#2. "RE: File size: D4 vs D800, and video quality question?" In response to Reply # 0
Very interesting question Rob, depending on line (and column?) skipping or binning and all that complicated "stuff" required to downsize the FX resolution down to the approx 2mp video frame size.
It seems like only testing may provide some clues, since manufacturers seem to consider the "stuff" a highly proprietary matter.
I am also more than interested to see how well the video noise reduction works - since Nikon is taking some effort to point out this feature, it sounds promising.
One final comment - that 2.7 crop video that the D4 does, that may be the best quality video in that no smushing occurs to form the video frame . Then pump the output uncompressed through HDMI and it may be a seriously beneficial feature.
#3. "RE: File size: D4 vs D800, and video quality question?" In response to Reply # 2 Fri 10-Feb-12 07:09 AM by Robman3
West of Santa Monica, US
Perrone and Steve, THANKS!
Steve you bring in a very interesting consideration then.
Since I have both bodies on deposit/order, it remains to be seen then.
I was late to both buy ins, so my purchases are likely late in the first wave cycle, unlike the D7K which I was 2nd in line for at my retailer. That will give me time to decide, one, none or both.
The theory (MP's vs noise) at averaged 2MP frame rates, line skips etc, especially with 4.2.2 output on HDMI direct, would somehow seem to be more resolved at the base rate, but, as you point out, more on that later.
Now Nikon talked up the B frame, does that mean that typical I frame transcoding (ProRes or CineForm) is now somehow affected?
I thought I frames are the pure sample, and that P and B are subsampled, does that make any sense, or perhaps I am misunderstanding the hype or technical context.