Andrew Reid
Carbonite Member
There's no removal of pulldown required because it was a progressive feed to start with.
D5200 Anyone got it ???
- Thread starter ChipThome
- Start date
BobbyMurcerFan
Well-known member
Sorry, I don't follow you. I thought that the 5200 always outputs 60i out of the HDMI port. So 24P will have a pulldown.
... Oh so did you record 30P? Which wouldn't need pulldown removal, but it would need deinterlacing. In which case, may I ask, do you know how the NLE did the deinterlacing?
Thanks very much!
... Oh so did you record 30P? Which wouldn't need pulldown removal, but it would need deinterlacing. In which case, may I ask, do you know how the NLE did the deinterlacing?
Thanks very much!
Last edited:
QuickHitRecord
Veteran
A good lens cap-on ISO test that shows the difference in camera noise between tungsten and daylight white balance settings: http://youtu.be/yPqUrAbRZt0
macgregor
Veteran
Wesley Byram
Well-known member
Has anybody yet done a controlled, side-by-side comparison of internally recorded footage vs HDMI recorded footage to verify this abnormality? This just seems more than a little bizarre and would make the HDMI-out far less useful if true.
macgregor
Veteran
Alright, first impressions:
I love the size and weight of the 5200. It feels plasticy and cheap, exactly what I was looking for (I prefer looking like a tourist).
For taking stills it's not what I'd wanted to use. But for video, so far it's really great.
I just shot a couple of shots, 5D vs 5200. I grabbed the 5200 first, I opened-tilted the screen, expanded the focus view (which shows no lag as the D800) and done.
Then I grabbed the 5D and it took me x10 times more time to set up the shot. Why? First, it was sooo sunny and bright that I had my sunglassed one. They're polarized. And the 5D screen does not like that. The nikon had no problems with that. Second, I had to hold the camera at eye level, remove my sun glasses, and while squeezing my eyes I tried to focus quckly on live view before I got blind because the sun was coming almost in the same direction to where I was pointing at. It was really uncomfortable. Such a simple shot was easy using the tilt-LCD screen of the 5200, and such a nightmare on the 5D, that I'm hesitant to shoot again with the 5D. At least ergonomically wise. (sure you can use an external EVF, I have the zacuto one, but that adds weight, batteries, cables and you no longer look like a tourist).
Now, in terms of image quality, here we go:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13362047/5200vs5dm3.01.mp4
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13362047/5200vs5dmk.02.mp4
They look pretty much the same to me. Sure there are some tiny differences: the 5D (at least with cinestyle) shows posterization in the sky and more noise in the shadows, the shadows on the nikon are a bit more dull than in the canon, slightly difference in terms of sharpness... but jeeesz, a lot more will depend on the guy behind the lens and the grading. They're pretty close in terms of image quality to me. But not in price.
I think I still like the 5Dmk3 a bit more, but the nikon is easier to shoot with, and it weights and costs nothing, which to me, is the only real advantage of DSLRs (I own some other expensive cameras as some of you might know).
So what do you think?
I love the size and weight of the 5200. It feels plasticy and cheap, exactly what I was looking for (I prefer looking like a tourist).
For taking stills it's not what I'd wanted to use. But for video, so far it's really great.
I just shot a couple of shots, 5D vs 5200. I grabbed the 5200 first, I opened-tilted the screen, expanded the focus view (which shows no lag as the D800) and done.
Then I grabbed the 5D and it took me x10 times more time to set up the shot. Why? First, it was sooo sunny and bright that I had my sunglassed one. They're polarized. And the 5D screen does not like that. The nikon had no problems with that. Second, I had to hold the camera at eye level, remove my sun glasses, and while squeezing my eyes I tried to focus quckly on live view before I got blind because the sun was coming almost in the same direction to where I was pointing at. It was really uncomfortable. Such a simple shot was easy using the tilt-LCD screen of the 5200, and such a nightmare on the 5D, that I'm hesitant to shoot again with the 5D. At least ergonomically wise. (sure you can use an external EVF, I have the zacuto one, but that adds weight, batteries, cables and you no longer look like a tourist).
Now, in terms of image quality, here we go:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13362047/5200vs5dm3.01.mp4
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13362047/5200vs5dmk.02.mp4
They look pretty much the same to me. Sure there are some tiny differences: the 5D (at least with cinestyle) shows posterization in the sky and more noise in the shadows, the shadows on the nikon are a bit more dull than in the canon, slightly difference in terms of sharpness... but jeeesz, a lot more will depend on the guy behind the lens and the grading. They're pretty close in terms of image quality to me. But not in price.
I think I still like the 5Dmk3 a bit more, but the nikon is easier to shoot with, and it weights and costs nothing, which to me, is the only real advantage of DSLRs (I own some other expensive cameras as some of you might know).
So what do you think?
