Why does this D300s footage look better?

J

Jurno

Member
http://vimeo.com/7676365

This video isn't tagged D300s, but it's identical to a low-res version that is, uploaded by the same videographer. I asked in the comments (that's me with my fist to my head) and he confirmed it. I also asked why the footage looked better than I'm used to seeing from the D300s or any Nikon. There doesn't seem to be the same fuzziness and noise. I wondered if he'd done anything different.

He says he used Sony Vegas to edit.

So the questions I have are, do you agree the footage looks better than usual? Could using Sony Vegas to edit make a difference?

If I'm not right about this, set me straight. Like my signature says.

Thanks.
 
Nope. in fact it looks worse than usual because it appears he didn´t render at 24fps, therefore rasampling frames (you can see double edges).
 
macgregor said:
Nope. in fact it looks worse than usual because it appears he didn´t render at 24fps, therefore rasampling frames (you can see double edges).
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'm not seeing the double edges, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place. I guess I was mostly reacting to the smooth texture of the blacks and other solid colours. I don't know what the technical term is, but Nikon video often seems, not pixilated exactly, but agitated somehow. Noisy I guess is the word. This doesn't seem like that.
 
Okay, but again, I'm really not talking about the motion or frame rate, I'm talking about the smoothness of the texture.

Maybe I'm talking nonsense. Wouldn't be the first time.
 
As far as the motion is concerned, pause when the shot changes at 1:29 and you'll see the double edges.

I think what you like about it was that it was shot well - meaning it was relatively stable, lit decently, and in focus. There are lots of clips out there that aren't either.
 
Jester2138 said:
I think what you like about it was that it was shot well - meaning it was relatively stable, lit decently, and in focus. There are lots of clips out there that aren't either.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you might be right about that. Maybe it is that simple. If so, that sort of gives me hope in a strange way.
 
I think what is good about the video is it has that Nikon look. Call it organic or a film look. It does not look like video. I don't want all videos to look like you are watching Planet Earth. There are some really good shots like the glass on the bar. Some of people shots where really good and some where not.
I don't really see the motion problems or the double edges. (give another example please)

Like all of these DSLRs they have to be on a tripod (unless you have really steady hands) and the D300s needs manual controls. Once Nikon does that and 1080 HD everyone will forget about Canon!!
 
It looks all creamy and fuzzy kinda like the first film look plugins made video look with max diffusion. All you have to do is compare your favorite big screen films side by side and you'd see pretty quickly they are not creamy and fuzzy. The motion the Nikon video has usually is the thing i like about it...this clip was horrible motion wise.

This clip http://vimeo.com/2437826 is a pretty good look quickly at the differences in footage. Seriously the D90 ( the d300s hasn't improved much) in here is down right weak compared to the rest. The 5D doesn't fair much better and neither look like the film or the rest of the pro and prosumer shots.


Zim, my question is ... so what film do you think has the Nikon look ?
 
Last edited:
When done right it just doesn't look like video and I'm not alone on saying that. Organic is the word used a lot. Maybe it is just what you like. I think it is early on in the DSLR video game and they all need improved and with all of them you need to be careful what you are doing. All of them have issues. I'm pretty hopeful for video on DSLRs and looking forward to buying one at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top