BobbyMurcerFan
Well-known member
I believe AVCHD and H.264 are the exactly the same. There are many variants, however, of AVCHD/H.264.
I believe AVCHD and H.264 are the exactly the same. There are many variants, however, of AVCHD/H.264.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Are you suggesting in that first paragraph that you work in the "hoo-hoo!" industry?
No but based on a 6 year research project/spywear blocker that I've been working on. I guess that an overwhelming majority of online movies that are pay for view are you know... THAT industry. I haven't even gone into the seedier subcategories of this seedy subject. Nor have i actually involved myself in any way except to study the IA,Interactivity and Taxonomy. I'd LOVE to know the untaxed dollar amount that gets traded annually....globally. Wouldn't you?
G
Guest
Guest
Yeah, the tax thing sounds more interesting.
Grug
Veteran
So pair the camera with an Atomos Ninja (which combined will still cost less than an FS100 or AF100), and you won't have to worry about record times at all (barring any overheating problems).
Personally, for event-type shooting where prolonged recording times and lens versatility is required, I really don't think film-style cameras (like DSLRs) make much sense. ENG cameras are designed for capturing fast-moving events/reality, and they're always going to be more appropriate for that purpose.
I agree, as a wedding videographer I think dslrs are better used for creative effect than a flat out replacement for standard video cameras. Just the ease of use and versatility of normal video cameras makes them more dependable for me. I see gorgeous films made only with dslrs but what's interesting is that most of those films are less than an hour and miss much of the special moments...it's more like they get their beauty shots and aren't worried about anything else. Gorgeous without personality.
G
Guest
Guest
knock out
Member
Sure, I agree a DSLR isn't the best for ENG work, but ENG cameras are years behind and often cost too much for their performance. For $3000 like the D800, excluding the shortcomings in audio and ergonomics, the only real ENG-ish cameras are true video cameras like the Canon XF100 for example.
What other options do we really have to get more than 1/3rd sensor size and better quality lenses (or at least an interchangable lens)?
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Time to chime in.
Good arguments and observations all around, and thanks Grug for the detail crops at various ISOs. That is amazing, ISO 6400 reminds me of the old Tri-X pan 400, so Moore's law is definitely happening in sensors. My big hold up to a DSLR upgrade from the toys i have here have been , Moire, Jello effect and short clip times.
Looks like we are very close to the threshold of mid-length takes with 20-29 minutes uninterrupted.
For what it's worth, I've adapted my shooting and scripting to be more in sync with this reality so that in fact, even a 30 minute Wedding ceremony can still be 'covered' with 20-29 minutes of limitation if you can take ONE or more breaks. No single component of the Christian Wedding ceremony is longer than the 'readings'. Even the homily is rarely longer than 10 minutes. So I think that an astute wedding shooter can take one or more breaks to switch cameras if the sensors overheat. The key is to record a backup audio CONTINUOUSLY.
Most of my shooting in long form is Interviews for documentaries and I have now set 10 minute limits on my Interviewees for uninterrupted soliloquies and 15 minutes for back and forth.
So 20 minutes leaves ample room for some retake and leeway. Obviously more is better but again,an external recorder is well worth the investment if you shoot a lot of long form interviews or have to cover conferences, panel discussions or other important and unscriptable long form events.
as a technologist, I ponder why heat management hasn't gotten more attention by the makers?
We solved it for high flux LEDs why not for high data throughput sensors?
Good arguments and observations all around, and thanks Grug for the detail crops at various ISOs. That is amazing, ISO 6400 reminds me of the old Tri-X pan 400, so Moore's law is definitely happening in sensors. My big hold up to a DSLR upgrade from the toys i have here have been , Moire, Jello effect and short clip times.
Looks like we are very close to the threshold of mid-length takes with 20-29 minutes uninterrupted.
For what it's worth, I've adapted my shooting and scripting to be more in sync with this reality so that in fact, even a 30 minute Wedding ceremony can still be 'covered' with 20-29 minutes of limitation if you can take ONE or more breaks. No single component of the Christian Wedding ceremony is longer than the 'readings'. Even the homily is rarely longer than 10 minutes. So I think that an astute wedding shooter can take one or more breaks to switch cameras if the sensors overheat. The key is to record a backup audio CONTINUOUSLY.
