anyone agree that......

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
 
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.
 
Ian-T said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
hoofandmouf said:
I love this little sucker and I'm NOT arguing that is "professional" (whatever the hell that means these days) yeehaw my friends!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
ydgmdlu said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ralph Oshiro said:
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!
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top