React or go the Way of the DODO: DL line canceled

[jduncan]

8k only requires ~35 megapixels. For example check out a Red Weapon Helium 8k Cinema Canera which was used to shoot Guardians of the Galaxy 2. It has about 35.4 megapixels or so.

Hi,
Not really. It's very easy to calculate. You have to take into account the differnet aspecct ratio.
It goes like this:
So the minimal resultion to have true 8K horizontaly is 8192pixiels. The aspect ratio of a video of this kind is 256/135, so the vertical resolution will be 135*8192/256 = 4320. The need resolution is 35.3 mega pixels. BUT that is with that aspect ratio. It's a camera and the proper aspect ratio is
3/2. (you can divide 36/24 and you will get the same number). The proper calculation is thus :

8192*2/3 ~=5461 then you multiply and get 5461* 8192 =44.736 mega pixels.

Of course you can do 7680 and get a lower number, but it's still above 35mpixels (about 39.3).

I understand that this is a photographic forum, so don't feel bad about the math erros

I hope this help you understand.

Best regards,

 

[iiiNelson]

Hi,
Not really. It's very easy to calculate. You have to take into account the differnet aspecct ratio.
It goes like this:
So the minimal resultion to have true 8K horizontaly is 8192pixiels. The aspect ratio of a video of this kind is 256/135, so the vertical resolution will be 135*8192/256 = 4320. The need resolution is 35.3 mega pixels. BUT that is with that aspect ratio. It's a camera and the proper aspect ratio is
3/2. (you can divide 36/24 and you will get the same number). The proper calculation is thus :

8192*2/3 ~=5461 then you multiply and get 5461* 8192 =44.736 mega pixels.

Of course you can do 7680 and get a lower number, but it's still above 35mpixels (about 39.3).

I understand that this is a photographic forum, so don't feel bad about the math erros

I hope this help you understand.

Best regards,

Understand all of that regarding aspect ratios but then that wouldn't really be 8k... that would just be an image timelapse with 8000 something lines of resolution... the 42megapixel sensor "only" has 7952 lines of resolution so this is either a different sensor or Nikon is getting creative with what most consider the 8k standard.

 

[jduncan]

Understand all of that regarding aspect ratios but then that wouldn't really be 8k... that would just be an image timelapse with 8000 something lines of resolution... the 42megapixel sensor "only" has 7952 lines of resolution so this is either a different sensor or Nikon is getting creative with what most consider the 8k standard.

Hi,
English is not my first lenguange and your statement is ambiguios to me. I guess you agree with me that a 35mpixels 3:2 sensor does not have the resolution to get to native 8K?

I will asume that your ansewer is yes,in particular because the RED that you quote has a 2.4:1 aspect ratio so cleary it cando with 35mp, but the Nikon could not. To your note about the 42megapixels sensor: They could be rounding up as QHD more ofthen than not is called 4K. The best for us will be that they have a new sensor.I hope it has good dynamic range (if it's new). That is more important than getting 10fps as few people need sueper high resolution for sports.

An alternative will be for it to behave as the D3x.

Best regards,

 

[paulraphael]

We are so used to the idea of the SLR that it tends to seem like an inevitable, fundamental camera design. We forget that it's a kind of Rube Goldberg hack, rife with complexities, designed to solve a conceptually simple problem: how to make a camera that lets the user see the same image that the film/sensor sees, and that's also fast to use. The SLR's complexity comes with many costs. So it would seem that as soon as there's a simpler solution with fewer costs, the SLR will be obsolete.

The biggest cost of the SLR, in my view, is the huge flange distance required by the reflex mirror. Because of this, all wide lenses have to be retrofocus designs. These designs all require serious optical compromises. The superiority of wide angle technical camera lenses is not a result of Schneider and Rodenstock knowing so much more than the designers at Nikon and Canon. It's largely the result of their lenses being either non-retrofocus, or weak retrofocus. Same goes for Leica's wide angle rangefinder lenses. When we move to mirrorless, we will pave the way for the best wide angle lenses ever seen on a Nikon.

So far the biggest barriers (besides Nikon's management) seem to be battery life and electronic viewfinder quality. The former will improve; the latter will almost certainly improve to the point where it's better than optical viewfinders. Imagine a viewfinder that actually amplifies brightness, for photographing in low-light settings. And with clarity indistinguishable from the best optical viewfinders. We'll have such a thing sooner or later. If not from Nikon, then from a company that will eat Nikon's lunch.

 

[Vivek]

50/0.9 and 35/1.2 for the future FF mirrorless Nikon? :bugeyes:

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/nik...2-lenses-full-frame-mirrorless-system-camera/

 

[jduncan]

Hi,

Nikon closing Brazil operations : http://www.nikon.com.br/about-nikon...a-o-fechamento-do-e-commerce-no-Brasil--.html

I hope it's an anomaly and not a sign of the things to come.

Best regards,

 

[ptomsu]

Hi,

Nikon closing Brazil operations : http://www.nikon.com.br/about-nikon...a-o-fechamento-do-e-commerce-no-Brasil--.html

I hope it's an anomaly and not a sign of the things to come.

Best regards,

I read that too and am scared! Although currently not a Nikon shooter, I still have much bonding to this brand, as it accompanied me through my last 40 photographic years at least and always was a reliable and great brand to shoot with.

Having said that, I cannot get rid of the feeling that Nikon was sleeping for too long and although the D850 is a wonderful camera it still misses out in some important areas for me (and I am sure not only me). Now Nikon is facing the reactions of this miss and the lack of innovative strategy they had of´ver the past years.

I really hope they can come out of that and are able to launch a successful mirrorless system asap!

 

[Frankly]

All the rumors and speculation aside, I would like a smaller, lighter alternative to my D810 and Zeiss 50/1.4 everyday carry camera. A small DL type camera would suffice, perhaps a Canon M?

BUT... honestly what would be the ultimate for me would be a version of the VC 40/2 pancake with AF and better bokeh (Or the infamous 45/2.8P with better image quality). If they made a 40/2.8 pancake with AF I'd permanently mount it on my now devalued beater D810 spare body and gladly photograph with this combo for years, blissfully ignoring all the mirrorless toys.

Nikon could have prevent a lot of "switchers" by simply doing a set of pancake lenses for DX... such a lens on a D5x00 or D7x00 body would be a huge value over trendy mirrorless competitors. Heck a D3400 with a good $200 pancake or even the existing 35/1.8DX runs circles around any APS mirrorless for half the price.