The end of 35mm adapers and hv20s....

It's true that the user cannot turn of matrix metering in D-Movie mode. However the camera is not able to meter in matrix mode with older AI lenses. So one way to have matrix metering OFF is to use old lenses? Would this disable live view? With most things where there is a will there is a way.
Also there will be more SLR cameras coming out very soon with movie functions.
Over at Luminous Landscape they are saying that EVERY future SLR will have a movie function and that cameras will be coming out in the weeks and months with movie modes - I'm pretty sure the new Canon 5D will be a 21MP camera with movie mode. Some cameras will be more useful than others in movie mode so we'll just have to wait and see which is the best. But definitely there will be choices - this is just the start.
 
astigmatic said:
Yeah so it's still no 1080.. I don't get it then, to me that right there makes it not even an option. It's like going back a step.
Click to expand...


True, and kinda not true.

The HVX200 was only a 720p HD camera in reality. I owned it and tested it and the 1080P was a slight marginal difference and more to do with the denser micro-blocks of the 1080 HD DVCPRO frame.

Most people I know shoot 720P on the HVX, so then if we go that route then the 720 on the D90 is not as bad especially when comparing to a 35mm adapter loaded HVX200.

The Nikon D90's major appeal is the large frame and the use of all 35mm lenses to get true DOF control. So if you take a 35mm adapter and stick it on a 1080 camera it's sharpness is lowered because that's the compromise of 35mm adapters as well light loss. Now take that same adapter, and put it on a HVX or HD100 doing 720P.. The image sharpness goes now even lower on the 720P image.

Here is where the D90 shines. 720P and no adapter GG and all the lens achromat aberrations to muck it up. Just straight lens glass to CMOS imager. Not just any imager, however a CMOS imager that is over 12 million pixels dense. With dynamic range on par with REDONE and other 12MP cameras alike. True high light roll off on over exposures that not even achievable a HVX200, HV20/30 or any HDV camera for that matter.

So when you take the pluses and minus's and tally up the final it's not so bad at 720P for now. However we need to get to 2k and higher.... Sooner than later I hope!




Pappas
 
utako.o said:
When the d70 came out, it was almost impossible to take a bad picture with it.
even for a complete noob like myself. D70 was first camera. when i (along with others upgraded to D200), pictures looks like dreck in the hands of amateurs. Massive outcry on the net denoucing the camera.. What happened was nikon removed the auto magic module and the d200 required actual photography skills to make a decent pic.
Click to expand...


Very good point, I still hold out hope that after a couple of weeks in the hands of hundreds of keen menu diggers solutions will start to emerge for any shortcomings (HV20 exposure manual tricks come to mind) - I hold out less hope for a solution to the lack of detail in the image, but who knows, maybe there are sharpness settings here that can be played with ?
 
logic108 said:
Over at Luminous Landscape they are saying that EVERY future SLR will have a movie function.
Click to expand...

I agree, I can't see anyone venture into the market without a movie mode, but I think the high end / professional (draw your own line) cameras will concentrate on shooting stills.
 
After playing with the settings and Matrix Metering in the 40X and guessing that they should be relatively similar in the D90 I have no problem about it. But the fact is why wouldn't Nikon let us set it manually? It is done with the stills and I don't tink it would affect the sensors ability to capture, why would it? Maybe you are able to do it and they are just not aware of how important it is to more professional shooters. they don't advertise it a lot for the stills.
I was also thinking about the MJPEG file. IMO it should be the next best thing after RAW. As a matter of fact this are the only two format for the stills. There are 24 jpegs strung along in sequence, each frame an individual entity. I shoot most of my pics in JPEG and manipulate them with no problem in photoshop. Why wouldn't I be able to do the same with MJPEG? Each frame should have plenty of info to manipulate and make it look great. I can't wait to start.
 
PappasArts said:
… if you take a 35mm adapter and stick it on a … camera it's sharpness is lowered because that's the compromise of 35mm adapters …
Click to expand...

Pappas, I get your logic, but I don't know enough about how sharpness is measured to disagree with you. I've read up a little on various schemes for judging resolution in lines-per-inch and MTF, but I've never seen any quantitative comparison of such metrics that included DoF converters (or adapters—whatever).

Can you point me to any data online? It would be useful in making a buying decision about the D90 &/or subsequent dSLRs with video recording.
 
Why do people insist on using CrapTube for clips where image quality matters? Vimeo is a much better choice for that kinda thing. :(
 
PappasArts said:
Another clip!

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=AgYlvMvSJqw&feature=related&fmt=18
Click to expand...


The wobble is so prevalent I wonder whether the kit lens (which would be what many of these clips would use) is part of the problem, specifically the VR reduction system ?

A wild guess at best, but I do know from personal experience that CMOS rolling shutter wobble can be exaggerated by other mechanical influences - I say all this with no clue as to how the VR works, so take my comments with a large pinch of salt.

HV30 + cheap vibrating adaptor = WobbleWorld™:

http://www.vimeo.com/1383747
 
John Caballero said:
I was also thinking about the MJPEG file. IMO it should be the next best thing after RAW. As a matter of fact this are the only two format for the stills. There are 24 jpegs strung along in sequence, each frame an individual entity. I shoot most of my pics in JPEG and manipulate them with no problem in photoshop. Why wouldn't I be able to do the same with MJPEG? Each frame should have plenty of info to manipulate and make it look great. I can't wait to start.
Click to expand...

MJPEG is not simply a steam of JPEG files, although lacking predictive interframes it still uses (non-predictive) interframe (temporal) compression - so we get poor quality for our bit rate (MPEG2 - HDV - gets much better quality for the same bit rate for example) - and with the D90 our bit rate starts out comparatively low in the first place anyhow.

So:

HDV is 24Mbps
MJPEG used in the D90 is 14Mbps (or just under).

But the 14Mbps with the D90's MJPEG is of a lower quality than not only the 24Mbps of the HDV but even a HDV (MPEG2) stream at the same 14Mbps.

MJPEG is not alone here, the same can be said for many older codecs.

The only reason I can think that they may have chosen MJPEG is for its lack of predictive interframes (ie: ease of editing) ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top