Nikon D800 topic

bleach551

That is what I believe also. I believe the D800, in this day and age, is still just simply a "Stills" camera with ever evolving video features. I think, like you said, most buyers of this camera will still only use it for high-end photographic work so Nikon has only chosen to appease this photographic base first and foremost with its early samples and to the videographers to a much lesser extent.

@Troyjason,

I re-read some of my earlier post and I might have seemed to come across that way.I can only hope that Someone will provide this and the many other videography based blogs with some 8-bit uncompressed footage from the D800 so that we call all judge its usefullness. Maybe it will be as good if not better than the all I-frame 150mbps example to stated previously. But if not, then it was simply just a preemptive marketing ploy with no substance to try to counteract whatever Canon or Panasonic will offer as its Competition.

Cheers!

brianluce

@bleach551 I'm drooling too to sample some D800 hdmi out, but I just don't think Nikon gives a crap about us. They follow the money, and it ain't with us bush shooters who fantasize about V porting our GH2 with RAW out.

bleach551

@Brianluce, Sad but true. Nikon has no tiered video hierarchy so if they wanted to they could design better video functionality within the camera without fear of cannibalizing their higher-end video line. But I think Nikon won't because they simply don't have an extensive enough background as does their main competitors in the video realm. And also because for the foreseeable future Nikon will not improve or add features for the video functionality of their cameras at the peril of its Photographic capabilities. I believe Nikon's primary market is still their photographic division, much more so than Canon, Sony and Panasonic.

brianluce

@bleach, That's the thing about Nikon, since, as you say, they don't have dedicated broadcast quality video cams to protect, they're the ones, that in theory, could turn everything upside down with some king of all hybrids for 5 grand or so. I bet all the other big boys always keep a nervous eye on Nikon.

bleach551

@Brianluce, I think Nikon is still just a little too timid to make that bold of a statement. I only wish they were more aggressive.

The good thing is that, with the D800, they were willing to create two versions of the same camera. Maybe they will continue this tread of multiple versions of the same cameras into the future within their product developments.

Maybe they will develop one Photographic still/video camera and one dedicated Video version, for perhaps, a D400.

troyjason

@bleach551 - good point about the 2 versions of the D800. IMO that is VERY aggressive and a welcome addition for still photographers. Should be interesting to see if there is any difference in the video output.

Strange that we all agree Nikon isn't pushing video like they should because they have no broadcast cams to protect - because it was Nikon that started all this with the D90 4 years ago.

4 years is a long time to tweak video. We are at 1080....maybe a decent color space with 4:2:2....faster readout producing less rolling shutter...what else? (but this is also on DSLRs costing $3000 +, not exactly D90 pricing)

Funny that the GH2 gods who hack the camera have done more to boost image quality in less than 1 year.

IMO much of what limits Nikon is based on sensor development by Sony. Either Sony limits what Nikon can tweak, or Nikon isn't able to tweak enough based on the designs Sony gives them. Maybe?

bleach551

@Troyjason,

With the develpoment of the two versions of the D800, Nikon has "Let the genie out of the bottle". They will have no excuses in the future for why two versions of the same camera can't be produced in tandem which each other. For example producing two versions of one camera targeted to two entirely different market segments, Photo and Video.

Like you have stated, Sony could be the reason that Nikon isn't as aggressive a player in the DSLR market, possibly due to the fact that I believe Sony still produces most of the sensors used in Nikon cameras, At least in their more professional bodies.

4 years, as you stated, would seem to be a long enough time period for the originator of the whole DSLR revolution to "One UP" their competition. However, I think Nikons problem is not so much the develpment of its own sensors but the fact that they really haven't licensed any new codecs of their own.

With all of the many different codecs that are avialiable , Which Nikon would have to get a licensure for their use, all of the most advanced would need to be licensed from their competitors, Panasonic, Sony and Canon.

They could look into a partnership with Avid with its DNxHD, but I don't know how efficient this codec would be for video image acquisition. Maybe co-develop a more efficient video acquistional optimized version of it. Or partner with Apple and its Pro-Res codec.

Vitaliy, Along with so many others have done more to advance the image quality and image rendering of the Panasonic GH2 camera than I believe Panasonic ever could or would. However, with all of the free development and testing that the whole GH series community has provided for Panasonic, Panasonic still chose to make relatively small incremental changes from the GH1 to the GH2.

Maybe Nikon will surprise us with their feature offerings in their "DX" sensored camera the D300 replacement, the D400 or D300x/s.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Main board

Archive with fullsize images

http://ferraru.ifolder.ru/28604558

bleach551

@Vitaliy,

I think the sharpness gain in the D800E over the D800 will be the most appreciated by the photographers searching for a Hi-resolution alternative to Medium format cameras but at a smaller price and smaller sensor size.

