Nikon D800 hacked with 50Mbit/s high bitrate video option

[heliorr]

"Stills of course are a lot better. 2 stops more dynamic range and 7K / 36MP images vs 5K / 22Mp on the 5D Mark III."

 

...unless you actually want to shoot something moving - I'd prefer the 6FPS and the 61 pt AF and tracking of the 5d3.  With the same 1000x card I shoot 5d3 raw with I can rattle off 30-32 shots in a row.  Also at high ISO the 5d3 is better.

 

Not everyone shoot single shot landscapes and stationary objects.

 

The Iso is actually better on the d800, in raw nikon gives you the image without noise reduction, with finer grain, and with the same amount of grain or less than the 5d3, the difference is that on the 5d3, canon apply noise reduction even on the raw images, so the images start to lose detail, while the d800 retain the full sharpness and with more megapixels you have even more detail, so you can still apply noise reduction on post and get considerably better results on the d800.

 

Yes the 5d3 does 6fps and the d800 4fps, but if you really need more fps on the d800 you can select a 1.2x crop and get 5fps, or a 1.5x crop paired with a battery grip and you get 6fps.  Yeah the d800 has less Af points (51vs61), but the nikon d4 has the same 51points Af sensor and it is a sports camera. 

 

So no, the d800 is not just for landscapes and stationary objects.

[heliorr]

STOP IT!!!   Andrew i enjoy coming to this site and find it very informative at times,   but  to say that the d800 with 50mbit or even external video is close to Magic Lantern RAW on mark 2 or 3 is absolutely absurd,  stop it.
 
There is no way that an 8bit camera especially the nikon d800 cabale of producing anything close to raw 14 bit footage,  yes under good lighting conditions the d800 produces a decent image but decent at best.

 
just because you can get 14bit footage of a camera, that doesn't necessarly means anything, the 5d3 has 11.7stops of dynamic range (5d2 even less) so even with magic lantern raw, that's what you are getting, 11.7... the d800 has 14.4 stops, so even in 8bit and with the internal codec, you are getting around 11 or 12 stops of dynamic range. So I and don't understand the meaning of this "especially the nikon d800". And I'm expecting even better results from the 8bit camera from the sony A7s with the full sensor read out and the better, or at least more modern codec. Raw its not everything, I've never felt the need for raw while shooting with an alexa. 
If the sensor its not getting more then 12stops of dynamic range you will not get more being raw or not. (ok, there is hdr and dual iso, but thats not the point).
 
take a look at this, its with a d800, with the internal codec. tell me, is this just "a decent image"? 

[Shield3]

The Iso is actually better on the d800, in raw nikon gives you the image without noise reduction, with finer grain, and with the same amount of grain or less than the 5d3, the difference is that on the 5d3, canon apply noise reduction even on the raw images, so the images start to lose detail, while the d800 retain the full sharpness and with more megapixels you have even more detail, so you can still apply noise reduction on post and get considerably better results on the d800.

 

 

Yes the 5d3 does 6fps and the d800 4fps, but if you really need more fps on the d800 you can select a 1.2x crop and get 5fps, or a 1.5x crop paired with a battery grip and you get 6fps.  Yeah the d800 has less Af points (51vs61), but the nikon d4 has the same 51points Af sensor and it is a sports camera. 

 

So no, the d800 is not just for landscapes and stationary objects.

 

At low ISO's, sure.  But once you go above 3200 the Canon wins.  Watch this video:

 

 

Also:

 

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml

 

At 1600 ISO, the noise has become more obvious on the D800 and for the first time in this sequence I'd say the Mark III has begun to take a lead - albeit extremely small at this point - in resolution. The Canon crop is also considerably cleaner.

At 3200 ISO, noise textures start to become obvious on the Mark III, but remain much lower than those on the D800. Edges on the Canon are also much better defined than the Nikon at this point.

At 6400 ISO the gap widens as the D800 becomes very noisy viewed at 1:1, with edges becoming quite poorly defined. The Mark III certainly isn't noise-free at this point, but remains much cleaner and better-defined.

The story continues at 12800 and 25600 ISO, the maximum for the D800. I'd say at these higher sensitivities the Mark III enjoys around a two stop advantage over the D800 when both are shooting at their maximum resolutions and viewed at 1:1. Certainly the 12800 sample of the Mark III is quite usable at smaller sizes, whereas the D800 is looking pretty ropey at this point.

The Mark III then goes on to bravely offer 51200 and 102400 ISO options, but both suffer from considerable noise and lack of both detail and saturation. They're nothing to be excited about unless you're in an emergency situation.

So this test panned-out as expected: the D800 wins on detail at low sensitivities, while the 5D Mark III wins on noise levels and cleaner output at higher sensitivities.

[Andrew Reid]

In the D800's stills you have less noise in the very darkest shadows if you bring them up all the way in a raw file using Photoshop's ACR controls vs the same stills from the 5D Mark III.

 

However in video mode and at high ISOs the 5D Mark III is better in low light.

[giostrante]

One more thing, Andrew.

 

Now that you're shooting with a D800, I'd be happy if you could mention a few words about how you like to rig something like D800 up.

 

From my own experience, I pick profiles depending on what I'm shooting and I keep histogram on, which usually gives me enough info about exposure. But what I can find difficult when going around with a lightweight setup is to get the focus right, especially sunny days when you can't see shit on the display.

 

Personally I've been eyeing the Ikan vk7i monitor and some z-finder solutions - I just don't know if the rear display with a z-finder solution would be good enough of a solution for getting focus right.

 

Of course you can spend a huge amount of money for an external monitor and some ultra expensive Zacuto stuff, OR you can make the perfect setup for less then 50 €!!

 

All you need is this

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Viewfinder-Extender-2-8x-Canon-Mark/dp/B009SXO5BK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397841866&sr=8-1&keywords=v1+viewfinder

 

and this

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/CowboyStudio-Shoulder-Support-Camcorder-Camera/dp/B0036NMQ7S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397842085&sr=8-1&keywords=shoulder+mount+Cowboystudio

 

I can assure you, I'm shooting with d800 for more the one year now, in every kind of situation and this is a super reliable setup. 

With this kind of shoulder mount you can grab the camera with your right hand like when you shoot stills and use the left for focusing, very stable even when you're moving. The viewfinder has a x2,8 magnification factor and is perfect. Another great feature that the d800 has is the removable screen protector, you can buy a second one and put the viewfinder frame on it, as I did (see below). I can't believe people spend a bunch of money for a zacuto vew finder, it's crazy. Unless you're rich of course...

Believe me, there's no need to buy an expensive rig, all you need is training. I can track focus on a 50mm f1,8 with no problem, all you really need are good lenses and a good tripod (a Manfrotto 055xprob with the hd 501 head is a perfect and cheap combo). And if you want to spend money buy an Atomos Ninja for hdmi uncompressed, that is a good purchase. 

Don't listen who will say "this is a cheap rig, it can't be good", check the Musgo trailer on the web, is a film made with an hacked gh2 and this shoulder mount.

 

And look how is cute my d800 with viewfinder!

 

 

[giostrante]

At low ISO's, sure.  But once you go above 3200 the Canon wins.

 

At 1600 ISO, the noise has become more obvious on the D800 and for the first time in this sequence I'd say the Mark III has begun to take a lead - albeit extremely small at this point - in resolution. The Canon crop is also considerably cleaner.

At 3200 ISO, noise textures start to become obvious on the Mark III, but remain much lower than those on the D800. Edges on the Canon are also much better defined than the Nikon at this point.

At 6400 ISO the gap widens as the D800 becomes very noisy viewed at 1:1, with edges becoming quite poorly defined. The Mark III certainly isn't noise-free at this point, but remains much cleaner and better-defined.

The story continues at 12800 and 25600 ISO, the maximum for the D800. I'd say at these higher sensitivities the Mark III enjoys around a two stop advantage over the D800 when both are shooting at their maximum resolutions and viewed at 1:1. Certainly the 12800 sample of the Mark III is quite usable at smaller sizes, whereas the D800 is looking pretty ropey at this point.

The Mark III then goes on to bravely offer 51200 and 102400 ISO options, but both suffer from considerable noise and lack of both detail and saturation. They're nothing to be excited about unless you're in an emergency situation.

 

So this test panned-out as expected: the D800 wins on detail at low sensitivities, while the 5D Mark III wins on noise levels and cleaner output at higher sensitivities.

 

But don't forget that canon and nikon have different ISO value, cause of the different dynamic range.

A 5d at ISO 1250 is like a d800 at ISO 640.

Look!  ;)

 

[dahlfors]

 

Of course you can spend a huge amount of money for an external monitor and some ultra expensive Zacuto stuff, OR you can make the perfect setup for less then 50 €!!

 

All you need is this

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Viewfinder-Extender-2-8x-Canon-Mark/dp/B009SXO5BK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397841866&sr=8-1&keywords=v1+viewfinder

 

Thanks for the tip!

 

In fact I already have both a Cowboy Studio shoulder support as well as an Edelkrone Pocket Rig - which both should provide smoother footage with third point of stability together with a viewfinder.

 

Very affordable solution, nothing to lose in ordering one. 

[Shield3]

But don't forget that canon and nikon have different ISO value, cause of the different dynamic range.

A 5d at ISO 1250 is like a d800 at ISO 640.

Look!  ;)

 

LOL did you notice they've had to use noise reduction software at high ISO's just to try to compare the D800 with the 5d3?  As Andrew said, the 5d3 is better in video at high ISO's, and this is a video site.

 

At the end of the day, the D800 will never touch the 5d3 for raw video.  It'll never be the all arounder for sports shooting and tracking moving subjects, nor be able to fire 30 shots in 5 seconds with a 1000x CF card.  Nor does it have a "green tint" LCD or the hassle of ultra-large files to push around in post.  Then there's the service factor; CPS is about a zillion times better than Nikon's "damaged in transit" service.  I also really like having an autofousing 85/1.2 85mm lens and class leading 24-70/70-200 2.8's.

 

The Canon will never have the resolution or low ISO dynamic range, but it's and all around champ sports/raw video shooter that works great for myself and shooting my kids' sports.  The D800 is a great camera too but I've never even been tempted.  4FPS with slow write times just doesn't ring my bell, nor does such large file sizes.  Lightroom takes long enough even with an i7-4700k overclocked w/16GB of ram on high end SSD.

[heliorr]

 

 

 

In video yes, the 5d3 has better low light capabilities, but not in photos. The d800 does line skipping on video, so, by not using all the pixels on the sensor, doesn't have the same performance in low light as in stills. but bear in mind that like giostrante said, canon and nikon have different iso values. and the reason they used noise reduction software in post to compare the two it was because canon does noise reduction on files even before they got to the card. after 3200 and 6400 canon video files start to become really soft, unlike nikon that retains all information, so by doing noise reduction in post on nikon files you can have a more fare comparison. 

 

For me, the d800 will always have the best pictures, and comparing the video from the internal codec's. Nikon has more sharpness and dynamic range, canon has better low light, yes, but all cameras need light, so if you give them light or fast lenses the difference in iso start to be less important. raw video it's  a different story.

 

btw, nikon has fixed the "green tint" lcd by firmware update, and if you complain about the hassle of ultra-large files, I don't even now why are you talking about raw video on the 5dmark3.

[giostrante]

LOL did you notice they've had to use noise reduction software at high ISO's just to try to compare the D800 with the 5d3?  As Andrew said, the 5d3 is better in video at high ISO's, and this is a video site.

 

 

 

 

Of course I know there's noise reduction, but only in the second part of the test, pay attention.

The difference in dynamic range and consequently in ISO is what I'm talking about, and it's pretty clear. And I'm not even considering the terrible magenta dominance of canons!

 

 

 

The Canon will never have the resolution or low ISO dynamic range, but it's and all around champ sports/raw video shooter that works great for myself and shooting my kids' sports.  

 

Well, assuming you're not the father of Usain Bolt or Lebron James, I think that you could use 4fps as well!!!   ;)

 

 and if you complain about the hassle of ultra-large files, I don't even now why are you talking about raw video on the 5dmark3.

 

Indeed...

[leo]

Who cares anymore if d800 or 5dmark III is better ? both of them are dead, the moment gh4 starts shipping, DSLR's are history for video productions.

And if GH4 sensor is a problem, A7S with that huge DR and low light monster performance will surely kill any possible thought of ever buying a DSLR for video.

Face it people, we need to sell all the crappy DSLR body's and embrace the future which is mirrorless.

[FilmBrute]

Who cares anymore if d800 or 5dmark III is better ? both of them are dead, the moment gh4 starts shipping, DSLR's are history for video productions.

And if GH4 sensor is a problem, A7S with that huge DR and low light monster performance will surely kill any possible thought of ever buying a DSLR for video.

Face it people, we need to sell all the crappy DSLR body's and embrace the future which is mirrorless.

 

Respectfully, I disagree. Magic Lantern proves that DSLRs are not dead. They may appear dead because Canon dosn't push the envelope like BlackMagic or Panasonic.

[giostrante]

Who cares anymore if d800 or 5dmark III is better ? both of them are dead, the moment gh4 starts shipping, DSLR's are history for video productions.

And if GH4 sensor is a problem, A7S with that huge DR and low light monster performance will surely kill any possible thought of ever buying a DSLR for video.

Face it people, we need to sell all the crappy DSLR body's and embrace the future which is mirrorless.

 

I don't think so, mirrorless cameras, even the full frame Sony series, are still not good enough for serious photographic works, it's a fact, they are slow and not reliable like a professional DSLR.

And we have to see what the A7s will do in the real world, cause at the moment the full frame look is only on a dear old reflex.

So at the moment, the only possible choice for a professionist that work with photo and video, like a reporter for example, is still a "zombie" camera. 

And I think also that this next Photokina will reveal some surprise.

We'll see!

[1tkman]

it really is a wonderful stills camera, I just can't get that excited about it for video.   I've moved on.

I'm Canon camp due to timelapse (lens trick and true/consistent bramping). However, I have always felt the Nikon D800 simply has a better image. Gray market prices on the D800 really had my attention of late. However, I am waiting for GH4, which will satisfy my video aspirations. I worry this hack may be one month late, but I hope I am wrong. I wrote to key players at Nikon early this year and gave examples on how some OS flexibilities might translate into significant sales. No answer or response from them, and I am not surprised. If this hack is successful and adopted, it would help Nikon to at least be recognized as a video presence. The new Nikon "flagship" model, their latest offering (DX4?), that is targeted for video... it doesn't make any sense to me. Something detached about the marketing strategy.

Ps. If you want to make a quick 200-400k, take a picture of a small black box, offer it on Kickstarter saying that it successfully bramps any Nikon.

[Shield3]

Of course I know there's noise reduction, but only in the second part of the test, pay attention.

The difference in dynamic range and consequently in ISO is what I'm talking about, and it's pretty clear. And I'm not even considering the terrible magenta dominance of canons!

 

 

heliorr, on 18 Apr 2014 - 3:16 PM, said:

 

 

Indeed...

 

Clearly you've never shot or processed RAW video so I'll forgive your ignorance - I've been shooting raw since May of last year.  With Adobe ACR / After effects workflow, one grades only ONE image - the first in a sequence - then outputs the file.  Huge difference between that - which is computer intensive to render - vs. having 500 raw 74MB files to process one at a time in Lightroom.  Raw video has gotten much simpler over time, and now even the audio syncs up.

 

Raw video workflow - Run MLVbrowsesharp - point to mlv sequence - unpack .wav and dng to folder - open in After effects, ACR first image, output file of choice.  Now tell me how much work you have to do to grade all those 36MP files from the D800.

[Shield3]

Who cares anymore if d800 or 5dmark III is better ? both of them are dead, the moment gh4 starts shipping, DSLR's are history for video productions.

