photographer on the crew I don't see that changing any time soon.
-
Like I said, this is why movies have a stills photographer on the crew I don't see that changing any time soon.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep and he could be shooting movies...
-
Craig... I don't see how a still camera would do any better. It has the same "problems". Which aren't really problems because you can pick and choose what shots you want. Suppose that if the subject moves, you can never nail focus.
Then you couldn't get usable shots from a video or still camera.
And on still shots, both video and still cameras would have little problem nailing focus.
And if you can nail focus on moving subjects, then that's a bonus. Focus pulling, for the most part, does work. Every movie has shots where the subject is moving.
2- You can pick and shoot which frames you want... there is little point in choosing frames where the focus is off.
3- You can pick stills from shots where the subject isn't moving.
Now it's entirely possible that the subject is always moving, in which case the video camera might have shot with a slow-ish shutter speed and there will be motion blur (video cameras are capable of high shutter speeds but let's suppose a slower shutter speed was used). Whereas a still camera would've shot that subject with a very high shutter speed.
In that situation then the still camera might be better.
But you're making mountains out of molehills.
-
Craig... I don't see how a still camera would do any better. It has the same "problems".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A still camera, at least a DSLR, has neither of the problems that Craig mentions.
Focus
Still camera focus in an individual frame can be better because (predictive) phase detection AF can be used before each frame --- not so with movie cameras AFAIK.
Motion Blur
Still camera motion blur can be far less because exposure times can be far less than those of movie cameras, where exposure times are roughly the same as the frame rate (that is, the shutter is open for a large proportion of the 1/24th to 1/30th second time step between frames). Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that with the "scanning" approach of video, the shutter is essentially always open with lines of pixels being read in rotation.
High res. video camera frame grabs might be quite good for stationary or slow moving subjects.
-
With video you also also have very high shutter speeds if you wish to stop motion and extract still frames. Video can also use auto-focus, which in such cameras runs continuously - the higher the fps, the faster the auto-focus runs.
Graeme
-
And there's still the problem of doing good tracking focus. Still camera lenses aren't made for motion in mind so there's the problem of 'focus breathing' where the image size changes slightly while adjusting focus - sort of like zooming in and out slightly. Not a problem when you're taking a single frame, but a bizarre and unnatural effect when seen in motion. 35mm Cine lenses have complicated (and expensive) internal optic mechanisms to eliminate this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218800\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
35mm movie lenses can "breathe" also. This is quite common in older zoom lenses and even some new ones. If a subject is in motion, the effect is difficult to detect. When focus is racked from one subject to another, it's quite obvious.
I don't think you'll see much focus "breathing" if you use prime lenses on your still camera.
As a focusing aid in a dslr that shoots movies, one should be able to see the distance scale in the viewfinder to give the operator a fighting chance at focus.
-
http://eyevio.jp/movie/159289 (http://eyevio.jp/movie/159289) shows this quite clearly.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The "skew" in this clip makes the camera really unusable as a motion picture camera.
That said, I was shooting with a Red One last week and saw some "skew" issues as the camera moved sideways by vertical set elements. I thought the camera was not level at first, but the leaning stopped when the camera stopped. It's not nearly as bad as the u-tube clip though.
I do have a question for Graeme though: Is the skew I observed enhanced by viewing through a downconverter? I was using a Steadicam and operating by viewing in standard definition through a down converter.
-
You may, under certain circumstances see a little skew. However, with the latest builds it has been further reduced. I don't think downconverting makes it any worse or any better.
-
The "skew" evident in this clip is objectionable mainly because of the inept hand-holding of the operator. Only very fast-moving action would exhibit this amount of vertical skew in normal use.
IMHO, the D90 will be able to provide some very nice looking video indeed, given careful, competent users.
I think we're seeing just the very beginning of this new capability. If only Nikon had included intervalometer and slow shutter functions, and true 720X1920 24P, this new function would be really fun to use.
-
You may, under certain circumstances see a little skew. However, with the latest builds it has been further reduced. I don't think downconverting makes it any worse or any better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Graeme.
The camera I was using was build #16. Is that the latest build?
If so, is there anything that can be done to make the shutter rolling a little faster? The skew was obvious enough to be a little awkward. (The DP thought I was off level:) ). I ask because I'm considering buying one of your cameras and just want to know what I'm getting into.
Sorry if this is a little off topic for LL...
-
The "skew" evident in this clip is objectionable mainly because of the inept hand-holding of the operator. Only very fast-moving action would exhibit this amount of vertical skew in normal use.
IMHO, the D90 will be able to provide some very nice looking video indeed, given careful, competent users.
