Good Photoshop or is this really the D4?

[Formatted]

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3846/dsc0521j.jpg
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6815/dsc0525x.jpg
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9088/dsc0526wn.jpg


You decide!



P.S Shamelessly stolen from Nikon Rumours!

 

[rpm]

i think its a photoshop or 3D render. im assuming this from the metal components lacking that metal shine/look/texture...

3rd picture, left body design choice, why is it so flat? dont get me wrong but in terms of the feel of the camera, wouldnt that be a bit uncomfortable? even the current line up as a slight convex shape to it. very slight but enough to feel like a comfortable grip for your hand...

one more thing. why would the camera film higher than 1080p? there are no tv sets that would use the full res of the video. furthermore - i could be wrong. not very fluent in videography and its equipment - but i don't even think that the film industry (cinema) shoots or have cameras that shoot at above 1080p....this would make it the first camera or device to output a video that high natively. just for good measure without a heatsink the sensor would heat up even more than the current 20-30 mins restrictions that the 1080p vid feature places on the hardware atm. i think this is a big tell tale IMO...

unless someone knows otherwise...if so...please enlighten me? not trying to be sarcastic. in a real matter of respect and curiosity please do.

i borderline feel its a fake.

 

[Formatted]

It also looks like it only has S CL and CH mode... No QM or LV.

 

[KmH]

In the front shot it looks like it has a pop-up flash?

That is missing in the top shot.

 

[KmH]

i think its a photoshop or 3D render. im assuming this from the metal components lacking that metal shine/look/texture...

3rd picture, left body design choice, why is it so flat? dont get me wrong but in terms of the feel of the camera, wouldnt that be a bit uncomfortable? even the current line up as a slight convex shape to it. very slight but enough to feel like a comfortable grip for your hand...

one more thing. why would the camera film higher than 1080p? there are no tv sets that would use the full res of the video. furthermore - i could be wrong. not very fluent in videography and its equipment - but i don't even think that the film industry (cinema) shoots or have cameras that shoot at above 1080p....this would make it the first camera or device to output a video that high natively. just for good measure without a heatsink the sensor would heat up even more than the current 20-30 mins restrictions that the 1080p vid feature places on the hardware atm. i think this is a big tell tale IMO...

unless someone knows otherwise...if so...please enlighten me? not trying to be sarcastic. in a real matter of respect and curiosity please do.

i borderline feel its a fake.

Are those just image aspect ratios. The NEF numbers are still image pixel dimensions (full frame and DX) as are the avi values?

 

[Derrel]

There is an LV button on the back, immediately to the right of the voice annotation button (the microphone icon). As far as video above 1080p--yes, there are multiple sizes above 1080p...Pentax is already using 1280 and I think 1920 on the K-7. My monitor goes to 2560x wide, so, there's plenty of use for the higher-than-1080p settings.

The one thing that does look suspicious to me is that left side of the camera--that does look awfully flat, and lacking dimension. I looked at the EXIF info, and it says the images were shot with a Nikon D4, at ISO 1250, and the lens information is f/1.0, so that makes me think the lens used would be a non-CPU equipped lens--OR that the EXIF info has been edited. I see what looks like some dust on the body--but the dust doesn't quite "read" as being real...

One thing interesting on the menu--it looks as if there is an AVI movie option, as well as a full RAW video capture option. I think it is possible that Nikon's lack of D3s availability might be due to these things being built in the Sendai plant's two assembly lines...hard to tell though...

 

[Moe]

A couple things I noticed in addition to things already mentioned:

In the top view, the on-off writing looks odd.

In the front view, the mirror and inside the camera looks too computer-generated. Also the rubber texture of the camera itself looks fake, as does the red stripe of the grip.

In the back view, the right strap holder looks odd.

I call fake.

 

[Mbnmac]

the front on shot looks really badly rendered and plasticky, what you often get from cheap CG, the other shots though look pretty good, fake or not

 

[rpm]

There is an LV button on the back, immediately to the right of the voice annotation button (the microphone icon). As far as video above 1080p--yes, there are multiple sizes above 1080p...Pentax is already using 1280 and I think 1920 on the K-7. My monitor goes to 2560x wide, so, there's plenty of use for the higher-than-1080p settings.

