First truly representative Nikon D800 video footage. DXOMark says sensor is 'best ever'.

[sandro]

The aliasing on the D800 is HORRIBLE. No company can make it right :S

[jindrich]

another D800 showing how capable it is resolution wise.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5WF37QT8vk#ws]Nikon D800 + Nikon AF-S 35mm 1:1,4G[/url]

This is a moire torture test, and while there's a tiny bit of it (which could come from youtube compression), I think it fares very well. Look at the resolution and the ants at the end, those that pass close to the cat and are perfectly in focus.

Canon is going to have a tough time competing with this camera.

[jindrich]

here's another one:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymzzf75NVsA#ws]nikon d800 video shot[/url]

I think I see a D800 or two in my future.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=sandro link=topic=455.msg2909#msg2909 date=1332595091]
The aliasing on the D800 is HORRIBLE. No company can make it right :S
[/quote]

Could those videos have been shot with the D800E with no anti-aliasing filter? Possible. Because the two above don't have the same issues and neither does the Taiwan temple video.

[jindrich]

For the last 3 days I've been watching EVERY single video in Hi-Def I've found on youtube an vimeo from the 5d3 and D800. BTW, by doing a search with "last posted first" and hitting it every couple of hours I got to watch all the latest stuff, done with production units, rather than the older stuff done with prototypes and early firmware.

After my "research" on the D800 I'd say the problems are with its [b]720p mode[/b]. Already on the John Wright fashion video aliasing became very apparent on the shots at 720p done at 50fps (for slow motion). On some other videos, also at 720p, the moire and aliasing is certainly dreadful.

On the other hand, when shooting at 1080 all the nasyness go away and resolution shown is impressive. It's not free of some artifacts, but neither is the 5D3, which still shows moire at times (see video with the guy and a Lowepro bag)

I could only test a preproduction D800 for a few minutes at a NPS meeting, but being a Canon user I was totally lost there, didn't even know where to start. I'm getting soon a production model (hopefully also a 5D3) for a day or two of testing. Looking forward very much to it.

So far, I'd say the difference in resolution on the D53 vs the D800 might be comparable to that with the AF100 and the Sonys FS100 and F3.

I don't care abut brands and therefore I'll get whichever model wins, but I'm guessing so far the D800 with a Pix220 might be a killer combo for under €4.5k or less (the pix adding pro preamps with true 48v and audio delay if needed, edit-ready 422 prores and an ext TFT for monitoring, all in a single device).

Add a Nikon14-24 and Zeiss ZF 50 and 85/100makro and you're golden.

[markm]

Andrew is the D4 uncompressed 4.2.2. HDMI out image better or worse than the D800 HDMI out?

[Hessler]

Guys, here is another video of the D800 with brick walls and a rooftop, I'm liking what I see:

https://vimeo.com/39097915

[Simco123]

[quote author=jindrich link=topic=455.msg2916#msg2916 date=1332612145]

On the other hand, when shooting at 1080 all the nasyness go away and resolution shown is impressive. It's not free of some artifacts, but neither is the 5D3, which still shows moire at times (see video with the guy and a Lowepro bag)

[/quote]

Are you sure that was a 5D3 and not a 5D2 :-\

[Andrew Reid]

I wish these guys would get a proper tripod, tests giving me a headache!  :-X

I don't think aliasing is completely solved in 1080p but moire and aliasing usually worse in 720p so you could have a point Hessler.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=455.msg2919#msg2919 date=1332613971]
[quote author=jindrich link=topic=455.msg2916#msg2916 date=1332612145]

On the other hand, when shooting at 1080 all the nasyness go away and resolution shown is impressive. It's not free of some artifacts, but neither is the 5D3, which still shows moire at times (see video with the guy and a Lowepro bag)

[/quote]

Are you sure that was a 5D3 and not a 5D2 :-\
[/quote]

Simco is right jindrich that was the old 5D2 vs D800. Pretty bad moire on both of those to my eye.

[Hessler]

Mark just posted another video and he was kind enough to let us have the original file, here is the video:

https://vimeo.com/39111417

still some moire and aliasing but it seems the transcoding method made things a bit worse on a previous render, still this camera is performing well considering is $3200, I just hate the fact that my hacked GH2's performs better, I just need that damn headphone plug grrrrrrrrrr

[jindrich]

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=455.msg2922#msg2922 date=1332614510]

Simco is right jindrich that was the old 5D2 vs D800. Pretty bad moire on both of those to my eye.
[/quote]
Gosh, you are right. After seing dozens and dozens of videos, and scrutinizing them over an over looking for artifacts, I got so puzzled that I misread the canon model in that video.

My preference still remains with the D800 though, despite the minor aliasing, due to its superior resolution, less rolling shutter and apparently better DR, not to mention the clean HDMI.

