No @kholi because all the other D4 'flagship' samples look the same. It is not resolving more than 720 lines.

Unless Nikon instructed all their pro shooters to upload crippled files at 7Mbit 720p, I'm afraid we have a dud on our hands.

"Nothing can truly be judged (aside from skew/jello and maybe color) until camera files are uploaded to users for peeping."

Yes that is correct.

I've never pretended otherwise. But you have to admit, it isn't looking good! And I think initial films are a good indicator, like Reverie was for 5D Mk II.

The 5D was 30p when he shot it, that is why.

And pinger007 is?

All of you need to chill, and @eoshd has an amazing ability to provide opinions that are based on facts and results, he is helpful to many filmmakers and camera geeks like EVERYONE on this site. The only morons here are the one taking eoshd opinion as fact. Look past your own fanboyism for a second and base it of your own opinions if you don't like others. But from what I have seen, and in no noob in the industry, is that the Nikon is a step in the right direction for nikonNikon and that's is, the dof is too shallow to replicate film, the latitude is nothing new, the bokeh is sex, but that's not a good thing when trying to replicate "cinema" the footage is soft soft soft, and the sensor and processor are clearly over compensating with edge detail enhancement. The issue is that Nikon has yet to hand over the D4 to any competent enough (as far as the general public has seen) that can do the camera true justice. No one has either confirmed or denied that any footage was made using the HDMI out to a good recorder. Leave the opinions up to people who are skilled and experienced like @eoshd unless you think you know better, than listen only to yourself and shut up

@yourmom

It's dangerous because some people actually aren't experienced enough to look past it as fact. Those just starting out looking for information can have damaged perceptions about things, and that doesn't make them morons, it makes them inexperienced.

That's the issue at hand, and I personally don't think it's that hard of a concept to understand.

@Yourmom -- with all due respect to Andrew...

I've never... EVER used anything Andrew Reid has said to formulate an opinion or base any of my work on.

EVER.

I don't even visit EOSHD blog/website unless someone's telling me/linking me to something "Andrew said".

But, as far as the rest of the topic, it is an advanced thing these forums here, but if someone's misinforming a population on their popular blog then that's not a good thing. It can't be. I think that's what Sohus and the rest are responding too.

Once more, no disrespect meant, but when eyes are on you like that it's your duty to make sure you're presenting information properly.

@kholi

My thoughts exactly. I teach cinematography in Chicago and every semester I have to explain to my new students that just because they read something on a certain popular blog doesn't mean it's true. Certain sites wield a great deal of power in the filmmaking community (this being one of them), and it's each site's "duty to make sure they're presenting information properly."

I do go there and I don't have any noob questions because I have dedicated a lot to this site, a lot to this gh2 community and try my best to share my knowledge with people with relevant questions

"It's dangerous because some people actually aren't experienced enough to look past it as fact. Those just starting out looking for information can have damaged perceptions about things, and that doesn't make them morons, it makes them inexperienced."

Well, then their results will speak for themselves. Not everyone on the internet is responsible for holding everyone's hands. There are many different perspectives. In fact most of the time, all that talk from the "experienced" is nothing more than brainwashing to protect the current job hierarchy in the industry and keep you "ladder climbing". It's just as dangerous as the contrary. EOSHD may be brash at times... but at least it's one of the only sites to just throw all the industry dogma to the wind and discuss camera's for their merits on where they stand tech wise... and not on what "market" they're supposed to fit into, or weather it was designed for "pro" use or not.

@pinger007

It's a good thing that you're warning your students to cross-examine information that they come across. Quickly subscribing to sensational and idealistic views that lack a fundamental understanding of basics and design is dangerous for anyone who wants to grow a career.

I think, as a community, those of us who've been around the major forums for years have a tendency to want to protect others regardless of if it's our job or not... however, the noise is becoming greater by the passing day, and it's just hard to continue caring.

Glad there are people still willing to share valid, experienced point-of-views and facts versus fiction and fantasy from the real working field; hope it survives the tidal wave.

Anyone want to place bets? Ill paypal $100 to anyone up for it.

I side with Andrew - the D4 won't be worth the cash if video is the only requirement.

Hint: I was at CES Las Vegas and while they wouldn't let me put in memory cards, the CMOS wobble was very present on the floor sample, as was aliasing and an overall mushy waxy look to the clips they were showing. Micro contrast and detail just wasn't there. If Nikon were confident that they had a 1DX killer they would share full samples. Their CES on floor reps were "very" reserved about how the D4 would look - even using a recorder like an Atmos Ninja or Blackmagic recorder.

No doubt it will be a stunning high iso FF stills camera though. But $6000 can buy a ton of Kino Flo lights or a damn good HMI.

I believe the Nikon D4 to be a $5000 still camera with a $1000 video camera (high iso) added.

The D4 ships first few weeks of Feb. so we will know soon enough. All the early adopters will beta test it for the rest of the world. And even if the video is godly, $6,000 and the need to buy and haul around an external recorder? You could rent a Red Scarlet for a week four or five times and still have money left over. People buying the D4 are buying it for the stills. I just don't see it being a video breakthrough.

PS: And whats with the rip on Andrews EOShd website? Low blow? Don't like his opinion, counter it and stick to the topic - no need to bash his site. Very lame.

Given the screenshot, it is crap. The (major) image quality issues isn't a codec problem, but a lack of even a simple downscaling filter such as bicubic, it isn't a simple matter of having 720 lines of resolving power as stated, it's a matter of a huge amount of missing spatial information in between each pixel, it would be like taking a tiny box cutter, and sub-dividing a printed photo into millions of tiny squares, removing many of them, then putting the remaining squares back together.

It's not lack of resolution, it's a lack of not using all the physical information to form the picture. A really shitty low resolution lens of 26 lp/mm or there abouts on a 36mm wide/1080p sensor could mostly solve it (or stopping down to f/72...), as you wouldn't be removing (much) spatial info.

Down scaling would be implemented in software. There should be no doubt that the image processor is fast enough for it either.

@troyjason it still should be a few hundred dollars better than the GH2 then given that logic, except that it is a $6000 camera. It doesn't cost $1000 per unit to implement video. It costs SFA since the hardware is already there, as is all the ground work of turning it into a video stream over the image processor from previous models.