Nikon D90's 720p movie mode gets critiqued
By Darren Murph 
posted Oct 25th 2008 8:48PM
posted Oct 25th 2008 8:48PM
While being the first DSLR to shoot HD video sounds mighty excellent on paper, it's not worth much if the execution isn't there, right? The general consensus was that Nikon's D90 was a stellar DSLR, but the 720p movie mode was simply a so-so cherry on top. The gurus over at CamcorderInfo decided to take things one step further and actually write up an in-depth review on the movie mode alone. The long and short of it is this: the D90's movie mode simply can't produce the same results as a dedicated HD camcorder, and while it was "often able to produce impressive results (especially in moderately low light)," the unfortunate "wobble effect" really put a damper on things. In essence, the aforementioned problem causes objects to look like Jell-o when the user pans quickly from left to right, and the only real way to avoid it is to utilize a tripod or slow down your pans -- neither of which are terribly convenient. Critics did find quite a bit to praise, and they certainly appreciated the inclusion in an otherwise amazing camera, but it's still far from being ideal in all scenarios.
Well, i thought tripods were required by default to record properly
Watch any movie or TV show and take note of how many shots are absolutely still. You will find little to none. I've noticed that using a tripod makes my movies look less professional. Now of course you have to know how to hold and operate a camera properly, so the film isn't super shaky (see cloverfield), but even just a little bit of shakiness isn't that bad depending on the type of content you're producing.
This has nothing to do with stability but rather the tendency of the CMOS cameras chip to produce what is called a "rolling shutter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter). Without proper technology, it is very apparent and annoying. Especially for visual effects that require motion tracking.
ViaTorci: Ah Thanks!
You must be from Reddit :)
I dont see how tripod will help with the wobble effect. If you do quick horizontal pan, the wobble will be there no matter tripod or not.
Your lives will continue to be incomplete until you obtain a steadicam.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steadicam)
Even the Red One has rolling shutter, as does the Canon HV20/30 camcorder and upcoming 5D MkII, as mentioned before its due to the CMOS sensor. However, there are methods to reduce rolling shutter significantly- primary method is to have a CMOS with with fast reset/refresh for each pixel. Hopefully, future Nikons will address this issue.
Canon > Nikon.
Why was this man low ranked? Is what he says not the truth? Or do you low rank because he is douche?
See, this is why rankers should be required to justify their ranking (not unlike the ranking system on Slashdot). It just gets confusing.
Yeah, I'm all for a system like this:
1. Person sees original comment, which they have a positive or negative opinion about.
2. Person replies to said comment, and is given the option to rate them on one reply only.
3. Everyone knows the reasons why the person is low/high ranked, and may retort to the low rankers in kind.
Most low ranked comments fit the following descriptions:
- Pro-Apple
- Anti-Microsoft
- Bashing for the sake of bashing
I'll put my previous comment in the 3rd category. Either that, or there's a 4th "anti-Nikon" category as well.
"Billy Fiul @ Oct 25th 2008 10:04PM
Why was this man low ranked? Is what he says not the truth? Or do you low rank because he is douche?"
Because it's a stupid post. Saying he's a douche says nothing, unless you know the guy from other posts and base your opinion on that. It's a fanboyism which has all the appearance that it is the product of a twelve year old and has no basis in fact whatsoever. No explanation is necessary because the motivation of the comment is obvious.
"Rekit @ Oct 25th 2008 11:15PM
Most low ranked comments fit the following descriptions:
- Pro-Apple
- Anti-Microsoft
- Bashing for the sake of bashing
I'll put my previous comment in the 3rd category. Either that, or there's a 4th "anti-Nikon" category as well."
Well that was a much better thought out comment. Canon and Nikon are the two most popular brands of SLR cameras sold. Each has its merits and a model by model comparison is more prudent than your simplistic original statement.
I happen to own cameras by both brands and I can honestly say that both are fine cameras. Now, if you would care to say WHAT and WHY you believe that "Canon > Nikon" perhaps you might get some positive response. But simply saying "Canon > Nikon" serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
Rekit, the comment is a good example of trolling. That's why it's been low ranked.
