Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon D90  (Read 24270 times)
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2008, 10:22:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
EU bureaucrats  are a crafty lot.  If that firmware could be put on the EU cameras they would likely classify it as whatever it took to get them the most money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sure Nikon could devise (a not unhackable...) way to dissalow this. But then maybe they decided that all the overhead for producing two versions of the camera and/or firmware might not worth it.
Logged

Nikos
NLund
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2008, 12:32:17 PM »
ReplyReply

This video stuff is pretty exciting.

I may be a Canon user but I have to say thank you Nikon. Thanks for pushing the envelope and not releasing more of the same, over and over. I would likely switch companies if I didn't have to rebuy all my lenses.

Anyway, what I'm really excited about here, as others have said, is the use of specialty lenses. Now I can (or soon might be able to) take video footage of macro stuff, wide angle panoramas, etc. I've been lusting after a tilt/shift lens for my next purchase and think that could provide some beautiful results in video. Think of slowing tilting your plane of focus across a scene or a model.
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2008, 12:51:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The one thing that particularly interests me here is around a bit of history.  I clearly remember seeing a number of discussions on various boards 3 or 4 years ago that were adamant in asserting that this (dslr video) could/would never happen.  What's amazing is the almost inevitable bad guessing about how fast the technology is evolving.
Logged
Theodore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2008, 07:57:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
from Simon Joinson in response to your dpreview question on the 5 minute limitation...

"We asked this question and were told it's a tax issue, nothing else. The fact you can take 5 mins, pause a second then do another 5 mins ad infinitum seems to support this.
SJ "
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


But you can shoot lower quality for a 20 minute clip?  That sounds more like a file size issue.
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2008, 09:20:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But you can shoot lower quality for a 20 minute clip?  That sounds more like a file size issue.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't know what the 5 minute limit reason is but soon it's going to be difficult for the broadcast companies to control the rights to major events, especially sporting events like the Olympics and world games where only "still" cameras are allowed on the grounds.

This and I assume other cameras like it are going to open up complete new territory and probably pose a whole lot of issues in regards to rights, fees, liscensing, etc.

Right now nobody is going to shoot a news broadcast or television spot with this camera, (well maybe not) but soon I would imagine all dslrs, pro and semi-pro will have some kind of video function and eventually far surpass anything that can be transmitted on hdv.

At one point I really did believe that convergence will be commonplace on the web, where video and still imagery will share equal space, maybe titled more towards the video side.

Lately I've come to adjust that thought as we really are living in the 4 to 10 second world.

Maybe stills, or moving stills will have more visual power on the web than actual traditional moving footage.

Time will tell.

Of course so will bandwidth.

One thing I am sure of is compelling imagery, more than ever, takes creativity, planning and money, especially for commerce.

The camera, whether it is a $900 dslr or a $50,000 Red, a gazillion dollar panaflex will make little difference if the story, the imagery and final result is not worth watching.

This camera does have some interesting applications, but I don't believe it will change things that much, at least not today.

A few years ago the Seinfeld American Express commercials were shot with a SD xl1.

[a href=\"http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article85.php]http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article85.php[/url]

As interesting as this was, it really didn't change or impact the production, including costs.

At this level, cost of the camera is almost not noticed on the estimate form.



JR
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 09:40:10 PM by James R Russell » Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1662


« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2008, 10:29:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Although some current DSLRs will do time-lapse photography, you'd never want to use them for this application because you'd soon toast the shutter mechanism.  I see no mention of intervalometer functions in the D90, yet this would be a near perfect camera for time-lapse acquisition.  Nikon missed the boat in this respect, IMHO.  T/L footage, especially in HD, would be very marketable, even if it is only near-HDTV.  True 720P is 720X1920, and that's not what the D90 produces.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2008, 11:06:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The one thing that particularly interests me here is around a bit of history.  I clearly remember seeing a number of discussions on various boards 3 or 4 years ago that were adamant in asserting that this (dslr video) could/would never happen.  What's amazing is the almost inevitable bad guessing about how fast the technology is evolving.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

Tim,
I raised this issue a couple of years ago on this site. Why do DSLRs not have video capability like P&S cameras? With their larger sensors, they could exceed the quality of professional video cameras costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The answers seemed to centre around ergonomics. Dedicated videocams are obviously designed with video shooters in mind. They sport the features that video shooters require and find useful. A video facility in a still camera must take second place, in terms of ergonomics and features, to the features that enhance the taking of still images.

The D90 is lacking in some very basic features that you would find on any videocam costing less, such as lack of autofocussing and automatic zoom.

Nevertheless, this is a first, and one can presume that such features will follow in subsequent models if the D90 proves to be a hit.

One factor which is missing in the news of this camera I've read so far is, 'How is this 1280x720 HD image formed?' Is it a result of binning the pixels in a 16:9 crop from the 12.3mp sensor, resulting in a video with far superior noise characteristics to any prosumer videocam? Or, is the image comprised of 1280x720 unbinned pixels?
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2008, 11:51:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Although some current DSLRs will do time-lapse photography, you'd never want to use them for this application because you'd soon toast the shutter mechanism. I see no mention of intervalometer functions in the D90, yet this would be a near perfect camera for time-lapse acquisition. Nikon missed the boat in this respect, IMHO. T/L footage, especially in HD, would be very marketable, even if it is only near-HDTV. True 720P is 720X1920, and that's not what the D90 produces.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The D200+ cameras have it, and I read somewhere that the D90 has it too. Not sure though. Totally unrelated with LV and Video function I believe.

