The new Nikon D4

If it's a true OLPF, then what is this whole argument we have been hearing for ages about it being impossible to have one and shoot sharp stills at the same time? How is this filter implemented?
 
squig said:
As usual with DSLRs there's always some crippling factor. This time at least there's a workaround with the HDMI out but I'm gonna be disappointed if it's 1080i. Why add a super fast storage media and only offer a consumer codec? 100Mbit/s+ m-jpeg would be a good option. Everything else except the price tag sounds good so far.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and think the price would be fair, IF the thing came with a robust internal codec. 24 freaking MBPs?! Why Nikon? Looking forward to seeing the HDMI, but I'm a runner/gunner and need as strong an internal codec as possible. Maybe hackable in the future? Here's hoping.

I still have an old F3 body (Nikon, NOT Sony!), tons of Nikkor glass, and love the mark. Will be keeping an eye on this as it develops...

squig said:
Nikon if you're listening, pull your finger out. It's a pro camera, we want a pro codec! My $600 Nex-5N can do 24Mbit/s H.264.
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone been able to download the hd vimeo file on this video http://vimeo.com/34666308, what is there assessment of the resolution of the images. This is the only question mark in my mind about the quality of the footage of this camera. The rest seems to be very good.
 
yoclay said:
If it's a true OLPF, then what is this whole argument we have been hearing for ages about it being impossible to have one and shoot sharp stills at the same time? How is this filter implemented?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's like the C300's ND filters and they internally are removed and added in-front of the sensor mechanically? So when you swap into still mode the OLPF is removed? Or perhaps we're just wrong and it actually takes great stills with the OLPF somehow...who knows. Either way it sounds like they figured out a way to have both working well.
 
A filter that can go in front mechanically is a theory I have. Ironically if they'd be able to do that, they'd probably be able to add ND filters into the body as well. Now that would be something.
 
GH2user said:
... Which would make them video cameras.... And video cameras are just still cameras with a motion mode. Seriously, I hope youre joking... Because thats the dumbest statement I've ever heard... Sorry. Cameras are just cameras. They just vary in frame rates. Your just arguing semantics and using circular rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You managed to be insulting, misuse the English language and be wrong all in the same post.
 
I guess it shouldn't be surprising that he disabled the download in order for it to not be torn to bits. 523.41MB is still rather low for a 7 minute 28 second clip. If they did allow it to be downloaded, it would have been far better if the file was a bit over 1 gig. I do wish I was able to download it as well even though it wont be the best representation of the quality.
 
OLPF implies no downsampling to HD at full FX and DX sensor readings... it's probably not hard (for the manufacturer) to implement a mechanical OLPF which is activated in the case of video recording. Would they need to have two of them (one for DX and one for FX video modes) I wonder? If so, I wonder which mode would produce the better quality? I assume the DX mode, if it has it's own OLPF, as there would be fewer lines "skipped".

What a huge advantage to have DX and FX (and HD) modes for video recording. A single 28-35mm lens becomes a wide, normal or telephoto lens depending on the mode selected!

Edit: Now that I think about it, one OLPF would suffice, I believe.
 
Last edited:
steventimothy said:
OLPF implies no downsampling to HD at full FX and DX sensor readings... it's probably not hard (for the manufacturer) to implement a mechanical OLPF which is activated in the case of video recording. Would they need to have two of them (one for DX and one for FX video modes) I wonder? If so, I wonder which mode would produce the better quality? I assume the DX mode, if it has it's own OLPF, as there would be fewer lines "skipped".

What a huge advantage to have DX and FX (and HD) modes for video recording. A single 28-35mm lens becomes a wide, normal or telephoto lens depending on the mode selected!

Edit: Now that I think about it, one OLPF would suffice, I believe.
Click to expand...

see here:
http://nikon.com/about/technology/core/image/image_processing_e/index.htm


Sophisticated algorithms faithfully interpolate color that the captured image lacks, using color information gathered from adjacent and even further-away image pixels. Unless these algorithms are written properly, "color aliasing (false coloration)" not in the original scene will be recorded in the image, degrading the verisimilitude of the image to reality.
One method of optically canceling these color aliasing (false coloration) is to place in front of the CCD an optical low-pass filter (OLPF), which is usually made of slices of monocrystalline silica. Increasing the birefringent index suppresses color aliasing (false coloration) more effectively, but also lowers image resolution. To resolve this conflict, Nikon developed a thin OLPF out of a new material with a high birefringent index, to replace silica crystal. Our proprietary image processing engine makes it possible to use an OLPF with the birefringent index set relatively lower, to increase resolution, and still suppress false color.
Click to expand...
 
I guess event shooters are gonna be bummed about the 29min 59sec recording limit. If someone hacks this cam I'm sure that'll be the first to go. Since the body is sealed and there are no vents/external heat sinks to help quickly dissipate heat it may not be a good idea to lift the recording time limit. Then again, we'll need a guinea pig D4 to test how long it would take to fry the electronics if the time limit is removed.