I have to agree with CamcorderInfo, the rolling shutter effect is very visible, especially with the D90. Having seen over 30 D90 videos on Vimeo from different videographers, the wobble happens even if the operator does not pan aggressively. This doesn't happen *as much* with the Canon 5D-MII, or even with the cheap (but with a big community behind it) HV20 CMOS camcorder.
Regardless, be it 5D or D90, the DSLRs have a lot of road ahead before they can take over camcorders, as basic software features still missing in some of these cameras (e.g. some don't even let you control shutter speed, others don't have zebra support, none let's you use 23.976 or 29.97 or 25.00 *exact* frame rates etc etc).
Having said all that, the D90, when used properly and *very* carefully, can produce a great result. Case in point this music video: http://www.vimeo.com/2046883 (password: andy) (note: the owner of the video gave away the password publicly in another forum btw, not myself).
BTW, the director of this beautiful music video I linked above discusses the shoot with the D90, and he mentions the rolling shutter and what he had to do to overcome it: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=151089
Ok people. It's a DSLR *CAMERA*. With a CMOS *STILL IMAGE SENSOR*. The video feature is thrown in there as a bonus and is certainly not going to rival the output of a dedicated hi-def camcorder. Why people feel the need to critique the obvious is beyond me.
Hey if no one told you about it how would you know until you bought one?
@Fhantazm +1
I agree. Just like a cell phone w/ camera. Do you expect that thing to be your full time digital camera and expect to give kick ass quality? No.
As for the D90, it is best to call it a DSLR, not a HD video camera. Having the video recording feature is just a bonus
I agree. It's primary job is to be a DSLR, 720p is just a bonus. This thing is no camcorder and never claimed to be
The way I see it, everyone is moving towards one main goal: a device that can do everything. Just look at cell phones, computers, gaming devices, or even PMPs. Every company is adding the features to their devices from each category, and keeping to the same form factor. Eventually, each company will just be selling an 'everything machine'.
To that end, we should always critique every feature of every major contender for the title so that they know how to improve it for the next time.
@who
If that day comes (everything machine), Engadget should be placed on deathwatch. I don't forsee that day coming at all.
"who? @ Oct 25th 2008 10:24PM
we should always critique every feature of every major contender for the title so that they know how to improve it for the next time."
True, as long as the comment doesn't take one feature which is unique to one product, but imperfect and use it as an excuse to bash an otherwise fine product. Criticism should be constructive or at least have a damn good reason why it isn't.
Thing is, this feature was also used as ammo by the pro-Nikon camp to say how much better their brand is. It is also used by Nikon themselves in their marketing, and no mention of the flaws is apparent in their specs or advertisement. Now, if a serious photographer wanted to buy this *and* depend on it for some videography, wouldn't he want to know about the limitations and caveats? Especially it's fairly pronounced and apparent even to a non-pro (and no, a tripod or steadycam won't help with pans, since it's the panning and not the steadiness that's producing the jello)?
I applaud Nikon for being the first to the market with this, since this led to other companies following suit. But it also means that by being the first, they're also the least developed, with the most flaws, and the most rough edges. In other words, "half-baked". The jello cam is only one thing, then there's the laughable motionjpeg compression, and the weird low light performance. Canon's 5DII addresses a lot of these issues, and yet there's still room for improvement (What's the biggest room in the world? Room for improvment.). But which would I choose, if video were an important consideration? The 5DII, of course.
I just wish that someone had done this kind of in-depth review of Olympus Mju SW waterproof digicams before I bought them, and revealed that they only take 10 second videos. That would have saved me a LOT of grief. Yeah, it's a digicam, but I'd ALSO like to use it to take more than 10 measly seconds of video. Never again, Olympus.
Gadget blogs tend to be excited about convergence because the direction of the industry sound exciting to them. On the other hand, there's a lot of us who care a lot about just taking photos.
there are some amazing videos at this link: http://www.vimeo.com/channel18203, agreed the D90 shutter issue is something to improve on, but the camera's video will open up a whole new world to those looking for some high end DOF effects and great contrasty shoots.