EDIT: According to this [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond90/page11.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond90/page11.asp[/url] the D90 seems to have the intervalometer functions of its bigger siblings.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 04:13:01 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2008, 11:58:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Tim,
I raised this issue a couple of years ago on this site. Why do DSLRs not have video capability like P&S cameras? With their larger sensors, they could exceed the quality of professional video cameras costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The answers seemed to centre around ergonomics. Dedicated videocams are obviously designed with video shooters in mind. They sport the features that video shooters require and find useful. A video facility in a still camera must take second place, in terms of ergonomics and features, to the features that enhance the taking of still images.

The D90 is lacking in some very basic features that you would find on any videocam costing less, such as lack of autofocussing and automatic zoom.

Nevertheless, this is a first, and one can presume that such features will follow in subsequent models if the D90 proves to be a hit.

One factor which is missing in the news of this camera I've read so far is, 'How is this 1280x720 HD image formed?' Is it a result of binning the pixels in a 16:9 crop from the 12.3mp sensor, resulting in a video with far superior noise characteristics to any prosumer videocam? Or, is the image comprised of 1280x720 unbinned pixels?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It took so long because of the sensor sizes and related heat and bandwidth issues I believe. Also marketing played its part, I suppose.

AF it is reasonable to expect that manufacturers are working on it, no mean feast though to perform adequately fast and precise contrast based AF for these large DOF limited sensors..

Electric zoom, I doubt very much that Nikon or Canon will do it any time soon since it will involve new body to lens interface and new lenses. never say never though... Don't know much about other manufactures body to lens basics to comment. Some form of 'digital zoom' might easily be offered though since with current HD formats these sensors have resolution to spare.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 11:58:54 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1662


« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2008, 10:16:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The D200+ cameras have it, and I read somewhere that the D90 has it too. Not sure though. Totally unrelated with LV and Video function I believe.

EDIT: According to this http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond90/page11.asp the D90 seems to have the intervalometer functions of its bigger siblings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218010\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's not clear that the intervalometer controls apply to the new video mode.  Shooting time lapse in "standard" mode, ie with the shutter actuating for each frame, is a non-starter.  You'd very soon reach the rated number of shutter actuations.
Logged
user
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2008, 03:13:00 AM »
ReplyReply

DELETED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: September 18, 2008, 07:31:26 PM by user » Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1662


« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2008, 10:42:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This isn't so. I've been using DSLRs of all stripes (Fujifilm S2, Canon 300D, 400D, 450D, 20D, 40D, 5D, Nikon D2X, D200) for time lapse for a few years now.

You don't hit the number of shutter actuations for quite some time. Pretty much the lowest rating for a DSLR was 30k shots for the 300D (digital rebel across the pond) - 20 minutes at 25fps. I usually shoot 750 frames in a time lapse - 30 seconds, so even the 300D will make 40 odd saleable shots for 150 - the cost of a new shutter. My 300D - now rarely used - is on its fourth shutter mech. My D200 is on 150k and has been my favourite time lapse camera for nearly three years now. Eventually the shutter will give out - but bodies are just a small part of all the other gear (lenses, motions control, timers, external batteries) I use - and when the D200 does go 'pop' - it may be an excuse for an upgrade!

Robbie Allen, Lobster Pictures

www.lobsterpictures.tv
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Interesting cost calculations.  I stand corrected.  Abuse of my D300's shutter mechanism ahead!

Lovely reel.  Your motion control time-lapse is gorgeous. : )
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 10:51:37 AM by Peter McLennan » Logged
Kagetsu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2008, 05:41:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
True 720P is 720X1920, and that's not what the D90 produces.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I couldn't find any reference to that resolution... isn't it 1280x720?

EDIT:

Quote
Robbie Allen, Lobster Pictures

www.lobsterpictures.tv

Really enjoyed your reel there.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 05:47:08 PM by Kagetsu » Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2008, 07:28:02 PM »
ReplyReply

On camera sound, on pro cameras, can be superb in quality and equal to that of recording on a specialist audio recorder. We've upgraded the sound on the RED One (free upgrade - see RED  forums for details) and with a decent mic, the quality is top professional audiophile quality - seriously, and anyone who knows me knows I'm fussy about audio as well as the image. So it can be done.

It's not so much the size of the chip, although a nice decent sized chip should make for good video, but how you  deal with it. Looking at the 720p from the Nikon, it's "rough and ready" and not up to the quality of stills you get from a Nikon, and not up to the quality of taking stills, properly downsampling them, and then making them into a movie, even if you used the same codec and bit rate as used in camera. Nikon do seem to be taking a lot of "short cuts" with their video processing and it shows in chroma sparkles, aliasing, compression and scaling artifacts.

Also, their CMOS is not designed for video. It's designed for stills with a physical shutter. It has an electronic rolling shutter on the CMOS. Now, that's not necessarily bad if the shutter is fast enough to avoid skew and jelly wobble. RED was not perfect with regards to this when it was first released and shot with, but that was soon remedied so that the rolling shutter was very fast indeed. The Nikon rolling shutter is slow, and causes wobble and skew making it practically unusable for many shooting scenarios.

Graeme

Quote
I agree, but at the same time, most on-camera sound from expensive professional camcorders isn't so great either, and requires the purchase of third party sound equipment for a semi-professional or professional production.

Also, I'm just guessing here, 720P video from a DX-sized sensor is much better than a 3CCD 1/3rd inch chip...eh?  I wouldn't know yet, but it's probably true.

The only thing is that you can't record in RAW, and edit in RAW like the RED cinema camera allows.  Of course, this is only a consumer DSLR, so you're correct by saying that currently, video cameras, no matter what the price, do video better than still cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
user
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2008, 07:29:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Robbie Allen, Lobster Pictures

www.lobsterpictures.tv
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


you bitch you use my account!
« Last Edit: September 18, 2008, 07:30:06 PM by user » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad