Rolling Shutter Stills?

[PhilipD]

I read that the Video does rolling shutter and the frozen pic isn't 1 moment in time.
So when I take a still picture, is the whole image one moment in time?
Thanks :)

[Barry_Green]

Not sure exactly what you're referencing, but the D90 is an SLR with a mirror and a focal plane shutter when used in stills mode. So when you take a still with it, it's exactly what you'd expect, one discrete moment in time with no "rolling shutter" artifacts.

[mattsand]

true but for the record the focal plane shutter "rolls" too, only much much faster. some cameras have shutters that are so slow that you see the artifacts on moving subjects. check the "flash sync speed" which is directly proportional to the amount of roll.

[PhilipD]

Thanks guys :)

[Michael Erlewine]

Here is a question Barry Green:
This will show my ignorance, but that is what these forums are for. I am shooting with the D3s video and then going through the footage looking for still frames I can pull, not on the camera, but in Adobe Premiere. Too time consuming in the camera.

When looking for stills, I find one clearly focused frame every 3-4 frames. Why is this? Is this motion that could be solved by a somehow getting higher shutter speed or is the subject moving too fast for the frames per second? 720p obviously does not mean each frame was separate and in perfect focus, for this appears not to be true. I also looked at pulling frames from the camera and it seems to be the same story. I assume this is just the way it is. I have not pulled single frames before, except to use for making titles, so this is a little new to me.

On the other hand, the sound is great with the external 3.5mm mic jack on the D3s out to an XLr and mic, as you can hear on my video link:

http://www.vimeo.com/7997178

I am encouraged by that.

What I am realizing of late (and I also have a D3x 25MP camera as well) is that I am almost never going to need giant-sized images anymore. Almost all my work goes on the web or at least is fairly small in pixel size (1000 to 1500 px) when it finally gets used. So I am not really needing those pixels, but what I really find I am needing is interchangabbe lenses like this D3s, where I can use a variety of the really great lenses I have collected over the years to good effect.

[Zim]

Good question really. Also most video goes to the web and DVD so these DSLRs will be great for that. Plus they will get better.


Here is a question Barry Green:
This will show my ignorance, but that is what these forums are for. I am shooting with the D3s video and then going through the footage looking for still frames I can pull, not on the camera, but in Adobe Premiere. Too time consuming in the camera.

When looking for stills, I find one clearly focused frame every 3-4 frames. Why is this? Is this motion that could be solved by a somehow getting higher shutter speed or is the subject moving too fast for the frames per second? 720p obviously does not mean each frame was separate and in perfect focus, for this appears not to be true. I also looked at pulling frames from the camera and it seems to be the same story. I assume this is just the way it is. I have not pulled single frames before, except to use for making titles, so this is a little new to me.

On the other hand, the sound is great with the external 3.5mm mic jack on the D3s out to an XLr and mic, as you can hear on my video link on the thread “Transitioning DSLRs to Video…” I am encouraged by that.

What I am realizing of late (and I also have a D3x 25MP camera as well) is that I am almost never going to need giant-sized images anymore. Almost all my work goes on the web or at least is fairly small in pixel size (1000 to 1500 px) when it finally gets used. So I am not really needing those pixels, but what I really find I am needing is interchangabbe lenses like this D3s, where I can use a variety of the really great lenses I have collected over the years to good effect.

[Michael Erlewine]

I am such a tech nut that I seldom really dare to ask myself: just what are the photos I am taking going to be used for, and for the most part the answer is simple: web use, advertising some, and that is about it. I don’t frame photos and put them on the wall, ever. Not my style. My history is that of the bleeding edge of digital photography, and that hurts the pocketbook, but opens doors for the mind. The D3s is perfect for documenting ‘stuff’ like, for me, musicians, concerts, recording sessions, portraits, collaterals, etc. I might sell my D3x and get a second D3s…. hmmm. There is a scary thought.

[Zim]

At least you would have two of the same camera. Well you should be able to take stills with that camera and get great pictures. The video will be great for the web and documenting stuff for sure.


I am such a tech nut that I seldom really dare to ask myself: just what are the photos I am taking going to be used for, and for the most part the answer is simple: web use, advertising some, and that is about it. I don’t frame photos and put them on the wall, ever. Not my style. My history is that of the bleeding edge of digital photography, and that hurts the pocketbook, but opens doors for the mind. The D3s is perfect for documenting ‘stuff’ like, for me, musicians, concerts, recording sessions, portraits, collaterals, etc. I might sell my D3x and get a second D3s…. hmmm. There is a scary thought.

