Here's how the fixed pattern noise looks +5 stops no noise reduction applied.
Downloadable DNGs for your viewing pleasure https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BzJ3L6nv6Fn0TmF0N0xLSFBaalk&usp=sharing
Squig, many thanks for the DNG black frames.
Most samples have a Black Level of 2047-2048 but some of the high ISO have different BL for any channel (ISO 3200: R,G1=2046, B,G2=2048).
ML code adds half the stdev at the measured BL giving difference of +3 up to +14 (ISO 6400 measured BL 2047, exif tag = 2061 .. this looks too much .. )
Looks like the video-raw samples follow the normal (photo-raw) Canon pattern ..
ISO 100, 200, 400 ... derived mostly* by analog amplification
Read noise is ISO100, 200 - 6400, ... 7.55, 7.9, 8.1, 8.65, 10.0, 12.6, 18.5
*Looks like there is a part of digital amp (by 1.07 ?) as there are some gaps and some "half gaps" in the histogram. I believe that there is a histogram stretching at the "video raws" so that it covers all values up to 16382 instead of the 15283 limit for the "Photo raws"
ISO 125, 250, 500 ... derived from ISO 100, 200, 400 ... by digital amplification by 1.25
Read noise is ISO125, 250 - 4000, ... 9.9, 10.2, 10.5, 11.2, 12.9, 16.4,
ISO 160, 320, 640 ... derived from ISO 200, 400, 800 ... by digital amplification by 0.80
Read noise is ISO160, 320 - 5000, ... 6.1, 6.3, 6.7, 7.7, 9.7, 14.2
I had the hope that those video-raw pixels come of binning 8 photo-raw pixels and this would decrease the noise floor by 2 stops ... but NO .. the noise floor is almost the same (a bit worse) as with the photo-raw !!. So DR is not improved !!.
Reasons for not having improved noise floor can be either pixel skipping or the system (sensor-signal transfer-DAC) working at higher speed resulting in more noise. .. or both.
Anyway, without detailed measures over all the luminance scale, we cannot have a correct conclusion.
The impression (at another thread) that ISOs 160, 320 .. are noisier is faulty.
If the samples was derived by converting with Dcraw the reason they look as noisier is the (by default) histogram stretching giving in fact a seamless +1-2 stop EV.
This together with a wrongly lower than the correct White Point that ML sets .. The exif White Level tag for ISOs 160, 320 .. is 11566 while it should be 16382*0.8=13105 if no histogram stretching happens for those ISOs and 16382 if histogram stretching exists.
It is obvious that to fully characterize the video-raws we need video-raw samples with a burned (white clipped) area.Please anyone who can provide video-raw samples (made by the last build) at all ISO settings, which include burned areas (and not only), .. do upload