PDA

View Full Version : anyone agree that......



hoofandmouf
11-08-2008, 09:48 AM
.... the D90 has a unique, intimate quality.... that I just love

shaky, skew, kind of gritty but it looks and feels real and honest to me, I dare say that this little camera has more integrity and humanity than a lot of other pricier cameras

its imperfections are precisely what makes it amazing IMO

getting one next week, I'm sold.

:beer::thumbup:

ben wheatley
11-08-2008, 11:50 AM
yeah ive got one, and its been a challenge jumping through all its little hoops to get it to work. But when you get it right its just great. It loves faces, they are just full of emotion. I guess i will upgrade the d90 when Nikon bring out a less jello version but until then I'll make a lot of films on tripods and wont pan too quick! I look at it as a never ending super 8 camera. I am looking forward to making some shorts on it.

jaybirch
11-08-2008, 12:42 PM
to be honest, although the look is nice... I think everyone is clutching at straws in thinking that this camera is anywhere near professional level. At HD, it's unusable, at SD it is just about ok for a few shots.

give it a year and we will be into a special period for shooting footage though.

ydgmdlu
11-08-2008, 12:43 PM
it looks and feels real and honest to me, I dare say that this little camera has more integrity and humanity than a lot of other pricier cameras
I just don't get how such statements could possibly apply to a mass-produced piece of electronics whose images are nothing more than packages of electrical signals—just like any other digital camera/camcorder. "Integrity"? "Humanity"? Yes, there's no doubt that the D90's footage has a unique and special quality, but saying that it's more than that is ridiculous.

And if you want "real" and "honest," then any prosumer HD camcorder, the Canon 5D Mk II, the RED One, or any professional HD camcorder is far superior. The footage from any one of those cameras is cleaner, sharper, and less distorted and boasts more realistic color—in short, a much more accurate representation of reality. If anything, the word to describe the 5D's footage is "dreamy," not "real" or "honest."

ben wheatley
11-08-2008, 12:58 PM
And if you want "real" and "honest," then any prosumer HD camcorder, the Canon 5D Mk II, the RED One, or any professional HD camcorder is far superior. The footage from any one of those cameras is cleaner, sharper, and less distorted and boasts more realistic color—in short, a much more accurate representation of reality. If anything, the word to describe the 5D's footage is "dreamy," not "real" or "honest."

i think "real and honest" can be taken a number of different ways. Super 8 feels real and honest in a way that 70mm maybe dosent. Footage can be too crisp, too sharp.
It wont stand up as "HD" but then it depends on what kind of film you are making. I bet it didnt bother the dogme boys much that they were shooting on cheapo camcorders or the guys who shot all those films on PXL2000 pixelvision cameras. It just looks different.

Daniel Aragão
11-08-2008, 03:20 PM
"At HD, it's unusable, at SD it is just about ok for a few shots."

when i look at the d90 footage i shoot in my full hd lcd television played from a blu-ray disc ive made, it dont look "unusable" as HD. Who are you to say something like that with so much authority?

there are lots of michael mann and sodenberg in this community!! hehe

mrmoe
11-08-2008, 03:34 PM
"At HD, it's unusable, at SD it is just about ok for a few shots."

At the end of the day, it comes down to the Content!
Kevin Smith, Daren Aronofsky, Chris Nolan shot there 1st films, black and white.
As long as the stories are compelling, people will watch it.

I am liking my D90 more and more.

jaybirch
11-08-2008, 03:45 PM
i'm not trying to cause offense... i just think it's time we accept the d90 for what it is, a nice little video addition to a great still camera ....and look ahead to what will be a great technology in a year or two

I have a d90 btw, i like it but will never use it for anything close to commercial motion usage.

As for the arguement of content over picture quality... I agree with it in prinicpal, but.... good content and good image quality sells.... often crap content and good image quality sells.... very very rarely does good content and bad image quality sell.

The jello effect and stair stepping are just too bad to overlook in anything other than the most basic shots. Just my opinion... i truely wish it was just that little bit better, and think it soon will be, in a dslr.

infurno
11-08-2008, 04:53 PM
As for the arguement of content over picture quality... I agree with it in prinicpal, but.... good content and good image quality sells.... often crap content and good image quality sells.... very very rarely does good content and bad image quality sell.

I disagree.

Many, many people watch pirated films recorded on small cameras in the back of a theater. Terrible quality, often its difficult to even see whats going on. Even with other people coughing, talking, and walking in front obstructing the view.

DVD rips and HDTV content distributed over the internet is using heavy compression. Artifacts, edges, you name it, its all there and its still extremely popular.

We may obsess over it, but in the end video quality is not all that important to the average person.

I'm not suggesting that video quality is not at all important. It is, but its nowhere near as important as the content.

HowdyDoo
11-08-2008, 05:07 PM
.... very very rarely does good content and bad image quality sell.

I disagree completely. In a battle between content and image quality, content always wins in my book. You may be able to fool some people into watching a flashy, big budget piece of crap, but if the content sucks, you won't hold their interest for long and you most certainly won't earn their respect in the end.

As for the D90's ability to deliver quality imagery in a professional environment, I think that relies on the user entirely. This music video was shot using an EX1 w/Letus and a D90. Can you point out which shots are the D90 and which are EX1? No. The D90 was used in an extremely creative and clever way.

http://vimeo.com/2110651

Anything can be used to tell a story and limitations force creative solutions. I think what people like about the D90 is that it has a very film-like image yet also possesses setbacks, like the film cameras of old. The D90 forces you to find interesting and unique ways to work because of it's limitations.

hoofandmouf
11-08-2008, 06:00 PM
And if you want "real" and "honest," then any prosumer HD camcorder, the Canon 5D Mk II, the RED One, or any professional HD camcorder is far superior. The footage from any one of those cameras is cleaner, sharper, and less distorted and boasts more realistic color—in short, a much more accurate representation of reality. If anything, the word to describe the 5D's footage is "dreamy," not "real" or "honest."

sometimes things can be too sharp, too hi res, too squeaky clean, too glossy, too synthetic

its apples and oranges.

I love this little sucker and I'm NOT arguing that is "professional" (whatever the hell that means these days) yeehaw my friends!!

bronxjragon
11-08-2008, 06:17 PM
I somewhat agree w/most of you. Content v quality is subjective. When I watch Hollywood films I would prefer a sharp, HD version, but lately I just watch mp4 versions of them, sure there are artifiacts, but I KNOW from imdb I'm watching a quality movie. So it doesn't bother me as much. The DOF and cinematics are all there, just not in HD. Now if there was a film made on a D90 that I KNEW for sure is awesome I'd watch it even if its not crispy. However if its a rubbish film whats the point of watching it? I think the d90 footage does just enough to be an enjoyable experience if the quality is there. That recent d90 movie with the guy running about the train station with his phone, cinematically I could've watched it and enjoyed it, nice shots and film look. The actor was so cliche though, trying to be a tough guy, chewing his gum so it bugged the sh*t out of me. Okay I'm straying....basically content over quality depending on what you're watching.

Then there are things you watch purely for the quality. Lets be serious I could care less about Underwater Creatures or whatever IMAX Discovery pumps out, but it looks so amazing on my HDTV I have to watch it. I wouldn't watch an IMAX Discovery storyline shot on a d90 though because its not necessarily the content I enjoy, just watching it for the eye candy.

P.S. I do care about underwater creatures actually.

bronxjragon
11-08-2008, 06:18 PM
I
As for the D90's ability to deliver quality imagery in a professional environment, I think that relies on the user entirely. This music video was shot using an EX1 w/Letus and a D90. Can you point out which shots are the D90 and which are EX1? No. The D90 was used in an extremely creative and clever way.

http://vimeo.com/2110651



At 27 seconds. Dead giveaway with the rolling shutter, sorry

HowdyDoo
11-08-2008, 07:01 PM
The EX1 has a rolling shutter, too.

infurno
11-08-2008, 07:10 PM
Any CMOS camera without a global reset feature will. Including the RED One, and Scarlet. How much rolling shutter depends on the frequency of the pixel clock - how fast the camera can read and reset the pixels.

I remember a lot of rolling shutter distortions in "Crossing the Line", It has improved since but you can still see it at times.

As far as rolling shutter, the 5D MK II is much better than the D90. If I could, I would order one now.

bronxjragon
11-08-2008, 07:13 PM
Okay so the EX1 has a rolling shutter too, the D90s is just so obvious from the video. I wish my D90 didn't have rolling shutter either but hey thats life.

jaybirch
11-09-2008, 05:28 AM
re: web/compressed video... you are talking about quality over price... not quality over content.... different arguement.

jaybirch
11-09-2008, 05:34 AM
re music video: I'd say all the close up shots of the rapper in the red top are d90. I stand by what I said earlier, I think it would be acceptable, in fact, very good in SD... but it isn't broadcast HD quality.

mattsand
11-09-2008, 08:19 AM
what the hell is broadcast hd quality anyway? 720p is 720p even if it looks like crap, super 8 scanned to vhs then digitized to dv then bumped to 720p is too. i know you're trying to say that the d90 image quality isn't perfect but this has nothing to do with broadcast, and besides who are you trying to convince and of what? i thought we were discussing whether the shortcomings that we are all very familiar with could actually be seen as a benefit, just as 16mm has many qualities that can make it more interesting than 35mm.