[Barry_Green]

Here is a question Barry Green:
This will show my ignorance, but that is what these forums are for. I am shooting with the D3s video and then going through the footage looking for still frames I can pull, not on the camera, but in Adobe Premiere. Too time consuming in the camera.
Okay, but be aware, the quality of the stills is going to be about 100x better than the quality of a frame grab. These cameras work hugely different in stills mode than in video mode. So if you want high-quality stills, you're not going to find them by taking frame grabs out of the video...

A for why you're finding defocused frames -- I haven't used a Nikon for video but for the very briefest moments, but it's my understanding that they use MotionJPEG recording -- which should meant that every frame is recorded individually. There should be no variation at all.

Are you finding variations even when you're shooting a static subject?

Do you have autofocus active?

[Michael Erlewine]

To Barry Green,

I may have not made myself clear. Of course, the standard stills shot with a Nikon and the great Nikkor lenses are fantastic. I was differentiating between the following:

(1) Stills taken, frame at a time, from the video while the FlashCard is still in the Nikon D3s

And

(2) Stills taken from the video using Adobe Premiere (or whatever) after the footage is copied to the hard drive.

The video is at the following link that I used. There was not a lot of light, so I will have to repeat the test as soon as I can find the time. I am building a light-driven set for this in my studio.

http://www.vimeo.com/7997178

Nikon D3s, Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR II, F/8

But from the above-linked video, everything but the moving subject is in good focus, so the answer would seem to be that it is only the movement of the subject that is being monitored here which is causing the blur.

Then my question for all of us becomes: How do I increase the shutter speed so that every frame is sharp? I am pretty ignorant about some of this stuff.

As for having autofocus active, I am not sure, but will look into this.

This video was an afterthought. I was there trying to take great Nikon stills, as I should, but as it turned out (which is why many of us want to move to hi-res video), from a couple hundred still photos, only a few were any good. As I start to get more into VDSLR video, I can begin to admit to myself (it has always been true) that still photography of moving people is VERY difficult, because unless you take bursts you never know when the good moment will come, much less capture it.

It is much easier to capture everything and extract the stills, when the glint is in the eye and the peak moment of the smile is on the face. I found myself totally fascinated as I went through a lot of other similar footage to what I posted here looking for frames to grab. Here is a sample of a frame grab from one of the videos. How could I ever get this shot using just my Nikons in standard (not video) DSLR mode? Mostly by pure chance!

So, for me, all of this hullabaloo about DSLR video is not just some fad, but a step into the future that will change how we take pictures forever. I have taken roughly 50,000 stills in the last couple of years, most of macro nature subjects. I hate to think how many of those (moving subjects) were not the moment I witnessed, but just fractions of a second too late.

I sold my HVX-200 and a whole set of Redrock Micro gear because the ergonomics of the system and the lack of interchangeable lenses were just too much for me take compared to the clarity of the best Nikkor lenses and the elegance of their bodies. Of course I find myself again on the bleeding edge of technology, which is a pain in the pocketbook and a frustrating wait for technology to blossom. But when I think about it, my whole career has been on the edge. I run the second oldest software company on the Internet, the oldest being Microsoft. I had email in 1979, etc. and etc. It goes on and on.

So, for me, this move to combine the power of video with the state of still photography is not a fad, but a defining moment. I consider my D3s not to be a lousy video camera but a Nikon V-DSLR that takes continuous bursts of about 30 frames a second! The size of the frame images are just not quite large enough for my taste. Perhaps a RED camera with interchangeable lenses will be my future, but I doubt it. Nikon will get it right pretty soon.

If I am honest with myself, almost all of my photographic work ends up on the web in one form or another and even 1280x720 frame grabs are usually enough for that. In fact, I am selling my D3x (24.5 MP) Nikon and buying a second Nikon D3s, so that I can have a 2-camera shoot. As for the 5-minute (2 GB) limit, so what? Real cinema cameras have short takes as well. I will just stagger the two cameras by a short time, so I have continuous footage of my subjects. Instead of zooming (which is getting old anyway), I will just jump from camera to camera in post for now. Anyway, too much yak-yak. I am sure you get my point.

This is a 1280x720 px snapshot of legendary singer/songwriter Robin Lee Berry at a recording session with Grammy Award winning harmonica player Peter ‘Madcat’ Ruth at the Heart Center Studios in Big Rapids, Michigan.

