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

[Evan Fotis Georgoulakis]

Its a pity that the D800, so accomplished as a stills camera, is so lacking in video.
The live view is notoriously noisy in low light situations that render it almost useless.
In a project with black bg with white silouettes that tneeded critical focus - manual that is, even with the super sharp AF 85mm f1.8G)- live view zoomed in, was not fun to look at with all that noise. I ended hooking up an external 24" monitor for better control.

Two online examples that illustrate this:

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/05/fail-nikon-d800-live-view-vs-canon-5d.html

[Quirky]

The optical viewfinder just doesn't give you an accurate representation of the image. It looks lovely in and of itself. That's about it. Time and again I was misjudging manual focus and exposure because of it. Focus meter is horrifically inaccurate with manual glass and non Nikon CPU lenses.

 

One of the many reasons why the industry is gradually moving on from SLR technology into native digital technology, with or without Canikon, is the focus issue. By moving to native digital cameras and direct sensor view we can get rid of the need to do micro adjustments (calibration) to the lenses, to make them focus properly with the OVF.

 

Myself being a still shooter coming from the analog world, I'm not so used to shooting with live view on cameras, so I can't comment on the accuracy of the live view compared to other cameras.

 

I'm coming from the analog, photo shooting background, too, but I don't find it all that difficult to migrate to EVF's and native digital cameras. In fact, after having used them for several years now, I no longer find it all that difficult to let the OVF start enjoying retirement, even when shooting stills. When shooting video, it's obviously a no-brainer.

 

Nevertheless, I do still have one dSLR which doesn't do video at all. I've kept it mostly for the 'exotic' sensor, not because it has an OVF.

 

 

As you pointed out, Andrew isn't primarily a stills photographer, so if he wants to have fun dissing the optical view-finder... 

 

I'm not speaking on behalf of Mr. Reid here, but have you taken a peek into the OVF of your D800 when shooting video? What do you see?

Exactly. So, since we're talking about video here, how is he "dissing" the optical viewfinder, when the OVF is totally obsolete in video shooting in the first place?

 

At least I was under the impression this was a video-centric forum, and his blog was a video-centric blog. Shooting stills only is another matter altogether, and generally for another forum, too.

 

 

 

In the end, I think we all agree, ALL viewfinders are limited.  There are pros and cons.  

 

In video shooting the dSLR OVF's have just one little con, they're useless.  

But other than that, indeed, they do all have their pros and cons.

[Appleidiot]

Can anyone that owns this camera confirm that when you are setting a manual kelvin temp, that you cannot see your scene simultaneously? In other words, you're popping back and forth, in and out of a menu to see the effect of your kelvin temp change? The Canon's allow you to see your scene and adjust the kelvin temp on the fly, so I'm just curious about the Nikon. Thank you!

[Don Kotlos]

Can anyone that owns this camera confirm that when you are setting a manual kelvin temp, that you cannot see your scene simultaneously? In other words, you're popping back and forth, in and out of a menu to see the effect of your kelvin temp change? The Canon's allow you to see your scene and adjust the kelvin temp on the fly, so I'm just curious about the Nikon. Thank you!

You don't have to go in the menus to change the WB temp. You just push the WB button and rotate the front dial to adjust the temperature. The LCD always shows the effect. 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

So no more real painting, just touchscreen and photoshop? Cause you can fix your mistakes, push undo button, use presets and plugins and so on? That's the same logic of what you said for photo!
.

Actually yes I do believe that at some point in the future, artists will use technology instead of paper and ink.
We will have virtual pads/screens, with 100% accuracy digital painting parameters as if it were real paper and ink, but also with the ability to redo, send, share, cut, and carry all your equipment on your pocket when leaving.

Technology is going to change how we live. Yes there are some analogue, old school ways we like to hang on to, it's nostalgia and personal habits. I for one, as you see, believe that technology will make everything analogue obselete, yet I still only drive manual-transmission cars, even though automated ones outclassed them in every single possible way, even speed. Why? It's a habit, a nostalgic feeling I get, a love of mine, but, it is obselete.

It's ridiculous watching these Canon 1Dx/Nikon D4s flapping their mirrors 12 times-per-second in mecahnical-engineering pride. I mean, really? Why? Take that damn mirror off and make it shoot 50 fps in complete slience. That's just showing off how incrideble you are as engineers!

[Don Kotlos]

It's ridiculous watching these Canon 1Dx/Nikon D4s flapping their mirrors 12 times-per-second in mecahnical-engineering pride. I mean, really? Why? Take that damn mirror off and make it shoot 50 fps in complete slience. That's just showing off how incrideble you are as engineers!

 

EVF technology is not at the OVF level just yet. It is pretty close though, and cameras such as E-M1,X-T1, A7/r help remove some of the company-level unwillingness to invest in EVF technology. 

 

Also global electronic shutters should become the mainstream once the snr reaches the acceptable levels for photography. Maybe ultra fast sensor readout will be an alternative. 

[Appleidiot]

You don't have to go in the menus to change the WB temp. You just push the WB button and rotate the front dial to adjust the temperature. The LCD always shows the effect.

Excellent! I do appreciate the information.

[maxotics]

Excellent! I do appreciate the information.

 

Ditto thanks!

[gethin]

double post (must stop trying to use the forum on my phone :/) 

[gethin]

Soon EVFs will be 14bit 4K OLEDs.

Then the flippy mirror will say bye byes. 

 

 

First time I realised I could happily say goodbye to the optical viewfinder was after using a lot of liveview and gh2:  I tried to zoom in on the optical viewfinder to get critical focus :)

 

 

[gethin]

I challenge anyone to find worse moire than the clip at the end of this:

 

 

:)

[dahlfors]

Yes. Stay away from the 720p modes on D800. It can however work with slow-motion shots if you carefully select which elements that should be in focus.

[giostrante]

Actually yes I do believe that at some point in the future, artists will use technology instead of paper and ink.
We will have virtual pads/screens, with 100% accuracy digital painting parameters as if it were real paper and ink, but also with the ability to redo, send, share, cut, and carry all your equipment on your pocket when leaving.

Technology is going to change how we live. Yes there are some analogue, old school ways we like to hang on to, it's nostalgia and personal habits. I for one, as you see, believe that technology will make everything analogue obselete, yet I still only drive manual-transmission cars, even though automated ones outclassed them in every single possible way, even speed. Why? It's a habit, a nostalgic feeling I get, a love of mine, but, it is obselete.

It's ridiculous watching these Canon 1Dx/Nikon D4s flapping their mirrors 12 times-per-second in mecahnical-engineering pride. I mean, really? Why? Take that damn mirror off and make it shoot 50 fps in complete slience. That's just showing off how incrideble you are as engineers!

 

That's the saddest future perspective ever made! I hope to die before!

We are humans and one of the best thing we ever made is Art.

A real paint is a real paint, a future oled 5000000k touchscreen paint will never be the same. How could you even thinking something so horrible? A paint is something real, real colours on real surface, real light, real shadows, not pixels under a glass surface, not bit and megabytes, not a stupid files to share on Facebook, what a f$%k! 

The touch of an artist, how he use the brush, the mix and use of colours, is something you can never never and never have with digital garbage. 

But the real big question is why? Why use screens? To "carry all your equipment on your pocket when leaving" ? WHAT???????

Perhaps smartphones and social networks are making people crazy, I don't know. 

A world of lazy men unable to use their eyes and brain to get focus with an optical viewfinder, as the greatest photographers always did. Lazy painters with tablets instead of astonishing canvas big as a window or more, that's insane.

Did you ever see a real paint? Did you ever have a closer look  to see and feel all the brushstrokes, to feel the smell of the colours? Have you ever been in a museum in front of a paint, staring and thinking for a while? Can you really imagine the Picasso's Guernica on a screen???? 

This would be the death of the Art, only flat experiences in a flat world, the only idea makes me cry.

 

You want an automatic life for stupid automatic people, it's really really sad what we are becoming. No more humans, just smartphone docks made of flesh.

 

Did you ever wonder why hand made food is so good?

Well dont' ask yourself, live for ever in a McDonald's with your iPhone and be happy...

[Quirky]

I know this is drifting way off-topic, but just one more for the road. :)

 

Technology is going to change how we live. Yes there are some analogue, old school ways we like to hang on to, it's nostalgia and personal habits. I for one, as you see, believe that technology will make everything analogue obselete, 

 

There are two distinctly different forms of obsolete, a practical, technical obsolescence and commercial, market obsolescence. Which don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

 

Most "old school" analogue tech is deemed commercially obsolete, which means the mass market will abandon it gradually, but that doesn't necessarily make it technically obsolete, let alone unusable. Sometimes the 'old' tech can still survive much longer inside a suitable niche, because it is not technically obsolete. Some people still like to use it, for a number of reasons. Practical and emotional alike.

 

For example, I own a bunch of vinyl albums and I actually enjoy listening to them once in a while. Not because I'm a curmudgeon, not because of nostalgia, but because I happen to own gear that can play them (well), and because they still sound great. I sort of enjoy the analog, tactile media, too. I do have digital music both in my computer and on CD's too, though.

 

It's kind of similar with the SLR tech and the flippy-flappy mirror, but with one (actually on topic) caveat.

 

The mirror has already become commercially obsolete, despite Canikon's stalling tactics. But that doesn't mean the OVF has become suddenly useless in stills shooting, if one happens to own such a camera and a bunch of lenses. It doesn't even stop anyone from making dSLR's for a (gradually) niche(-ifying) market, either. There are still some manufacturers (and buyers) for analog audio gear, too.

 

But as long as video shooting is concerned, the flippy-flappy mirror has been technically obsolete since day one, ever since the analog video cameras. Therefore a "video dSLR" is a bit of an odd and impractical concept to begin with, isn't it.

 

The confusion is caused by Canikon, who are trying to postpone the inevitable commercial obsolescence for as long as they can, with the help of their still massive marketing inertia. That is, as long as the mainstream market is concerned. The one that matters commercially.

 

The pro video market is just a small part of Canikon's total revenue. And yet, Canon are offering not only an embellished dSLR (1Dc), but a whole C-x00 line of dedicated interchangeable lens video cameras for the tiny pro video market, but not for the massive mainstream market. Nikon don't even have a pro video market to speak of.

 

Hence the difference between commercial and technical obsolescence. One is more social, another is more practical. One can be forced or stalled, another tends to happen more naturally and gradually. 

 

 

 

 

yet I still only drive manual-transmission cars, even though automated ones outclassed them in every single possible way, even speed. Why? It's a habit, a nostalgic feeling I get, a love of mine, but, it is obselete.

 

I don't think the gear box analogy is a particularly good one. It has very little to do with either form of obsolescence, and more to do with matters of taste and regional preferences. 

 

The fact is, a big part of the world outside the US still uses, and even prefers, (myself included) the manual gear box over the traditional automatic one. I know it's the reverse in the US, where the (traditional) automatic gear box is the default choice in almost any tin can on wheels. But that doesn't mean that the automatic transmission inside an American commuter has "outclassed" the manual one inside the similar/same commuter elsewhere "in every single possible way," let alone in every single possible situation. That's just another flavour of enginerdspeak.

 

But as stated, this is going way OT. My excuse is that this post-Easter Tuesday feels like Monday.  ;)

[Andrew Reid]

A comparison of standard bitrate / high bitrate from Lars

 

[leeys]

Wow, really not seeing much difference between the two. Had to go back and forth a bit there. I think for relatively static shots it's not going to help that much.

[leeys]

Maybe you should stop communicating using the Internet. It's not real anyway, going by that logic.

 

 

That's the saddest future perspective ever made! I hope to die before!

We are humans and one of the best thing we ever made is Art.

A real paint is a real paint, a future oled 5000000k touchscreen paint will never be the same. How could you even thinking something so horrible? A paint is something real, real colours on real surface, real light, real shadows, not pixels under a glass surface, not bit and megabytes, not a stupid files to share on Facebook, what a f$%k! 

The touch of an artist, how he use the brush, the mix and use of colours, is something you can never never and never have with digital garbage. 

But the real big question is why? Why use screens? To "carry all your equipment on your pocket when leaving" ? WHAT???????

[leafcutter]

Wow, really not seeing much difference between the two. Had to go back and forth a bit there. I think for relatively static shots it's not going to help that much.

 

+1 I think things moving in the scene would give more scope for spotting a difference between the two data rates.

[giostrante]

Maybe you should stop communicating using the Internet. It's not real anyway, going by that logic.

And where did I say something so stupid?

I was speaking about real paint vs digital paint, a precise question, you can't extend that logic to whatever you want, this is really a dumb post.

I'm not against the progress, I never said that, I just said that there are things, like painting, that should remain like they are. Digital art is another thing and it will never replace real painting, simple.

Is it so difficult to understand?

[dahlfors]

I'll paste this here with the very best intentions:

 

 

 

Also:

 

Yes, the 24 Mbps bitrate in the D800 already produces great footage with static shots on a tripod when there isn't lots of motion in the image. For such shots, I doubt you'll find much of a quality difference with the footage.

 

Film a moving ocean or some other scene with lots of motion, and I bet you'll find the 36/54/64 Mbps bitrates better.