Anyway, final judgment can only be stablished after trying both bodys, which I'll do soon hopefully.

[thom]

Several comments:

It's doubtful that DxO's numbers apply in any meaningful way to video, as there's a demosaic being run. Moreover, people should look at ALL the numbers. The D800 may have similar noise levels to the D4, but by ISO 1600 it drops a full stop of dynamic range to the D4. Some people will value DR over noise, some vice versa.

Pixel sampling shouldn't change the dynamic range numbers as you suggest. What does change is the outputted dynamic range after processing (by Digic in Canon, by EXPEED in Nikon). In the Nikon EXPEED system, video goes through the same Picture Controls as stills do. You can definitely crunch the range by using the wrong settings (and the camera default settings are the wrong settings, IMHO). It's going to take me awhile to figure out optimal Picture Controls for the D4 and D800 video, but I'll bet that they start with Neutral, not Standard. And I bet I lower the Contrast, cancel the Active D-Lighting, and a few other settings.

The problem you point out in red is something you'd better get used to, as all the makers are beginning to do the same thing now: they're lowering the color information (via the Bayer filtration) in order to increase the signal to noise ratio. What that means is that demosaiced streams (JPEGs and video) are getting color BOOSTs in them, much like turning up the saturation. This has gross implications on colors that are near the channel or gamut limits. The problem is also present in the blue channel, but at a much lower level.

The DX crop is not 1.6 as you suggest, it's 1.5. Technically, both those numbers are rounded, and the actual numbers are a bit further apart than .1. There's another small difference in how Canon and Nikon approach getting 16:9 from a 3:2 sensor. The difference is enough to make your focal length calculations a few mm off, so be careful if you're mixing systems and trying to match coverage.

A D800E shouldn't produce more moire in video than a D800. The moire is not coming from pixel level production as it is in stills, it's coming from line/pixel sampling, which is the same between the two cameras.

The HDMI out has issues, it appears. The audio doesn't appear synced to the video properly. Other than that, it's extremely impressive when set and recorded correctly.

Not sure the Ninja is the best way to record the clean HDMI. I'm still trying to decipher exactly what you can get out of the HDMI, but I think 4:2:2 is actually a downgrade from what's on the connector. Unfortunately, I don't really have the right equipment handy to test to see what the max I can get from it is, but it may be 4:4:4. My current breakout and SSD can't keep up with the highest data stream that I can send down the HDMI, which tells you just how much info is coming down that pipe.

Thom Hogan, photographer and writer
[url=http://www.bythom.com]www.bythom.com[/url]  [url=http://www.sansmirror.com]www.sansmirror.com[/url]

[jindrich]

[quote author=thom link=topic=455.msg2933#msg2933 date=1332632362]
The HDMI out has issues, it appears. The audio doesn't appear synced to the video properly. Other than that, it's extremely impressive when set and recorded correctly.
[url=http://www.bythom.com]www.bythom.com[/url]  [url=http://www.sansmirror.com]www.sansmirror.com[/url]
[/quote]
This delay is common with hundreds of video devices and TV sets because the video has to be processed/decoded (or even upscaled to the awful 100Hz in some TV sets), while the audio is not, thus the minor audio sync issue.
Professional equipment both in audio and video filelds can deal with this very easily, just by appliying a delay of certain miliseconds (in 1 ms increments) to the audio signal. The SoundDevices Pixies can do that, not surprinsignly as they come from a reputed manufacturer of professional audio stuff.

BTW the If the D800 presents such delay thru its HDMI out, it should be easy to fix in a future firmware.

[Jeff Gibbs]

I have been very impressed with D800.  If this holds up, I might be switching.

Let me ask everyone something. The Mark III is supposed to have a 15 x's faster processor that the Mark II, Digic 5, a new codec, nearly twice the MPS, a sensor perfect for video downscaling--what am I missing?--and we are to believe that the Mark III is not capable of clearly resolving a far, far, better video image than probably any other DLSR type camera, to any say nothing of for gosh sakes it predecessor the Mark II with a vastly slower processor, mis-matched sensor for video, Digic 4, etc. etc. of which it is barely if at all better?

IE could not Canon have made the Mark III given its specs an absolute video MONSTER rivaling much more expensive cams if they wished?

Could not Canon, if they wished, have "released the hounds" and maybe still could via a firmware update allow the 5d Mark III video to be mind-blowing in every way? 

That Canon seems to have chosen to cripple the Mark III is as much the reason I cancelled my Mark III order as the soft image.  There has been a wrong turn taken. That they were willing to prevent us the end user from accessing the video feed in a useful way perhaps tells us all we need to know about who won the battle over whether to cripple the video capabilities of the Mark III. 

My two cents, spoken in the hopes that Canon admits it erred and fixes this pronto.  I really don't want to have to switch to Nikon, but I am thiiiiiiiiiiis close.....