Nikson D90 does video! Will an Alpha do the same?

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, I know what good HDTV looks like - I have stood in Sony's reception for half an hour and watched the best HDTV in the world on the largest and most expensive HDTV system. I also know what bad HDTV looks like as you can't go into a Tesco or ASDA without being confronted by a wall of HDTVs all playing the same demo source. It is the difference between these - not just in contrast or sharpness, but in the stability of the image - which puts me off investing in an HDTV yet. When I do it will be a Full HD 1080p model, it will probably be a Sony Bravia, it may not necessarily be very large (32" is fine)

You have spent years watching NTSC TV, which is so bad that most Brits could not believe it when visiting the States. We have had a better 625-line PAL system since the early 1970s in Britain, and the difference between a moderate quality HDTV and top grade large screen PAL analogue TV is not as great as the shift which has happened in the States.

I have never mentioned anything about progressive scan or interlaced so how would you know whether I am not well informed?

In the UK at least, HD broadcast = satellite or cable for the moment. Terrestrial is promised for a few trial broadcasts but BBC and ITV are hoping to compete with Sky by offering Freesat, and their efforts will all be put into that. None of this has any relevance to people outside the UK though I guess the Freesat service could be picked up from other regions.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, I have no idea what your repeated long rambles are all about. I have never claimed anything about HDTV being worse than analogue or anything much else about it. I haven't actually said much about HDTV, or digital TV, beyond repeating Sony's own advice given in the A700 manual and referring to Bravia TVs with Photo-HD.

I know exactly what true HDTV movies look like - I have no idea about HDTV transmissions, as I don't believe I have yet seen a live HDTV reception. I also know exactly what a Sony Alpha 700 image(s) looks like on a Bravia using Photo-HD mode. Do you really think I could attend press conferences, go to imaging exhibitions, interview professional photographers without seeing HDTV still images? How do you think most of my professional readers now present their viewings to clients?

It is clear that you really miss selling/installing televisions!

I was not at the Nikon launch, our son Richard went. He says that the presentation of the HD video clips on HDTVs (he did not note the brand used - presumably not Sony!) was impressive. I took a very close look at a bunch of 40" plus HDTVs today - as always in the UK, some carry misleading labels like '1080p input' - Sony is guilty - when actually they are 720p or not even that. Of the true 1080p models, LG, Samsung and Sony had the most artefact-free images.

We will one day see DSLRs able to shoot 1080p at 60fps, maybe even 300fps. We will see slow-mo and time lapse capabilities and eventually some kind of 3D. Lenticular screen 3D was not possible with analogue CRT screens, but digital screens are addressable by pixel co-ordinate. Back in 1979, I was one of the photographers for Nimslo (my 3D industrial, studio and aerial shots were exhibited at photokina 1980). I used the 9-lens camera as well as the multishot carrier for 35mm, and later did the factory shots for Timex Dundee who made the ill-fated Nimslo 35mm camera. Back then we made transilluminated lightboxes with lenticular 3D, one day there will be HDTVs doing the same, or something much better.

So, answering the OP's subject title question, yes - an Alpha will do the same, and then more, and then more still.

David

[Birma]

Congratulations on reaching Grand Caliph status Sonalta - you now need to get a hat like the Doc's !

[PhotoTraveler]

First, we really don't know a lot on that sensor in the D90. Just from the shots of it over at the other website it does look to be a Sony sensor, but it's not the same sensor. Just look at the trace wiring coming off it. Maybe it's the same core, but it's definitely different. Probably different read out setup for the video capability.

Might be a bit till we see what Sony does. I expect an A500 at PMA, this would be the camera to do it, especially since it would be direct competition to the D90 as the A700 gets replaced with something closer to the D300/"D400".

Still, look at sony so far with stuff like LV. They don't do what the others are doing, even if they produce the bits the other use. If Sony found off the main sensor LV to not be the correct way to do LV and went and made the second sensor method. They very likely can find the nikon approach not the way to do it. The very well could skip it, or wait till they make an EVIL (lets call that A400, even digits for EVIL cameras). Or maybe they just make a small video module that has an A mount on it.

Time will also tell if people find this very useful. I suspect people will find it to not be very useful at all. It doesn't help that the end product is video, which people have been realizing for decades isn't a very useful medium. Aside from YouTube clips people have found it's a bad medium. It's a TV/Movie medium. And that's about it. People don't watch their home movies, lord knows how many parents have 100s of hours of VHS of their children that have never been watched by anyone. Digital increase the chance of looking at it, but still limited. I'm sure lots of people are like me and often take shots but never get around to processing them, we push it back to a time when we have time and go take more photos. Video is way worse. You can't use it as a wall paper, can't put it up on your cork board at work, can't send it to the family very easy, can't put it on a wall at home, can't print it out. It's just not a great thing. It sounds great, you take some clips, but then you don't do much of anything with them. A system like this that produces short clips in a rather awkward way is not going to go far. HD YouTube clips may be the extent of it's use. And people are running out of dumb things their pets or friends do to tape.

[Greg Beetham]

Where are you at in the world PT, the Azores or somewhere? going by the time of your post that is

Yep, I agree with that assessment of yours that movies initially sound very appealing....so you take a disc drive full then what??
Still digicams are very useful for getting those elusive/rare or candid type moments that hardly anyone is ready for when they happen, but still it might be worth it too have a good HD digicam handy whenever you go out just like having the DSLR on the floor (in it's toploader of course) in the back, or in my case in the front, just in case, cause you just never know what's coming next in this day and age.
Greg

[destrian]

Quit having a stupid 1080p VS 720p argument guys! better than what we have quality is better than what we have quality regardless. Truth: I PRAY THE ALPHA A900 Does NOT have LiveView! LiveView and video in pro use - sept for FEW applications - is not that well regarded! As for journalist however.... its great! Just give me a: $1,700.00 (US) Sony Alpha A850, full frame, 14Mp DSLR, at 6 frames per second with improved DRO (up to 11 stops like the Hassleblad Phase One!), 36 continuous RAW images, unlimited jpgs till camera is full, built in SSD disk 16GB, transfer jet capability and built in Vertical Grip and it runs for 599 consecutive hours with 1 AA battery. Give me that and I'm happy as Crappy! Now let us pray for it... all together now.

[KevinBarrett]

I should hope that if Sony were to implement a video capture mode in a D-SLR, that they would execute it somewhat better than Nikon has. For instance, Sony's new slim P&S, the DSC-T500, will shoot twice the length of video that a Nikon D90 can accomodate, at the same resolution (720p), but at a faster frame rate (30 fps). If similar capability were put into an SLR but, unlike the Nikon, offer dynamic exposure settings throughout a continuous video, it would be a very powerful tool indeed. I do trust Sony to get it right, if anybody, but it isn't necessarily what I'd be looking for if I were shopping for an SLR today. I certainly don't look forward to how such a feature, properly implemented, might inflate SLR prices.

[David Kilpatrick]

That's the same 30fps that I am told will not be needed because the industry standard is 24fps

DSLRs will have to catch up with consumer HDTV digicams and based on the Nikon's specs, there's already a distance to go. What the DSLR movie mode will do is allow a subtlety of tone and focus transitions completely absent in small sensor videos. But a dedicated HDTV videocam taking Alpha lenses is a far more likely Sony scenario - it already exists at the top end of their range, all they need is a lower priced model to sell to Alpha system owners.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Well I wish that if they want to experiment with putting some sort of half baked video in a DSLR "still" camera they'd do it with one of their bridge models instead, like get a H50 put in an APS-C sized sensor, bolt an A-mount on the front and see if they can get that running properly first, who knows it might turn out so good they'll forget about the DSLR video thingy.
Realistically...I think we are going too get video whether we want it or not, but I don't think we should accept any compomises with the DSLR's primary function, that is, being a "still" camera.
Greg

[KevinBarrett]

24p > 30p
Aknowledged

How big of a problem is it that the D90 keeps a constant exposure setting throughout a video recording? Is this out of some wisdom? Is it too difficult to make dynamic exposure settings in video for a consumer-grade DSLR? Is this a half-baked feature or are they just leaving room for improvement in later/better models? David, your thoughts?

[KevinBarrett]

Sony already has large stakes in 24p HD video equipment. Do you think this will be a great roadblock to seeing these features on future Sony DSLRs? I'm sure Sony would rather sell me both a DSLR and a vdieo camera, if I was so inclined.

Sorry if I wounded you pride, Sonolta, directing that question to DK, but thank you for answering it just the same.

[David Kilpatrick]

What the D90 can't do is autofocus during video takes. The exposure mode must be limited, as it would be physically impossible to have exposures longer than 1/24th of a second, but auto exposure during filming is a no-no (shadows change brightness - as bad as autofocus shifts). I have shot and produced enough 16mm film (I never really took to video) to know that constant lighting conditions are desirable during any take (which is why Hollywood is where it is - and why Elstree never really competed - and why BBC lighting cameramen like my old friend John Henshall, who lit the original Spitting Image and many other well-known programmes, are some of the best around - lousy UK light!).

I was taught that 18fps was the slowest frame rate at which the human eye did not see a visible flicker (which made 16fps movies visibly flickery). Anything slower, and the flicker is visible. Anything slightly faster is desirable and 24p/24 frames is in the safe zone. The benefit of 30p/30fps or any other faster speed is that you can stretch time slightly to match music sync or extend non-motion-critical sections. The real benefits kick in with Sony's 60-300fps technology, which allows smooth slow motion effects and motion analysis.

I'm told that the biggest market is for photographing golf swings but I don't believe that. The driving market behind all this stuff is porn and always will be - just like Polaroid!

David