Why does Nikon think this is acceptable video quality on a $6,000 flagship DSLR?

[Andrew Reid]

Didn't Sony collaborate with Zeiss, not Leica? Panasonic collaborate with Leica.

Make a good enough product and you will be taken seriously, who gives a shit if the Japanese industry doesn't take you seriously? If a new Japanese company entered the photographic market and outsold Canon, wouldn't they be taken seriously?

Sony bought Minolta because they needed the expertise.

[tungah]

Guys, I think the important question here is: is that Snoop Dogg in the picture?

[Simco123]

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=218.msg1535#msg1535 date=1327617883]
Didn't Sony collaborate with Zeiss, not Leica? Panasonic collaborate with Leica.

Make a good enough product and you will be taken seriously, who gives a shit if the Japanese industry doesn't take you seriously? If a new Japanese company entered the photographic market and outsold Canon, wouldn't they be taken seriously?

Sony bought Minolta because they needed the expertise.
[/quote]

Yes it was Zeiss, my mistake :o

Sony bought Minolta not only for the expertise but taken on the right to make SLRs.
For many none Japanese they will never understand why a company cannot simply break the mold, that why you get constant complaints on forums about why did they did this or cripple that. Japan is largely a homogeneous society, it is how they conduct their business too.

[rj]

Andrew how do you explain the aliasing and moire free "WHY" video?

I admit that the "Freddie King" video looks real nasty and something is clearly wrong but how is the "WHY" video looking so nice. It's got very nice resolution and I can't find any trace of aliasing / moire.

Both videos look like they were shot on different cameras. Makes no sense to me.

[brice]

[quote]Andrew how do you explain the aliasing and moire free "WHY" video?

I admit that the "Freddie King" video looks real nasty and something is clearly wrong but how is the "WHY" video looking so nice. It's got very nice resolution and I can't find any trace of aliasing / moire.

Both videos look like they were shot on different cameras. Makes no sense to me.[/quote]

Andrew, I second this statement. And would also like to hear your take on the unmitigated divergence of quality between the two videos. It's amazing how different those two films look.

[JLM]

[quote author=brice link=topic=218.msg1541#msg1541 date=1327643202]
[quote]Andrew how do you explain the aliasing and moire free "WHY" video?

I admit that the "Freddie King" video looks real nasty and something is clearly wrong but how is the "WHY" video looking so nice. It's got very nice resolution and I can't find any trace of aliasing / moire.

Both videos look like they were shot on different cameras. Makes no sense to me.[/quote]

Andrew, I second this statement. And would also like to hear your take on the unmitigated divergence of quality between the two videos. It's amazing how different those two films look.
[/quote]

[tobyloc]

The Why video does NOT have very nice resolution, on Vimeo in HD and Youtube at 1080, just compare it to something that does like good GH2 footage, it definitely looks softer. I downloaded the original 1080P file from Vimeo when they originally had it up (they've since taken it down), it is not as detailed as a GH2 or an FS100, whether it's as detailed as say a 5DII, I'm not sure, I'd probably say the same but it could be less, and remember the 5D video mode was an ill thought out by product on a stills camera over three years ago. Yes, the WHY video looks good, because it's shot quite well but it is by no means a detailed image, though there are a couple of shots that suddenly pop out as detailed shots... because they're obviously timelapses. Regarding the moire for Why, I'm not sure, they shot a lot of wide open shots that would hide aliasing/moire and they tend to appear in more man made materials rather than in nature where you don't have things like patterns and parallel lines so much.

[rj]

EDIT: I read too fast and thought you were talking about wide shots...Sorry. My response is edited below.

[quote author=tobyloc link=topic=218.msg1553#msg1553 date=1327684627]
The Why video does NOT have very nice resolution
[/quote]

To my eyes it has better resolution than my 5D. You can tell by looking at the beard, skin wrinkles, hair and ground with rocks... Resolution is more than acceptable in this video.

[quote author=tobyloc link=topic=218.msg1553#msg1553 date=1327684627]
Regarding the moire for Why, I'm not sure, they shot a lot of wide open shots that would hide aliasing/moire and they tend to appear in more man made materials rather than in nature where you don't have things like patterns and parallel lines so much.
[/quote]

There's so many camera angles to look at in the "WHY" video including many wide shots. There's cars, kayak, road signs, metal watches, many fabrics, hairs etc.. I can't see any aliasing or moire. A lot of shots in this video would have looked terrible on 5D and they look incredible here.

[Josh D]

[quote author=brice link=topic=218.msg1541#msg1541 date=1327643202]
[quote]Andrew how do you explain the aliasing and moire free "WHY" video?

I admit that the "Freddie King" video looks real nasty and something is clearly wrong but how is the "WHY" video looking so nice. It's got very nice resolution and I can't find any trace of aliasing / moire.

Both videos look like they were shot on different cameras. Makes no sense to me.[/quote]

Andrew, I second this statement. And would also like to hear your take on the unmitigated divergence of quality between the two videos. It's amazing how different those two films look.
[/quote]

Absolutely share this sentiment too.  I have a couple of 5DIIs and they are not nearly as clean/crisp as the Why video.  What's more you couldn't shoot that much footage with a 5DII without a hint of moire.  On the Vimeo page the shooters add plenty of input - they're using the internal codec (they weren't aware clean hdmi was even an option) and universally celebrate working with the camera vis-a-vis the Canons (which one of the film makers had shot with extensively).

Agreed, the Freddie King clip is awful.  Certainly looks like something went amiss in post.  As for the "Low Light Test" video added here - the guy who put that up on Youtube lacks credibility (he also claims to have a 1DX).

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=rj link=topic=218.msg1557#msg1557 date=1327698859]
There's so many camera angles to look at in the "WHY" video including many wide shots. There's cars, kayak, road signs, metal watches, many fabrics, hairs etc.. I can't see any aliasing or moire. A lot of shots in this video would have looked terrible on 5D and they look incredible here.
[/quote]

Said it before, will say it again. WHY was SOFT! Incredibly so. Just take a wide frame grab from WHY and compare it to something you've shot at wide angle on the GH2. Massive difference.

[MatthewP]

Has anyone considered that these inconsistencies in quality between sources might be down to the camera's crop modes?

[tobyloc]

[quote author=rj link=topic=218.msg1557#msg1557 date=1327698859]

[quote author=tobyloc link=topic=218.msg1553#msg1553 date=1327684627]
The Why video does NOT have very nice resolution
[/quote]

To my eyes it has better resolution than my 5D. You can tell by looking at the beard, skin wrinkles, hair and ground with rocks... Resolution is more than acceptable in this video.

[/quote]

We can only agree to disagree here. Resolution wise, Why looks just like 5D and not as good as a much cheaper, older, consumer camera - the GH2. I hope to be proved wrong as if I am the D4 ticks every box I want.

[sandro]

guys the D4 is on par with the 5d. it screams "soft video" at first look and apparently from other videos it has the worst aliasing I've seen