FINALLY - 1080p

yeah...no, it's another D5000, nothing interessting yet. The 24p is a deal breaker anyway. Not sure about the AVCHD either, ist it better or worse than H.264? I'm guessing this is the small fish, they release first to check out the market.
 
I'd say first Nikon DSLR with 1080p and continous AF and AVCHD codec is very interesting, especially since this is "just" an entry level camera.

It indicates Nikon's approach on video for the other to be released DSLR (this fall), which means a big step forward compared to Nikon's recent video implementations.

I have no clue why 24p should be a deal breaker?
 
50hz AC, lights flicker. It's really bad, no Problem with 25p from the Canons.
I'm expecting alot of big releases around the photokina end of september, since I live near Collogne, I can check it out personally, and decide, after 2 years of waiting, if I have to sell my nikon glass, haha.

RAW video is probably the most interessting feature since I would throw every other aspect over board for that (or some really generous codec). Then I would like some good Focus controls so I don't need a FF...like remote Focus or something!
 
with manual exposure you just set the shutter to 1/50, which you typically would want to anyway, and there's no flicker. which brings us to the most important question: manual control?
 
mattsand said:
manual control?
Click to expand...

Probably not for D3100 as it's rather cheap?!

I'm surprised noone seems as excited as me? Nikon's research and patents on fast continous AF in video mode means they are serious about video mode (same for choice of AVCHD and implying 1080p to an entry DSLR).

I still prefer the video look/feel and colors of D90 / D300s / D3s over any other DSLR and can't wait for Photokina.
 
pretty much the only things *not* broken with the d90 as far as my needs are concerned are the resolution and the codec, no dslr's seem to produce true 1080p anyway and mjpeg actually has many advantages over avchd. without manual control it's a brick.
 
Bitrate of D3100 might turn out to be lower but for pro level cams I don't see a reason they shouldn't do 24Mbit... they don't have camcorder department to cripple.
 
stip said:
Bitrate of D3100 might turn out to be lower but for pro level cams I don't see a reason they shouldn't do 24Mbit... they don't have camcorder department to cripple.
Click to expand...

The Canons are doing a good bit higher than 24Mbit right? Might as well keep up with the Jonses.
 
It's my understanding that AVCHD is based off of h.264 and there is no significant difference between the two as far as video encoding goes. The differences are in file structure and other 'cosmetic' differences, but they share the same bones. If I'm right then yes, you can compare the two.

Someone step in and correct me if I'm wrong since I'm no expert.
 
ethan cooper said:
It's my understanding that AVCHD is based off of h.264 and there is no significant difference between the two as far as video encoding goes. The differences are in file structure and other 'cosmetic' differences, but they share the same bones. If I'm right then yes, you can compare the two.

Someone step in and correct me if I'm wrong since I'm no expert.
Click to expand...


right, right, my bad
 
Exactly right.

As long as it is implemented properly with decent encoding hardware, the bit rate does not need to be so high. The Canon's have an abnormally high bit rate to compensate for the poor implementation of the h.264 codec. AVCHD from the HMC150 is rock solid and living proof that h.264 only needs to be 24mbps.
 
yeah but i wish manufacturers could for once use advances in compression technology to increase quality rather than decrease bitrate. the only reason mjpeg doesn't quite work on dslr's is that the bitrate is too low. at 70 mbit or so it's excellent and voids the need for more advanced codecs. codecs like redcode, prores and cineform would be the logical next step, not a stupid delivery codec designed for low bitrates.
 
I agree with matt completely. That's probably the most important thing for me rightnow, codec quality. On of the reasons why low light footage looks bad is the codec messing up alls that beautiful grain into some nasty blotchy noise. Appart from that, I'm looking for features to reduce the cost of producing films. A good focus system is one example, but only if it can fully substitute a follow focus (or a remote FF!). Or proper sound recording...stuff like that. Im curious which manufacturer will deliver ALL of that, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top