Andrew Reid

The end results do matter more than specs but the D800 is old news guys!   Here we have some pointless stats on raw stills on a video forum, no real new info, no understanding of how the video quality truly rates on the D800 (below D5300 and 5D Mark III) and therefore I'm afraid it's time to close the thread to free up room in the EOSHD zoo for a better giraffe. Bye marius.

Hazy and soft at F1.2, you will notice that the bokeh is nicer than a F1.4 50 (wide open) but the overall image quality much worse. Main problem is purple fringing. And stopped down they perform just like a much cheaper FD 50mm F1.4. Consider the Olympus 55mm F1.2 instead.   The exception is the old FD 50mm F1.2L which maintains good colour and contrast even wide open, and it's very sharp. But pricey.

Have you Birk aside from DXO mark stats got anything more, erm, useful, to add? Otherwise thread closed.

Why would I need to see Dexter? I know enough about the D800's image from first hand experience to know that it falls massively short of the Alexa.   Whatever they are doing in post, whatever they are doing in the cinematography and lighting, to cover up for the D800's inadequacies has nothing to do with the argument here.   Your argument Birk is that the sensor does 14.4 stops of dynamic range in stills. That's what DXO measures. Raw sensor data.   Line skipped compressed 8bit video is another matter.

I think Nikon lobbied for the D800 to be used on Dexter so don't read too much into those claims. It's still a very cut down video feed from the sensor.   You can compress those 14 stops from the sensor into an 8bit codec with a flat picture profile, but then when you grade it you get major stepping, poor tonality and colour, the exact opposite of what 14 stops in a 10bit 4:4:4 codec would look like.   There's just not enough headroom in the codec to do it justice. That's why most flat profile stuff has odd colour, weird looking highlights, crappy low contrast, grey shadows which should be dark, etc.

Seems possible guys   http://www.eoshd.com/content/12140/discovery-4k-8bit-420-panasonic-gh4-converts-1080p-10bit-444

Pros are wondering what the benefit of 4K is to them in terms of overall image quality, when mastered and delivered for 2K / 1080p. A lot of work is still shot in 1080p and cameras like the Canon C300 are the workhorses of the moment. In the case of the GH4 it may appear from the specs that it's just an 8bit 4:2:0 camera internally. Actually the theory is 8bit 4:2:0 4K material from this camera can be taken through a workflow in post that converts it to 10bit 4:4:4 1080p - with all the smoother tonality, better colour and workflow advantages that format brings. This is a big leap for 1080p based on the much more expensive C300 which only does 8bit 4:2:2. I asked Go Pro's David Newman (Sr. Dir. Software) whether this theory was correct... Read the full article here

So bit depth stays around 8bit but sampling is indeed 4:4:4 after conversion?

Thanks for the K-3 info. I'll think I'll pass on that one then!

  This is exactly what I suggested to Panasonic in our meeting :) "Super 4K'. A near 5K camera in a sea of 4K cameras this year, would be good for sales as well as for us.

  Only if you want 4K 4:2:2. HDMI on the GH2 does 4:2:2 in 10bit for 1080p to the Ninja.

The idea is to oversample from the 4K, so you build better quality pixel data from 4x the data available in a normal 1080p stream.   I think it needs special software to do, and yes some transcoding to ProRes 10bit 4444.   But even with a basic downscale in Premiere or FCPX you are smoothing out any 4:2:0 artefacts in the 4K like aliasing on brightly coloured red, blue or green edges for example.   4K is like a big pipe from the sensor to the card.

Oh and anti-aliasing simulator, though not sure what affect if any this has in movie mode. There's no evidence of moire and aliasing on the K-3 videos I've seen so far, so you probably won't need to use it.   Check out the 4K time-lapse footage here - vimeo.com/search?q=pentax+k-3   And download some original 1080p from this stabilisation test (not inspiring but look at the detail... looks sharper than D5300 and more organic?) - >click through to download don't watch it below

Speaking of Pentax the K-3 has the same if not identical video quality to the D5300 from what I've seen of it so far. I haven't tried it first hand yet so don't take it as confirmed 100% but it looks to have the same 24MP sensor - BUT with two very neat features. First is 4K time-lapse mode in MJPEG format (3840 x 2160) and second is in-body stabilisation. Don't think the stabilisation is effective as on the E-M1 but the camera itself seems pretty nice. Proper pro-DSLR body, weather sealed, looks better than the Nikon D7100 for video thanks to those features mentioned above but you do lose 1080/60p and the tilty flippy screen from the D5300.

  Still looking at cheap cameras objectively, it's mainly about the year we're in, 2014. Indeed if the D5300 had come out when the 5D Mark III had come out of course I'd have been more positive about it. Such little innovation will no longer cut it. Look at it another way... if I had glowingly recommended the D5300 this month, in 2 months there would be a lot of upset people with buyer's remorse come NAB 2014. Wait to see what's coming.

  Yes please, vs 5D Mark III stock ALL-I codec with flat profile too.

Let's be clear...   You can flatten out the image... iron it right down to such a low contrast that you basically have LOG or CineStyle and 12 stops dynamic range on a DSLR.   And you then have no choice but to add contrast back to the image with the grade and that loses you almost all the dynamic range you just gained because you're doing what the image processor did instead automatically, crushing the blacks so they are black and making the highlights bright again. Unless you keep the flat image as it is, which looks... dreadful.   So let's be clear by what we mean by dynamic range... I'm talking about the final end result. There's a big difference between flattening out an image, removing all the nice tonality and colour in the process, and getting those extra 2 stops, and to having 13 stops in your FINAL GRADED IMAGE with 14bit raw.   To have 12 or 13 stops as your starting point with LOG or a flat image is one thing, to have the final end result look like it has great contrast, colour AND a wide dynamic range is quite another...   With the necessary hard grade of flat DSLR footage, the codec just falls apart.

The Olympus E-M1 is sitting on a goldmine. The 5 axis stabilisation system is heaven for video, but very little attention was given to video specs. The codec is only capable of recording in one frame rate, 30p, a rate completely unsuited to 70% of the world's population living in Europe, the UK, China, Brazil and Australia. Consumers need 25p or 50p... and filmmakers are desperate for the 24p look! Now Olympus are said to be working on a firmware update (source: 43rumors) that gives 21 steps of manual audio gain control (1 step more than the GH3). Here is a summary of what else video users need. Read the full article here

OK imagine it as a highway...   5D raw opens up the highway to 6 lanes but there's not really that much traffic, most people stay at home. That's 1080p.   GH4 also opens up the highway to 6 lanes but the lanes are busier. Loads of bastards on the road, some of them annoying and noisy. But wow it's a nice busy road :)

You're not really talking about image quality, you've mentioned one thing - low light. Yes the 5D Mark III's rather lacklustre video mode (pre-raw revolution) and the 12 month old D5200 were pretty close in that respect.   The D5300's improvement in low light is mostly in the fixed pattern noise, cleaner sensor readout, rather than any big noise reduction at high ISOs.   It's not a big deal to me.

The 100-300 is actually a really nice sharp lens if you don't mind the slow aperture.

When the GH4 comes out it will likely be available for £1500 used after a few weeks and not that much more in the shops. If you spend half that now, £750 on a D5300, be prepared to regret not waiting and spending the extra £750.   For those who can only afford the D5300 then OK I can understand it.

Increasingly I am going to be looking at $1000-$3000 range because for 3 years we've had 'meh ok' video on $800 cameras and after a while it gets boring. If I'm not passionate about something I won't write about it.   For those who do enjoy the D5300, feel free to let your views be heard. I don't have anything against it. It just doesn't really turn me on. Especially not as a 5D Mark III owner, as even the stock Canon ALL-I video mode on that is better than the D5300 and it's full frame.

Anamorphic isn't just about the aspect ratio, do some more research and look at more samples, the whole image, composition, rendering of the lens, flare, depth compression and look of out of focus areas is different.

  That's why it's such a shame, the technology is excellent but the implementation of their technology is completely unsuited to what a large number of their customers want to use it for - VIDEO - and how hard is a proper 16:9 mode for live-view so you can frame the damn screen properly!? No effort whatsoever!   I use the Baby Photo thing to knock Nikon over the head with in the review purely to make a point... That with no movie mode on the dial, Nikon shows where their priorities lie... They are with even the smallest stills feature or gimmick over the head of video.   Do you know the Nikon J1 at $399 does a 4K raw output in video mode from the sensor, and Nikon haven't made use of it at all? Why are they so allergic to making video cameras? Is it the staff re-training costs or something? Just do it. See if it sells. If it does, build a business division off the back of it and THEN train new staff and reps. If not, don't do another one. Simple!   It's just like the early 90's when Nikon had the chance to buy Photoshop. It isn't a camera, so they don't bother. Why such a narrow attitude to the imaging business?