anyone agree that......

H

hoofandmouf

Well-known member
.... 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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
hoofandmouf said:
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
Click to expand...
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."
 
ydgmdlu said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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
 
"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.
 
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.
 
jaybirch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hmmm....

Hmmm....

jaybirch said:
.... very very rarely does good content and bad image quality sell.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ydgmdlu said:
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."
Click to expand...

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!!
 
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.
 
HowdyDoo said:
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
Click to expand...

At 27 seconds. Dead giveaway with the rolling shutter, sorry
 
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.
 
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.
 
re: web/compressed video... you are talking about quality over price... not quality over content.... different arguement.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top