/matt

jaybirch
11-09-2008, 08:31 AM
why the attitude?? broadcast quality HD is something which would make the grade when presented to a client, if they had asked for a HD production. Just like if a client asked for a professional image at 8megapixels, you could not present them with an image off a 8mpx mobile phone... the pixel count is the same, but nothing else is...

all I was saying is that, although the footage is nice in most every other way (colour, depth, exposure etc), i find it's quality limitations unworkable in a professional situation.... that is on topic, surely?

-----------------------------------------------------
what the hell is broadcast hd quality anyway?

hoofandmouf
11-12-2008, 04:45 AM
my original point wasnt about wowing clients/broadcast quality HD/yadda yadda.....

its was about the aesthetic value of this little tool, which (IMHO) it has a great deal of despite its "professional" short comings

but if the 720 coming outta my HVX200 looks good on an HDTV, I'm sure the D90 would as well.... plus it would have more cinematic DOF and all that jazz

but I've never watched any D90 footy on and HDTV so its all just my speculation.

point is.... I like this camera and in the right hands its a more effective tool than a RED/Viper/35mm Arri in the hands of a hack

Ian-T
11-12-2008, 10:29 AM
I understand what you are saying in regards to your point of this thread...but really...all you did was give your opinion and asked if we agreed with it. So it seems that you were looking for a yes or a no answer. If you are looking for more than that...then I would agree with what jaybirch has to say. I think he's absolutely correct.

bronxjragon
11-12-2008, 11:02 AM
I understand what you are saying in regards to your point of this thread...but really...all you did was give your opinion and asked if we agreed with it. So it seems that you were looking for a yes or a no answer. If you are looking for more than that...then I would agree with what jaybirch has to say. I think he's absolutely correct.

Agreed. Jaybirch makes a good point, mattsand needs to stop having these temper tantrums. They're opinions, everyone is entitled to their own.

hoofandmouf
11-12-2008, 11:35 AM
well not to nit pick too much..... but....

I was asking opinions on the aesthetic value, not necessarily the broadcast HD quality that impresses clients...

doesn't matter, everyone has a great opinion and its good to hear from all sides. I like this camera and thats whats important to me.

group hug.

jaybirch
11-13-2008, 03:46 AM
like I said before.... I love pretty much every aspect of the look and feel of the footage, but I felt the need to say that I think that the overall quality fundamentally lets it down. Aesthetic value could argueably involve the sharpness, picture quality and compression artefacts.

ydgmdlu
11-13-2008, 07:40 AM
i think "real and honest" can be taken a number of different ways. Super 8 feels real and honest in a way that 70mm maybe dosent. Footage can be too crisp, too sharp.

I'm sorry, but you need to define what "real" and "honest" mean in order to have any sort of meaningful conversation about such matters. If any "look" for footage can be called "real" and "honest," then those terms become emptied of meaning. If Super 8mm footage can be called more "real" and "honest" than 70mm footage in one instance, but then vice-versa in another instance, then what point is there to using those words to characterize footage?

Oh, but you say that it comes down to what the footage depicts. Depending on the content, one "look" can be more "real" and "honest" than another, regardless of the technical details/specifications. Well, unfortunately, the original poster was saying that the footage from the D90 was more "real" and "honest" in general, regardless of the content.

What's very apparent is that people use such words as flowery language for a feeling that they can't describe in any truly comprehensible terms. The sentiment is nice, but without discernible meaning, it's quite worthless.

So I was attempting to use some objective criteria in order to define "real" and "honest" in practical terms. How does footage that depicts a soft, fuzzy, distorted version of reality more "real" and "honest" than footage that depicts reality as closer to what it is? Don't be ridiculous, now.

Opinions are only as valuable as the quality of the justifications behind them.

ydgmdlu
11-13-2008, 07:52 AM
I love this little sucker and I'm NOT arguing that is "professional" (whatever the hell that means these days) yeehaw my friends!!

I wasn't talking about professional equipment or "professional" output. I was addressing your claims about the qualities of D90 footage. In fact, I mentioned "prosumer" camcorders in my list of cameras offering superior output. Heck, even the consumer-grade Canon HV30 offers footage that's more "real" and "honest" and has more "integrity" and "humanity" than the D90. (If you wish to dispute this, then you have to explain what you mean when you use those descriptive terms.)

Besides, you asserted that the D90 footage was superior, in significant ways, to the output of much higher-end, truly professional-grade cameras, so you really invited such comparisons.


