"Let's go back to scanning a film frame. The aspect ratio of a full 35mm film frame is basically 4x3. So if you have 4096 photo sites across the width of the film, in red and green and blue, and 3K along the height, you would have 4K by 3K. You'll have 12 million green photo-sites, 12 million blue photo-sites, 12 million red photo-sites.
That's 36 million photo-sites. A 36 mega-pixel image is what you get from a 4K scan."
Obviously this is just speculation but does anybody else find it interesting that the D800 is exactly 36 mp and is being pushed as Nikons flagship video DSLR?
kawasakiguy37 wrote: Obviously this is just speculation but does anybody else find it interesting that the D800 is exactly 36 mp and is being pushed as Nikons flagship video DSLR?
Nope! (But I don't think I understand what you mean.)
Dave_EP wrote:
The sensor on a DSLR is 3x2 not 4x3.
They're not talking about SLRs, though. They're talking about "a full 35mm film frame", and the context tells us that means Super 35. The 4-perf Super 35 aperture is 24.89 x 18.66 mm, so very close to 4:3.
kawasakiguy37 wrote: Obviously this is just speculation but does anybody else find it interesting that the D800 is exactly 36 mp and is being pushed as Nikons flagship video DSLR?
i'm not a video guy, but the way i've always understood it is that it's not really about pixels anymore, but more about the way that data streams are handled by the camera that results in good or bad results...like the fact that most hdslrs use 4:2:0 subsampling, instead of 4:2:2 or 4:4:4....the d4's uncompressed hdmi output is a step in the right direction, but i don't think dSLR's will be replacing cinema cameras for the best possible quality for a while....
i dont care if RED is fudging the numbers to get their spec, they have a 14mp "5K" sensor, and the results are pretty dang impressive...
Dave_EP wrote:
The sensor on a DSLR is 3x2 not 4x3.
S Dilworth wrote:
They're not talking about SLRs, though. They're talking about "a full 35mm film frame", and the context tells us that means Super 35. The 4-perf Super 35 aperture is 24.89 x 18.66 mm, so very close to 4:3.
Yes, I know what they are talking about - but that is precisely why this ISN'T the D800! The D800 is going to be a DSLR with a 3x2 ratio, not a 'film sensor' with a 4x3.
Kittyk wrote:
i just wish they focused their resources on stills
Just like I wish Apple focused on the Pro's. But that's not happening because they are focusing on where the money comes from. Which by the way isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm hoping that it pays off for the pro's in the long run.
HDSLR's are selling like hot cakes so I hope Nikon takes full advantage of the scene while it can. This will give them more money to build more, bigger, better, faster equipment... and in return, we all win.
I think a lot of people are looking at things from the wrong way when they say things like 'I wish they'd focus on still photography' or 'I don't care about video'.
The still imaging parts of Nikon's cameras are already incredibly refined, the D3s had best in class high ISO quality, the D3x had best in class resolution. Their ability to make improvements at this point insofar as still images is concerned is one of small steps of refinement as they improve their R&D and make hardware refinements.
At this point many upgrades to the video aspect of the cameras are software tweaks to the existing hardware or small changes to how existing things are already built. Things like smooth aperture control, the ability to make 1080p out of various sensor crops, and things that have not yet been introduced like focus peaking are minor compared to improving a sensors dynamic range or high iso quality.
The video improvements we are seeing now are 'low hanging fruit'. Benefits to the sensor tech, ISO quality etc will benefit both still and video capture, they are not mutually exclusive.
Dont be left behind in the dinosaur age. If you really want the best still, go buy an 8x10 view camera.
Read the article - this is all about bayer pattern sensors and how even at the sensor level we are doing a sort of chroma subsampling (no matter how good the compression is - 4:2:2 or 4:4:4)
Basically what this article is saying is that to have a TRUE 4k image you would need a 36 megapixel sensor to get all of the TRUE color information. Now depending if Nikon still uses a bayer pattern sensor for the D800 and it is indeed 36 mp, we could see some very interesting things going on here.
And even with the sensor crop (obviously full frame sensor is taller than a super 35) this camera has potential to have some of the cleanest video we've ever seen
ps. So far SloPhoto seems to be the only guy who understands what Im talking about here
Nikon is struggling with video and a Panasonic GH2 is far better in video than any Nikon DSLR. I do not think they would be very bold to do any 4K, it would be better if they sorted out their full HD performance.
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
Dont be left behind in the dinosaur age. If you really want the best still, go buy an 8x10 view camera.
Read the article - this is all about bayer pattern sensors and how even at the sensor level we are doing a sort of chroma subsampling (no matter how good the compression is - 4:2:2 or 4:4:4)
Basically what this article is saying is that to have a TRUE 4k image you would need a 36 megapixel sensor to get all of the TRUE color information. Now depending if Nikon still uses a bayer pattern sensor for the D800 and it is indeed 36 mp, we could see some very interesting things going on here.
And even with the sensor crop (obviously full frame sensor is taller than a super 35) this camera has potential to have some of the cleanest video we've ever seen
ps. So far SloPhoto seems to be the only guy who understands what Im talking about here ...Show more →
That article has so many math errors that it is worthless.
He assumes that bayer pattern is 1-1-1 on each line. It is not. He also stipulates that a sensor is 4x3, again wrong. It throws his numbers off to the point of being useless.
to get "true" 4k video out of a bayer pattern slr, we would need 4096 * 2 horizontal resolution. AKA 8192px which would leave ~5461px vertical and a sensor resolution of 44megapixels. This would result in an 11mp full frame image using 4 bayer sensor locations (R-G-G-B) per pixel.
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
Well I got excited for a second there, hopefully we at least get a really clean 1080P without any line skipping
Line skipping has more to due with read out speed of the sensor and processing speed than anything else. If there were no improvements in readout and processing speed, line skipping artifacts get worse as resolution increases.
That being said, hopefully we will get a decent 1080p. I wish they made the sensor some clean factor of 1080p personally (it is not).
SloPhoto wrote:
Line skipping has more to due with read out speed of the sensor and processing speed than anything else. If there were no improvements in readout and processing speed, line skipping artifacts get worse as resolution increases.
That being said, hopefully we will get a decent 1080p. I wish they made the sensor some clean factor of 1080p personally (it is not).