I think we're seeing just the very beginning of this new capability. If only Nikon had included intervalometer and slow shutter functions, and true 720X1920 24P, this new function would be really fun to use.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,
I viewed the clip and cannot agree that it was due to inept hand-holding. It was pretty extreme, sorry to disagree.
-
How does the D90 cut down from its still resolution of 4288x2848 to its video resolution of 1280 x 720?
Same question for the 5DMkII.
Is it sub-sampling (using about every fourth row and column of pixels, discarding the rest), or binning on the fly? Or something else?
My guess is that it is sub-sampling, so as far as low light sensitivity, the D90 behaves like a 720p HD camera with the same 5.5 micron pixel size as the D90. That would correspond to a roughly 7x4mm sensor, as for about 1/3" sensor format and using only about 8% of the sensors's total area.
If the 5DII sub-samples too, its 1920x1080 video resolution with 6.4 micron pixels matches a roughly 12.3x7mm videocam sensor (a bit bigger then 2/3" format) for light gathering ability, using a bit under 10% off the sensor's total area.
-
If someone could point the camera at a zone plate, that might give us some solid information to go on...
Graeme
-
Well I got one today so I will report back sometime - I have never shot video before
Initial impressions - I need a screen shade and a new tripod head
Focus is visible on screen - (was shooting with 85 f2 @ F2)
Pull focus ie going from one subject to another is an art that I did not master in the first 10mins
Follow focus will be hard
The 10 fish at F8 seems to be less focus critial (unsurprisingly)
Interesting I found I could nail focus fastest by composing in the viewfinder before hitting the LV button - but then I have been looking through viewfinders for 20 years
A steep learning curve will ensue
S
-
Could someone give me a newb lesson in editing software..
I am using I movie on my MAC
Easy to make basic edits.
Now I am not too sure about how to export at the hihgest quality
File > Share > Then what ?
I have been using the setting QuickTime DV quality
Looks lossy to me even with footage shot on a proper Sony - not just the D90
TIA
SMM
-
The "skew" evident in this clip is objectionable mainly because of the inept hand-holding of the operator. Only very fast-moving action would exhibit this amount of vertical skew in normal use.
IMHO, the D90 will be able to provide some very nice looking video indeed, given careful, competent users.
I think we're seeing just the very beginning of this new capability. If only Nikon had included intervalometer and slow shutter functions, and true 720X1920 24P, this new function would be really fun to use.
I just bought the d90 for an upcoming project. The project is primarily still advertising photography, but I want some semi locked down motion imagery and I want it in low light, wide open with lots of fall off, which is the reason we will primarily use the D90 instead of a standard hdv cam.
I also have Canon 5d2's on order so the Nikon may go away after the Canons come in.
My take on the D-90 is not much different than Micheal's review, though I see a lot of great benifit to the camera.
To begin with the skew is really pronounced but only if you move fast or are working in hard vertical lines. Slower panning, or really, really fast panning and it shouldn't be noticeable. Smooth paning with a fluid head also helps.
The exposure lock allows you to set the exposure visually, lock it and then shoot.
I used only old Nikon manual lenses, (the 50 1.2 and the 35mm 1.4) and you can throw depth of field very nicely.
I assume the camera has some form of auto iso (gain) feature so when you go from a bright situation to a dark situation you see noise but nothing even close to what standard prosumer hdv cameras produce. I did a quick test in an almost dark room situation and the frame rate didn't change and get jerky and the gain was not unreasonable, once again nothing like standard hdv cams I've used in low lit and dark subjects.
Focusing is an art and I will put the camera on rails with a follow focus and see how that works, I assume it will work well.
I like focusing on the live view screen and it's so well detailed for me it's easier than looking through the viewfinder.
I did some stil focus tests with the 50 1.2 wide open and was more in focus on the live view than the viewfider. But maybe that's just me.
I guess right now, without really working the camera hard, I think I'm very impressed. It throws focus like a 35mm cinema camera, it doesn't require a letus, or any adpater which softens the images and the gain and noise in low light is good, once again much better than I've seen from anything before.
The one drawback is the skew which is just freaky when you first see it. Nothing you can't work around and actually you could probably make something quite cool out of it, but it is a limitation of sorts.
I took the 720p footage and uprezzed it though QT to full 1080 and it look good and to me, much better than what I'd seen from my 3 ccd canons.
The real upside to this little camera is how well it shoots stills. It really is an amazing still camera and for $900 it's more than amazing.
JR
-
It really is an amazing still camera and for $900 it's more than amazing.
JR
James - nice mini review !
Back to basics of the total Neewb..
Getting the highest qualty setting from the footage - what menu options do I select ?
Locking the exposure - how do I set that up ??
