D90 D-Movie quality is really, really bad!

B

buildyo

Active member
This is my third day with the D90. It's a great photo camera but I'm very disappointed by it's D-Movie quality. This camera is obviously operated at its limits. While my D700 has a very nice LiveView monitor quality @ 15fps the LiveView monitor quality of the D90 doesn't come close. As soon as you start movie recording it degrades further. 24 fps LiveView obviously comes at a price.

Anyone who is judging this camera from Vimeo downloads is strongly advised to try the D-Movie mode in person. The picture below shows what I mean. My problem isn't jello or noise it's the awful "1998" video quality in a 2009 DSLR. Broadcast quality Ha! Please take a look for yourself and decide if you shouldn't wait.

If I had seen a comparison like the one below I wouldn't have bought the D90. Or maybe I still would have because somehow one thinks it can't be that bad or the user didn't focus properly or he did something else wrong.

Don't you think I was nice to the D90: I used a tripod, a sharp lens and shot a close up of a non moving object. I hate to say but D-Movie doesn't get better than this:
(The screenshot was saved as a very high quality JPEG file)

1222875380.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes, I've seen this on all the videos that have been posted. It has that ugly "watercolor" look you get with most point & shoot photo cameras.

I'd really like to see a similar still vs. framegrab comparison for the Canon.
 
D-Movie is a added feature on a (Superb) DSLR camera. It's not a Panavision Genesis ;P

Although i'll have to say, none of my footage looks as bad as that. I don't know what you've done to it but it should not, and does not, look that bad.
 
Try shooting a dark room, underexposed.... Prepare for a descent into the depths of JPEG hell!

Realistically though, you're not going to get off any nice product shots with this camera. Concentrate on organics, color, depth of field effects. Just have fun with it until the 5d comes out.
 
evilfoxhound said:
I don't know what you've done to it but it should not, and does not, look that bad.
Click to expand...

That's good for you and I invite you to show me a better shot of the very same tool.

I wonder what I could have done better? The object fills the entire frame, there's enough light to shoot at 1/60, f8.0, 400 ISO (reading from external light meter). I pressed the OK button and recorded several seconds then I pressed the shutter to take the image. I brought the AVI and the JPEG into Photoshop CS3 extended resized the JPEG and made the screenshot in PNG format. I had to save it as a very high quality JPEG because this forum doesn't allow to upload PNG images.

You get better results whith organic shapes as Matthew said. I'm satisfied with this one:

1222882541.jpg
 
Last edited:
Chris_TC said:
Yes, I've seen this on all the videos that have been posted. It has that ugly "watercolor" look you get with most point & shoot photo cameras.
Click to expand...

Yes those cameras have this look because of the heavy noise compression that is neccessary because of the tiny sensor. The D90 has this look because it's circuitry is not fast enough to process higher qulity. At least I hope Nikon did not cripple this product on purpose.
 
Just forget about gorgeous HD with this camera. Bump the above image down to 480p in After Effects, and apply some gentle sharpening, coloring, etc, and you'll have a lovely web/SD video. That's as good as it gets I think.
 
I might be missing something too, but isn't the res of a still camera image like 4288x2848 vs 1280x720. I presume that wouldn't make too much difference, but would a fairer test be to bump the res down on the photo taken? Down res in post vs less information captured in the camera.
I mean I'm sure the red one captures nice sharp product shots, but the capture res is a bit higher and it costs a little more... :)

Since when do we compare a still shot to a moving, compressed frame grab?

Having said that, you want a product type comparison, anyone think the d90 is up to producing something like this even with a bunch of post? This was shot with a jvc hd100

http://www.hdcuisine.com/food_highlights.html

heh. hungry now..
 
timmytimetravel said:
I might be missing something too, but isn't the res of a still camera image like 4288x2848 vs 1280x720. I presume that wouldn't make too much difference, but would a fairer test be to bump the res down on the photo taken? Down res in post vs less information captured in the camera.
I mean I'm sure the red one captures nice sharp product shots, but the capture res is a bit higher and it costs a little more... :)

Since when do we compare a still shot to a moving, compressed frame grab?

Having said that, you want a product type comparison, anyone think the d90 is up to producing something like this even with a bunch of post? This was shot with a jvc hd100

http://www.hdcuisine.com/food_highlights.html

heh. hungry now..
Click to expand...

Nope.

I don't thing the D90 would come close.

But, I would love to be proven wrong.
 
timmytimetravel said:
I might be missing something too, but isn't the res of a still camera image like 4288x2848 vs 1280x720. I presume that wouldn't make too much difference, but would a fairer test be to bump the res down on the photo taken? Down res in post vs less information captured in the camera.
Click to expand...

Actually the JPEG was shot in Fine (F) and Small (S) quality which is 2144 x 1424 pixels. I resized it to 1280 width and cropped it to a height of 720. Anyway you simply don't want to compare a D90 photo to a D-Movie frame. The difference makes you cry. But I didn't expect that. I didn't expect (or couldn't believe) though this lack of detail, that the movie is so soft and surface blurred with visible steps in every edge that is not exactly vertical or horizontal.
 
timmytimetravel said:
Since when do we compare a still shot to a moving, compressed frame grab?
Click to expand...


