D800

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
the pixels at the sides are usually blocked, and used to callibrate what "pure black signal" is, so blocking them shouldn't make a difference - but maybe there's something else around there too, so it's good that they're aware
 
Samuel H said:
the pixels at the sides are usually blocked, and used to callibrate what "pure black signal" is, so blocking them shouldn't make a difference - but maybe there's something else around there too, so it's good that they're aware
Click to expand...

I do not doubt you. On this particular question, I've told you everything I know... and more.

Hmmm... Digging a bit deeper... The extra "layer" of the Mosaic filter will no doubt affect thermal buildup -- warming -- of the sensor. Video applications are already sensitive to sensor overheating. Black letterbox masks on the Mosaic filter might (or might not) exacerbate thermal problems.

-- Bob Elkind
 
Last edited:
Gizmodo: The Nikon's low light test was overexposed compared to Canon's: thus better revealing any inherent noise. The canon noise is masked by the darkness (underexposed nature) of the frame. It would take little effort to expose the canon frame to match the light values of the nikon frames (or vice versa) - then we could see what gives. The Canon is clearly not better in low light. I would choose the Nikon over the canon if all I had to go on were these amateurish "tests". I now also believe that the tester is biased towards the Canon. Or he/she may just be blind/incompetent.
 
eteam said:
... The extra "layer" of the Mosaic filter will no doubt affect thermal buildup -- warming -- of the sensor. Video applications are already sensitive to sensor overheating. Black letterbox masks on the Mosaic filter might (or might not) exacerbate thermal problems. -- Bob Elkind
Click to expand...

Hi Bob: Then again, depending on the material & configuration of such a hypothetical LB matte/mask & its support structure, it might have a bit of heat-sink effect, pulling heat away from the sensor. It's an interesting engineering problem, fraught with plusses & minuses, but what other kind is there? :-)

Also, the LB matte/mask probably shouldn't literally touch the sensor or I suspect a cam's self-cleaning (vibration) feature might result in a loud noise and or damage! 8-|

Any gap between the matte/mask and the sensor will result in a somewhat soft-edged shadow of the letterbox being projected onto the sensor. And, I believe the size of the LB shadow will change with different lens focal lengths. I don't think either of these are likely to be a deal-killer as long as the shadow is "outside" the desired final LB cropped in post. Again, all part of the fun.

Just to be clear, there are at least two different ideas/designs here: One is a glass AA filter for the D800, and the other is a LB matte/mask (no glass) for the 5DM3. Theory being that the D800 may benefit from some aliasing reduction, which the 5DM3 doesn't appear to need. On the other hand, since the 5DM3 doesn't feature clean HDMI out (not until/unless a ML hack adds this at some point, if ever), it might benefit from an improvement in compression possibly provided by using a LB matte/mask.

The Mosaic AA filter for the old 5DM2 is positioned immediately behind the lens, apparently not near enough to the sensor to cause thermal issues. However, I suspect this location would not be ideal for a matte/mask because the shadow it would cast might be too soft or variable depending on lens focal length.
 
Peter,

I should learn to keep my mouth shut when I wander too far from my area of expertise. I'm primarily an electronics nerd, not an optics nerd. I think I'll stick a bit closer to 'home territory' for a while.

BTW, your PDX location caught my eye. I checked out your website, you do nice work.

-- Bob Elkind
 
Hi Bob: No need to apologize; I find all your insights helpful. I suspect you're one of those people who has forgotten more than I'll ever know about many topics! :-)

Thanks for your kind words about my video. I'm still learning, but I'm a slow learner. ;-)

If you're ever in our fair city, please give me a shout! Cheers.
 
dfreerider said:
Unsharp Mask, it is a photoshop filter used to sharpen photos.
Click to expand...

aha... unsharpmask. Why didn't you just say so ;-) When I think of USM I think about Canon AF lenses, or rather their UltraSonic Motors. In the future, can you please apply those to framegrabs instead, to avoid confusion? :thumbsup:
 
dfreerider said:
Gizmondo made some side by side vidoes with the D800 and the 5D Mark III.

http://gizmodo.com/5897098/d800-vs-5d-mark-iii-which-shoots-better-video

They sure look different in low light, especially the colors.
Click to expand...

So far every low light test i've seen (including this and Philip Bloom's) do not mention the settings of the in camera noise reduction.

For example, looking at stills, Mk3 high iso jpegs are noise-free. Why? Because it is eliminated with all the details. Maybe the same thing is going on with the video - its not very detailed as it is, so applying heavy NR would not hurt it as much as D800.

It would be interesting to compare both cameras with NR applied in post and then see how much detail is retained. I predict that Mk3 will still be ahead, but not by much.
 
No way I'm doing any more testing for free.I'll gladly assist with the target, the protocol and results capture and analysis. Besides. It's Phil Askey's job. Now if he'd just transition DPReviews to video we'd be all set.

eteam said:
I think we have a volounteer!

-- Bob Elkind
Click to expand...
 
Geronimo said:
Ok, I wound up getting both the D4 & D800, and threw together 5 really quick tests.

http://vimeo.com/album/1884940

It's late and I'm tired, so take them with a grain of salt. I'll run better tests this weekend.
Click to expand...


As an FYI, when I posted thoe videos, I mentioned on Vimeo that it looked like the D800 was actually cropping even in 1.0x (full-frame) mode, though I wasn't certain that I didn't screw something up in my tests.

I have since confirmed through a number of other sources that this is, indeed, happening in the D800. Even in 1.0x (full-frame) mode, the D800 adds a small crop and only uses 91% of the sensor. I wonder if this is how the D800 is delivering a perceived detail increase at FF over the D4 - it just crops a bit more.
 
Geronimo said:
As an FYI, when I posted thoe videos, I mentioned on Vimeo that it looked like the D800 was actually cropping even in 1.0x (full-frame) mode, though I wasn't certain that I didn't screw something up in my tests.

I have since confirmed through a number of other sources that this is, indeed, happening in the D800. Even in 1.0x (full-frame) mode, the D800 adds a small crop and only uses 91% of the sensor. I wonder if this is how the D800 is delivering a perceived detail increase at FF over the D4 - it just crops a bit more.
Click to expand...

Nah, D800 is pretty detailed
 
I'm kinda loving my oh so horrible in low light HV20 right about now. I need a DSLR in hand by June 21 so something had better appear that's better than my HV20...
I do appreciate the efforts of all contributors so far and wish you all the best in your use of these cameras. It looks like Nikon is getting serious and Canon is serious-er yet.
 
t.p. said:
found a couple of interesting youtube videos of the D4 , concert footage , that apperantly nikon sponsered
all shot with the D4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6JAa_2kP-E&feature=BFa&list=SP3B1BF2189B088FD7&lf=list_related
Click to expand...



That's cool. Nikon is not holding back. There definitely serious about this.

I'm really impressed how the D800 footage is holding up. Here's a frame grab from a color grade test I did to the raw footage posted.


I posted other stuff here: New thread for Nikon D800 frames and footage.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...1080P-video-tests&p=1986112841#post1986112841


Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/pappasarts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top