Newb..Talking around the D90

M

morgan_moore

Major Contributor
Hi I am a stills photographer by trade with very limited experience in video

here is my first effort with the D90

http://www.vimeo.com/1963131

I made that with Imovie

To me none of the D90 footage Ive seen anywhere on the web looks really sharp

Are video cameras that bad too ?? (im used to shooting with a 22mp stills camera !)

What sort of level of camera does one need to really outperform the D90

And what about sound - I did a little test with a flash mic and synched the sound but in Imovie that is a right PITA

Is there a software that would be better for synching sound ?

Any more thoughts

SMM
 
The D90 is pretty soft for a 720p HiDef camera, and 1080p HDV offers yet more resolution. But most video cameras have very very tiny sensors- 1/3" is common, so DOF is very deep even wide open- some people use tiny 35mm view cameras called DOF adapters but this is cumbersome and eats a couple stops of light among other problems. Also, those tiny chips tend to produce rather limited dynamic range.

There are 2/3" cameras, but those start at 10 grand and lenses are extremely expensive by still slr standards. To get something with an DX sized sensor requires about 35 grand for the RED One setup, and there are some even higher end digital cinema cameras which can mostly only be rented. These digital cinema cameras do have extremely sharp images and are 4k pixels wide. But, even my $700 Canon HV20 offers a much sharper image than the D90... more data compressed in a better fashion too. What makes the D90 revolutionary is the large sensor and interchangable lenses at a size and price point that is easy to deal with.

I've never used iMovie... for sound sync in Premiere Pro I find a sharp noise to sync to and add a marker to the spike of the wave form in each soundtrack, then I align them... pretty easy, but I don't know if iMovie will show you the audio waveform, etc.

Best to ask questions in the appropriate thread if there is one. Read them all, you will learn a great deal... things like removing the jagged aliasing on edges that the D90 leaves (dunno if iMovie can do it though).
 
Thebes said:
The D90 is pretty soft for a 720p HiDef camera, and 1080p HDV offers yet more resolution. But most video cameras have very very tiny sensors- 1/3" is common, so DOF is very deep even wide open- some people use tiny 35mm view cameras called DOF adapters but this is cumbersome and eats a couple stops of light among other problems. Also, those tiny chips tend to produce rather limited dynamic range.

There are 2/3" cameras, but those start at 10 grand and lenses are extremely expensive by still slr standards. To get something with an DX sized sensor requires about 35 grand for the RED One setup, and there are some even higher end digital cinema cameras which can mostly only be rented. These digital cinema cameras do have extremely sharp images and are 4k pixels wide. But, even my $700 Canon HV20 offers a much sharper image than the D90... more data compressed in a better fashion too. What makes the D90 revolutionary is the large sensor and interchangable lenses at a size and price point that is easy to deal with.

I've never used iMovie... for sound sync in Premiere Pro I find a sharp noise to sync to and add a marker to the spike of the wave form in each soundtrack, then I align them... pretty easy, but I don't know if iMovie will show you the audio waveform, etc.

Best to ask questions in the appropriate thread if there is one. Read them all, you will learn a great deal... things like removing the jagged aliasing on edges that the D90 leaves (dunno if iMovie can do it though).
Click to expand...

I havnt had any probs with jaggies or jellocam - most of the '90 footage around at the mo seems incompetently shot - no tripod long lens - it is instantly obvious that longer than a 14 or 20 you need a tripod or steady device

I understand the interest in the D90 - owning manual nikkors from 10.5 though to 400 2.8 and appreciating the thin DOF look it is most exciting

However - the footage just looks soft - I dont know what to expect compared to a sub $5000 camera

I just have the feeling that any vid camera over $2000 will be a lot sharper (in good light - maybe the D90 opens some doors with a 50 1.4 lens)

Is that the case??

S
 
Hi Morgan,
Did you shoot at the full 720p resolution?

I think there are so many examples of practical use of this camera out there. There are professionals using it with great results like this one:

http://vimeo.com/1904545

I think that people's opinion of it comes down to personal taste and what they want to achieve.
 
Ruzo said:
Hi Morgan,
Did you shoot at the full 720p resolution?

I think there are so many examples of practical use of this camera out there. There are professionals using it with great results like this one:

http://vimeo.com/1904545

I think that people's opinion of it comes down to personal taste and what they want to achieve.
Click to expand...

My settings..

menu>camera>movie settings>quality>1280*720
menu>camera>set picture control>Standard
menu>spanner>HDMI>720p
menu>spanner>Video Mode>Pal
colour space adobe 1998
ISO 200


That video seems to be where the '90 is at - basically soft subject matter

Could my footage be losing somthing in how I am importing or rendering it

When I drag the content of the card onto the computer and watch the rushes in QT they look a bit soft already

Thank you for taking an interest

SMM
 
morgan_moore said:
My settings..

menu>camera>movie settings>quality>1280*720
menu>camera>set picture control>Standard
menu>spanner>HDMI>720p
menu>spanner>Video Mode>Pal
colour space adobe 1998
ISO 200


That video seems to be where the '90 is at - basically soft subject matter

Could my footage be losing somthing in how I am importing or rendering it

When I drag the content of the card onto the computer and watch the rushes in QT they look a bit soft already

Thank you for taking an interest

SMM
Click to expand...

It does lose quality in iMovie. Here is a comparison after editing vs the original.
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/image/103876298/original
 
PerL said:
It does lose quality in iMovie. Here is a comparison after editing vs the original.
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/image/103876298/original
Click to expand...

Most interesting - that is brutal degradation - What about Final Cut Express ?

To be fair on Imovie the 90 footage looks pretty soft in QUicktime straight out of the camera - is QT mashing it too ?

ps anyone know a Stopmotion software where I can pull in bunch of jpgs to turn to a clip - also without mashing them

Thanks for all info..

SMM
 
morgan_moore said:
To me none of the D90 footage Ive seen anywhere on the web looks really sharp

Are video cameras that bad too ?? (im used to shooting with a 22mp stills camera !)
Click to expand...
The D90 is just not a sharp video camera. Even if you scaled the 720p footage down to standard definition, the sharpness is passable at best. Many dedicated video camcorders are sharper than the D90, even at the D90's price. Take, for example, the Canon HV30. Note also that because ~$1000 camcorders use 1/3" (or smaller) chips, the greater DOF results in greater perceived sharpness, since shallow DOF results in more of the frame being more obviously out of focus.

What sort of level of camera does one need to really outperform the D90
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by "outperform." The D90 is not really comparable to any prosumer camcorder in many respects. It's vastly inferior in terms of sharpness, video compression, rolling shutter, and stair-step artifacts. On the other hand, it's vastly superior in terms of low-light performance, dynamic range, color, and DOF. And we're just talking about the image quality. In terms of hardware/firmware features and handling, a $~3000 prosumer camcorder (like the XH-A1) is much better. Ultimately, the comparison is apples-and-oranges, and what you decide is "better" will depend on what sort of image that you're trying to achieve.

The yet-to-be-released Canon 5D Mk II ($2700 for the body) is pretty much superior to the D90 in all respects, though some people have an issue with the camera only being able capture 30 frames-per-second video. When RED Digital Cinema releases the Scarlet (~$3000) sometime next year, it should match or outperform both the 5D and the D90 in every way, except for maybe the low-light performance.

And what about sound - I did a little test with a flash mic and synched the sound but in Imovie that is a right PITA

Is there a software that would be better for synching sound ?
Click to expand...
If you want to record sound separately, then here's how to make it work:
1) Use a video editing application that allows you to see audio waveforms in the timeline. I don't know what entry-level software can does, but I know that Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro do it.
2) Make sure that you're always recording sound on the D90 with its built-in microphone. When you're editing the video, import the video+audio that you recorded on the D90, as well as the audio that you recorded on the external mic.
3) You can visually match the waveform from the D90 audio stream with the waveform from the external mic to achieve proper synchronization.
4) Consider using a clapperboard for a audio-visual cue point. This is still how it's done in Hollywood, indiewood, and film schools.
 
ydgmdlu said:
The D90 is just not a sharp video camera. Even if you scaled the 720p footage down to standard definition, the sharpness is passable at best. Many dedicated video camcorders are sharper than the D90, even at the D90's price. Take, for example, the Canon HV30. Note also that because ~$1000 camcorders use 1/3" (or smaller) chips, the greater DOF results in greater perceived sharpness, since shallow DOF results in more of the frame being more obviously out of focus.


It depends on what you mean by "outperform." The D90 is not really comparable to any prosumer camcorder in many respects. It's vastly inferior in terms of sharpness, video compression, rolling shutter, and stair-step artifacts. On the other hand, it's vastly superior in terms of low-light performance, dynamic range, color, and DOF. And we're just talking about the image quality. In terms of hardware/firmware features and handling, a $~3000 prosumer camcorder (like the XH-A1) is much better. Ultimately, the comparison is apples-and-oranges, and what you decide is "better" will depend on what sort of image that you're trying to achieve.

The yet-to-be-released Canon 5D Mk II ($2700 for the body) is pretty much superior to the D90 in all respects, though some people have an issue with the camera only being able capture 30 frames-per-second video. When RED Digital Cinema releases the Scarlet (~$3000) sometime next year, it should match or outperform both the 5D and the D90 in every way, except for maybe the low-light performance.


If you want to record sound separately, then here's how to make it work:
1) Use a video editing application that allows you to see audio waveforms in the timeline. I don't know what entry-level software can does, but I know that Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro do it.
2) Make sure that you're always recording sound on the D90 with its built-in microphone. When you're editing the video, import the video+audio that you recorded on the D90, as well as the audio that you recorded on the external mic.
3) You can visually match the waveform from the D90 audio stream with the waveform from the external mic to achieve proper synchronization.
4) Consider using a clapperboard for a audio-visual cue point. This is still how it's done in Hollywood, indiewood, and film schools.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughts

There is of course a massive difference between sharp and out of focus - Im well aware of the depth of field thing - Im not expecting or wanting a huge DOF from the 90 - quite the opposite

I just get the feeling that the quality ofthe information is fairly poor

A bit like a 3mp phone camera compared to the early 3mp nikon D1 which was a small but great file unlike a 3mp phone camera file - they both say 3mp on the tin but are no way the same

Of course the D1 beat the phone by having a large sensor

It would seem however that that the large sensor in the 90 is not being utilised properly at this stage in the game - too much compression

Im thinking of getting a sony A1E and waiting for the Nikon D3x (my guessed name) or Scarlett before the use of interesting glass comes into my price bracket

It is funny some seem to be saying the 90 is cool while another camp says the compression ruins it

Because of my inexperience with video (even watching it ! ) I really dont know what to expect from any of these devices hence my confusion

I am used to super quality images AND a lovely look on my Hasselblad for stills

My first step must be to get something better than Imovie

SMM
 
Check out this footage from the 5D Mk II to get an idea of what good HD video should look like: http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6042742_wZKiA#377930419_dgxvY-A-LB

The scrutiny over the D90 in the past month has revealed that it's doing some terrible things to the sensor data while recording video. It's throwing away (and binning) lines, using poor down-scaling, and employing one of the worst compression schemes (Motion-JPEG) possible for a present-day video capture device. The 5D Mk II does similar things, but it just does them better. It's not simply a matter of "too much compression." The DSLR chips weren't designed for video processing, so they have to take a lot of shortcuts in order to handle such rapid image capture (and encoding). Not until next generation video-capable DSLRs or the RED Scarlet will the situation really improve.

The Canon HV30 or HF10 are better choices than the Sony A1E. Final Cut Express would be your best choice for software. It does 95% of the stuff that Final Cut Pro does. Really an extraordinary value.
 
Last edited:
ydgmdlu said:
Check out this footage from the 5D Mk II to get an idea of what good HD video should look like: http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6042742_wZKiA#377930419_dgxvY-A-LB

The scrutiny over the D90 in the past month has revealed that it's doing some terrible things to the sensor data while recording video. It's throwing away (and binning) lines, using poor down-scaling, and employing one of the worst compression schemes (Motion-JPEG) possible for a present-day video capture device. The 5D Mk II does similar things, but it just does them better. It's not simply a matter of "too much compression." The DSLR chips weren't designed for video processing, so they have to take a lot of shortcuts in order to handle such rapid image capture (and encoding). Not until next generation video-capable DSLRs or the RED Scarlet will the situation really improve.

The Canon HV30 or HF10 are better choices than the Sony A1E. Final Cut Express would be your best choice for software. It does 95% of the stuff that Final Cut Pro does. Really an extraordinary value.
Click to expand...

Indeed too much compression is an oversimplification - I dont actually care about how its done - just if it works !

The appeal of the A1E is the proper sound input ??

Thanks everyone

S
 
morgan_moore said:
The appeal of the A1E is the proper sound input
Click to expand...
Yes, the A1E will give you XLR microphone jacks, but do you really want to sacrifice image quality for that? The A1E is overpriced for what it does. If you want to be able to plug XLR microphones into your camcorder, then you can spend a couple hundred bucks/pounds on a Beachtek adapter, which will convert XLR to regular 3.5mm stereo.
 
ydgmdlu said:
Yes, the A1E will give you XLR microphone jacks, but do you really want to sacrifice image quality for that? The A1E is overpriced for what it does. If you want to be able to plug XLR microphones into your camcorder, then you can spend a couple hundred bucks/pounds on a Beachtek adapter, which will convert XLR to regular 3.5mm stereo.
Click to expand...

Will investigate thanks.

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