Im pretty sure there are video editing programs out there that can edit out the rolling shutter artifacts... you simply just have to delay the pixels in the video clip in a way that the top pixels will synchronize with the bottom ones. all you'll lose in the end is probably a second or so at the beginning and end of the clip
Can't be done, the delay (time error) is less than a frame time. You could maybe try to determine the error and slant it back, but won't be easy and will introduce black triangles in the corners where there is no image to slant in.
That's exactly it. After the image is processed using whatever filter, the frames will be in a trapezoidal shape and will have no data in pretty steep angles on either side of the photo and the viewing ratio will be less than 4:3 because of the cropped portions.
After seeing these videos and reviews, I'm glad my D300 has no HD video feature. The 5D Mark II is in a different class of camera in comparison to both D300 and D90, and HD should really stay in the 5D^2 camera range for now until it matures into a required feature on all cameras in order to compete with others in it's class. the 5D^2 may have actually just started that, and I'm sure the next "BIG" Nikon will be making a debut with comparative video capability.
At this point it's fluff unless it's completely usable and workable as a standard feature and a means of taking well-enough video to be used in a production environment. I think the 5D Mark II is already there when used with the best glass and a steady MF hand, and the D90 was just a test for Nikon if anything.
BUUUUUUUUUUT I guess if it was on the camera I would try it out and have fun...
I'm no pro video editor or anything, but in concept i still think it should work.
I think the time error would be more than just a frame.. If the whole image skewed within only a frame, wouldnt it be very minimal? If the sensor picks up data in the order from top to down, then in the video, the bottom pixels would be the most "updated" and then the pixels above it and above etc... so what i'm saying is... the rolling shutter artifact must happen across a range of frames..
To simplify things, for example, the pixels in the frames were updated in 3 separate sections, A being the correct time, and C being the slowest, and there are 3 frames (1,2,3) in total. What if you just keep section A of Frame 1, take section B from frame 2 and put it into frame 1, and take section C from frame 3 and put it into frame 1?
You can't do that, because the error is less than a frame time.
The problem happens because the sensor is scanned over a period of 1/30th of a second instead of near instantly. The bottom pixels are "only" delayed under 1/30th of a second, if you looked at the next frame, the top of the pole would be moved over even farther (from the previous top) than the bottom was in current frame. So grabbing data from other frames would only make it worse.
Yay it looks like the video on my ancient cell phone, only higher resolution. The video features of these cameras have been highly overhyped.
eeeeergh? rolling shutter... yeah, but lack of manual setting is what really kill the deal. you cant lock the shutter, luminosity will change all the time if someone move in front of the cam. I hope canon will do the job right next...
OK... So I bought a D90 - didn't really care about the HD Vid capabilities because I prefer a dedicated video camera for that.
I like the D90 for what it does. There are better still cameras out there and obviously better video cameras. It is a good tool for what it is supposed to do.
Mmmmmm the logic going on here reminds me of people who complain that the included camera with their computer is not high quality or the one for their mobile phone.
Why all the beotching? Usually because they are too cheap -(or in today's economic climate) too broke or scared of being broke to buy separate items.
If you are looking for the Swiss Army Knife (SAK) of digital stuff - you'll get a lousy knife. And that is why you bought the SAK in the first place.
All in all, I like the D90 but I would still prefer the new Red that is coming out.
We can always complain about bigger and better and more expensive... but don't just read the reviews and make up your mind.
Get in the trenches and actually use the item you are complaining about. You may not complain after that.
By the way, most "digital film" shooters use some form of stabilisation to prevent the shakes - whether it is from a physical thing or from the response time of the equipment.
Second BTW, go look at the vid produced that Eugina mentions... great work and effects. I am sure it is editing that makes most of what people are excited about - if it is in camera - then this D90 is hot sh*t!
Cheers.
The D90 and the RED are not comparable at all. Two completely different price ranges.
I know that.
Eugenia's post does show a very well put-together video of a D90 scene in action. The video CAN look good.
The performance of the D90 movie mode really seems to depend on what you're filming. I shot a video of the Halo performance at Video Games Live on my D90 a few nights ago in London and it looked great (http://vimeo.com/2065334). On the other hand, the few tests I've done outdoors have looked quite poor in comparison.
I'm no professional when it comes to cameras or anything, in fact I don't own a dedicated one, I own an N82 that perfectly fits my needs. But there's something I'd like to know, from what I've heard the N82 uses the built in accelerometer to stabilize video shooting (which is VGA at 30fps by the way) so it doesn't have that shakiness in video shooting, so if a phone that isn't even dedicated to video shooting uses this kind of technology, shouldn't a dedicated camera use it??
I don't know a lot about cameras like I said, but I would just like to know, or does the D90 in fact use some kind of this stabilization?
It a completely different problem. Unsteady hands or a windy day, this can deal with very well. However, when you pan intentionally, it doesn’t capture the video fast enough and therefore objects appear to lean one way or another.
Well, nobody's ever going to use this in a serious context. If RED make a DSLR that's not a compromise with ther movie camera, prizes to them.
"the D90's movie mode simply can't produce the same results as a dedicated HD camcorder"
And in other news a camera phone can't produce the same results as a dedicated DSLR.
When was this camera out? I don't think it was the first DSLR to shoot HD. My Casio EX-F1 does 1080i and I haven't noticed any rolling shutter artefacts. It cost me around €600 on ebay a few months back. I'd recommend it to anyone, unless your really snobby about the still image quality.
Your Casio EX-F1 isn't a DSLR, Einstein.
I love my D90. But I bought it as a still camera. However, I make my living as a filmmaker and gave begun to "play" with the movie mode. It's a hell of a lot of fun. It's not a pro video camera though. But it is unlike anything else out there right now. For the price. I feel like people are projecting their disappointment for what it doesn't do onto the camera instead of just recognizing what Nikon has made. It is a revolutionary device and a sign of VERY cool things to come in the near future. I shot this little movie the other day in about 10 minutes and cut it in about an hour. Super fun when I've been in the studio doing boring commercial work for a while.
http://www.dailystaley.com/2008/10/17/in-the-bunker/
The D90 isn't perfect but that's the point right now I think. I'd love to have a jello free camera with adjustable shutter and pro audio inputs. Hell yeah. But I don't and I'm still gonna have fun with what I DO have. It's true, often times your creativity is defined by your imitations. You can bitch all day about what you don't have or you can go out and make something with what you do have... Just make sure your having fun. Or whats the point. I've had so much fun with my 90.
-Staley Out
Folks, it's not about bitching, or convergence (yes, any "jack of all trades" is master of none). It's about informing the consumer about what issues there are with the product, so that he can make an informed purchasing decision, and not just fall for the hype of "this does HD video!". It can do video, with caveats, and people should know about those caveats. If *you* had intended to use this for shooting short video clips (in addition to normal photos), wouldn't *you* rather know about these limitations and IQ issues before buying it?
We know that photo purists don't care a rat's ass about the video feature, yada, yada, yada (it's been repeated a million times). It doesn't mean that others don't care about it or intend to use it to supplement their photo shoot (and many have said something along this line) and would rather know if it works well or not. I pretty much never use the camera in my camera phone, but does it mean that others don't use theirs every day (they do)? People need to get out of the mindset of "everyone is like me".
To ryeguy: Yes, the Ferarri's not worth it, *if that feature was important to you*. People don't buy a car just because it's fast, or the fastest. Some buy them for their cup holders (seriously, I've talked to people who did just that), or their interiors, or their safety features. Just as not all people don't buy cameras just because it takes a good picture: ergonomics, price, looks, video, zoom, and other things are considered, and weighed differently by different people. That's why there are different models out there, and all have their own market.
I just read an in depth review about my Ferarri's cup holders. It may handle better than any car on the market but it's really not worth it if it can't properly secure my diet Coke on the front console, right?