[damonb]

OK PhillipD, here's the lead. Even with the rolling shutter the D90 video takes, for all intents and purpose it takes - and remember it takes - one frame at a time. For film or photography, any image is a frame, regardless of what shutter mechanism it has and regardless what goes on in the real world. The D90 video has single frame captures for video. That's it. What you do or say post production is up to you. But the D90 has shot 24 frames per second. Period. The image is scanned across the sensor - and here's where the problem begins. Unlike traditional film, which is exposed all at once (sort of) the D90 has a "rolling shutter" - the only import of this being that the sensor is not exposed to light uniformly - hence the wobble of the video. Why does this happen? Does it need to happen? Good questions, but if you have this camera, you'll only drive yourself crazy wondering and trying to circumvent it.

If you can see, you have better eyes than any camera. If you can hear, you have better audio than any audio system. every technology you confront is only a limitation to you. Find out how to make it less of a compromise. Forget rolling shutter and single frames. they are the least of your technological limitations.

Remember that 35mm film also takes one frame (in a single exposure) and if there is any movement, there will be motion blur. Taking frames from film or video is often very useful. On a film shoot, the still photographer is employed to generate the still images. And they do it with a different camera - a very good still camera. But the D90 can do this too, and I've been the stills photographer on a film myself with only this one excellent camera.

[Michael Erlewine]

damonb:
I get it, of course. But taking stills with a Nikon (or whatever still camera) and capturing the whole event with video (and pulling stills) are, as you know, different things. I am trying to find out if there is anything I can do to make each frame in the rolling shutter better. Any ideas, other than shoot still frames?

Thanks,

Michael Erlewine

[Barry_Green]

damonb:
I get it, of course. But taking stills with a Nikon (or whatever still camera) and capturing the whole event with video (and pulling stills) are, as you know, different things. I am trying to find out if there is anything I can do to make each frame in the rolling shutter better. Any ideas, other than shoot still frames?
Well, first of all, recognize that DSLR video is really far inferior to conventional video camera video. An HPX300 or EX1 is going to deliver still frame grabs that would easily, handily, thoroughly outperform those from any DSLR.

DSLRs are still cameras, designed to take stills. The video aspect is grafted on and frankly it isn't done very well at all. It can look good, or it can look rough, but it doesn't compare in terms of sharpness or dynamic range to what a decent video camera can do.

But, back to working with what you've got -- if you think motion blur is the problem, then yes shutter speed is the answer. Make sure your shutter is at least 1/50th of a second, and if you want crisper footage (at the expense of less-realistic motion blur in motion) you can go faster. 1/60 is reasonable, 1/80 is starting to push it, and anything faster than 1/80 will have a staccato feel to the motion. But, it'll be crisper (less blur) than a slower shutter speed.

[Lammy]

Well, first of all, recognize that DSLR video is really far inferior to conventional video camera video. An HPX300 or EX1 is going to deliver still frame grabs that would easily, handily, thoroughly outperform those from any DSLR.

Not in his case. The D3s has amazing stills that can be pulled from the video. The general image quality is so much more aethetically beautiful than a grab from an EX1/HPX300 (even with an adapter with the same glass), despite the compression and resolution being technically better.



Make sure your shutter is at least 1/50th of a second, and if you want crisper footage (at the expense of less-realistic motion blur in motion) you can go faster. 1/60 is reasonable, 1/80 is starting to push it, and anything faster than 1/80 will have a staccato feel to the motion. But, it'll be crisper (less blur) than a slower shutter speed.

Agreed. Although I really like the 1/80, 1/100 shutter look. It's surreal and everything appears faster.

I've seen the rolling shutter on the d3s isn't as extreme as the d90, so you wont get as much "jello" looking subjects. It'd be best if you experimented and showed us the details =]



Then my question for all of us becomes: How do I increase the shutter speed so that every frame is sharp? I am pretty ignorant about some of this stuff.

On your d3s, set liveview to tripod mode and switch the camera to M mode. Then turn on live view, press the OK button, then change your shutter speed while you're recording.

You can tell if you're on a high shutter when you move the camera around and there's little motion blur.

That should make screen grabs more sharp, at the expense of smooth motion.

[Michael Erlewine]

BandanDan:

Thanks much! I will experiment and see what is possible. From my point of view, the D3s is the “Little Engine that Could,” or at least I plan to find out if it can. I just put my D3x on sale, and ordered a second D3s. My plan is a 2-camera shoot, offset so that the two cameras overlap enough that one of them is always filming when the other reaches the 5-minute mark.

My experience with my two Sony VX-2000s, an HVX200, and other camcorders that I have (or had) has been less than satisfying so far. I even bought into the whole 35mm adaptor stuff, but my roots are in Nikon primes and their best zooms – clear glass. Pumping the videos through a 35mm adaptor was not worth it for me. I did not like the results. The whole apparatus was just not precise enough.

[Barry_Green]

Not in his case. The D3s has amazing stills that can be pulled from the video.
Interesting, as that would be a first from a DSLR. Has anyone shot a zone plate or a resolution chart with one? I googled and couldn't find any.

[Michael Erlewine]

Barry Green:

Perhaps you can explain how to shoot a resolution chart and zone plate and I could perhaps do that and post it here.

[Barry_Green]

Well, that'd be excellent. Thanks for offering. If you don't have a professional chart, the best online one is the ISO 12233. John Beale has put up some links to some free downloadable charts:
http://www.bealecorner.org/red/test-patterns/

What you'd want to do is print a chart at the absolute highest resolution and largest size that you can. I'd recommend using the 12233 and spreading it out across four sheets of paper. Yes it's a hassle to slice the edges and tape it back together, but printing at the larger size will make the chart a lot more accurate and remove the printer's resolution out of the equation.

Print it out, tape it up against a wall, and then frame the camera up perfectly square to it; you don't want the camera tilted up or down at all, you want the center of the lens to be at the same height as the center of the chart, and you want to be perfectly angled to the chart so that the camera isn't pointing off to the left or to the right at all.

Once you've squared up the camera to the chart, you want to illuminate it flat and evenly. Overhead fluos or daylight can be good for that; it's not so easy to get it flat & even by using tungsten fresnels. A big softbox would help; put it right behind the camera, higher, and tilted down, pointing at the chart, and you should get some nice even flat illumination.

Then frame the chart according to the arrows that are all around it. You want the arrowheads to converge exactly on the frame lines. You don't want to see any gaps between the inner arrows and the edge of your frame, and you don't want to see any of the outer arrows. The arrowheads should line up so that they're perfectly pointing at the edges of the frame. If the arrowheads are cut off, then you're framed too close and your resolution numbers will be wrong, they'll be too generous. If the arrowheads are fully visible and don't run right up to the edge of the frame, then you're framed too far away, and your resolution numbers will be wrong, they'll be too low. So try to frame it as absolutely squarely and perfectly as you can. And this isn't easy with an SLR, because every time you change the zoom, the focus changes a little... and because of lens breathing, every time you change the focus, the lens framing will slightly zoom in or out (even on a prime!) So it's a tricky dance to get perfect focus and perfect framing. Focus is more important than framing, so if you can only get the frame "very close" but you can get the focus "perfect" and you're tired of fiddling with it, well, that'll be good enough.

So, shoot the chart in movie mode and post a frame grab!

Thanks!

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Barry Green,

Here it is:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13655164@N00/4166786921/sizes/o/

Here where I am so far:

(1) Made a large photocopy from the PDF file. Mounted it on a cork board and flanked it by two umbrella lights at 45-degree angles to it.

(2) I tried a couple lenses, and ended up using the Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2/8 lens, which is a flat lens.

(3) I tried to get both the top and bottom and left and right sides of the pattern in my viewfinder, but it did not work. The frame of the camera did not fit the pattern, so I settle on the top and the bottom. Did the best I could, but am willing to try again.

(4) DVXuser would not let me enter the file size or image size, so I put it on Flickr.com, which I don’t use, so I can’t speak to how faithful it is to what we want.

Let me know what I should do to make it better or comment on whatever it is supposed to be showing here.

Thanks,

[Barry_Green]

There's a lot of the picture missing; there's a whole bunch that should be on the left and right, for example. The full frame should look like this:
http://dvxuser.com/barry/iso12233-low.jpg


Look at the perimeter, at all those arrowheads -- they should be pointing to the exact limits of your frame.

[Michael Erlewine]

I totally understand what it should look like, but if I fit the left and right sides in then, the arrows of the top and bottom are visible. what doyou suggest? If I fit it all in then the arrows will NOT be on the frame edges. Over.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

If the sensor has a slow readout, how does it work when in still mode?

It begins the reading but nothing is captured because the phys. shutter is closed > Then the physical shutter opens for amount of time you determined and when it closes the reading stops.

Is it like this? I'm not familiar with the DSLRs mo.

[Zim]

Barry just break down and buy a D3s

[Michael Erlewine]

It is a standard DSLR in still mode, like any Nikon or Canon. What I am waiting for are some instructions on how to do the test using a DSLR and have all four sides of the frame at the very edges where the arrows point. As mentioned, right now I must choose either top or bottom or left and right, but not all four. Waiting for instructions.

Thanks,

[Barry_Green]

I totally understand what it should look like, but if I fit the left and right sides in then, the arrows of the top and bottom are visible. what doyou suggest? If I fit it all in then the arrows will NOT be on the frame edges. Over.
Does your camera not shoot 16:9?

You should be shooting in video mode, and that should be 16:9. That chart is shaped 16:9...

[Michael Erlewine]

The camera is set to 1280x720, which is 16:9. Let me try it again and get another image. It will be in the morning. Perhaps some of you other D3s users out there may know how to do it. Sorry it is a problem.

[Michael Erlewine]

Sorry if this is a case of the blind leading the blind.

The 1280/720 = 1.7777 = 16:9

The Nikon D3s is 4256/2832 = 1.50282 = camera’s ration of width to height.

There is the problem. The viewfinder is looking at 1.50282 ratio, while the test sheet has a ratio of 1.7777

So, I am seeing to focus at one ratio and the camera is recording at 16:9, without letting me have anything to say about it.

Barry Green: You know what you are looking for in the test. Given the above is there any way we could approximate what you are looking for.

Of course I could take an entire picture of the test sheet and show that, but I see no way to make the arrows line up as you want them.

Thoughts?

[Barry_Green]

But isn't the recorded video 16:9? Isn't there a way to frame up in a 16:9 aspect ratio?

If not, frame it vertically, with the arrows touching the top and bottom, and let the sides fall where they may.

Thanks!

[BradM]

If its anything like the D90, you have to push record for the cropped letterboxed marks to appear otherwise it shows the whole 4:3 on the LCD. Either way it should be easy to eyeball after a few records and adjustments.

[Michael Erlewine]

Barry Green:

This is probably not good enough, but here is another try. The letterbox markings only appear on the LCD during recording and then only in faint gray, plus Nikon overprints part of the line with another prompt so this is a somewhat hellish exercise.

The arrows still do not exactly line up, but they might be close enough for what you need to see. Let me know if this works. Otherwise, I will try again.

Here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13655164@N00/4168317477/sizes/o/

Let me know if this tells us anything. Sorry to not get it exactly exact.

[mattsand]

Not in his case. The D3s has amazing stills that can be pulled from the video. The general image quality is so much more aethetically [...]
if you guys had stopped right there the whole discussion would have been redundant. dslr's simply shoot crappy video that looks amazing. sound contradictory but to me it's always been quite obvious.

[Barry_Green]

This is probably not good enough, but here is another try.
It's plenty good enough! You did fine here.

Okay, looking at this frame, I can say that the Nikon in 720p mode simply obliterates the 7D in 720p mode. I shot this same chart on a 7D and there's no question that the Nikon's astoundingly superior to the Canon when in 720p mode (of course, the Canon's 720p mode is known to be a dog, but still, apples to apples, the Nikon's apple is much tastier). Horizontal resolution is actually pretty comparable, but in terms of vertical resolution the Nikon is much, much sharper and doesn't have the color contamination that the Canon has.

The Nikon's 720p mode looks to have about the same resolution as the 7D's 1080p mode, when the 1080p has been downconverted to 720p. Even so, the D3S shows less egregious aliasing artifacts, even though the 7D's footage has been downrezzed. The 7D still shows a lot of color contamination and spurious aliasing throughout, whereas the D3S appears to handle the color and aliasing a little better.

The 7D in 1080, as 1080, does show quite a bit more resolution and definition than the D3S does. There is more detail in the 7D's 1080p image than the D3S can deliver in its best case. The color contamination and aliasing are worse on the 7D, but the D3S isn't exactly perfect either, it has quite a bit.

Then, for grins, I went and shot on the GH1 and HMC40 to see how they compare to the D3S.

GH1, in 1080, shows way more detail than the D3S, with none of the 7D's color contamination, and probably an overall equivalent level of aliasing to the D3S.

GH1, in 720, shows equivalent real sharpness to the D3S, and less spurious aliasing, with no color contamination.

HMC40, in 1080 mode, is just way way way way superior.

HMC40, in 720 mode, is clearer than the D3s, with less aliasing. Slightly better, but not nearly as superior as it was in 1080 mode.

Verdict: the D3s's 720p mode is pretty good. Embarrassingly superior to the 7D's 720p mode. About on par with the GH1 and HMC40 in 720p. Not in the same class as a 1080p DSLR, and nowhere near a 1080p video camera.

[Barry_Green]

dslr's simply shoot crappy video that looks amazing. sound contradictory but to me it's always been quite obvious.
This is an absolutely true statement.

[Zim]

I'd like to see how the D300s comes out with this test.


It's plenty good enough! You did fine here.

Okay, looking at this frame, I can say that the Nikon in 720p mode simply obliterates the 7D in 720p mode. I shot this same chart on a 7D and there's no question that the Nikon's astoundingly superior to the Canon when in 720p mode (of course, the Canon's 720p mode is known to be a dog, but still, apples to apples, the Nikon's apple is much tastier). Horizontal resolution is actually pretty comparable, but in terms of vertical resolution the Nikon is much, much sharper and doesn't have the color contamination that the Canon has.

The Nikon's 720p mode looks to have about the same resolution as the 7D's 1080p mode, when the 1080p has been downconverted to 720p. Even so, the D3S shows less egregious aliasing artifacts, even though the 7D's footage has been downrezzed. The 7D still shows a lot of color contamination and spurious aliasing throughout, whereas the D3S appears to handle the color and aliasing a little better.

The 7D in 1080, as 1080, does show quite a bit more resolution and definition than the D3S does. There is more detail in the 7D's 1080p image than the D3S can deliver in its best case. The color contamination and aliasing are worse on the 7D, but the D3S isn't exactly perfect either, it has quite a bit.

Then, for grins, I went and shot on the GH1 and HMC40 to see how they compare to the D3S.

GH1, in 1080, shows way more detail than the D3S, with none of the 7D's color contamination, and probably an overall equivalent level of aliasing to the D3S.

GH1, in 720, shows equivalent real sharpness to the D3S, and less spurious aliasing, with no color contamination.

HMC40, in 1080 mode, is just way way way way superior.

HMC40, in 720 mode, is clearer than the D3s, with less aliasing. Slightly better, but not nearly as superior as it was in 1080 mode.

Verdict: the D3s's 720p mode is pretty good. Embarrassingly superior to the 7D's 720p mode. About on par with the GH1 and HMC40 in 720p. Not in the same class as a 1080p DSLR, and nowhere near a 1080p video camera.

[Barry_Green]

If someone will do as Michael did and shoot a frame for us, we'll know.

[Michael Erlewine]

Barry Green:

Thanks much for taking the time to sort this out. Appreciated. I just wish the HMC40 took Nikon lenses! I might get one anyway down the road.

If I mixed cameras, like the D3s and the HMC40, what would I have to watch out for in terms of mixing final results?

I was never happy with my HVX200. How does the HMC40 compare ergonomically?

If I bought an HMC40 and used it with the two D3s cameras I have, where would it excel? Would you suggest shooting with the HMC40 as the main camera and the D3s for camera B or special lens shots?

Thanks,

[Lammy]

The 720p of the D3s is actually delivering a good 680-720ish lines of resolution? There's less aliasing than the other cameras? Really, we had to test that? :P

Was the settings on the picture of the chart on neutral with sharpening dialed down too? Thanks Michael for taking the time for performing the test for us.

Glad to know there's some measurable proof now :)




Verdict: the D3s's 720p mode is pretty good. Embarrassingly superior to the 7D's 720p mode. About on par with the GH1 and HMC40 in 720p. Not in the same class as a 1080p DSLR, and nowhere near a 1080p video camera.

Just to be clear to everyone, and I know this should be obvious, but what Barry's referring to is only for resolution.

I mentioned earlier that despite compression and resolution performance, it still looks nicer to me. I'd rather have the quality of an amazing DSLR still image that's been resized to 1/10th its size, than a video camera/compact that records in that size natively.

The HMC, the HVX (which you owned...), and the GH1 (which we owned and sold for a Canon 7d...) all have that strong video "thin ness" no matter how sharp or what you do, and I wouldn't ever want to extract screengrabs from them...

[damonb]

I'm getting confused here. Maybe you can set video (with whatever camera) to be optimal for stills. My understanding is, with shutter adjustments, etc, this will compromise your video for video. If you want stills, get someone to take stills even at the same time as you shoot video from approximately the same position viz the object or talent. Get them to fire off 3-6 frames a second if you want (and can't the D3S get close to 16fps with the right supports?). Trying to extract high quality stills from any video camera will likely lead to frustration, and it's certainly not how seriously bankrolled films tend to present film stills, lobby cards, and other still advertising. Better to get a photography student or enthusiast with a good prosumer camera to do the work for you. Maybe I've missed the whole point of this, I dunno.

[Michael Erlewine]

BandanaDan:

On the chart, there was no added sharpening. A little of my personal experience with Nikon sensor might be meaningful here. I have had Nikon systems for years, back from the beginning of their digital cameras. And I gradually added lenses to the system until I have more than 20 of them, and the best ones at that. Here is the story of where I began to wake up:

The early cameras like the Nikon D1x, D100 and D200 I used, but was never all that excited about. They were solid and they got some use. I painstakingly shot some 30,000 photos of rock n’ roll posters on the D1x using a vacuum table I built, so I learned something from all that.

When I upgraded to the Nikon D300, the more sophisticated focusing system and general ISO (low-light) sensitivity began to really be exciting, like: a major step forward. It was a whole new camera and experience.

But it was not until the D700 with the full-frame (FF 35mm) sensor that things broke loose for me. The larger pixel size (8.45 μm) meant that each pixel had a deeper or wider well to hold light, etc. and some magic barrier-threshold was crossed. My interest and work increased exponentially at that point.

When I got the 24.5 MP Nikon D3x, which has the same FF sensor, of course I did not expect any increase in available sensor light and it was true, although the blacks and reds are unbelievable. The D3x is a special camera for special work like landscapes, architecture, and close-up work.

However, the Nikon D3s has yet a new sensor, one with even more ability to pool light in those pixel wells, and you can see it. When I got my first D3s, I just opened the package and pointed it at a dark corner of my poorly lit office and snapped a frame. The result was incredible, a usable photo as if I were in a well-lit office. I knew at that moment that I was in good photographic company and that a future was opening with this new Nikon camera.

All of this drama about the Nikon D3s not being a real video camera only points to a paradigm shift. I remember when I tried to point out the possibilities of word processors to the Compugraphic typesetter folks, who couldn’t be bothered even listening to me. They were all gone in a few years -- an entire industry!

I am not saying that the D3s is the cat’s meow or the last word. It is only the latest word from Nikon. My point here is that there is a paradigm shift taking place if you can see it. The whole world of hi-res still photography printed out on printers that can barely do the photos justice is fading. The truth is that more and more photography, stills and video, is just for the web or that is the only venue open to it. They will never be printed out anywhere.

When Apple comes out with their new tablet device (hopefully next year) that will handle color and be probably just too cool, that will be the defining moment in this shift. The print media will shift from paper to pixels and that will be it. In a few years, all will change and a new age will begin, one with lots of room for photography, but not giant 30x40” prints. We already have more megapixels than we need for this coming technology. It will be the age of expression rather than the age of developing technology, like actually using the technology we have accumulated over the last 20 years to express ourselves.

Not just the Steven Spielbergs among us, but the rest of us will get our chance. I have seen this all before. Next to Microsoft, I run the oldest software company on the Internet. My first printer was a 80-lb Teletype machine and I had to write my own word-processor routines to justify the type of my first book! I had to load programming languages from cassette tape into my first Apple, etc. I was trying to do hi-res graphics before they were possible, and so on. You get the idea. That is called the bleeding edge.

Over the last 20-30 years we have accumulated technology and gradually improved it. I have been on that bleeding edge, just as many of us are today with these new V-DSLRs. Yes, a year from now they will be much better, but the moment we are living is always now, so we bleed money a bit.

We finally have enough technology and it is cheap enough that anyone can own it. Sorry this is so long, but my point is that the merging of still and motion photography into a single low-cost device is not just a novelty, but the sign of a major shift. I think of my Nikon D3s as a camera than takes about 30 frames a second! If I need a single photo and I can’t get it by stills, I will take a burst of video and pull the frame I need out and use it. 1280x720 is not bad for web work. It could (and it will be) a little larger. But all in all, I feel we are moving forward and the V-DSLRs are not a side-show, but a big part of the main tent.

[Zim]

Good post Michael. Nikon has been taking a lot of heat over the "manual controls" but maybe they see a bigger market down the road.

I was in Roberts Camera and the salesman took the D300s and took it over to some dark corner and took and picture without the flash. It was amazing what the camera can do.

[Michael Erlewine]

Zim:

If the 300s could do that for you (unless that was a typo and you meant ‘D3s’), then the D3s ought to blow your mind. This new full-frame sensor at a relatively lower pixel rate like 12 MP goes beyond what I need for my ordinary work as far as providing me MORE light. It is a mark or threshold cameras have tried to reach and now we have reached it. This is a landmark event in ISO history and as far as I can tell the hype in this case is real. Putting aside my interest in the video aspects of the D3s, as a still camera it breaks the light barrier.

I have the larger-MP D3x and love it, but it is more pixels than I need except for some specialty work (landscapes, macro, etc.), and I have to admit it. The myth of more megapixels as a solution for anything but special problems is for me at least just that: a myth or an excuse to expect technology to do what only I must do for myself.

I did not understand this at the time and had to buy a D3x to find out, and I have shot some 8,000 photos on the D3x and it is (deep reds, blacks, cropping) amazing, ‘but’, if I look truth in the eye, I don’t need it and I will not use it as much as I will the D3s. The earlier Nikon D3 and the D700 (I just sold my D700) showed me what full frame sensors can do with light and I love it a lot, but it still missed some mark that I had set in my mind, some idea of light that I feel I need to have for me to be fully creative, crazy as that sounds.

IMO, while the talk about the D3s being for photojournalists and sports fans is true, the point is being missed here. The D3s is also for the rest of us and here is why: The D3s and its ability to shoot in lower light is the first camera I have seen that crosses the threshold of giving me ENOUGH light in low-light situations so that the ball is finally back in my court. I have no one to blame but myself if I can’t take good photos with the D3s. The technology is FINALLY there, and the D3s will handle not just the best lighting, but also the ordinary kind of low light situations we run into.

At any rate, the D3s has put an end to my struggle to get enough light. The light is now there. I can stop feeling robbed by what I perceived as the lack of light and get on with the business of creative photography. With the D3s, Nikon has done its job; let’s see if I can do mine or did I allow the lack of adequate technology to be an excuse for my own shortcomings?

[Zim]

I was talking about the D300s. Compared to my D200 and D70s it is like a D3s LOL. Even the D300s has improved ISO nothing like the D3s but it is a big improvement. With my 17-55 it would be a lot of fun. I wish I could afford what you have but I don't right now.

A lot has changed since my Nikon N2000

[Michael Erlewine]

Barry Green:

You have me interested in what other tests I might run the D3s through that would help us pinpoint its strengths and weaknesses. One thing I tried was to put the D3s in LiveMode, under Manual, and then set the shutter to different speeds from 30 to 1000. I then had a few things hanging that I let swing in front of the camera, like a metal ruler and a couple other things.

What I go out of this test is that I don’t know what variables I should be holding fixed and which should be variables. For example, I vary the shutter speed, but should I hold the F-stop the same or bring it to an appropriate level for the shutter.

Looking at the various things I let swing, I should have swung them way slower. I can see that. There must be a standard approach to this.

If you could suggest how to go about seeing if the aperture and shutter speed make a lot of difference in video mode, that would help.

[Barry_Green]

There are certain things that I view as pretty much inviolatable laws. When you're coloring a picture, you should stay within the lines, for example. Anyone who strays out of the lines had better have an AWFULLY good reason for doing so.

Shutter speed is one of those. In DSLR video, you should stick your shutter speed on 1/60 and then forget that it even exists. Don't change it. Don't mess with it. Don't vary it. And most importantly, DON'T try to use it to control exposure!

If you're in PAL territory, stick it on 1/50. If you're in NTSC territory, use 1/60. And that's it. Finished. Done. Stop fiddling with it. Don't change it. Seriously, don't. I mean it.

Okay, with that said, there are two reasons: 1) changing the shutter speed changes the way motion is rendered and will result in unnatural motion imaging, and 2) the rolling shutter of the CMOS camera can interact unpleasantly with fluorescent or HMI lighting. Sticking with 1/50 PAL or 1/60 NTSC avoids those complications.

Now, if you want to go for certain special effects (such as stuttery staccato zombie movement for action sequences, or smeary blurry effects for dream sequences) those are times when you can vary the shutter speed. But for normal filming, please don't change the shutter -- it's just something that a motion video shooter shouldn't be doing.

Use the iris, and ND filters, and the ISO, to control exposure -- but not the shutter.