1280x720p, 1920x1080p - is within the realm of HD that we know of though. a 2560x1152 output is much higher. yes monitors can support that - PC monitors only - and i know PC games can be rendered that high but again only when connected to PC monitors but they have been outputting such a resolutions for years, years before the term HD was a marketing tool and even now they consider 1080p to be 'TRUE HD'. only recently did they announce a possible x4K res tv but that is currently 100inches (think its a concept) - they needed to use 4 PS3s each to render a quarter of the screen (1080p). TV, Cinema, current staple res for filming HD is 1080p. so you're telling me a DSLR (where the video feature is not its primary concern) is going allow for an output that even Cinema, Blu-Ray or any other filming medium is not considering at the moment? i highly doubt it plus the strain on the sensor is going to be insane without a heatsink - if the current limit with 1920x1080p is between 20-30mins.

 

[rpm]

Are those just image aspect ratios. The NEF numbers are still image pixel dimensions (full frame and DX) as are the avi values?

the pixel dimensions: dictate what resolution it would be. therefore you can see you have the VGA res, the typical sub-HD res, the 720p res and the 1080p res featured in the camera and then bam....you got this magic jump of a resolution output no other camera (or HD video camera) is doing.

btw the aspect ratios, funny thing is, if its HD it WILL be in a widescreen aspect ratio as it currently stands and i dont think we're going to be seeing 'fullscreen' aspect ratios anymore.

 

[Derrel]

There is an LV button on the back, immediately to the right of the voice annotation button (the microphone icon). As far as video above 1080p--yes, there are multiple sizes above 1080p...Pentax is already using 1280 and I think 1920 on the K-7. My monitor goes to 2560x wide, so, there's plenty of use for the higher-than-1080p settings.

1280x720p, 1920x1080p - is within the realm of HD that we know of though. a 2560x1152 output is much higher. yes monitors can support that - PC monitors only - and i know PC games can be rendered that high but again only when connected to PC monitors but they have been outputting such a resolutions for years, years before the term HD was a marketing tool and even now they consider 1080p to be 'TRUE HD'. only recently did they announce a possible x4K res tv but that is currently 100inches (think its a concept) - they needed to use 4 PS3s each to render a quarter of the screen (1080p). TV, Cinema, current staple res for filming HD is 1080p. so you're telling me a DSLR (where the video feature is not its primary concern) is going allow for an output that even Cinema, Blu-Ray or any other filming medium is not considering at the moment? i highly doubt it plus the strain on the sensor is going to be insane without a heatsink - if the current limit with 1920x1080p is between 20-30mins.

Currently the Canon 5D-II has Full HD Video Capture at 1920x1080. A d-slr does not need to shoot video for ultra-long periods of time; a typical scene is only 30 seconds or less in length. There's little real need for long, continuous camera-on scenes in the world of high-quality video production except for things like sports broadcasts or boring mount-and-let-camera-run C-SPAN drone-ons. The fact that PC and Macintosh monitors can handle 2,560x pixel wide images is reason enough alone to expect that the camera manufacturers will try and create d-slrs that can shoot very high-resolution video, since the personal computer is one of the main ways video (and television) is watched these days, in the form of DVD's or streams viewed over high-speed internet access. Currently, some of the on-line newspapers I read are featuring web broadcasts on hot news stories, with the typical total segment running only 2:30 to 3:05 or so, with the longest scenes rarely over 30 seconds.

 

[rpm]

but those segments are edited. from a shoot that probably did not have a limit of 2-3 mins per shot. also i hate to say this and id be very surprised otherwise, i dont see why the DSLR would be the one pushing for higher than 1080p resolution. it makes no sense in terms of their priorities. btw streaming does not = to filming limitations. i can stream a 1 min segment that is from a 30 hour shoot. with 20 hours worth of video material. does not mean the limitations of the hardware does not exist, nor does it mean I might not want to shoot something for longer than a minute or two. btw are these streams in HD, even if they are, arent they capped at 1080p native anyway? case in point, even when delivering to a PC/Mac environment there is still a limitation and usually these streams are also the same ones that head to the TV output.

but in terms of PC/Mac monitors my point returns to what i said before: they have been outputting such a resolutions for years, years before the term HD was a marketing tool and even now they consider 1080p to be 'TRUE HD'.
therefore, what is Nikon going to advertise it as, 'we can do better than 1080p!', why? who would care? lets be honest, if it was needed, a dedicated video capturing device would have done it already - not a DSLR.

Also im pretty sure that majority of TV viewers do not watch TV on their PC or Mac monitors. if they did TV shows and movies would be made at those high resolutions..projectors cant handle that res, TVs are not speced at that range yet, even Blu-Ray, the home of the HD medium atm along with HD-DVD the two platforms that actually ushered in HD video are not even considering those resolutions cause of the display limitations that currently stand. if monitors were reason enough. it would have been done long long ago. why wait for blu-ray? why wait for the HD medium to push through to televisions? the PC/Mac users have been in the HD world for a long time yet nothing ever ushered in the HD-era in terms of video formats until Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.

but in terms of the current market trend, in terms of the who pushes what technological advances forward and who doesnt for their respective markets, suggests that the DSLR would not be the platform to be pushing on a new HD standard for video. Nikon may announce it or may not. it might be fake or it may not be. but when looking at everything from the perspective of what is known and what has been disclosed, nothing suggests that Nikon should be interested in pushing this forward and nor are they the ones to do so as DSLRs will never produce the quality seen in dedicated video capturing devices and if they are going to be putting money into that sort of advances, I sure hope their sensor (in terms of its photographic abilities) makes every previous DSLR in the market shudder at its presence...

 

[Derrel]

Also im pretty sure that majority of TV viewers do not watch TV on their PC or Mac monitors.

Actually, that's where much American TV watching is taking place--on web sites like Hulu.com, and many other sites run by networks...NBC's Saturday Night Live even featured a joke about it on the season-ending monologue opening by Alec Baldwin, when he joked that most viewers would actually be watching,as he put it, "...or more realistically, Monday morning at work on your computer." I actually watch most of my TV programming on the web, on Hulu.com...I can watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch. See--NBC's Saturday Night Live is the only remaining live broadcast TV show on American network TV, now just having finished its 35th year of live broadcasts--but now it's easy to watch TV on the web, on demand.

A 20-30 minute shot limitation is plenty; TV and video production scenes are not "that long". Look at videos today--scenes are often under 10 seconds.
Regarding higher-than current standard video resolution; higher resolution is considered a good thing by many people, and there are other vehicles besides standard cinema and TV display for delivery. Film and video directors can always shoot big, and reduce image size, plus there are also some very high-resolution cinema projection systems where d-slr video might cut into the OmniMax type of productions like the amazing skiing videos Warren Miller has been shooting. D-SLR video captures of amazing skiing tricks and rugged mountain-top vistas would be pretty easily shot with a 4-pound Nikon camera instead of a 25 pound cinema video or film rig that weighs even more and is dependent upon huge spools of film.

Who knows if this is a genuine camera; but proclaiming that there's no need for higher and higher resolution images has *never* stopped the camera companies from pushing the boundaries. Ever heard of the megapixel race? Is it necessary that moms shooting snapshots of their kids are shooting with 18 megapixel Digital Rebels and 15 megapixel Point & Shoots? There's a huge segment of shooters who will always buy the highest-spec'd product, for either reasonable reasons, or just for conversational name-dropping value. What's interesting though, is how absolutely pumped Hollywood insiders are about d-slr video; it is far, far better than 35mm film is for low-light shooting, and the capabilities of 24x36 sensors at capturing video images exceeds that of dedicated video cameras costing tens of thousands of dollars, or more, so the arguments that favor dedicated video cameras as the vehicle for advancements really are out of date, and don't square with realities. The point you seem to be missing is that the "video camera" manufacturers have totally,totally MISSED the market that Canon has tapped into...Canon has created a new paradigm, that of workable d-slr video, in the format of a camera (a Canon d-slr) that can use Canon EF, Zeiss ZF, and Nikon F-mount lenses, and is very,very low-priced yet has a huge sensor with amazing low-light capabilities. The video camera makers have been left flat-footed, doing what they "have been doing"---and that's the key you seem to be missing, by thinking in the past, and allowing your ideas of what is needed or what is possible to be based upon old-school ways of thinking.

A new paradigm rolled into town...maybe you missed its arrival...

 

[rpm]

i havent missed anything...

what you're missing is, that i have said, was that since this is a rumor, since there is no confirmation on Nikon's side, I will base my argument on past trends and market priorities. hence I don't feel Nikon would venture into delivering a new HD standard for video. its not their primary concern.

btw images does not = video capture. course its going to capture higher MP images. i dont doubt that....what i am doubting is purely the need for them to push a higher resolution video standard and that is why I feel its a fake - at least that menu is a fake - if assuming the rest of it is not. which to many people's accounts is agreeably most likely a 3D render.

they tapped into a market. agreed. i have no issues on them improving on it. im a happy camper. i hope their sensor is a resounding improvement. but my argument is why would Nikon want to establish a new HD standard for video? is that in their interest as their primary market interest? not quite. thats the only thing ive been arguing. not that DSLR should not improve on themselves and not that MP race has stopped. i watched the House episode that was shot with the 50d mk2. amazing stuff. i hope they can improve on the sensor limitations - hey we might not need 30 mins of continuous shooting, others might, but saying you can only have 30 mins before the sensor switches off from overheating. that is a hardware limitation.

im sure the majority of the global market does not stream video as their primary means of viewing (and even in America i doubt so as well) even then, why would every tv company film at a higher resolution that the non-computer monitors can display? unless they intend to make those who use their PCs to pay a premium for this new 'standard'.

my argument is not to debunk yours. my reasoning is fairly sound. im not saying there is no need for it. im not saying that its stupid to do so. my argument is why would Nikon...not Samsung with a new TV, not Sony with a new HD vid camera, not Blu-Ray advertising a new resolution of HD video....why would Nikon, whos primary concern (should be) to make the best photographic gear possible, care to put money into pushing such an advancement that will not be benefited by ALL the HD viewers. that was my reasoning for saying its fake and i agree with some of the things you're saying. but that does not support why Nikon or Canon for that matter would need to push on a new standard for HD video when TVs and the Blu-Ray system will define what is the cap atm.

as i said before, in terms of the current market trend, in terms of the who pushes what technological advances forward and who doesnt for their respective markets, suggests that the DSLR would not be the platform to be pushing on a new HD standard for video.

 

[Derrel]

Why would anybody want to shoot 1,000 FPS HD video? Who needs it?

Take a look. The Cutting Edge of Extreme Sports Photography

Technology doesn't wait around for backward thinkers who cannot see any need to advance the state of the art. That's why Nikon is in the business of making cameras.

Nikon made the first "affordable" $5,998 d-slr, the 1998-99 model Nikon D1, back when Kodak and Canon were making huge, POS $24,999 bricks in a collaborative effort...there was very little "need" or "demand" for Nikon to advance the state of the d-slr away from the $24,999 price point to below $6,000, but they did it anyway. In the early 1950's Nikon invented the world's first electric motor-driven 35mm rangefinder camera--even though there was absolutely ZERO need or demand for it. You obviously do not understand much about the corporate culture at Nikon if you question why they would do something different, or unexpected, or way ahead of the curve--they have done such things many times before. It is a very unusual company, and they have created many un-needed, no-demand, oddball products over the last 50 years, just to show that they have the engineering prowess to do it. Nikon introduced the F6, probably the finest film 35mm SLR ever made---years into the digital revolution, after the market was basically DEAD, just to better the other camera companies...they are a very unusual company.

You do not become a leader by allowing the market to define the technology or the product matrix--that's how you get left behind. The idea that the d-slr market will not be the footsoldier for advancing the HD video market is an old-school view and represents old-school, outdated thinking based upon the past. D-SLR video from the Canon 5D-II and the Canon 7D is rapidly becoming a huge, huge selling point for all types of video professionals and hobbyists. The current momentum is away from $10,000 to $80,000 3-CCD camcorders and toward D-SLR video,and it appears at this juncture that the video camera companies are ALL failing to recognize that there's been a paradigm shift. Panasonic and Canon's video divisions have already missed the boat. Sony's Betamax system was first, and superb, but VHS kicked its butt...there's always room for a new,improved, or more-affordable product.

Like I wrote--there was a paradigm shift. Apparently you missed its arrival. And you clearly do not understand much about the camera business.