D800 Dynamic Range in video mode?

Grug

Grug

Veteran
Has anyone formally tested the Dynamic Range the D800 achieves in video mode yet? I know it manages over 14 stops in still images, but what does it get away with for HD capture?

Cheers
 
About the same as the 5dmarkIII in low ISO or slightly higher. It tends to dig into shadows slightly better. In high ISO it starts to lose dr a bit more.
 
IIRC, D800 preserves shadows better and maybe has a tad more latitude. Not very noticeable but its there. The difference is not great enough to warrant choosing the d800 over the 5d3 if all you want is the DR.
 
If they are able to utilize the sensor better in video mode, through some picture profile/LUT then yes, the D800 sensor can have better DR than the current red sensor(excluding HDRx). But, it's very unlikely that will happen! :tongue:
 
Donald Ong said:
That's in photo mode. Do you honestly believe that a 3,000 D800 has more DR stops than a 58,000 RED epic?
Click to expand...

Youre kidding me right?

Youre trying to compare a camera thats shoots (to the card) 4.2.0 compressed h.264 quicktime at 1080x1920 to a camera that shoots uncompressed 4.4.4 5k raw footage?

Yes, its possible for a $3k camera to have 11-14 stops of DR....You're going to try and say the $3k BMC doesn't have high DR because it ONLY costs 3k?

Different tools, different specs, different price points. Try comparing apples to apples next time.
 
The Sarlacc said:
Youre kidding me right?

Youre trying to compare a camera thats shoots (to the card) 4.2.0 compressed h.264 quicktime at 1080x1920 to a camera that shoots uncompressed 4.4.4 5k raw footage?

Yes, its possible for a $3k camera to have 11-14 stops of DR....You're going to try and say the $3k BMC doesn't have high DR because it ONLY costs 3k?

Different tools, different specs, different price points. Try comparing apples to apples next time.
Click to expand...

What are you even going on about? I know they're completely different...
I'm just saying that the d800 is no where near 14 stops as previous guy mentioned. I wasn't saying price was a factor, I just used the price to put things into perspective, not to say cameras under 3k are rubbish. Everyone knows DSLRs aren't producisng anything near 14 stops. 10-12 stops, maybe... not 14 stops. Also, what i said wasn't totally untrue. No camera under 3k at the moment does 14 stops. The BMC does 13-ish stops... and we all know it doesn't just stop at 3k. To get the bmcc into shootable conditions, you need at least another 5k worth of accessories.

Why not try to understand what I'm writing and not going mad next time?
 
I haven't done a test myself, but I'm guessing you only get about 12 usable stops because of the compression.

If you could get the raw video from the sensor then you could probably hit 14 stops, but you can't so even the HDMI on the camera will have it's limits.
 
Both Nikon D600 and D800 are measured at 14.2 - 14.3 stops. Period.

Does that apply to video? No. . . I'd say video have 11 stops at best, unless you aply an extremely wide(and noisy) picture profile.
The BMC without RAW doesn't get a full whooping 13 stops either... ! :P
 
Samuel H, who does the flaat picture profile for Canon and now Nikon did some test of the DR. He gives the D800 a good 1 stop better DR than the 5d. With his picture profile he came very close to 12 stop (12.7 stop with another profile but it was too noisy). Now these are with the onboard codec, so with the uncompressed output you could get a little better DR that will not have been destroyed by compression.

Dr is a very subtle thing, that is why compared to resolution, then ISO (low light) it has taken such a while for people to really notice and want it. While Red was concentrating on resolution, Arri went for DR and in the end the Alexa even with its lower resolution is so well regarded even if it cost nearly twice the price. They really nailed it about the importance of DR. Now for some people a little more shadow, or a little highlight detail might look

Contrary to what some people said above, if you don't have a ton of Canon lens go for the Nikon D800. You get better resolution, Dynamic range and for $ 300 you can buy a 422 220 mbit dnxhd or uncompressed hdmi recorder. With $ 400 more you could get a mosaic filter for moire/aliasing for a total cost of $ 3700, only $ 200 more than a base 5d mark 3. For me there is no comparison which one is the better performer. Now it is not even putting into account the big difference in the photographic side where the D800 really shines.
 