----------
Interesting MRs minireview mentions the aperture being non controllable, whereas JR and I did not notice this due to having grabbed old nikkor glass - mine the 80/2
With these lenses it seems you just select the required aperture
SMM
-
James - nice mini review !
Back to basics of the total Neewb..
Getting the highest qualty setting from the footage - what menu options do I select ?
Locking the exposure - how do I set that up ??
----------
Interesting MRs minireview mentions the aperture being non controllable, whereas JR and I did not notice this due to having grabbed old nikkor glass - mine the 80/2
With these lenses it seems you just select the required aperture
SMM
As Michael mentioned there is a menu setting that allows you to hit the ael button once and it locks without holding it down.
There are three ways with manual lenses to set exposure, one is to just point at something until you like the look and lock it, the other is to set your scene then adjust the exposure correction +- until it's where you want to be and the third obviously is to lock the ae and just set the f stop as the camera doesn't know what f stop the manual lens is at, though of course this effects dof.
For focusing I added a cheap follow focus that makes it much smoother and less jerky than working it like a still camera. It also gives you some distance from the camera to step back and use the lcd for focus.
If you are locked down with set to live view you can zoom in on a point of the frame, set you focus then zoom back.
(http://ishotit.com/d90_follow_focus.jpg)
JR
P.S. I take the part back that fast panning cuts down on the skew. The Skew when working in a fast pan is just amazingly awful, slow pan and it doesn't show, but when it shows you will see it.
-
Locking the exposure - how do I set that up ??
Menu > Custom Settings (Pencil Icon) > f (controls) >> Assign AE-L/AF-L Button > Ae lock (hold) > Ok
Menu > Custom Settings (Pencil Icon) > C (Timers/Ae-Lock) > Auto Meter-off Delay > Select amount of time.
-
Menu > Custom Settings (Pencil Icon) > f (controls) >> Assign AE-L/AF-L Button > Ae lock (hold) > Ok
Menu > Custom Settings (Pencil Icon) > C (Timers/Ae-Lock) > Auto Meter-off Delay > Select amount of time.
Done both of those - set the amount of time to a minute ?
Seems good now - will get that hang of it soon
Im still trying to get my head around 'forcing' low ISO as per the thread on the DV site
James - we both went stright for the same lens - manual 50 1.2 no - mine has been awaiting an appropriate home since I swapped for an AF one for using on the D3
Thank you both - now to find something to film
----------
Heres an idea - whats the chance of a D3 firmware upgrade that records the LV
S
-
----------
Heres an idea - whats the chance of a D3 firmware upgrade that records the LV
S
We shouldn't forget that a lot of Canon's P&S digicams are more or less the same components re-packed and re-badged with minor firmware tweaks. Just compare the A650 v G9.
Firmware update is possible, but at Photokina, a lot of people were waiting for the BIG Nikon announcement, maybe the much anticipated D3X...
After all the bru-ha-ha surrounding the EOS 5D2 30fps vs 25/24fps saga (more than 1.5 million downloads of Vincent Laforet's spectacular test shoot (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/26/original-raw-clips-from-reverie-now-available-for-download/#comments) and almost 1000 - and counting requests logged on his blog asking a 24 / 25 fps inclusion with the commercial release of the camera), I hope that the manufacturers (ALL of them) are listening.
1.5 million views in about a week is something that will make the marketing boffins worried.
I hope, again, that Nikon in its wisdom, will bring something better than D90, with the pro user in mind, a camera closer or better than 5D2 with 25 fps as well, for the rest of the world.
It would be very interesting if a D3X or a D400 with killer video features will be announced before 5D2 hits the retailers' shelves.
-
The "skew" evident in this clip is objectionable mainly because of the inept hand-holding of the operator. Only very fast-moving action would exhibit this amount of vertical skew in normal use.
Better hope there are no vehicles on shot then as the van that drove past had a severe lean to it. Not to mention hand held camerawork with no steadicam is very common these days
IMHO, the D90 will be able to provide some very nice looking video indeed, given careful, competent users.
You mean if there's no movement in shot or with camera!
-
The D90 won't provide "some very nice looking video indeed" even WITH "careful, competent users".
I bought one at Central Camera on a trip to Chicago before my local dealer had one in. I was sold by the quality of the video image on the camera's beautiful 920Kpix monitor. When I got home and uploaded video files to my computer, my disappointment was bitter. The video quality on-screen (computer and HDTV thru HDMI cable) is LOUSY—gauzy and lacking in resolution, very video-by-digicam-ish. In fact, that description pays it an unwarranted compliment, as the 1024 x 768 video from my Canon G9 P&S digicam is literally twice as good (subjective characterization, but telling)—although the G9's frame rate of 15 fps is less pleasing than the D90's 24, the sharpness and crisp detail are stunningly better. The D90's is practically unwatchable by comparison. [Yes, it was in the highest resolution setting and properly focused.]