And if GH4 sensor is a problem, A7S with that huge DR and low light monster performance will surely kill any possible thought of ever buying a DSLR for video.

Face it people, we need to sell all the crappy DSLR body's and embrace the future which is mirrorless.

 

Because I'm looking for the "all in one" do it all camera.  The A7/a7r/a7s can't do sports, the GH4's stills are nowhere near full frame quality for DOF control, I can't use my EF lenses very quickly with them (no aperture control / AF).  Neither of these shoot raw video.  The 5d3 is the best all-arounder - can do sports, large lens choices, raw video, deep buffer for burst, and with ML - focus peaking, zebras, timelapse wihout shutter acuations.  You do give up some low ISO dynamic range but you certainly can push the raw stills and video around quite a bit in post - and both in raw.

God forbid you screw up the white balance with the a7 or gh4 before a video shot.  Good luck getting that back...:)

[Quirky]

Respectfully, I disagree. Magic Lantern proves that DSLRs are not dead. They may appear dead because Canon dosn't push the envelope like BlackMagic or Panasonic.

 

Don't underestimate the power of the Canikon marketing inertia in the mainstream. That's the key factor here, not the form factor. Magic Lantern is all about electronics and firmware, and hacked one at that, isn't it. It has nothing to do with the dSLR form factor per se. Or even Canon directly, for that matter. 

 

Surely you agree that a traditional (d)SLR with its flippy-flappy mirror is a bit of a peculiar form factor for a video camera.  The same electronics and the ML firmware hack would make much more sense inside a mirrorless enclosure like the C100. The traditional dSLR is simply awkward and clumsy as a video camera. Lots of unnecessary dead weight and unusable bits that force people to rig them into complex contraptions, only to work around the obvious shortcomings of the dSLR design. Mirrorless designs don't have such handicap.

 

The only reason we've still got HDSLR's in the first place is that the more or less unintended "happy accident" happened to the mighty Canikon with their overwhelming marketing might and their dSLR-only line, rather than to any of the underdogs with existing mirrorless models. The ML hack itself would live quite happily inside a different, more compatible form factor, too. 

[hmcindie]

5dmarkIII with RAW is the best DSLR that shoots video at the moment. The image is gorgeous, the colors are great and lowlight is wonderful.

 

I also think it has a lot of dynamic range (always been a bit skeptical about the 11.7 stops that keeps floating around). You can get great results when applying a bit of neatvideo (works wonders with RAW). Processing time is quite intense but that's part of the experience.

 

The d800 was ok when I used it on a shoot but it had usability problems (couldn't take stills during filming and settings were different between still/movie modes etc.) H264 was maybe a bit sharper but 720p is useless on the d800 while slowmo on the 5d is still quite workable. 

 

p.s How come everyone is railing against the mirror? It doesn't hurt or even interfere in my shootings and it's great for photos. What's the big problem with mirrors? Unnecessary dead weight? Like what is that supposed to be?

[Julian]

p.s How come everyone is railing against the mirror? It doesn't hurt or even interfere in my shootings and it's great for photos. What's the big problem with mirrors? Unnecessary dead weight? Like what is that supposed to be?

 

No mirror = EVF and short flange back so you can adapt pretty much every lens that exists. Both nice for video.

[see ya]

No mirror = EVF and short flange back so you can adapt pretty much every lens that exists. Both nice for video.

Not that registration distance has been a problem for Canon in choice of lens even with the mirror due to greater regsitration distance, perhaps Canon had the forethought to provide a decent distance to accomodate pretty much any lens mount via a lensless adapor where Nikon failed to, concequently choice of lens for Nikon without more expensive mount modifications is limited. Adapting a lens mount for Canon DSLR's it's just a cheap bit of alu to make the distance up.

 

As an aside and reading talk of off colors with Nikon's, QT doesn't interpret Nikon h264 correctly, same with Canon Rebel line as neither Canon Rebels or Nikon DSLR's appear to use luma rec709 coefficients, so reds go to orange, blues go to green in any preview via QT including Resolves.