Can You Tell the Difference? 4K Galaxy Note 3 vs. Canon 5D Mark III Video 201
Iddo Genuth (903542) writes "Photographer and videographer Alec Weinstein was in the market for a new smartphone. He realized that the new Samsung Galaxy S5 and the Note 3 both have 4K video recording capabilities and decided to compare those to his 1080p 5D MKIII pro DSLR camera – the results are extremely interesting — Can you tell the difference between a Canon 5D MKIII shooting 1080p video and a Samsung Galaxy Note III smartphone shooting 4K video?"
DOF (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume the obvious difference is going to be the depth of field or DOF.
The Galaxy will have oodles of it but lacks the ability to isolate the subject, the Canon will make a nice sharp shot on the subject leaving the surroundings vague.
And then there's this thing with zoom/ interchangeable lenses...
No different than asking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can Joe Sixpack tell the difference between a $10 glass of house wine vs. a $100 glass of 1982 Chateau Gruaud Larose?
Besides, why would I use a DSLR to shoot video? Wrong tool for the job. That's like using a Ferrari to haul construction equipment or using an F-150 on racing day.
On the other hand, just try to use a smartphone to take pictures of fireworks at night or shoot a picture of your child making a layup at his basketball game in an indoor gym. Then tell me how the two compare.
Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lenses, lenses, lenses...
Someone should kick the guy in the balls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No different than asking... (Score:2, Insightful)
Professional wine tasters can't even generally tell the difference
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OMGPWNIES (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's also see which one fits in your pocket, making it available at all times..
Cell phone cameras have their place. However, if you're actually going someplace to take photos, they're not the tool you should be reaching for.
I have a leatherman for situations where I just need a bunch of tools handy, but when I do maintenance on my car, I grab my toolbox and not my leatherman. Sure, I could probably manage to get the oil plug out using the pliers tool on it, but I own a socket wrench and a set of metric sockets for a reason. When I'm going to change tires, I grab my breaker bar too, and my torque wrench for putting them back on.
That doesn't mean that there aren't situations where the leatherman is handy to have.
Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (Score:5, Insightful)
ANSWER?
Lenses, lenses, lenses...
Ah, true, but only half-right.
In today's world, the much more relevant factor is playback, playback, playback...
(In other words, how many of your 100 friends have the hardware even remotely capable of true 4K playback...needless to say, this is a solution without a problem...)
Re:DOF (Score:3, Insightful)
I respectfully disagree on all your points
- Small pixels reduce sensitivity, not dynamic rage, but the whole point with the isocell sensor is to increase sensitivity in a small pixel. Because photons are discrete, your dynamic range can be no better than 10*log(photon count/pixel). To get 10 bit dynamic range you need 10e3 photons/pixel.
- The megapixel game is not meaningless. I use a large printer, and with a 25Mpix sensor, the result is a lot better than with a 10Mpix sensor. The print actually has a resolution of 12 000 Mpix!
The quantum efficiency, QE, of most backlit sensors ranging from the best DSLR to the Samsung is all around 10%. (Human eye and astronomical cameras can be up to 100% i.e. detect single photon.)
10% QE is about 5 picoLumens per pixel sensitivity, and here is where the sensitivity comes in. 1 lux= 1 EV = 1 lumens/m2 = a bit more than bright moonlight. Assume you have an f1 lens. now you will need 5 nanoLumens/pix for 10bit DR.
A 7mm lens will give you 3.8E15 photons/s, so each of the 16Mpix will get 2.38E8 photons, or 2.38E7 LSB. This should equal 24bit dynamic range. This is with a lot of generous assumptions like an f1 lens, no statistical noise, no thermal noise etc, but still enough photons to give good dynamic range in the darker parts of a photo.
This should give some insight into some of the fundamental limits.
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Insightful)
I still think the primary reason people use DSLRs to shoot video is even simpler, overlapping jobs and overlapping skill set. I mean if you want someone to make a video of your wedding, you probably want wedding photos as well. Pretty much everything about making a good photo (focus, exposure, composition, lighting etc.) can be applied to making a good video. So when you're thousands of dollars invested in camera, lenses and you know it inside and out, you'll still be a better man on your DSLR than a rental broadcast cam with cine lenses. While still cams can make decent video dedicated video cameras generally can't take stills any professional photographer would want to use, so if you buy one you're deeply committed to being a film maker. Most simply aren't so purebred.
what is this, a samsung advert? (Score:3, Insightful)