PDA

View Full Version : Post your worst results with the D90 here!



Matthew Bennett
09-13-2008, 09:13 AM
Since the camera is always looking to hold a JPEG party, a Wobble Party, and a Self-Exposure party, I thought I'd start a pity-party thread for all those who are finding the camera is ruining their imaging day.

I'm going to try to get all the 'mistakes' in this thread, so whenever I come across some useful advice, or see an example of a D90 gone bad, I'll copy and paste it into here, along with my own mistakes.

1. Don't bother changing the picture settings the camera gives you.
One of the first things I did, thinking I was being clever, is bump down the contrast settings on one of the pictures settings, the idea being that somehow it would give me lovely clean shadows. NO WAY!
Let the camera crush the blacks, it just works very well with the JPEG compression which wants to band/posterize out of focus areas, skies, clouds, gradations, etc.
I switched from a customized, low-con version of "NEUTRAL" to the standard setting of "LANDSCAPE', and immediately noticed the whole image was better in the end.

2. There is no limit to how much the JPEG compression wants to EAT YOU ALIVE!
It is Ravenous! Please, give the camera a visually complex, High range scene to image. It forces the D90 to adapt by upping the bitrate, which it will again lower at the first opportunity. DO NOT shoot a mellow, underexposed anything. Don't even think of retaining detail in your moody shadows...
You will also see moired brick walls, jagged fences, jagged 'anything' which is contrasty at a slight inclination.

Here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=146887

3. The Jello - always room for it!
The longer primes have more of an appetite. I'm always noticing jello on movements that I thought were quite SMOOTH when I was recording.
Probably you should prepare to really stabilize when using a 50mm or above... tripod, monopod, choose your weapon.

The RULES for a non-wobbly image by John Cabellero (copied and pasted)

Rule 1: You have to hold the camera extremely tight with your right hand and equally tight with your left, sort of pushing towards the lens while you focus. You have to squeeze it.
Rule 2: Get a foot hold and don't SHAKE the camera at all. Not even for a second.
Rule 3: Don't tip the camera even for a second. Tilting it back and forth even the slightest creates that rippled looking image from top to bottom.
Rule 3: When you pan do it firmly, not pushing the camera along suddenly. The camera needs to sort of flow with the image and stop very smoothly.

Again, while you move the camera you sort of have to feel like you are lifting the image and moving it along as if you were carrying a glass of water or jello and did not want it to ripple or shake while it glides. If you start moving the camera left and right up and down suddenly you are going to get the image you deserve for doing that.
Keep on trying this and practicing. Make it your goal to shoot handheld without wobbling. If you are not able to just get a tripod. With a nice smooth head, panning and moving up and down is a breeze.

And below is a link to the current poster boy for a "WOBBLY WORLD"

http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr134/jamesmel9/?action=view&current=DSC_0012.flv

Posters, feel free to post your horror stories here, if you like, with gruesome grabs of the 9th level of JPEG hell.
It's a good idea to see how the camera 'breaks' to protect yourself from nightmares in the future, correct?

Matthew Bennett
09-13-2008, 10:45 AM
Not feeling the thread, I understand.
Optimism at all times!

I'm loving the camera today, though.. can't wait to get out and about with it with a nice sync-sound rig on the side..

John Sandel
09-13-2008, 11:31 AM
I think your thread is useful—I plan on making similar mistakes when I get my D90. Plus it provides a new room for folks to corner you for more abuse. (Hey, Ando! He's in here!)

But probably we could fold your "failure-mode" notes into the "Understanding and Optimizing" thread.

ESTEBEVERDE
09-13-2008, 02:18 PM
I think your thread is useful—I plan on making similar mistakes when I get my D90. Plus it provides a new room for folks to corner you for more abuse. (Hey, Ando! He's in here!)

But probably we could fold your "failure-mode" notes into the "Understanding and Optimizing" thread.


Yep!

Better to fix the problems than the blame.

It is useful to post what hasn't worked and limitations to be sure.

But, the focus should be squeezing all of the performance we can out of this little D90.

Kholi
09-13-2008, 03:08 PM
You would probably save yourself a lot of headache by reading what others have posted before you.

lol.

All of this information has been covered at one time or another. Standard, Landscape or Portrait are great predetermined curves for video. You can also use the software included with your Camera to make your own curves.

Matthew Bennett
09-13-2008, 06:44 PM
You would probably save yourself a lot of headache by reading what others have posted before you.

lol.

All of this information has been covered at one time or another. Standard, Landscape or Portrait are great predetermined curves for video. You can also use the software included with your Camera to make your own curves.


I've actually read the entire 'the end of thread', just it somehow didn't sink in that the JPEG compression's bitrate would continue to bottom out like that.
Now I know. And knowing is half the battle. And shooting/testing is the other half of the battle.

lisa hayse
09-14-2008, 02:05 AM
Rock On Matt!!!!

Knowing the limitations is as great a knowing the potentials plusses on this hybrid.

Let's take this for example
http://www.vimeo.com/1713382

David vs goliath.

or D90 vs HVX200

This person shooting sure did a alright job.

With Great Tweaking and Stabilization Responsibilities Comes Great Power.

Actually with more time planning (which indie people have a lot of) than spending
money. The D90 can knock a good ass puch in to Goliath. So with that said
This D90 has good potential in maturing. There is a risk in shooting a heavy invested
flick but for one who want to get their vision out there with little money and a lot of
preparation this is one of many Great tools.


Peace Out!

Matthew Bennett
09-14-2008, 08:18 AM
I see it as a 'sketch' camera where you can go out and have the equivalent of a DVX+M2, which focuses perfectly all the time with no hassles, is tiny and nearly invisible to onlookers, shoots in any light, and will give you something you can cut and examine very quickly.

But don't get me wrong, the bottomless bitrate aside, if you feed the D-movie gorgeous, high-range, eye popping imagery, it will give you a decent, respectable HD image.

buildyo
09-15-2008, 08:50 AM
http://www.vimeo.com/1727307
Please downlaod and watch the original AVI.

What did this Vimeo user wrong? Is the fisheye causing such bad resolution? Compared to other movies at Vimeo the resolution of this clip is real, real bad.

Matthew Bennett
09-15-2008, 01:49 PM
I haven't d'ld the clip but I figuring it's an issue of banding in the white of the background, correct?

probable Lesson: backgrounds with fine gradations will suffer from obvious 'banding' as the JPEG party attempts to simplify the scene to lower the bandwidth.
JPEG PARTY: 1, USER: 0

Moral of the story - keep feeding the camera a complex, detailed scene to image!
Make that JPEG party WORK!!!!

DONT SHOOT THE SKY.
DONT SHOOT A MISTY CLOUD.
DONT SHOOT AN UNDEREXPOSED ANYTHING.

buildyo
09-15-2008, 11:49 PM
Please download the clip. It's not the banding, it's the resolution. Just look at the face of the musician. The data rate is 16 Mbits/s

Matthew Bennett
09-16-2008, 05:43 AM
I dl'd it.
I would say it is passable for a d90 compressed clip. It seems like the girl's face is so smooth that the JPEG compression wants to throw a party and over-simplify it.

Like I said at the top of the thread, there doesn't seem to be any limit to how the JPEG compression engine in the camera wants to EAT YOUR IMAGE alive!!!

bearing
09-16-2008, 06:30 AM
I´m not sure everything is from compression. A test that may show that is to take a still and a short video on something static. Use a tripod. Crop and resize the still to a 1280x720 still with the same same field of view as the video. I think it should be cropped to 3840x2160 first to get the same field of view - you´ll see. Compress it with a setting that makes the image size the same size as the JPEG in the MJPEG stream. If the stream was 16 Mbit/s which is 16 / 2 = 8 Mbyte/s then the image should be 2 / 24 = 0.083 Mbyte (83 Kbyte). I believe the compression setting giving that size will be around 75% quality (or 25% compressed, depending on how the software is built). Compare the image to a frame from the video.