^ That would be me :) Here is my Canon-Nikon comparison (the 5D3 has exactly the same DR in video mode as the 5D2 and the T2i and all the others): http://www.vimeo.com/similaar/shootout2012 So yes, I'd rate the D800 at "clearly better DR than any other DSLR I know of", which means clearly over 11 stops, not quite 12 (and that's "absolute DR", not "usable DR", which would depend on your taste for the posterized noise that creeps up in the shadows when you push the picture styles on these DSLRs).
 
Donald Ong said:
What are you even going on about? I know they're completely different...
I'm just saying that the d800 is no where near 14 stops as previous guy mentioned. I wasn't saying price was a factor, I just used the price to put things into perspective, not to say cameras under 3k are rubbish. Everyone knows DSLRs aren't producisng anything near 14 stops. 10-12 stops, maybe... not 14 stops. Also, what i said wasn't totally untrue. No camera under 3k at the moment does 14 stops. The BMC does 13-ish stops... and we all know it doesn't just stop at 3k. To get the bmcc into shootable conditions, you need at least another 5k worth of accessories.

Why not try to understand what I'm writing and not going mad next time?
Click to expand...

Nice way to make a blanket statement, get called out and then back track to attempt to add specifics.

You want to people to understand what you're writing, type more than one crappy sentence void of any pertinent information.
 
zaronz said:
Both Nikon D600 and D800 are measured at 14.2 - 14.3 stops. Period.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about measurements. DXOMark lists the Sony Nex-5n as having a better sensor than the Canon 7d. I just tested both in stills and I claim that this is complete hogwash. The 7d and the 5n have almost 100% comparable sensors. The 7d is slightly worse in ISO 100 (cmos sensor artifacts in the very deep shadows) but slightly better in ISO 6400 (less chroma noise). Still the DXOMark lists the 5n as "better" in lowlight. I find it very odd as it completely contradicts my own experiments with these cameras.
 
Danielvilliers said:
Contrary to what some people said above, if you don't have a ton of Canon lens go for the Nikon D800. You get better resolution, Dynamic range and for $ 300 you can buy a 422 220 mbit dnxhd or uncompressed hdmi recorder. With $ 400 more you could get a mosaic filter for moire/aliasing for a total cost of $ 3700, only $ 200 more than a base 5d mark 3. For me there is no comparison which one is the better performer. Now it is not even putting into account the big difference in the photographic side where the D800 really shines.
Click to expand...

And I disagree. I used both and kept the 5dmarkIII. But for some reason a lot of people on the internet pick the D800 without using and shooting with both. For me there is no comparison, the 5dmarkIII blows the D800. Actually usable 720p. Audio meters that work and can be adjusted on the fly. Great all-i codec. Better ergonomics (in moviemode, stills have the same settings), way faster update especially when zooming in. Skin looks great, not grey as in the D800. Usable in low-light club shootings. The d800 had more shadow detail and...maybe a slightly better rolling shutter. Also maybe a smidgeon sharper. Hard to say though. That's about it.
 
maarek said:
Funny thing about measurements. DXOMark lists the Sony Nex-5n as having a better sensor than the Canon 7d. I just tested both in stills and I claim that this is complete hogwash. The 7d and the 5n have almost 100% comparable sensors. The 7d is slightly worse in ISO 100 (cmos sensor artifacts in the very deep shadows) but slightly better in ISO 6400 (less chroma noise). Still the DXOMark lists the 5n as "better" in lowlight. I find it very odd as it completely contradicts my own experiments with these cameras.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you base your experience on it's almost never the same results in real life as one would get in a lab environment.. and measurements do vary between different testers and tests. A lot of sites would claim completely different results than DXO, but then again we can't be arsed to gather an average between all various and potentially not-so reliable tests.

Good thing we don't judge picture quality purely by specifications but the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top