Most of my shooting in long form is Interviews for documentaries and I have now set 10 minute limits on my Interviewees for uninterrupted soliloquies and 15 minutes for back and forth.
So 20 minutes leaves ample room for some retake and leeway. Obviously more is better but again,an external recorder is well worth the investment if you shoot a lot of long form interviews or have to cover conferences, panel discussions or other important and unscriptable long form events.
as a technologist, I ponder why heat management hasn't gotten more attention by the makers?
We solved it for high flux LEDs why not for high data throughput sensors?
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
BTW, Truly 'funded' ENG versus what i do, which is iReport ENG is, just that, FUNDED. you aren't even using your own gear so price is no object there.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Those pic samples might be a tad misleading mate. Could you please post side-by-sides of a frame from a clip at a certain ISO versus a still shot at the same ISO?
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
I'm backing up a bit to address a rather important point that i missed before."Joy Ride" is trailer the equivalent length of a TV spot Commercial or Public Service AD. I believe that moving forward, a much larger percentage of videos will actually take this form and length rather than full length feature. It's for numerous reasons that i say this but the most conspicuous reason is Attention. We are nearing the threshold of attention span with our electronic media and I suggest that we repeat this mantra "Shorter is Better". Also, "Shorter is more Profitable".Originally Posted by Zephyrnoid
So again, why shoehorn an ENG tool into a Feature/Documentary role at all?
"Why did Nikon shoehorn itself into the feature cinema role at all?" you mean. They are the ones that used the "Joy Ride" as a promo.
This truly shifts the conversation with respect to many aspects of movies- finished length, rhythm, cadence, scene selection etc. I think anything longer than 30 minutes will be considered 'surveillance' video in a few years
knock out
Member
Of course, yes, funded programs offer completely different opportunities for equipment, but the argument still hold true for ENG cameras. Frankly, the 2/3rd ENG camera hasn't really changed in a while and there's little differentiating the different bodies when it comes to performance.
For 1/10 the cost, DSLRs like the D800 come into the market at a price point that's really attractive for small budget operations yet deliver similar capabilities as the ENG systems. The real shortcomings are the ergonomics, connections, and the lens options. For the Nikon, you're really limited to a small set of SLR zooms to even try to get close to that of an ENG camera. I really think Nikon and Canon need to step-up their lens options to offer more Fujinon-like options; the new Canon CinemaEOS lenses are a great step but absurdly expensive.
Ultimately, the lens options for DSLRs are a deal killer in this equation. Broadcast lenses are doing 8-14x zooms at low F-stops and have fully electronic control of zoom and focus. Not one single option exists for DSLRs to compete with ENG in this world no matter the cost. I think the lack of electronic zoom, or even external motors, is really a problem and presents tremendous opportunity to expand into a new segment.
bitcrusher
Well-known member
This and the audio issues. We will get there, I was thinking if only the nikon 1 system had a clean uncompressed output you could put a 10-100mm 16mm lens on it and have an attractive setup.
G
Guest
Guest
Repost from Nikon Rumors:
"This guest post was sent to me by reader and addresses some of the D800 criticisms from various websites:
Since the D800 has been introduced I have heard many individuals on podcasts and read where many blog writers were critical of Nikon for packing so many pixels on such a small sensor. The criticisms just seemed not to hold water when logically thinking about things. Also, I have heard numerous comments that lenses cannot do justice to this new sensor and that the sensor will out-resolve the lenses, therefore degrading the photograph. Again, logically it didn’t sound right. One other comment heard frequently is that focus, with this new sensor with 36mp will be so sensitive that the photographer will have to have impeccable technique or suffer out of focus photographs. Again, didn’t seem logical.
Here are some facts. I did some research and some calculations and confirmed my logic in thinking about this new chip.
Nikon D800
If my calculations are off or my logic is flawed, you have my apologies and please correct them but it should be easy to calculate and the results should be essentially the same. I just get tired of individuals who have a voice and can influence other through the media speak with authority without maybe considering the facts.
Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/02/nikon-d800-criticisms-refuted.aspx/#ixzz1o35jLedq"
I have made comment about pixel sizes before. Yes, pixel size has a direct effect on certain image characteristics. No, it is not the absolute indicator of low light or dr.
"This guest post was sent to me by reader and addresses some of the D800 criticisms from various websites:
Since the D800 has been introduced I have heard many individuals on podcasts and read where many blog writers were critical of Nikon for packing so many pixels on such a small sensor. The criticisms just seemed not to hold water when logically thinking about things. Also, I have heard numerous comments that lenses cannot do justice to this new sensor and that the sensor will out-resolve the lenses, therefore degrading the photograph. Again, logically it didn’t sound right. One other comment heard frequently is that focus, with this new sensor with 36mp will be so sensitive that the photographer will have to have impeccable technique or suffer out of focus photographs. Again, didn’t seem logical.
Here are some facts. I did some research and some calculations and confirmed my logic in thinking about this new chip.
Nikon D800
- 24 X 35.9mm sensor hosting 36.3 mega pixels
- Sensor is 861.6mm squared
- Pixel Pitch is 4.88 microns
- 16 X 24 sensor hosting 15.4 mega pixels
- Sensor used is 384mm squared
- Pixel Pitch is 4.88 microns
- 23.6 X 15.6mm sensor hosting 16.2 mega pixels
- Sensor is 368.16mm squared
- Pixel Pitch is 4.78 microns
- 22.3 X 14.9mm sensor hosting 18 mega pixels
- Sensor is 332.27mm squared
- Pixel Pitch is 4.3 microns
- 13.0 X 17.3mm sensor hosting 12.3 mega pixels
- Sensor is 224.9mm squared
- Pixel Pitch is 4.24 microns
- 13.0 X 17.3mm sensor hosting 16.1 mega pixels
- Sensor is 224.9mm squared
- Pixel Pitch is (estimated) 3.22 microns (I couldn’t find a figure for this but the # of pixels/sensor size is .76X that of the EP-3 above)
If my calculations are off or my logic is flawed, you have my apologies and please correct them but it should be easy to calculate and the results should be essentially the same. I just get tired of individuals who have a voice and can influence other through the media speak with authority without maybe considering the facts.
Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/02/nikon-d800-criticisms-refuted.aspx/#ixzz1o35jLedq"
I have made comment about pixel sizes before. Yes, pixel size has a direct effect on certain image characteristics. No, it is not the absolute indicator of low light or dr.
Last edited:
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Amen! I am working on a novel focus mechanism but it doesn't solve the lack of an electronic zoom button. I guess Sigma could jump in with a solution or NiCan should create an adapter or something- just as you say
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Well. There is a logic to it. Based both in Science and my personal experience. First the science.
Resolving power of a sensor or even film is finite and established by the pixel density of the array in the case of a sensor and by the molecular gaps in the silver halide molecules in film. in my experience with this phenomenon in film I shot with Nikons on K25 routinely and then experimented with mounting the body on my 4X5 Sinar with Large format shooting and enlarger lenses* on the front end.
Images made with apo enlarging lenses just blew my macro nikkors away on THE SAME FILM STOCK in my jewelry work.
This may suggest that Nikon or someone out there, it planning mounts for the D800 (or that they should) , which will allow the use of higher rez lenses or lenses formulated to image just the core to the sensor. That after all is the easy solution.
*enlarging lenses are optimized for close-up and macro not for infinity work.
The practice of mounting Zeiss Hasselblad lenses onto Nikons is pretty old and yielded phenomenal results due to image cropping.
G
Guest
Guest
Okay, normally I could care less about digital noise, but the D800 seriously has the best looking 'grain' at high ISO! I actually like it! (not referring to video qualities, just stills)
Nikon D800 @ iso6400
Nikon D800 @ iso6400
G
Guest
Guest
The 25,600 with noise reduction isn't bad looking either. (these are 100% crops) imagine this 36MP deliciousness at 24fps :evil:
Nikon D800 @ iso25600
Nikon D800 @ iso25600
Last edited: