|December 23rd, 2008, 01:18 PM||#2|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
And, it shows how if you apply enough MTV (think 1970's) effects over video you can obscure the lack of quality in the video.
If you want to see how far from both film and great video the D90 falls, see this camera test.
Zacuto USA on Vimeo
Watch the fine detail in the girl's hair. The Panasonic HVX 3000 gets it right. Everything else, including 35mm film, is missing the clarity that comes from a very high MTF and extended high frequency response. (Interestingly, I just read that in Europe both 16mm and 35mm film is being rejected for use in HD productions because it simply looks "too soft." Something I've noticed for years on National Geo and Discovery.)
Also, note that by crushing the blacks in post and going for the blown highlights look, the D90's lack of latitude and noise are hidden. It's like watching "CSI: NY" where every outside shot is blue and every subway shot is green. Not only is it not how NY looks in reality, it is factory DI template for a show that indicates zero creativity. I just don't get why so many think this look is that of "film." The great films of the 30's through 80's do NOT look like this.
>> Shoot Great Video with NEX Cameras --- iMovie 11 Handbook --- V1/FX7 Handbook >> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
|December 24th, 2008, 06:55 AM||#3|
Join Date: May 2007
That was an interesting review.
Of course I have to agree with you on all points except for how I personally preferred the look of first clip done with film.
The d90 falls way short when compared to these other cams that can achieve shallow DOF.
In its defense though I will offer these few points.
I believe the comparison was made at 1080. This is nowhere near the size the d90 footage looks any way acceptable. (It may have been the only footage in that sample which was actually sized up to match, if it was at 1080p the tests were done. They didn't say.)
With the d90 footage, after applying Lee wilsons anti jaggie thingy in post and scaling down to SD or smaller for output things don't appear so poorly.
Its all about output / destination size.
Secondly, price must be considered. That point doesn't need to elaborated on.
I grabbed a d90 when it came out knowing the 5dmk2 was soon to follow. I suspected both cameras would need a few 'evolves' before they could realistically be used, a point which it appears i may have been wrong about in the 5dmk2. Its lack of manual control seems to be compensated for by the high (er) bitrate and the sligtly larger size in video along with what appears to be a better dynamic range.
Im looking forward to whats next. Im hoping Ill be applying my skills to some very ambitious projects in the next few years thanks to these developments. The pricerange this kind of quality will be available at will open many doors for us.
"The great films of the 30's through 80's do NOT look like this"
I have to agree with you. To me, quality has taken a major step back since the introduciotn of digital cameras. Obviously an easier way to explain my point would be via photography. I've yet to see a photograph taken from any of the new digital SLRs which comes anywhere close to what the Hassleblad 120mm film was producing throughout those years. Yet every mid range photographer has since traded them in for 35mm DSLRs. Only high end fashion photogs are getting anywhere close to what 120mm film looked like in the past with their digital hassys.
It will take years form now to get level with what was produced years ago on film with a digital platform, or at least for it to be at a similar pricepoint. When it does happen, then we'll have the best of both.
when i'm in a nursing home, please get me xbox live
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|