I'm not really trying to knock the D90 here. It's certainly a special camera with particular uses. But let's be honest about what it is, rather place it on some pedestal.

bronxjragon
11-13-2008, 07:59 AM
I think some people just like to justify their purchase of the D90. There's nothing wrong with it, I think they understand it for what its worth and its limitations and all. I understand its frustrating when people use superlatives to describe a first-generation product (well, the video feature on this DSLR is first gen I guess) -- when the Asus EEE PCs first came out, lets be real, it was sh*t, but 'fanboys' on EEE PC forums would say stupid things like "we are pioneers for purchasing this!" They try to justify their purchase even though they own an inferior netbook in every sense. Trust me I had one lol

So when throwing the word "professional" "honest" etc around, I think these fans of the D90 just really love their camera and got more than they thought they would. Nothing wrong with that since they're not bashing the competition like the Mark II and Scarlet which aren't even out yet.

Ralph Oshiro
11-22-2008, 04:52 AM
Wow! You guys are so literal. The TS was stating a subjective interpretation of the D90's color rendition and overall image character. An opinion with which I quite agree. I only just opened up my D90 this evening and shot some stainless steel appliances in the kitchen with a 50mm f/1.2. I was like, "Wow!" Sure, the camera has a lot of warts, but its colorimetry is "dreamy," IMO. "Seductive," even. I shoot with a "real" HD camera at work, a Sony HDW-F900R. I would describe its images as "clean" and "pristine." But my initial impression of the D90 was like, "Wow! It has the 'feel' of Super8." More "organic." And that's what the TS meant. It's a cool tool. Another wrench in the filmmaker's bag of tricks. Plus, it takes great still pictures, too!

ben wheatley
11-22-2008, 07:25 AM
I'm sorry, but you need to define what "real" and "honest" mean in order to have any sort of meaningful conversation about such matters. If any "look" for footage can be called "real" and "honest," then those terms become emptied of meaning. If Super 8mm footage can be called more "real" and "honest" than 70mm footage in one instance, but then vice-versa in another instance, then what point is there to using those words to characterize footage?

Oh, but you say that it comes down to what the footage depicts. Depending on the content, one "look" can be more "real" and "honest" than another, regardless of the technical details/specifications. Well, unfortunately, the original poster was saying that the footage from the D90 was more "real" and "honest" in general, regardless of the content.

What's very apparent is that people use such words as flowery language for a feeling that they can't describe in any truly comprehensible terms. The sentiment is nice, but without discernible meaning, it's quite worthless.

So I was attempting to use some objective criteria in order to define "real" and "honest" in practical terms. How does footage that depicts a soft, fuzzy, distorted version of reality more "real" and "honest" than footage that depicts reality as closer to what it is? Don't be ridiculous, now.

Opinions are only as valuable as the quality of the justifications behind them.

what i mean specifically comes from the emotional value that different stocks and cameras give you. You shoot on cam corders in a handheld doco style and things feel "real" You shoot on proffesional formats and things become more like cinema and therefore more artificial. super 8 was a non proffesional format and feels more honest and real. The d90 has that feel.

Jim Klatt
11-28-2008, 05:35 PM
Wow! You guys are so literal. The TS was stating a subjective interpretation of the D90's color rendition and overall image character. An opinion with which I quite agree. I only just opened up my D90 this evening and shot some stainless steel appliances in the kitchen with a 50mm f/1.2. I was like, "Wow!" Sure, the camera has a lot of warts, but its colorimetry is "dreamy," IMO. "Seductive," even. I shoot with a "real" HD camera at work, a Sony HDW-F900R. I would describe its images as "clean" and "pristine." But my initial impression of the D90 was like, "Wow! It has the 'feel' of Super8." More "organic." And that's what the TS meant. It's a cool tool. Another wrench in the filmmaker's bag of tricks. Plus, it takes great still pictures, too!

Well put. I feel the same way. One of my favorite photographers is Nan Goldin, and some of the D90 footage I've seen reminds me of the aesthetics of her photography(not the content, of course). Although it's ability to operate in such low light and its discrete-ness
offers an intimate advantage.

mattsand
11-29-2008, 04:19 AM
mattsand needs to stop having these temper tantrums.

Who do you think you are? Need? Give me a break. Show intelligence and you'll get respect, show ignorance and you'll hear it too. It has nothing to do with opinions.

bronxjragon
11-29-2008, 08:01 AM
Who do you think you are? Need? Give me a break. Show intelligence and you'll get respect, show ignorance and you'll hear it too. It has nothing to do with opinions.

mattsand, sorry if you're upset but it seems you're always going off on people here who have an opinion or try their best to contribute to the forum. the person who started this thread just loves his/her d90 and seeing if anyone else feels the same about is pros and cons. i think its good for them they can find resourcefulness in the d90's shortcoming.

anyway didnt mean to offend you, probably wasn't the coolest thing to say but you gotta respect other ppl's views too. i usually call these kind of ppl 'fanboys' but its not cool, they just love their product. anyway no disrespect, i appreciate your fcp plugins!