D800

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
squig said:
Cool!....because apart from the moire and aliasing the D4 and D800 look really good.
Click to expand...
Where have you found aliasing or moiré with the D4, Anthony? Because this looks like more a typo from your side than anything else... ;-)
 
Zephyrnoid said:
+ 1. I may even force myself to get serious about stills again but 36MP is huge overkill methinks.
GH3........?
Click to expand...
GH3 won't be much different as far as sensor size and amateur aliasing concern IMO.

How can 36MP be overkill when a good part is complaining on 5DIII softness?! ;-)
 
dfreerider said:
There is a real mixed bag of videos coming out, some showing quite a bit of moire and aliasing, and some showing it dealing with traditionally difficult shots very well. Not an easy camera to figure out.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Hope this will work out:

Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
FYI: Speaking of aliasing, moire & the D800: I had the following email exchange this week.

==============
Hi Peter,

Thanks for writing. Yes; we're thinking very much of making a filter for the D800/D880e. Indeed, we're getting many inquiries on these cameras - which is telling. I will tell you, though, that we haven't actually seen one of the cameras yet... or any raw video from one, for that matter, where we could closely analyze what's going on with its video.

In any case, we'll keep your email here, and let you know directly as things progress.

Thanks again and best regards,

--Dave Cubanski

David Cubanski
Mosaic Engineering, Inc.
210 W. Hamilton Ave. #290
State College, PA, 16801, USA
(+01) 814-359-6290
cubanski@mosaicengineering.com
http://www.mosaicengineering.com


===


At 12:03 PM 3/19/2012, Peter J. DeCrescenzo wrote:
Hi,


I'm wondering if you plan to make available a filter similar to the VAF-5D2 optical anti-aliasing filter, but for Nikon's new D800 DSLR?
=========================
Click to expand...
 
James0b57 said:
Fantastic.
Click to expand...

Emanuel said:
GH3 won't be much different as far as sensor size and amateur aliasing concern IMO.

How can 36MP be overkill when a good part is complaining on 5DIII softness?! ;-)
Click to expand...

well it's a two part answer. First, i look at the client display specs. 80% are asking for content to fit:
ipad 2048 x 1536
Icon size: 72 x 72 px
File format: PNG-
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
http://www.appdesignvault.com/images/ipad-retina/ipad-3-retina.png
30% are asking for files sized for 300DPI 11"X17" tabloid and finally....
10% are indeed looking for full 7360 x 4912 to be used in Point of purchase display, even though the output screens are so large (133DPI) that they are just asking for big files because so many are uneducated and think they are still in the offset press age- so the habit of asking for the huge files.
In truth, the big advantage of 36MP is penalty free cropping (and obviously, Nikon knows that) In that case you could get away with a wide zoom and a fast 50mm but in practice, we shoot on longer lenses too.
It's also handy for my former specialty- macro for luxury industry. Slap a D800 body on the back of an old Sinar with bag bellows and some nice close-feild optics on the front end and you can kiss medium and large format digital capture GOODBYE. Still for me.... 16MP is still more than enough if the raw capture is pristine.
Also, the extra pixel density does not eliminate aliasing or the softness being complained about in the 5DIII. The extra pixel density/file size does offer compensation for the loss incured when you do correct for aliasing or softness in post.
36MP is the Studio catalog shooters DREAM for sure. I'd just hook that up directly to my laptop and suck em in right away.
But as always, warehousing and editing those gigantic sizes would be nasty.
Imagine 10 layers, each at mean file weight of 108MB, that's 1.08GB and many of my images stretch into 15 layers or more!
That's why i chuckle when people talk about editing 4K in RAW.
 
Last edited:
Ok so as it seems we´ve got:

D4: low resolution but 0 aliasing
D800: nice resolution but aliasing as usual
5Dmk3: no aliasing, ok resolution but ugly colors
 
macgregor said:
Ok so as it seems we´ve got:

D4: low resolution but 0 aliasing
D800: nice resolution but aliasing as usual
5Dmk3: no aliasing, ok resolution but ugly colors
Click to expand...

But if we got everything we wanted in one camera, we wouldn't have anything left to whine about on forums - and what would we all do with our spare time then? Shoot stuff? ...don't be ridiculous.
 
hehe yeah I still like the D90 colours better than Canons...I try not to think about it too much, keeps me up at night.
 
well the only two examples i found that you can download the raw file ( internally recorded but still straight from the card ) are these
D800
https://vimeo.com/39111417
5dMKIII
https://vimeo.com/38892273 (which you cant even see because vimeo doesnt support the ALL-I footage yet

i am not an expert on video compression or something
so i just did a simple test took the footage and pumped up the saturation to full in AE to see the compression blocks artifacts and so on

if anyone here can offer information of the difference in the encoding compression from the picture grabs i post - i will be more than glad to hear
from a simple grade point of view - what ive found is the d800 grades pretty well but far from perfect ( its still h.264 compression dslr )
would love to see the hdmi output raw file and test it
and 5d mark iii - except being canon ugly colors as stated and i agree is more difficult to grade without getting those blocky artifacts appear
but those are very different footage so maybe my comparison is not fair or offer much real information but thats the only raw footage which i found online
90235828 (0-00-01-09).jpg 89674856 (0-03-32-12).jpg
 
Last edited:
macgregor said:
Ok so as it seems we´ve got:

D4: low resolution but 0 aliasing
D800: nice resolution but aliasing as usual
5Dmk3: no aliasing, ok resolution but ugly colors
Click to expand...

Thanks i think your right plus im a bit tired with it all..... ill just concentrate on them as a stills camera and decide.... then do what i always have a get a proper video camera...its funny i guess i just didn't want to see it... Cheers
 
To all: the term "RAW file" has a very specific and important meaning (i.e. mostly unfiltered data straight from the image sensor) in the context of Canon and Nikon dSLRs. Please do not abuse this term. A suggested alternate term: MOV file straight from the camera.

t.p. said:
5dMKIII https://vimeo.com/38892273 (which you cant even see because vimeo doesnt support the ALL-I footage yet
Click to expand...

The same compressor is used for 'normal' h.264 encoding and the ALL-I form of h.264 encoding. There might be some difference in image quality, but it should be slight. ALL-I encoding (no B or P frames) does not -- in and of itself -- affect compression quality. Its only intended benefit is increased flexibility in editing and splicing. The use of only I frames means that the compressed video frame is self-contained. There is no dependency on clues from previous or subsequent frames for decoding or decompression. So clips can be split, spliced, trimmed, or switched at any frame.

The IQ for normal and ALL-I output from the 5dIII should be indistinguishable, apart from bit rate and file size. I do not own a 5DIII, so this is nothing more than informed conjecture on my part. By all means, compare the two yourselves (or even better, use a colleague to conduct a blind test).

UPDATE: A correction (partial reversal of this blanket statement) may be found in post #323 -- Bob

Wikipedia has a simple and clear explanation of I, B, and P frames here.

If you need help with a blind test, please google 'Coke vs. Pepsi' :)

-- Bob Elkind
 
Last edited:
Bob is right. The nomenclature for the term RAW is unfortunate. Fortunately, having learned digital imaging from the foundations up, i know what he means.
But "MOV file straight from the camera." is not much help either as it creates some ambiguity since MOV = Quicktime in another context. The operative word that he used is is UNFILTERED

Once any codec is applied to the image file data, lossiness is attendant. Obviously the CODEC with the least lossiness is the most desirable from the standpoint of post processing (because any processing accentuates CODEC artifacts (those nasty blocks so artfully portrayed in the samples offered)

"The same compressor is used for 'normal' h.264 encoding and the ALL-I form of h.264 encoding." Thus the propensity for artifact 'blockiness' even if it seems a bit different when accentuated as in the samples.
This is why RED Digital has a leg up on all this, it engages in the least invasive manipulation of data straight from the image sensor.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top