After yesterday's post, Lars Steenhoff sent us an updated, side-by-side comparison of video bitrates on the Nikon D800 at 3200 ISO with NikonHacker's new firmware. Steenhoff comments that the 64Mbps file has more noise as a result of less compression, but cleans up easily in a final file output that is cleaner with just a little noise reduction. For those interested, he has also made the original 64Mbps and 24Mpbs files downloadable on Dropbox, too.
Want to get these capabilities on your camera? Head over to NikonHacker, but beware: there's always a chance you'll brick your camera (rendering it completely useless and warranty-less). So do be careful and/or make sure you can afford to do it if something goes wrong.
![[News] The Canon 5D Mark III Announced!](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/canon-5d-mark-iii-back.jpg)
I don't get film emulation. Especially when it looks like total shít...
It's the Instagram hipster-curse.
It's does not have to look like shit, I did not grade it to taste, I just wanted to show how a re-grained noise reduced file would look like.
I don't see a difference in the side-to-side comparison. I'd like to see if the higher bitrate file holds highlights or shadows better (I'm sorta doubting it). That would be the only I'd risk my D600. I guess the reduction in macro-blocking might be nice for busy scenes, but... I dunno if it's worth it for the kind of work I'm doing.
If you compare the original files you see there is a difference in compression, the 24 mbit compresses more and holds less details.
If i would shoot short scenes I would use the 64 for minimum quality, for concert registration and longer shooting I would use th 24 mbit. The difference in recording time is 20 minutes recoding time for 24 mbit versus 8.5 minutes recording time for 64 mbit.
I see my self using this new hack. I love working with the D800.