Or, could it simply be a global limitation for Euro countries that can be unlocked with a simple firmware update for U.S. models?
 
yoclay said:
see here:
http://nikon.com/about/technology/core/image/image_processing_e/index.htm
Click to expand...

There's probably a formula to calculate maximum resolution with an OLPF in place. But it was stated somewhere that the cropped 1080P would have higher resolution than the non-cropped or less-cropped modes, proving I guess that there's a loss in resolution with the line skipping and OLPF. As far as I understand, even the cropped mode would not be full 1080P due to the nature of CMOS and de-bayering.
 
I do not know for sure but the limit my be do to ether the limit of 4gig of data in the old "fat32" format that the recording media may be using or it might be that Nikon is limiting the video recording time to under 30 min. to keep the camera from being taxed as a video recorder in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Ok so who is going to write nikon to ask them for two very reasonable upgrades:
- some sort of log gamma (something like the technicolor profile would be enough)
- higher data rate on the internal codec (I´m not asking for prores, but give us at least 50Mbps)
 
Last edited:
i don't want to seem antagonistic or anything, and with the knowledge that he who doesn't ask, doesn't get, i still don't really understand people asking for a $6k dslr to have a list of features that many dedicated pro vid cameras don't.

and i don't really get the, uh... very enthusiastic proponents of dslr video doing fist bumps at the prospect of a camera that might FINALLY vindicate taking such equipment "seriously."

i'm very interested in this new nikon. but i just don't get why one argues about dslr's doing the job of dedicated video cameras. wouldn't it be better to lobby for better dedicated video cameras?
 
steventimothy said:
There's probably a formula to calculate maximum resolution with an OLPF in place. But it was stated somewhere that the cropped 1080P would have higher resolution than the non-cropped or less-cropped modes, proving I guess that there's a loss in resolution with the line skipping and OLPF. As far as I understand, even the cropped mode would not be full 1080P due to the nature of CMOS and de-bayering.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a 1080p format camera of any kind that fully resolves 1080p vertical, best possible with significant visible aliasing is around 900 lines, without aliasing around 800 lines.

I like the D4 as a primary stills camera and secondary video camera. I don't like that you can't easily adapt to PL lenses and for true hybrid functionality, I prefer an EVF to a mirror reflex. Definitely like Nikon's color matrix better than Canon. Dump the mirror and make it multi-lens mount friendly.
 
MPB said:
i don't want to seem antagonistic or anything, and with the knowledge that he who doesn't ask, doesn't get, i still don't really understand people asking for a $6k dslr to have a list of features that many dedicated pro vid cameras don't.

and i don't really get the, uh... very enthusiastic proponents of dslr video doing fist bumps at the prospect of a camera that might FINALLY vindicate taking such equipment "seriously."

i'm very interested in this new nikon. but i just don't get why one argues about dslr's doing the job of dedicated video cameras. wouldn't it be better to lobby for better dedicated video cameras?
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself but two cameras in one works for some things. I do both stills and video.
Plus I actually like the IQ of my 7D over my EX1-R overall. The EX is sharper and has more rez no doubt but the 7D just appeals to me.

At 6K this is more geared to classic photogs who are getting video as a plus.
Later we should get cheaper HDSLR's that some people may look at as a better bang for the buck video camera.
Again these are not for all but they work for many.
 
I don't mind the $6k price at all...because it's a BEAST of a still camera...regardless of the video.

For those that want full-frame video without the image issues, this is the only thing that currently offers that. The FS100 and AF100 are smaller sensors and some want full-frame, so for similar price they can get this thing. I highly doubt any of the video-camera companies will come out with a full-frame video camera, because it's just not necessary.

The HDMI out makes it a pretty amazing piece of equipment next to the 1DX from Canon.

In relation to the whole video cam vs. dslr debate...who CARES? Seriously, buy what satisfies your needs, and everyone else shut it, lol. What a waste of breath telling someone the thing they want to buy to satisfy what their needs are is a stupid choice? Let them spend the $6k and go on their way if it's not a product for you, go make a video or shoot something for pete's sake.

DSLR/Video hybrids are the future, RED figured that one out before the 5D even became a sensation because they developed a camera capable of multiple RAW frames a second for cinema application. Nobody thinks about the RED as a DSLR TYPE device, but it's used exactly like that in the industry. Photographers have used it, and cinema people use it. Hardly the same ergonomically, but isn't the principle the same?

Nikon is giving us something really special here, and I think they deserve more then getting crapped on like they are already and likely will be in the future. They had the nuts to give us all these features in a DSLR/Video hybrid for a very reasonable price. There's always quibbles with things, like the codec bit-rate, but many will do just fine with it, and with the HDMI out, at LEAST there's an out if it's not good enough for you. That's better then being locked into AVCHD only isn't it?

Perspective folks...come on. It's an amazing time to be in this business. Think about what we had only a few years ago and for how much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top