that's what i thought at first then you actually implicitly did. you dismissed my reply which was obviously meant in a general sense because "the d90 isn't a red one" and asked whether i worked for nikon. i'm not splitting hairs, i'm just starting to completely lose your point, can you put it simply and i'll answer the best i can?
Interesting info about d90 sensor resize
- Thread starter bwwd
- Start date
aside from the other pro cams that use larger sensors and more pixels the gh1 does too, funny how you completely leave out that i've mentioned that in every reply. it converts it to compressed 1080p but it does grab all the 4k res from the sensor first to do so.
the slr market is huge, the pro video market is tiny, that's the reason you're looking for. i'm 100% positive that nikon could build a red one killer quite easily if they wanted to, it's just not their thing. the reason we get video in slr's now is because it suddenly became easy to do.
no, it's only a little bit smaller. the reason is most likely that it was designed to be a video camera. even the g1 is full time live view so they needed a design that supported video from the very core, while nikon and canon have slapped the video function on top of an already working stills camera.
because they use the four thirds format in all their cameras. it was around since before video so that's definitely not the reason.
the main reason for not using big chips is not that they are harder to grab data from or that they generate more heat, but because they are much more expensive to make. and when it comes to video it's also because it's hard to sell a camera that takes blurry pictures for 99% of its users. ;-)
But it seems it was easy to sell dslr video that was blurry for 99% of its users, yes. For now.
I don't believe that video has come to the dslr because it suddenly became easy to do. It seems to me it has come because still camera companies realise - and maybe realised with the consolidation of digital imaging - that in the long term, without some motion capture option, the market for dslrs will die. I don't mean here that no one will be interested, but that the market will not be big enough to justify the tens of millions of dollars of R&D these machines require simply because even for the serious consumer there will be too many options available, including the camcorder and the mobile 'phone. Look at how quickly industry and 'convergence' and convenience sunk the pictorially superior 35mm film format.
Live view is hardly new. Consumer digital still cameras are not new. While the slr market is big, it is not as big as the market for compacts. How far away is Canon or JVC, etc from producing a HD camcorder that can squirt a still image onto a computer screen such that a casual-consumer-family member could not pick a difference between it and a still from a D90/D5000/Coolpix 'x'? And of course it is the computer screen or the TV where these consumer issues are now decided, not prints.
In this context, bwwd's plaintive request for a bit more joy is not without merit, even in R&D and marketing terms. Why can't we have it? It seems to be emminently possible! That doesn't make bwwd a "troll."
But yes, film makers would hardly rate a demographic on a pie chart in a Nikon sales powerpoint presentation. Given Nikon have recently posted a record loss, I hardly think they're going to agressively pursue independent film makers. But nor will they stick to a notion of dslr still photography as paramount if it means the company will fail.
I am convinced that in the area of consumer and prosumer imaging, single-purpose devices will become extinct.
because the 1% of the users who got it for video wanted it exactly because of the shallow dof and manual focus. the rest went on the web boards screaming "wft, no auto focus" as if any auto focus in the world could ever keep up with multiple moving objects at various distances with a two inch dof. full frame video cameras will probably never be something that most people want or need.
not suddenly, but it's hardly a coincidence that it happened at this very time. both nikon's and canon's video modes are simply a recording function built on top of the live view, which in turn was introduced in the previous generation of cameras.
so which cameras had live view before slr's? yes the compacts. which cameras had video before the slr's? yes, the compacts. why didn't slr's have video before? no live view. what happened after they got live view? they got video. it's a very simple equation.
my question is why do we want it? i'd much rather shoot with a full frame 4k sensor than a full frame 1080p one. you're addressing the wrong problem.
/matt
It is not the wrong problem. It's not even a problem. The forces at work that make, say, the little D90 tick have nothing to do with what you want. What Joe consumer wants is more important than what you or I want. These forces concern the survival of companies and the convergence of digital devices.
The "very simple equation" here is the convergence that digital still camera departments know is well underway.
It there was a secure and cost-effective market for a 6-8-10k motion capture, you would have it now. That has nothing to do with the level on Nikon's technological development. Nikon doesn't even mint the sensors. The sensor on the D90 is either a Sony or a Sony knock-off.
Surely the point bwwd is making is to take what is effectively there and improve the way it works for motion capture, and the 'locking-up' of features that are already present in a device is something I am very concerned about, and something that did not and could not happen in the days of manual cameras and emulsion film. That is a sinister development.
And not to be a pedant, but please in future when you quote, at least do the courtesy of quoting enough to take the meaning of what was written.
The "very simple equation" here is the convergence that digital still camera departments know is well underway.
It there was a secure and cost-effective market for a 6-8-10k motion capture, you would have it now. That has nothing to do with the level on Nikon's technological development. Nikon doesn't even mint the sensors. The sensor on the D90 is either a Sony or a Sony knock-off.
Surely the point bwwd is making is to take what is effectively there and improve the way it works for motion capture, and the 'locking-up' of features that are already present in a device is something I am very concerned about, and something that did not and could not happen in the days of manual cameras and emulsion film. That is a sinister development.
And not to be a pedant, but please in future when you quote, at least do the courtesy of quoting enough to take the meaning of what was written.
Last edited:
you're not listening, i'm saying that the problem is not putting more pixels on a chip and you wouldn't solve anything by making a chip with fewer pixels on it. all you'd get is a camera with lower resolution with little benefit as to cost, heat and other things mentioned in this thread. it has nothing to do with nikon per se, or sony for that matter (you don't think i know who makes their sensors?!?). again, the gh1 already captures ~4k from its sensor and it's an inexpensive camera with a large sensor, proof enough that anything less is just a step backwards for no reason at all.
the thread is right here for those who want to know everything you said, i'm quoting what's necessary to know what i'm commenting on. a pedant wouldn't comment on such a thing, but he just might point out again that motion capture is the process of putting little dots to people and tracking their movements for the purpose of 3d animation.
"a pedant wouldn't comment on such a thing, but he just might point out again that motion capture is the process of putting little dots to people and tracking their movements for the purpose of 3d animation. "
I forgot to mention the little dots thing!
I'm trying to make a broader and relevant point, and you know that's what I'm doing.
@Mhood: Couching an insult in a reference to an adolescent cartoon is awesome!
"I forgot to mention the little dots thing!
I'm trying to make a broader and relevant point, and you know that's what I'm doing.
@Mhood: Couching an insult in a reference to an adolescent cartoon is awesome!