Well in the case of the D90 it's especially fair since both modes use the JPEG compression. I assume if the D90 LiveView image where scaled down properly the movie would look a LOT better even at these low data rates. Watch the LiveView image on an external monitor via HDMI or on your computer via Camera Control Pro. The stair steps are already there in the LiveView window.
 
anyone tried to apply a algolith or something to minimize the horizontal lines from bad compression? or anyone tried something really good?
anyway, everytime i see a human being filmed by a d90, i like the video quality a lot. but everytime i see a bad landscape or a flower, i think the footage is BAD. not only in quality, but in everything. the reality is, nobody makes a short film from flowers footage with no action or actors or something happening...

i just don't consider a test out of non living objects. you got to make a test where the image has other information besides the artifacts that you are trying to show.

one of the best's video ive seen was this one: http://vimeo.com/1826855

im a filmmaker since 1999 and my films have been around the globe in festivals like Locarno, Clermont-ferrand, Berlin... ive made films out of a vhs camera once, and my first 35mm film print was shot with a JVC HD10 and this one was showed around the globe. now tell me, who remember the jvc hd10 camera? with 35 lux hehe. it was the first hd camera 720p30. All my films i do shot and direct myself, i do all the DOP work. when i saw this night video in vimeo ive mentioned i was amazed at how amateurs could do a good quality (more for narrative art films, not commercial stuff) without the harsh look of the video, and the dof and everything that comes with the use of nikon lenses. this video has people in there, talking and besides some problems with the compression still present, i just forget about it and felt more comfortable with the image because it has more "heart" than a video from a hvx or any other usual video camera without an adaptor. i dont know how to explain, but the image is good enough for professional work when it comes to film SOMETHING and not just a pencil on a desk.

thanks

obs: everyone here must try to watch some cassavettes films
 
speaking of commercial work, didn't nikon shoot one of their commercials with the d90?...interesting
and you would've never guessed it was shot with it either.
 
Daniel Aragão said:
anyone tried to apply a algolith or something to minimize the horizontal lines from bad compression? or anyone tried something really good?
anyway, everytime i see a human being filmed by a d90, i like the video quality a lot. but everytime i see a bad landscape or a flower, i think the footage is BAD. not only in quality, but in everything. the reality is, nobody makes a short film from flowers footage with no action or actors or something happening...

i just don't consider a test out of non living objects. you got to make a test where the image has other information besides the artifacts that you are trying to show.

one of the best's video ive seen was this one: http://vimeo.com/1826855

im a filmmaker since 1999 and my films have been around the globe in festivals like Locarno, Clermont-ferrand, Berlin... ive made films out of a vhs camera once, and my first 35mm film print was shot with a JVC HD10 and this one was showed around the globe. now tell me, who remember the jvc hd10 camera? with 35 lux hehe. it was the first hd camera 720p30. All my films i do shot and direct myself, i do all the DOP work. when i saw this night video in vimeo ive mentioned i was amazed at how amateurs could do a good quality (more for narrative art films, not commercial stuff) without the harsh look of the video, and the dof and everything that comes with the use of nikon lenses. this video has people in there, talking and besides some problems with the compression still present, i just forget about it and felt more comfortable with the image because it has more "heart" than a video from a hvx or any other usual video camera without an adaptor. i dont know how to explain, but the image is good enough for professional work when it comes to film SOMETHING and not just a pencil on a desk.

thanks

obs: everyone here must try to watch some cassavettes films
Click to expand...

I agree, if you are drawn into a story it doesn't matter if the compression is bad and lines are jaggy. I probably don't belong into this forum as I shoot instructional videos. No faces just hands and tools and technical stuff and I need a device that does both great video and stills. Unfortunately the D90 doesn't offer this for me. I just imagined DSLR = excellent photos so DSLR movies must be of excellent video quality. Something like this: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=146955 (I'm so naiv :-) I didn't realize that DSLR electronics is not quite ready for this. I also don't like the "tiny-sensor-video look" of current consumer video cameras. I also blame a certain David Pogue who said in his New York Times review that the movie quality from this camera is superior to that of point and shoot ones. Therefore my advice: Try before you buy.

Maybe we can agree on this: compression is bad but if you're an artist or have a good story to tell you can achieve a look that isn't video at all. If your movie depends on fine detail you'll be lost with the D90. And of course you have no other option at the moment because the D90's 24 fps and large sensor are unique. I hate the small sensor "video look."

Good usage of the D90:
http://www.vimeo.com/1855280
 
Last edited:
i guess it really comes down to artistic differences. you say that vimeo video is good usage when to me it looks like stop animation. probably the worse example of what it's actually capable of doing. this to me is some proper lighting can achieve.

http://vimeo.com/1855405

it's just a matter of taste. you might think "a road to perdition" was beautifully photographed and I'd think "gone baby gone" was a better looking picture. but in the end depending what best suites your needs it's up to your audience and or clients to decide if it looks good or is good.
 
OK, I think I understand now why you guys speak so friendly of the D90. I took it to the outside today and finally shot something "organic":
http://www.vimeo.com/1867781

I'm still dissapointed by the artefacts but in the case of family memories the're not important.

:beer:
 
there is a quality about the D90 that i like. it's more of a lomo-esque look, where the canon d5 is too perfect. would buy a d90 in a heartbeat, but the jello-ness is just a bit much. that's a great video that show the difference between canon's "perfectness" and the d90's "human-ness." it's like watching home movies on a super 8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top