Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 237842" data-attributes="member: 12496">It certainly is annoying.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; I have seen it use ISO 5000, and it seemed very acceptable.&nbsp; I guess video is only shown for 1/30 second, and then you get a new picture with different noise, and it guess it doesn't register well.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; I was assuming D800 high ISO was a big advantage, however, Thom Hogan says than since D800 video is subsampled (reading only every third raw scan line, and then resampling even smaller), that the FX noise advantage is much reduced.&nbsp; He claims video ISO 1600 looks more like ISO 6400 in stills.&nbsp; I don't see that myself.&nbsp;&nbsp; Probably it is about one individual frame?It made wonder though, if subsampled, then DX size would probably be as good (still too many pixels, but maybe more depth of field), and maybe the fewer pixels could be faster, maybe focus could analyze it faster ?&nbsp; Hogan claims the FX and DX size, combined with JPEG Large, Medium, Small, gives six possible sizes for Live View Video - all of which are larger than the final 1920x1080.&nbsp; I don't know how to verify that about JPEG, or why it matters, since we only see the final size.So, not relishing wading into that, I wondered if anyone else has visited there?&nbsp;&nbsp; Can it speed up focus?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 237842, member: 12496"] It certainly is annoying. :) I have seen it use ISO 5000, and it seemed very acceptable. I guess video is only shown for 1/30 second, and then you get a new picture with different noise, and it guess it doesn't register well. I was assuming D800 high ISO was a big advantage, however, Thom Hogan says than since D800 video is subsampled (reading only every third raw scan line, and then resampling even smaller), that the FX noise advantage is much reduced. He claims video ISO 1600 looks more like ISO 6400 in stills. I don't see that myself. Probably it is about one individual frame? It made wonder though, if subsampled, then DX size would probably be as good (still too many pixels, but maybe more depth of field), and maybe the fewer pixels could be faster, maybe focus could analyze it faster ? Hogan claims the FX and DX size, combined with JPEG Large, Medium, Small, gives six possible sizes for Live View Video - all of which are larger than the final 1920x1080. I don't know how to verify that about JPEG, or why it matters, since we only see the final size. So, not relishing wading into that, I wondered if anyone else has visited there? Can it speed up focus? [/QUOTE]

Verification