Last edited:
Alex Roman
Active member
Miguel,
Is this "Standard 1.1" an in-camera custom picture profile or do you just pushed some low-mid levels in post to match 5D cinestyle?
Amazing test BTW... weird but i think i'm sticking with Nikon here. The (almost) no posterization in the sky is pretty impressive for a 700$ toy IMHO
macgregor
Veteran
Wow, the man is alive!!!
Standard 1.1. was the standard profile with sharpness and contrast at 1.
Cinestyle was graded with an S curve.
BobbyMurcerFan
Well-known member
I can understand having more rolling shutter in the viewfinder or LCD screen. But I don't believe this will show up in images recorded from the HDMI feed, as the HDMI feed itself is really just a file transfer stream, IIUC.Yep, that was commented before: it's in the LCD and in the HDMI-out feed, but not in the internally-recorded footage. Weird.
Eagerly awaiting your comments on the IQ from this little toy
Alex Roman
Active member
LOL! I am indeed
Thanks a lot dude. It makes perfectly sense now. This small baby seems to be a lil beast! ...i think i'll order one of these
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Thanks macgregor!
On my regular screen (Samsung 32" TV) they look very similar indeed. Then I moved over to my 52" Sony TV and... WOW! D5200 all the way!
* Very similar DR; if anything, the D5200 shows a bit more detail in the bright wall on the left.
* The sky with the 5D3 looks awful. But I'd blame cinestyle for that: 28 brightness values for each stop of light in the midtones is not enough.
* I was looking for fixed-pattern noise in the shadows, as there were some reports of horizontal stripes with the D5200. I found it. On the 5D3! First video, center area with the floor in shadow, it looks awful in the 5D3: regular noise, fixed-pattern noise, maybe even some aliasing/moire, ugly ugly ugly ugly... if you're close enough to the screen and paying attention to this, which is not usual viewer scenario, but hey, on the D5200 it looks perfect! (my cheap 32" screen muds the whole area so all of this can't be seen, but on the better screen the difference is huge).
Then again, I know the 5D3 is a pretty decent camera, so it's either CineStyle (which I only liked for a week after it came out, hate it more and more since then), or the D5200 overshadowing it. Or macgregor using some mean spells to bring these cameras to their knees: you even got them both to show some pretty bad aliasing in the second shot (strip of light below the light-blue car on the center-left); it looks like something you'd find in one shot out of a hundred.
And finally... Hello Alex Roman, once again, I bow before you. The Man indeed.
(Anybody who doesn't know who this gentleman is, head over here. Now.)
On my regular screen (Samsung 32" TV) they look very similar indeed. Then I moved over to my 52" Sony TV and... WOW! D5200 all the way!
* Very similar DR; if anything, the D5200 shows a bit more detail in the bright wall on the left.
* The sky with the 5D3 looks awful. But I'd blame cinestyle for that: 28 brightness values for each stop of light in the midtones is not enough.
* I was looking for fixed-pattern noise in the shadows, as there were some reports of horizontal stripes with the D5200. I found it. On the 5D3! First video, center area with the floor in shadow, it looks awful in the 5D3: regular noise, fixed-pattern noise, maybe even some aliasing/moire, ugly ugly ugly ugly... if you're close enough to the screen and paying attention to this, which is not usual viewer scenario, but hey, on the D5200 it looks perfect! (my cheap 32" screen muds the whole area so all of this can't be seen, but on the better screen the difference is huge).
Then again, I know the 5D3 is a pretty decent camera, so it's either CineStyle (which I only liked for a week after it came out, hate it more and more since then), or the D5200 overshadowing it. Or macgregor using some mean spells to bring these cameras to their knees: you even got them both to show some pretty bad aliasing in the second shot (strip of light below the light-blue car on the center-left); it looks like something you'd find in one shot out of a hundred.
And finally... Hello Alex Roman, once again, I bow before you. The Man indeed.
(Anybody who doesn't know who this gentleman is, head over here. Now.)
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I know, it makes absolutely no sense, but that's what some people say they're seeing. Weird indeed.
macgregor
Veteran
I don't see much of a pattern noise in the footage. At least at ISO100. I'm very intrigued by that lens cap test that was posted earlier though.
Here is a screenshot of a shot (shot in neutral profile), and the same one with curves applied to make the shadows brighter. Lots of detail! Not much of a pattern noise there (slight horizontal lines if you ask me), and obvious compression artifacts there.
I'll post some more footage later.
Here is a screenshot of a shot (shot in neutral profile), and the same one with curves applied to make the shadows brighter. Lots of detail! Not much of a pattern noise there (slight horizontal lines if you ask me), and obvious compression artifacts there.
I'll post some more footage later.
Alex Roman
Active member
Glad to see u around Samuel! 
Alex Roman
Active member
In-camera profiles should shadows perform better in terms of codec artifacts at least (as i understand) but do Flaat profiles would work quite decent despite they had been "designed" for D800? Any tests so far?