gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Ha!
Maybe so. I only have two an 80mm and 150mm for the Mamiya, sold the Hasselblad lens with the body. My mamiyas are the slow versions (f4) so only worth a hundred or so each at current prices.
D800 press release
- Thread starter samsara
- Start date
Ha!
Maybe so. I only have two an 80mm and 150mm for the Mamiya, sold the Hasselblad lens with the body. My mamiyas are the slow versions (f4) so only worth a hundred or so each at current prices.
Lammy
Well-known member
I only ever go ISO 50 with the medium formats like the Phase One but... would love to see guys like them or Hasselblad to develop a video mode and a sensor with high ISO sensitivities (because I'd like to actually like to see narrative in focus). IMAX or whut... ;D
Anyway I'm kind of relieved the D800's video quality is like as it is. It's just enough better than the last generations but not enough to cause irrational buyer's itch...
Anyway I'm kind of relieved the D800's video quality is like as it is. It's just enough better than the last generations but not enough to cause irrational buyer's itch...
squig
Veteran
I'm not going to make any pixel peeping judgements based on dodgy youtube compressed videos but it's doubtful that a 36 megapixel DSLR is going to be an indie filmmakers dream come true. I hope to be proven wrong on the potential moire/aliasing problem that 36MP downscaling to 1080p presents. The D4 looks like a contender with its 16 megapixel sensor and high ISO sensitivity but unfortunately it costs as much as 2 5Ds or D800s. I'm waiting for a response from Canon before I make any purchasing decisions. Canon workers are probably busy soldering headphone jacks as we speak.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
In something I find a bit odd, medium format digital backs seem to mostly use 30MP (1 3/4 inch) or so CCD sensors not CMOS.
Amen to that! I'm with you - I'll wait a bit longer - but if nothing is announced by NAB (at the absolute latest), either Panny, Nikon, or Sony will be getting my hard earned bucks. I likes me some Canon, but it's time for them to get off the fence.
hemophilia
Well-known member
Anyon see any known-high-ISO video/stills anywhere from it yet?
John Caballero
Veteran
I like to learn the capabilities of a new product from guys that are out there earning a good living from their craft. They are the chosen ones by the big camera companies to test the new offerings. They are going to make sure to do the best job possible to impress the boss and rise above the rest. That is how showbiz works. I was just looking at the pics shot by photographer Rob Van Patten and they look pretty good to my eyes. He is not shooting his kids running around or his pet dog, he is shooting real life fashion models in the capital of the world, New York City. It is as real as it gets for the market this cam is aimed at. As technology develops 36 mp is nothing and it shows. This cam is going to take amazing shots on the stills side and the video side will be as good as it gets. But for the pros that really know how to really work it.
Hmmmm.....interesting. I watched the D800 video (Joy Ride), and I didn't see anything that made me freak out in either direction. I didn't see anything that "put me off", but I didn't see anything that made me reach for my wallet either. I guess we'll see what happens when one of our peeps gets their hands on it....
WHAT IS FREAKING ME OUT:
Large sensor image with HDMI out: Less than $3K.
Man oh man! Way to go Nikon! Will they add this feature into the D8000? (Or whatever the successor to the D7000 is...) What about the D6000? (Or whatever the successor to the D5000 is...)
I'm not convinced that Nikon has "figured out" how to make a large sensor look its best (forget the HDMI out), HOWEVER....they are on the right track. Hopefully they'll learn fast and be able to get the best moving pictures (as possible) from their sensor lineup. No question, a sensor with this much resolution isn't likely a very good candidate......but still, for me the news is HDMI on this line/model too. Let's all hope they put it in their lower lines too......if NOTHING ELSE, to put pressure on Panny, Canon, and Sony....so we can get the most out of the new lineup of external recorders! Cheers!
WHAT IS FREAKING ME OUT:
Large sensor image with HDMI out: Less than $3K.
Man oh man! Way to go Nikon! Will they add this feature into the D8000? (Or whatever the successor to the D7000 is...) What about the D6000? (Or whatever the successor to the D5000 is...)
I'm not convinced that Nikon has "figured out" how to make a large sensor look its best (forget the HDMI out), HOWEVER....they are on the right track. Hopefully they'll learn fast and be able to get the best moving pictures (as possible) from their sensor lineup. No question, a sensor with this much resolution isn't likely a very good candidate......but still, for me the news is HDMI on this line/model too. Let's all hope they put it in their lower lines too......if NOTHING ELSE, to put pressure on Panny, Canon, and Sony....so we can get the most out of the new lineup of external recorders! Cheers!
Last edited:
John Caballero
Veteran
Actually, the D5100. LOL!
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
Terrifying... I'm out on that note. Thank you and good night.
LOL! So true! So I guess, I mean the successor to the D5100....D5200?
Nice catch!
John Caballero
Veteran
So many camera versions nowadays is hard to keep up! BTW, now the Nikon D3200 is supposed to be on its way!
Please oh please oh please oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease have clean HDMI out, manual video, 1080/24,30,60!!!! Thanks for the heads up John!
cowpunk52
Veteran
My whole point on this is that inevitably these threads lead to people saying "story is king" and "the camera doesn't matter" and such and such. Excellent sentiments, and I agree with every one. But the reason that many people are on this forum, and on reading this thread, and researching and tearing apart the picture is because we are interesting in the capabilities of the camera. I don't think anyone here would disagree that ultimately, story comes first. But for this thread, and for the majority of the traffic on this forum, we're here to learn about the camera.
This is not a bad thing, and it shouldn't be seen as such.
Last edited:
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
It was just a comment on the video posted. Anything more is just your imagination.
"My whole point on this is that inevitably these threads lead to people saying "story is king" and "the camera doesn't matter" and such and such. Excellent sentiments, and I agree with every one. But the reason that many people are on this forum, and on reading this thread, and researching and tearing apart the picture is because we are interesting in the capabilities of the camera. I don't think anyone here would disagree that ultimately, story comes first. But for this thread, and for the majority of the traffic on this forum, we here to learn about the camera. "
Fair points. Story is always king, but the tools help tell the tales, and don't let anyone tell you different.
I've shot on everything from 35mm to 8mm film, to betacam, to high 8, to the new breed of cameras and always want the best looking picture I can afford for each picture/commercial. It is often said here that it's the cameraman alone that makes the difference, regardless of the camera used, and I'm sorry, that's not completely true. When you shooting a 85 page script in 14 days, you damn well better have a forgiving camera; something's that's relatively easy to work with and reliable - regardless of who your DP is.
Does having a good DP matter? Well, of course it does. But argument that an otherwise lousy or finicky camera can be made to look great by a great DP misses the point rather badly. In the "war" between the AF100 and FS100 over the past 9 months, I've often read that the AF100 can match the FS100 with someone who knows the camera in and out and has time to dial it in. And perhaps that's true... but such arguments miss the point as they ignore what most indie films sets are like (and I'm really only talking indie features here)... which in my experience are normally cluster f@#*s, regardless of how professional everyone might be - there's just so much to shoot with so little time.
For instance, if you're renting - and the DP has nor prior experience w/ the camera - that can spell disaster if the camera takes a genius and/or a very experienced DP to operate properly - and that's even if they are indeed a genius. What normally happens in that case is either you run way over scheduled shooting days, or the footage from the 2nd half of the shooting schedule looks twice as good as footage from the first half as the DP learns the camera. No producer wants that. Ditto that a finicky camera on a tight budget/shooting schedule (Philip Bloom took much heat for saying that the EPIC was just such a camera). Usually, there's just no time or money to overcome even a very minor blip in the camera department - esp on a SAG experimental budget film. In an example like the one I provide, a camera that is better in low light, a camera that handles highlights better, or a camera that's easier to "dial in" - even if only by small degrees - is preferable to one that's not, all other factors being nearly equal. Of course hiring a DP with his own camera changes the situation, but often times, first time indie film makers are essentially acting as their own DPs, using the film as a way to get experience... usually leading exactly to the problems I describe above.
All producers want their films to look like Janusz Kaminski shot it on 35 mm film with a hundred days to light it - but how many can afford that level of production value? Few if anyone here. I certainly can't - but that doesn't mean I don't want the best looking image possible for whatever money I do have.
That's where these DSLRs come into play - they're (relatively) cheap. You can use non-cinema, but still excellent still lenses. They have selective DoF. They're small (meaning your equipment is smaller, meaning your crew is smaller, meaning your catering bill is smaller). And best of all, they're relatively easy to dial in a good look (which now a days means high dynamic range coupled with a flat shooting style) and because they're so ubiquitous, virtually every DP/1st asst cameraman will have some level of exposure/experience with those cameras, regardless of make or model.
For example, most regulars here seem to have multiple DSLR brand experience - we might have our favorites, but most of us can intelligently describe the pros and cons of using Canon cameras vs a hacked GH2 vs a Sony NEX 5n vs a Nikon D90. That's not as true when you start going up the food chain in dedicated video cameras. And that is a strength of DSLRs, esp if you're hiring a young, relatively inexperienced camera crew.
And every little counts in indie film making. It's been said that only 1 out of 10 indie full length films that begin shooting actually finish post. And only about 1 out 10 of those will find a distributor. Story IS king.... but, if you've hired a B-movie actor to come to your town - spending a big chunk of the budget to do so - the last thing you want to hear as a producer is that your camera isn't working right or is making ugly pictures. The beauty of these Nikons/Canons is that you could goto Best Buy, buy one, and dial it in in about 1/2 hour if you really had to. They're predicable, easy to use, and usually at least decent in bad/low lighting situations - all big pluses.
Last bit - I've sold 4 features, and on each of them I was only asked three initial questions by the distributor - who's in it, what genre is it, and what was it shot on. The Canon Mark II - for better or worse - was a camera that would pass muster for many distributors in that regard. This new Nikon looks - on paper any way - to be well on the way to reaching that level of acceptance as well as being cheap enough for the masses to buy.
Which is good enough for me.
Fair points. Story is always king, but the tools help tell the tales, and don't let anyone tell you different.
I've shot on everything from 35mm to 8mm film, to betacam, to high 8, to the new breed of cameras and always want the best looking picture I can afford for each picture/commercial. It is often said here that it's the cameraman alone that makes the difference, regardless of the camera used, and I'm sorry, that's not completely true. When you shooting a 85 page script in 14 days, you damn well better have a forgiving camera; something's that's relatively easy to work with and reliable - regardless of who your DP is.
Does having a good DP matter? Well, of course it does. But argument that an otherwise lousy or finicky camera can be made to look great by a great DP misses the point rather badly. In the "war" between the AF100 and FS100 over the past 9 months, I've often read that the AF100 can match the FS100 with someone who knows the camera in and out and has time to dial it in. And perhaps that's true... but such arguments miss the point as they ignore what most indie films sets are like (and I'm really only talking indie features here)... which in my experience are normally cluster f@#*s, regardless of how professional everyone might be - there's just so much to shoot with so little time.
For instance, if you're renting - and the DP has nor prior experience w/ the camera - that can spell disaster if the camera takes a genius and/or a very experienced DP to operate properly - and that's even if they are indeed a genius. What normally happens in that case is either you run way over scheduled shooting days, or the footage from the 2nd half of the shooting schedule looks twice as good as footage from the first half as the DP learns the camera. No producer wants that. Ditto that a finicky camera on a tight budget/shooting schedule (Philip Bloom took much heat for saying that the EPIC was just such a camera). Usually, there's just no time or money to overcome even a very minor blip in the camera department - esp on a SAG experimental budget film. In an example like the one I provide, a camera that is better in low light, a camera that handles highlights better, or a camera that's easier to "dial in" - even if only by small degrees - is preferable to one that's not, all other factors being nearly equal. Of course hiring a DP with his own camera changes the situation, but often times, first time indie film makers are essentially acting as their own DPs, using the film as a way to get experience... usually leading exactly to the problems I describe above.
All producers want their films to look like Janusz Kaminski shot it on 35 mm film with a hundred days to light it - but how many can afford that level of production value? Few if anyone here. I certainly can't - but that doesn't mean I don't want the best looking image possible for whatever money I do have.
That's where these DSLRs come into play - they're (relatively) cheap. You can use non-cinema, but still excellent still lenses. They have selective DoF. They're small (meaning your equipment is smaller, meaning your crew is smaller, meaning your catering bill is smaller). And best of all, they're relatively easy to dial in a good look (which now a days means high dynamic range coupled with a flat shooting style) and because they're so ubiquitous, virtually every DP/1st asst cameraman will have some level of exposure/experience with those cameras, regardless of make or model.
For example, most regulars here seem to have multiple DSLR brand experience - we might have our favorites, but most of us can intelligently describe the pros and cons of using Canon cameras vs a hacked GH2 vs a Sony NEX 5n vs a Nikon D90. That's not as true when you start going up the food chain in dedicated video cameras. And that is a strength of DSLRs, esp if you're hiring a young, relatively inexperienced camera crew.
And every little counts in indie film making. It's been said that only 1 out of 10 indie full length films that begin shooting actually finish post. And only about 1 out 10 of those will find a distributor. Story IS king.... but, if you've hired a B-movie actor to come to your town - spending a big chunk of the budget to do so - the last thing you want to hear as a producer is that your camera isn't working right or is making ugly pictures. The beauty of these Nikons/Canons is that you could goto Best Buy, buy one, and dial it in in about 1/2 hour if you really had to. They're predicable, easy to use, and usually at least decent in bad/low lighting situations - all big pluses.
Last bit - I've sold 4 features, and on each of them I was only asked three initial questions by the distributor - who's in it, what genre is it, and what was it shot on. The Canon Mark II - for better or worse - was a camera that would pass muster for many distributors in that regard. This new Nikon looks - on paper any way - to be well on the way to reaching that level of acceptance as well as being cheap enough for the masses to buy.
Which is good enough for me.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Screen Shot 2012-02-08 at 12.46.23 AM by onesielaff, on Flickr
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37533131/Screen Shot 2012-02-08 at 12.46.23 AM.png (download screen shot)
That last scene looks clean and sharp.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
The first three times watching that video, I was so distracted by the moire' that I didn't notice just how fast Mark, the rider, was going. That guy has some serious skills.
G
Guest
Guest
at 4:30 looks like an intentional attempt to show lack of moire on the Dad's jacket. The whole video is a bit blurry. definitely has to be used as an aesthetic. Going to F3, C300, and even FS100 and GH2, the amount of detail is night and day. So, I guess, make-up artists will love the D800 for making their job easier.