Jump to content

Nikon DL


jagnje
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Super Members
16 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

Unfortunately it has none of these. Nikon Picture Control had 6 profiles for years, they added Flat and it became 7. But in DL series page it says you can select only 6. Guess which one is unavailable? Yea.  

Link?

Deal breaker for me, at least for a preorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members

Today Nikon got back to me on the question about the flat Picture profile.

This is what they wrote.

"Hej Mattias!  Via Capture NX-D (gratismjukvara) kan man lägga på en Flat picture control inställning i efterhand på fotografierna du tagit i RAW format.
Om du istället är intresserad av att filma med Flat som inställd picture control så går inte det.

Men om du är ute efter att ha så platt picture control som möjligt i en DL kamera så rekommenderar vi att du använder Neutral som picture control inställning.  

Hoppas detta hjälper dig på vägen! Med vänlig hälsning Nikon-Teamet"

Or loosley translated by me.

You can for stills in Raw mode with an app.

For video you can not use a flat profile.

They suggest using "Neutral" as the flatest option.

So, I guess Im picking up a RX100iv as a point and shoot.

(Btw, love lots of things about my current P&S, the NX500. But I cant stand transcoding. No h265 in FCPX and I dont want to use Premiere or Resolve only. FCPX has totally taken over since getting it this winter.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did my own asking as well, indeed, word from Nikon is that there is no flat profile. Which again seems quite weird decision. There are three interesting configurations which they promote as good film making tools but...

Probably it's going to be beginning of summer until those hit stores :/

Sony a6300, x pro2 are seeing already lot of usage until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 5:47 AM, Oobik said:

I did my own asking as well, indeed, word from Nikon is that there is no flat profile. Which again seems quite weird decision. There are three interesting configurations which they promote as good film making tools but...

Probably it's going to be beginning of summer until those hit stores :/

Sony a6300, x pro2 are seeing already lot of usage until then.

I would guess that the reason is that these cameras are marketed purely at consumers, who have zero interest in flat profiles. The people who buy these cameras will use footage the way it comes out of the camera without modification for the most part.

5 hours ago, Zach Ashcraft said:

That looks horrendous. Terribly over sharpened, digital, and just plain yucky. Could be upload/export setting, but looks like they have in camera sharpening set way to high. 

It looks fine to me, viewing on my laptop. Perhaps you just don't like resolution and prefer Canon-Soft (R) images? Not judging, just commenting. Tastes differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tugela said:

I would guess that the reason is that these cameras are marketed purely at consumers, who have zero interest in flat profiles. The people who buy these cameras will use footage the way it comes out of the camera without modification for the most part.

It looks fine to me, viewing on my laptop. Perhaps you just don't like resolution and prefer Canon-Soft (R) images? Not judging, just commenting. Tastes differ.

I'm watching on a 27 inch 5K iMac, so maybe thats the difference because none of what I'm seeing looks remotely "fine." lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zach Ashcraft said:

That looks horrendous. Terribly over sharpened, digital, and just plain yucky. Could be upload/export setting, but looks like they have in camera sharpening set way to high. 

Absolutely! A lot of shots the are way oversharpened. However It seems like some shots that aren't sharpened though. The longer zoom landscape shots. Maybe it was filmed by  several different people.  Lets face it the lion cub shots were probably filmed in a zoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, MattH said:

Absolutely! A lot of shots the are way oversharpened. However It seems like some shots that aren't sharpened though. The longer zoom landscape shots. Maybe it was filmed by  several different people.  Lets face it the lion cub shots were probably filmed in a zoo.

Not a zoo, judging from the grass. I would guess it was filmed on the same shoot as all the other animal scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/02/2016 at 8:33 PM, tyger11 said:

Nothing will 'force' Canon to get their act together. Canon is the Donald Trump of camera makers. It's the greatest, and if you don't agree, you're a loser. You'll buy what they make and you'll like it, too.  :)

Canon will surely be in this particular 4K game soon as same as the other ones or would risk to lose or miss the game. As much as Trump ; ) if/when competition may act stronger...

Canon customer here, but not as camera owner since 2009 when I bought my last Canon camera (5DII).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 2:11 PM, MattH said:

Absolutely! A lot of shots the are way oversharpened. However It seems like some shots that aren't sharpened though. The longer zoom landscape shots. Maybe it was filmed by  several different people.  Lets face it the lion cub shots were probably filmed in a zoo.

By over sharpened you mean its under softened.

Looking at it on my 1440p monitor I would say that the main issue is that there is a lot of detail in the images and the codec is having issues. Probably they need a higher bit rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Nope, it differs from camera to camera. Depends on how efficient it uses its bitrate. A 50mbit Sony will in my experience break apart before Nikon 25mbit.

Precisely.

I have a D800 with 24 Mbps bitrate as well as the hacked 54 Mbps bitrate. In majority of scenes there isn't any difference. Close-ups of really fast moving water or certain types of night scenes is where I've found the differences. I haven't seen any other camera reaching anywhere as high quality output as Nikon does at 24 Mbps H.264.

With good tweaking of x264 encoding on a desktop computer you can reach same quality levels, but other camera manufacturers 1) haven't either tweaked their encoders as much, or 2) aren't throwing as much encoding power / using dedicated chips for the encoding - hence they aren't anywhere near the same quality levels when you compare bitrate for bitrate.

How you implement an encoder matters, even though you use the same codec. It was the same story with MP3 encoding in the early days. XING, Fraunhofer and the others weren't anywhere near the quality that the open source LAME encoder could output, bitrate for bitrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but you have to be careful here... you're now comparing DSLRs to compacts.
I have both D5300 and more recent S9900. The compact camera doesn't shoot video anything like the D5300... it's okay, because I just needed something small and light with still some zoom for stills shooting, but I think you're in the wrong, when you think video will come out of these puppies looking like the stuff we're used to from their DSLR range. It will probably look more like their current compacts... overly sharp, poppy, modern, low dynamic range, weird motion. Footage that doesn't hold up well when pushed in post. All of that. And by the looks of that, that's exactly the case. Sure you could make any camera appear somewhat decent, but just be careful with these...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cinegain said:

Yeah, but you have to be careful here... you're now comparing DSLRs to compacts.
I have both D5300 and more recent S9900. The compact camera doesn't shoot video anything like the D5300... it's okay, because I just needed something small and light with still some zoom for stills shooting, but I think you're in the wrong, when you think video will come out of these puppies looking like the stuff we're used to from their DSLR range. It will probably look more like their current compacts... overly sharp, poppy, modern, low dynamic range, weird motion. Footage that doesn't hold up well when pushed in post. All of that. And by the looks of that, that's exactly the case. Sure you could make any camera appear somewhat decent, but just be careful with these...

What you are talking about is post-processing, which isn't directly related to the encoding / bitrate, but rather a separate entity.

But yes, it might very well be that there is baked in sharpening that you can't get rid of.

I hope Nikon has been sane enough to add configuration possibilities to disable such post processing, since the cameras are set to compete with LX100, RX100 and other Sony high end compact offerings which provide such features. I also hope they are sane enough to add 24p in the final firmware, since the competition has that. Also, it doesn't make much sense for Nikon to cripple their high end compacts due to product segmentation; I don't really think these products compete with D3xx/D5xx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...