Let me repeat that as a simple statement and an invitation to others to make similar comparison tests:
THE D90'S VIDEO IS FAR INFERIOR TO EVEN THE CANON G9 P&S DIGICAM'S!!![/b][/i]
Two things puzzle me: How is it that the quality is no better than it is, considering that both the D90 and the G9 are primary still cameras with the secondary capability of recording the live-view video, with all the problems that go with binning 12 Mpix down to HD spec many times per second, etc, while the D90 has a much larger sensor and more room for processing hardware; and: Why did Nikon think it was a good idea to include this feature when the implementation was so poor? Did Nikon knowingly settle for performance that's put in the shade by $300 digicams?
And to think that I bought this camera about 3 days before Canon's announcement of the 5D MkII, and about 3 weeks after I bought a D700...argh! I am dreaming of an announcement from Nikon of a downloadable, user-installable firmware upgrade that will bring 5D MkII video performance to the D700, or at least one that will bring respectable video performance to the D90. Else they both go on the auction block while I stand in line for the 5DII.
--howard
-
THE D90'S VIDEO IS FAR INFERIOR TO EVEN THE CANON G9 P&S DIGICAM'S!!![/b][/i]
My guess is, this is a software/conversion problem. There's no fundamental reason why 24p should be better than 30p (or 15fps better than 24fps), unless one is aiming for the slight stuttery effect of a frame rate that is below the visual threshold for completely smooth video. But there is a reason for not using 24fps if your display does not have the hardware/software for correctly displaying 24 fps. Even 15 fps could then look better. Likewise, there is a reason for preferring 24p over 30p if your editing software and/or display is optimised for 24p rather than 30p.
-
My first D90 Effort.. (http://213.120.106.237/smmcom/blogger.asp?blogid=25)
SMM
-
Hi,
you should try loading your clip into vimeo as it allows for a far higher resolution to be displayed. It is hard to tell the quality of any video when looking at utube but yours actually was one of the better quality clips I have seen on it. I quite enjoyed your clip and the fast pace editing, a good first effort, as far as the music, don't give up the day job LOL
Cheers John
My first D90 Effort.. (http://213.120.106.237/smmcom/blogger.asp?blogid=25)
SMM
-
Hi,
you should try loading your clip into vimeo as it allows for a far higher resolution to be displayed. It is hard to tell the quality of any video when looking at utube but yours actually was one of the better quality clips I have seen on it. I quite enjoyed your clip and the fast pace editing, a good first effort, as far as the music, don't give up the day job LOL
Cheers John
I have tried Vimeo .. VImeo (http://www.vimeo.com/1963131)
Dont know if I have actually got the full res because Im not too hot at Imovie Exports/Imports
It was MPEG4 as 1200PXL 16:9
IMO either I am importing/exporting from Imovie incorrectly or the D90 is NOT very sharp - lenses like my 14.28 should provide good results even if a few of my old MF nikkors are a bit goudged
S
-
I quite enjoyed your clip and the fast pace editing, a good first effort, as far as the music, don't give up the day job LOL
I quite liked the music. Each to his own.
-
For focusing I added a cheap follow focus that makes it much smoother and less jerky than working it like a still camera. It also gives you some distance from the camera to step back and use the lcd for focus.
Could you describe in more detail what's on top of that Manfrotto 501 head? It definitely does not look "cheap". What's "follow focus"?
-
My first D90 Effort.. (http://213.120.106.237/smmcom/blogger.asp?blogid=25)
Nice, much better that anything I could ever get with my 1080i flash based Canon HV10, especially during the low light part.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice, much better that anything I could ever get with my 1080i flash based Canon HV10, especially during the low light part.
Cheers,
Bernard
It does indeed have a look
a lot of people have commented on that shot - almost in the dark manual follow focus with the 400 2.8 wide open - while panning on a 60s gitzo
luckily I shot some football for local papers on a 300 2.8 in the F3 era
In my self learning process I have now aquired (on loan) a sony XL1 the experience is interesting in the extreme
no 'look' at all but an absolute piece of cake to use - AF and VR
It is so easy that one thinks one is absolutely hampering onself buy trying to shoot moving with the 90 - Its like being stanley kubrick - every follow focus, or pan needs to be planned and practiced and directed - a different world from the XL1
check out www.vimeo.com/sammorganmoore (http://www.vimeo.com/sammorganmoore) for more
Ive had a swimmer posing for the 90 in the housing - that will be my next cut : )
SMM