Yes, I completely agree. Especially when it comes to video. Since the movie-mode is essentially just an implementation of LiveView, which basically is nothing more than bulb-exposure, which has existed on cameras since… forever! However, when they start adding crummy Vari-Angle LCDs to my semi-pro cameras, to aid movie-shooting, I’ll get cranky.

I think it is obvious this is not official so the errors just remind me this is a rumor.

I’m sure they are developing the video facility in general and it seems likely that they’ll do this using the D90 rather than a new untested product.

So a firmware improvement seems likely. What and when are still anyone’s guess.

Plenty of people want that. It’s a great solution of single camera drama and some professional HD cameras offer something similar.

All ‘Makoto’ is asking for is the option to have compressed or uncompressed video. I don’t understand when people argue against having more options. “Don’t put video in my SLR, I don’t want the option to use it or not.”

This is true, however it comes with a very big “but”.

The compression in H264 is complex and uses referencing between frames with keyframes. This is fine for a playback format (like on a bluray) but it is terrible for editing. Making a cut in mast places requires a lot of re-encoding. This has a detrimental effect on quality and efficiency. As a solution to this most professional/enthusiast editors will use an intermediate codec like the one Apple provides with Final Cut Pro.

“Also, the compression type used by the 5DII (MPEG 4) is not a better option than the d90s Motion JPEG. As Nikon improves their implementation of Motion JPEG is may turn out to be a better option.”

I stand by this statement. Yes, the 5DII looks better at the same resolution as the D90, but this is not because of the codec used. It is the implementation of the codec that matters. H264 can look like garbage and it can look beautiful, it all depends on the implementation. Open Photoshop and make a JPEG with different extremely compression settings. One will look fantastic and the other will look like garbage. Try the same thing with some video using H264 in Quicktime. The problem is not necessarily JPEG or H264, its the way it is used. Nikon could create a H264 camera and it could look worse than the Motion JPEG D90.

New careers have emerged in recent years for people that solely deal with tweaking H264 encoding to get the best playback of a specific piece of video. They get beautiful results for playback, but it takes a lot of work. H264 is in no way the codec you ideally want to capture the best quality video for editing later.

perfectly good for a lot of purposes as I said. every purpose? no. If you want 2 minutes of video per 8GB card, please do that on your own will you. enjoy.

HA HA HA HA that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. sorry but you’re wrong too lol. You realize that uncompressed 720p video would eat a 8GB card in a few seconds right? dream on lol.

“Also, the compression type used by the 5DII (MPEG 4) is not a better option than the d90s Motion JPEG. As Nikon improves their implementation of Motion JPEG is may turn out to be a better option.”

you may want to revise your facts by comparing the output from these cameras. The 5DII is much much crisp even at similar resolutions (also check the new rebel’s 720p output. FAR sharper).

the 5DII it is a better option if you want better quality. The motion jpeg compression used in the d90 will wipe out fine textures and smudge details into a soft looking output. It’s not wonder though. the 5DMII on the other thand preserves a huge amount of detail that’s to it’s superior codec.

Also remember H264 is the prefered choice for HD content for a reason. It simply yields fantastic quality per file size. how many blu ray player and discs have you seen with motion jpeg lately? how many with h264?

it has nothing to do with revising motion jpeg. motion jpeg was never really meant for hd video period. H264 on the other hand will always deliver the most quality at the best size compared to motion jpeg.

One advantage motion jpeg has is that it takes less cpu to encode and decode. My suspicion is that whatever processor the D90 has simply can’t handle h264 and since it is an entry level model nikon figured it could get away with motion jpeg.

nikon (assuming the camera cpu can even handle it) should give H264 options. If you have a reasonably fast system and demands, you should use it over motion jpeg. For granny systems, motion jpeg will do fine though.

Also, the compression type used by the 5DII (MPEG 4) is not a better option than the d90s Motion JPEG. As Nikon improves their implementation of Motion JPEG is may turn out to be a better option.

No, sorry, you are wrong.

In no way is the compressiion rate perfectly good.
If you want lower quality, you can do that by compressing the video you’ve shot. Please do that on your own will you.

What a lot of us want is the option to compress the file LATER and first save the file at the largest size the chipset and the memory-card allows us to. I said option, so if you want to save space in your storage, then you can set it to Standard mode or whatever.

Can’t be so sure because the D90 has a huge problem besides the manual control — the super compressed image of the Motion Jpeg.

I’d rather like Nikon to improve that BEFORE manual control.

5D MkII users are so desperate because their image quality is already somewhat acceptable.

What is totally unacceptable is the severety of the jello effect on pans. I realize canon has it too on their significantly more expensive 5DII, but it is somewhat less severe (still unacceptable though as it totally ruins shots which were otherwise flawless).

I remain dissapointed.