For the videographer and to a lesser extent the consumer, like myself, who will use it equally for photography and for video, I personally can't see trading off an increase in image sharpness for an increase in Moire and aliasing over what I believe will still be the inherit moire and aliasing problems within the D800. I think the best balance between maximum sharpness and moire and aliasing control lies with the D800 for video acquisition.

I think if Panasonic and Nikon entered into a "limited" partnership, Nikon to give Panasonic a better Photographic presence in the photographic community and Panasonic to license some or one of their licensed video codecs to nikon for a greater video presence in videography community, that they would both benefit greatly.

LPowell

@bleach551 - "Nikon would have to get a licensure for their use, all of the most advanced would need to be licensed from their competitors, Panasonic, Sony and Canon."

Nikon already has already licensed the H.264 codec, and its higher profiles provide anything needed in the future. There's nothing particularly "advanced" about AVCHD - it's nothing more than a commercial brand name for a specific subset of H.264, jointly owned by Sony and Panasonic, and licensed to Canon.

bleach551

@Lpowell,

I stated "Most advanced" not Standard H.264.I know that it uses h.264/ high profile which includes I,B,P frames, what I was mainly eluding to was the Avc Intra 100 and 50 from panasonic, and a lesser variant of Sony's SR codec recordable to a different type of media than HDCAM SR tape, like the new Sony XQD memory cards that can be used in the Nikon D4.

LPowell

@bleach551 AVC-Intra falls in the same category as AVCHD. They're both compliant subsets of the broad family of H.264/AVC codecs. As such, they're not "advanced", since the only things that are proprietary about them are the trademarked commercial brand names.

Sony's HDCAM SR codec uses MPEG-4 Part 2 Simple Studio Profile, which is actually part of the H.263 spec that predated H.264.

bleach551

@Lpowell,

I know All of what you are mentioning. My point , which you continue to miss, is that They are variants of the AVCHD family that Have been reserved, so far, for Nikon's competitors higher end video acquisitional devices. Show me a sub $1000 DSLR camera that uses AVCIntra 100 or 50.

Nikon could develop their own higher end variant of AVCHD, but my point in the previous posts was that they are unlikely to do so due to their relatively inexperience in video acquisition in relation to Panasonic, Sony and Canon. They may decide, due to marketing forces to due so in the future but for now they are content with what they have.

So if we agree that the AvcIntra 100 or 50 variant of AVCHD is better if not much better than the most commonly used standard 8-bit 4:2:0 H.264 variant of AVCHD. The only way to get a better image quality from the current crop of DSLR camera barring an advance in sensor readout/design, conversion from high Megapixel to 1080p, moire/aliasing control..etc..etc., and If you didn't want to develop a new variant of the codec yourself, would be to acqiure a trademarked higher variant of the h.264 codec already available from another company most likely a competitor.

LPowell

@bleach551 Higher Profiles and Levels have already been defined in the H.264 specifications and don't require additional research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Profiles

In practice, it doesn't require a new encoder design to implement higher H.264 profiles and levels, it's principally a matter of configuring internal encoder parameters to use additional H.264 coding techniques to produce higher bitrates, and testing the implementation to verify its compliance with specifications. This is in many ways similar to how we reconfigure the GH2 AVCHD encoder to work at higher bitrates and different GOP structures.

At any rate, Nikon wouldn't have to do any of this work themselves. They would simply license an appropriate H.264 encoder Profile implementation as they've done with their existing lines of DSLR's. These implementations are available from a variety of vendors, not solely from competing camera manufacturers. For Nikon, a video codec is an engineering integration issue rather than an R&D project.

While I'd agree that AVC-Intra 100 is an improvement over standard AVCHD, it's only an H.264 Hi422P Profile at 100Mbps, and is better optimized for tape media than for SD card recording. 100Mbps is a bare minimum bitrate for 1080p Intra encoding and I'd hope to see more efficient, higher bitrate encoders implemented in upcoming DSLR's.

AVC-Intra 50 is actually a downgrade from AVCHD, as it's likewise only 420 color depth and downscales the 1080p frame to only 1440 pixels wide. It's a relic of the HDV period and doesn't offer any advantages to modern DSLR video recording.

bleach551

@Lpowell,

I agree with everything you said in the previous post. As you stated:

"it's principally a matter of configuring internal encoder parameters to use additional H.264 coding techniques to produce higher bitrates, and testing the implementation to verify its compliance with specifications."

I just don't believe Nikon will be willing to do this in the near future, because, as of now, I still believe Nikon's Main priority is the Photographic functionality of their DSLR's. The Video aspect of these cameras is still relegated to second place. I believe Nikon will only equip their DSLR's with the bare minimum video functionality as to compete with the bare minimum offered by their competitors.

Also;

"At any rate, Nikon wouldn't have to do any of this work themselves. They would simply license an appropriate H.264 encoder Profile implementation as they've done with their existing lines of DSLR's. For Nikon, a video codec is an engineering integration issue rather than an R&D project."

Here, I ask you , because I believe you to be much more knowledgeable on AVCHD specification than myself, What non-licensed variant within the AVCHD specification is left that is dissimilar enough from the already licensed Profile implementations by other manufacturers as not to draw trademark infringement lawsuits, but worth intergrating into a new generation of Nikon DSLR's with an significant improvement over the existing Profile implementation?

And finally, from what video engineering intergration background will Nikon draw from to effectively implement and vastly improve upon the existing profile this alternative non-licensed AVCHD profile without the need for further R&D?

LPowell

@bleach551 AVCHD is nothing more than a trademarked brand name that Sony and Panasonic use for consumer marketing purposes, and the same is true of AVC-Intra. Nikon hasn't felt a need to license the AVCHD trademark, they've simply ignored it in favor of licensing H.264 implementations directly from other vendors. H.264 isn't owned by Sony or Panasonic, it's an ISO standard available to the industry at large. There's nothing barring any camera manufacturer from employing H.264 encoding at any Profile Level they wish to use.

If it were my recommendation, I'd advise Nikon to use an H.264 Hi422P 10-bit Level 4.2 encoder, supporting bitrates up to 200Mbps and producing 8-12 keyframes per second. This would be enough bandwidth to handle encoding of progressive 2048x1080 video frames at up to 60fps. Using the MainConcept Codec Suite 5.1 plugin for Adobe CS5, I've rendered videos to specs like these as an alternative to using ProRes or DNxHD as intermediate codecs.

As for Nikon's background in video engineering integration, that's exactly the expertise they drew on to produce the D7000, D4, and D800 cameras. Integration engineers don't normally do R&D, they select core hardware and software modules from specialized industry vendors who assist them in integrating these components into a seamlessly functional commercial product.

bleach551

@Lpowell,

So what you are saying is that Only the name "AVCHD" was branded not an actual implementation of a particular H.264 profile. So if any manufacturer can employ H.264 at any given Profile level, how does a manufacturer license their own unique implementation of it within their camera? Is the process of converting it from the raw data of the sensor through to the specific H.264 implementation what is trademarked , or is there some subset of the subset which can be implemented differently in order to trademark this.

LPowell

@bleach551 If you check out the link above, you'll find a list of software and hardware vendors of H.264 encoders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Software_encoder_feature_comparison

These are the type of vendors that camera companies like Nikon (and software developers like Adobe) license video codecs from. If you're a manufacturer who really wants to cut costs, and you can do business with the GNU GPL, you can even license the open-source x264 encoder for free:

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html

A manufacturer can trademark any unique brand name they like to refer to their own particular implementation of a codec. For example, Panasonic's AVC-CAM is the brand name of their line of professional AVCHD camcorders that are intended for broadcast use. NXCAM is likewise Sony's brand name for their competing product line. Branding both lines with the AVCHD trademark as well is a selling point that implies mutual interoperability between the two manufacturers' AVCHD products.

bleach551

@Lpowell, Thanks alot for the vast amount of info you have provided to me.

last_SHIFT

Looks pretty damn good to me.

troyjason

Better. Not perfect but since this was done "without" a 4:2:2 recorder its not bad.

I like the D800 for commercial stills, stock photography, etc.

Aria

I think the D800 is gonna end up being the new FF king of VDSLR's. It just seems to me that with a clean HDMI out and the Crop mode this camera will have very compelling video features for most users. Extreme low light is nice, but it's not everything. I just think the D800 has the right combination of features. Still wish it had 1080/60P, but at that price it's still a bargain.

Brian202020

Been doing a bunch of research on this camera lately and there is a good chance I might dump my AF100 for this. The full frame, DX crop mode, and clean HDMI are pretty awesome specs.

ahbleza

@Brian202020 I have a D800 on order, but won't dump my AF100. Why? The AF100 will happily record for a few hours on battery, while the D800 (like the D4) will switch off after 60 minutes. If you're shooting indie, that's not a problem, but if you're covering a concert or long performance, it's an issue.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters