Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Upgrades Hardware

Can You Tell the Difference? 4K Galaxy Note 3 vs. Canon 5D Mark III Video 201

Posted by timothy
from the but-magic-lantern dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Can You Tell the Difference? 4K Galaxy Note 3 vs. Canon 5D Mark III Video

Comments Filter:
  • EXIF (Score:5, Funny)

    by alex4u2nv (869827) * on Saturday May 03, 2014 @08:27PM (#46910559) Homepage

    Yes, their exif meta tags are different ;)

  • DOF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Teun (17872) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @08:32PM (#46910577) Homepage
    The site is slow to load (surprise?)

    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...

    • Re:DOF (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Teun (17872) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @09:12PM (#46910763) Homepage
      Just saw the video via the Youtube link below.

      That phone was awesome!
      But I would also like to see some footage out of the sun or on a gray day.

    • Re:DOF (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anubis IV (1279820) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @09:17PM (#46910779)

      Indeed. And besides depth of field, putting a 16MP camera in the phone means that the amount of light hitting any particular pixel of the sensor will be ridiculously small, resulting in a reduced dynamic range. That design decision leads to pictures that end up looking worse, though your Average Joe won't be able to tell the difference anyway. Even so, the megapixel game is virtually meaningless for daily use once you get past a certain threshold, and we passed that point years ago, which is why other manufacturers are increasing the size of their pixels, rather than trying to pack more pixels in (Nokia being an exception).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by viking80 (697716)

        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 reso

        • What we could use are very, very small sensels (in order to maximally limit photon intercept by area) that are insanely fast photon detectors with very deep counters behind them. The latter is easy, the former, not so much. But given that, you'll have a camera that's as sensitive as possible to low light (count a photon, there you go) and has as much dynamic range as you care to implement counter stages and allow for continuing exposure, and extremely high data resolution, certainly more than our lens tech

        • Re:DOF (Score:5, Informative)

          by asvravi (1236558) on Sunday May 04, 2014 @06:04AM (#46911957)

          A whole lot of hogwash in here - wrong units, dimensionally inconsistent equations, plain ridiculous or missing assumptions but still the post gets modded as insightful just because it *sounds* insightful.

          - Larger pixels improve dynamic range. DR is defined as max signal before pixel saturation, divided by noise. Noise is limited by shot noise and electronics so does not scale with pixel size. Larger pixels have more signal range. So DR is higher.
          - You calculate DR as if there is only one electron noise. Try several magnitudes higher noise! I am not sure DR is what you think it is.
          - QE for most sensors is between 20% and 50%. 10% is nonsense.
          - ISOCELL improves color rendition, it has nothing to do with sensitivity.

          Following from Samsung should help -


          According to Samsung, the ISOCELL sensor design achieves better image quality than is normally possible from the very small CMOS sensors used in smartphones and tablets. ISOCELL uses a backside-illuminated (BSI) photodiode that is unique compared to past designs thanks to its integrated barriers between the individual pixels. Compared to conventional BSI sensors, this reduces electrical crosstalk by about 30 percent. Crosstalk - the bleeding of photons and photoelectrons between neighboring pixels - has been a disadvantage of traditional BSI sensor design, one that can reduce image sharpness and color accuracy because light intended for one particular pixel spreads to its neighbors.

          Existing BSI designs, with their photodiodes near the front of the sensor, lack any inherent structures that prevent light bleeding between pixels (a role fortuitously played by the circuitry in front of the photodiodes in older, frontside-illuminated chips). The barriers in the ISOCELL design prevent this bleeding.

          How do you equate 10% QE to 5pLumens/pix "sensitivity"? I am not sure Sensitivity is what you think it is. Sensitivity is defined as voltage output from the sensor for a given light input. What is the voltage output assumed here? How does it compare to the camera noise?

          Given this, rest of your statements do not make any sense either. When you say "generous" assumptions, it turns out they are actually ridiculous assumptions - you have removed the entire point of analysis and pixel size and even ignored reality, which is what the OP is commenting about. You disagreed with his points that are based on solid reality, but then ended up giving a half-baked proof derived from supposedly "fundamental" limits that are nowhere close to reality.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        To tell which video is from a phone, don't you just look for the video with the big black bars down the sides?

        That's pretty obvious really!

  • by Pollux (102520) <`ge.ten.atadet' `ta' `reteps'> on Saturday May 03, 2014 @08:35PM (#46910587) Journal

    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Professional wine tasters can't even generally tell the difference

      • by cheekyboy (598084)

        especially if the production process between the two is identical, and the only difference is the type of grape or, the scale of production vs small acreage of land for a special wine with limited supply, thus artificial high price, which is made in just the same way as a $10 wine.

    • by dagamer34 (1012833) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @08:58PM (#46910699)
      Are we assuming perfect world or what the average enthusiast might have? Because I'd rather shoot video on a dSLR which has far better optics and real physical zoom than a smartphone that has to cram everything into 7mm or less of space.
      • by Solandri (704621)

        Because I'd rather shoot video on a dSLR which has far better optics and real physical zoom than a smartphone that has to cram everything into 7mm or less of space

        The smaller lenses are actually easier and cheaper to grind to closer optical tolerances, simply because their surface area is so much smaller. With the larger optics of a DSLR lens, the costs either become astronomical for good optical quality ($1k+ minimum, $4k+ not uncommon), or you have to cut costs by sacrificing optical quality.

        The pra

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          The smaller lenses are actually easier and cheaper to grind to closer optical tolerances

          While technically correct, you're utterly wrong from a practical perspective. Defects are far more noticeable on smaller lenses trying to do more in a smaller space. With the same tolerances, you'll have an inferior picture. You have to be MUCH MUCH more precise as the lens size shrinks, just maintaining the same tolerances will result in poorer performance.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by wasteoid (1897370)
      Wine snobs are the worst kind of snobs.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 03, 2014 @09:22PM (#46910793)

      Can Joe Sixpack tell the difference between a $10 glass of house wine vs. a $100 glass of 1982 Chateau Gruaud Larose?

      That's a pretty funny example to use because oenophiles can't tell the difference either [dailymail.co.uk]. There is a HUGE reason that wine tastings are not done blind: it is because the wine experts can't tell the difference. In the 1970's there was an international wine competition done blind [napavalleyregister.com], and California did exceeding well. It gave instant credibility to California wines and the French cried foul over the results and the process of the competition (the result was to revert back to knowing the label during the competition). Fast forward about 30 years and another blind competition was done, and "2 buck chuck" did exceedingly well. Of course, the California wineries cried foul over the results and the process of the competition.

      Are you a cork guy as well? You do know that screw caps are far superior closures for wine, don't you (as cans are over bottles for beer, and I would LOVE to see wine in cans but can you imagine the ignorant OUTRAGE you'd get from the wine idiots?)?

      • by vux984 (928602) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @11:36PM (#46911233)

        Are you a cork guy as well? You do know that screw caps are far superior closures for wine, don't you

        I prefer corks. Because I enjoy opening wine bottles with corks. I can't tell the difference in the wine unless its actually spoiled. I know screw caps are better seals but its not as much fun.

        (as cans are over bottles for beer,

        And I prefer bottles too. Because i like the sensation of a cold bottle on my lips more than a cold can.

        Just as I prefer like drinking anything from a glass or mug over drinking it from a plastic or paper or metal cup (whether its water, juice, milk, tea, or coffee...)

        I would LOVE to see wine in cans

        I'm sure that'd be fine in terms of taste as I'd still drink it out of a glass.

        Dining is very much about the taste, but you shouldn't discount the value in the pageantry, theater, and traditions of the experience. They may not affect the taste, but they are still part of the whole experience.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 04, 2014 @01:10AM (#46911465)

          Whoa, whoa, whoa... what's going on here? A /.'er understanding some of the values of living life? Colour me confused.

        • by fyngyrz (762201)

          Also, it's been a while since an an uncorked bottle cut my lips or fingers. No so long (or infrequent) for metal caps.

        • And I prefer bottles too. Because i like the sensation of a cold bottle on my lips more than a cold can.

          Try pouring it into a glass, you chav.

          We can talk about which shape later.

        • I prefer corks. Because I enjoy opening wine bottles with corks. I can't tell the difference in the wine unless its actually spoiled. I know screw caps are better seals but its not as much fun.

          I certainly agree with that. To say I'm not much of a wine buff would be an understatement. I do like a glass every now and a gain, and I find it more fun when there's a cork to pull. Screw caps are disappointing in some indefinable way. Thos plasticorks are OK, I guess.

          Not to say I'll drink anything, though: there a

        • If you drink beer from the bottle then you need to stop using words like 'pageantry'.
      • by ignavus (213578) on Sunday May 04, 2014 @02:35AM (#46911623)

        I would LOVE to see wine in cans

        Cans are opaque.

    • by rogoshen1 (2922505) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @09:48PM (#46910863)

      As long as it allows people to take:
      obnoxious duck faced selfies
      obnoxious pictures of food
      cell phone cameras have been 'good enough' for years.

      Now when it comes to joe and/or jane sixer taking pictures of 'real important events' (that like 99% of the photos taken, will never be viewed -- ever) does the DSLR's better image quality really matter? Looking back at childhood photos (my parents had a polaroid) I couldn't possibly care less that the photo is a bit grainy, or that the camera didn't take pictures with the sensitivity of a fucking CIA spy satellite.

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      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.

      You have failed to factor in the largest factor that resulted in a 4K recording feature from a damn tablet or smarphone.

      And that factor is the average consumer who thinks they know what they're buying, but generally doesn't have a clue, but has plenty of money to spend on pointless features they'll never use only to have "the best"

      In other words, prepare yourself for an overwhelming shitload of "wrong tool for the job", because more people will shoot pictures and video from a smartphone from now on than any

    • by kimvette (919543)

      > 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.

      Canon, etc. have been meeting market demands. Professional filmmakers have been clamoring for DSLRs because they give more flexibility in shooting locations, and manufacturers have responded. That it has filtered down to consumer-level cameras has only served to enable indie filmmakers on shoestring budgets and also wedding videographers - an

    • by bugnuts (94678) on Sunday May 04, 2014 @12:31AM (#46911385) Journal

      why would I use a DSLR to shoot video?

      You wouldn't, because by asking this question you betray that you undoubtedly have never shot a video before.

      DSLRs have some great features, and potential features if you need them.
      0. high quality and cheaper cost than a broadcast quality 2k camera.
      1. interchangeable lenses.
      2. easy to mount nearly anywhere.
      3. large sensor can give a shallow DOF when needed, and decent low-light ability.
      4. some can shoot raw footage, when needed.
      5. can use comparatively inexpensive vintage lenses.
      6. easily maintained and replaced.
      7. high enough quality for movies, and getting better.
      8. well-supported by 3rd parties.
      9. often have very usable ISOs, esp with a little bit of noise reduction (of which there's exactly one good program).
      10. have spawned camera offshoots based on DSLR video which is closer to a movie camera/dslr cross.
      11. can be operated remotely over usb or wifi. This includes focus pulling.
      12. firmware can be hacked on some, unlocking even more features.
      13. can be used as a crash camera for larger budgets.
      14. can be housed for underwater shooting.

      Some of the problems with DSLRs for filming. Not all will apply on any particular shoot.
      -1. large sensor can be a big hindrance when you need a large DOF, and requires a lot more light than a small sensor.
      -2. most movie modes are afterthoughts. Very few decent still cameras also have decent movie modes.
      -3. very few have any sort of usable auto-focus, although some can lock on and track. Autofocus pulling usually sucks.
      -4. very few have genlock, SDI, or aux i/o or undecorated uncompressed output
      -5. most outputs are in 8 bit 4:0:0 which loses a lot of color information. Some have 10 bit 4:2:2 and this is changing as memory speeds increase.
      -6. many don't have a very good codec and bit speed, but this is also changing.
      -7. most limit recording to 30 min due to EU taxes. Not usually a problem except for conferences and long interviews.
      -8. no global shutter. This is usually a very expensive feature, although at least one offshoot has it for under $10k. Maybe $5k.
      -9. limited fps speed adjustment. Some small cameras can shoot up to 1000fps for a short time, but dslrs can't do even a short slo-mo section. Some will do half-speed.
      -10. Not as ergonomic as a dedicated movie camera. As a DoP, this can affect things.

      All of the above can be found pretty easily if you know what to look for, and that should give you plenty of reasons why it is in many studio's interests to explore what DSLR shooting can bring them. I've shot several shorts, movie videos, and a TV show. Most were with a DSLR.

      • by Kjella (173770) on Sunday May 04, 2014 @04:27AM (#46911813) Homepage

        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.

      • by MrNemesis (587188)

        Filmmaker Shane Carruth (the budget auteur behind time-travelling mindbender Primer, filmed for just $7000) shot his latest film Upstream Colour on a hacked Panasonic GH2 for monetary reasons.

        http://www.redsharknews.com/m-... [redsharknews.com]âoeupstream-colorâ-shot-on-panasonic-gh2

    • The DSLR has all the features one would want for a video camera, full control etc... balance.. etc... zoom lens,

      Wow, it can take photos, hey dude, do you know what a video is, its nothing more than 30 stills per second in sequence.

      Yeah, id rather carry two devices, made by canon, using the same Chipset.

      Still camera, video camera, both have SDHC and lots of storage, dont be a dumb stupid ass, and compare it to phsyically carrying a load.

      Your comparison is just plain DUMB.

      Dude, wait till your phone has the sa

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Canon DSLRs are actually used in commercial movies. The combination of very small size and interchangeable lenses makes it possible to do shots that larger cameras would make impossible. They are popular for fake "hand-held" shots too.

  • 4K just isn't here yet in monitors. If you've got a 1080p monitor, you can't see 4K unless you zoom in. That's the "NBSeeIt camera" effect on Sunday Night Football... a too high resolution camera lets them zoom in and still have 1080 lines of pixels.

  • OMGPWNIES (Score:5, Informative)

    by wickerprints (1094741) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @08:49PM (#46910647)

    Let's see if the Galaxy Note 3 can:

    1. Record usable, relatively noise-free video at EV -2
    2. Use f/1.2 lenses
    3. Record at effective focal lengths wider than 24mm or longer than 85mm...how about video at 300/2.8 or 600/4?
    4. Use varifocal lenses of any kind, let alone a parfocal lens

    I mean, this is silly. Under a very limited subset of possible shooting conditions and configurations, you *might* be able to get comparable output, but this has no bearing on the fact that if you're using a $3000 DSLR to shoot video, you're not merely some Android fanboy taking selfies of yourself beating off in your parents' basement. You're looking at using it with cine lenses or even just EF lenses like the 24/1.4L II, 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 200/2L IS, or 300/2.8L IS II (if you're addicted to primes). Or Zeiss if that's your poison. Good luck with mounting a 55/1.4 Otus to that Galaxy Note.

  • Shooting raw video on Canon 5D MKIII should trump any 4K of overcompressed mud, while not shooting raw video on Canon 5D MKIII should be criminal.
  • by toxygen01 (901511) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @08:57PM (#46910693) Journal
    This is most likely a promo for galaxy. Aperture and focus were intentionally set wrong so that 5D mkIII looks just a bit worse. marketing at its best.
    • Why the comparison to a still camera? Ya I know that it can shoot video, as basically all DSLRs can these days but that isn't what it is made to not, isn't what it is best at. Why not compare it to a 1080p video camera? A Panasonic X920 maybe. Not only is the processing circuitry optimized for video, but so in the sensor. Generally, for video you want to do three separate sensors, one for each primary colour, rather than a sensor with a Bayer filter on it. Gives you better results with motion and such.

      The v

  • by sandbagger (654585) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @09:06PM (#46910737)

    However, the moment you're doing anything else, the differences show. So, yes, at two paces away in perfect daylight, with no need for special considerations, yes, a smart phone will take decent photos. Given that even at press conferences telephotos and zooms are needed to see the podium, or you're shooting in imperfect light, or you need a polarizer, or you need to add off-camera flash, you'll need a decent camera.

    A few years ago, people were saying that new manufacturers would emerge because Nikon and Canon were wedded to an old-fashioned camera format and the multimedia still/video camera would emerge as a new UI. Well, PJs are still shooting with a design perfected over generations and those needing to shoot video bolt the cameras onto harnesses that make the rigs no smaller than Betacams.

  • by log0n (18224) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @09:17PM (#46910781)

    Wow.. haven't seen this in years!

  • by Lumpy (12016)

    The galaxy note will record crap, because it has CRAP lens compared to even a $99 Canon 50mm 1.8 prime.

    Hell my 1080p t4i will record far better than the galaxy note can in 4K using a low end canon lens...

    • by Rich0 (548339)

      The galaxy note will record crap, because it has CRAP lens compared to even a $99 Canon 50mm 1.8 prime.

      To be fair - that lens can outperform many lenses that cost 5-10 times as much, BECAUSE it is a prime. Any lens with a zoom is an optical compromise. In order to get zoom lenses with that kind of performance you end up spending well north of $1k, and even then you only get a focal range of around 3x. The convenience zooms with 8-12x ranges always suffer from aberrations (and if they don't they're REALLY expensive).

      If you have the time to switch lenses, a variety of fairly inexpensive prime lenses will ou

  • by Diamonddavej (851495) on Saturday May 03, 2014 @10:41PM (#46911033)

    The 5D Mk. III applies a strong low-pass filter after a rough line-skipping down sampling step when transforming an original 21 megapixel image into 1080p video (the Mk. II is worse). This results in soft looking video with a subjective resolution more like 720p than 1080p. It's an unfair comparison.

    However, professional film makers that use the 5D Mk. II and 5D Mk. III cameras shoot in 2K and 4K Raw by using Magic Lantern (no in camera re-sampling or low pass filters, just pure sensor data). Magic Lantern is a end user project that has produced an alternative firmware for Canon DSLRs which has greatly extended camera capabilities and video quality.

    The results are spectacular:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • Yes, the videos made by the Galaxy Note show more details (in this particular comparison which only included sunny outside scenes). But what does that mean? That under optimal lighting situations the DSLR from 2012 which can only do 1080p video shows less detail than a smartphone from this year which can do 4K? I could have told you that before. He could have also used a GoPro Hero3+ Black, which can also do 4K and costs half as much as the Galaxy Note.

    Film makers use DSLR to make movies because of the lens

    • by m.dillon (147925)

      That Canon can actually do 4K video uncompressed. Why he wasn't using Magic Lantern I just don't understand. There's no point comparing ANY 1080p output against 4K output under those lighting conditions, the post production run has so much more information to work with when downsizing 4K output it isn't even funny. Not to mention the poor lens choice.

      -Matt

  • Which one will let me capture at a high frame rate (>60fps)?

  • Yes, I can.

    The smartphone has post-processing artifacts, blown out contrast and no depth of field.

  • The comparison was a crock!

    The Canon was outfitted with an average at best zoom lens and it still did a very decent job.

    Put a 35mm Canon L prime lens on the Mark III, shoot the video using Magic Lantern in raw and see what that camera/lens combination can do.

  • The lens is just too small for 4K. It is impossible for that many different photons to pass through it at the same time. Photons are in practice about one millionth of a meter big, so about 1000 could fit beside each other passing through a 1 mm lens. But this is only valid for wide angle pictures, fish eye optics. Real phone cameras use just a limited angle, a limited view of this, removing even more photons. Even 1080p is often more than the cameras can really do.

    IAARP, I Am A Real Physicst

  • by m.dillon (147925) on Sunday May 04, 2014 @01:58AM (#46911551) Homepage

    I guess the real question is... why would someone want to take 4K video with a cell phone anyway? What's the point? If the lighting conditions aren't perfect, the output is going to be crap.

    But I gotta question the Canon setup... was he intentionally trying to create the worst setup possible? It was clearly not in focus, and I sure hope he wasn't running that Sigma lens either wide-open or fully stopped-down because its junky when it isn't mid-range. And if the intent was to compare 4K video he should have done all the tests with Magic Lantern on the Canon and the YouTube video should have been cropped rather than down-sized. There's so much post-processing being done that those videos just aren't meaningful as-shown. He also didn't define what he meant by 'raw' vs 'not raw'. What exact video mode was he using for the two halves?

    Well, you get the picture. It's just not a valid comparison. Apples and Oranges.

    In anycase, I think a large percentage of people will be quite happy with their cell-phone cameras and video. Cell phones have taken a huge bite out of the camera maker's point-and-shoot cameras as well as the DSLRs. But it's like the pad-vs-PC war. Those people didn't need the DSLRs in the first place, and the people who care about quality are still going to stick with their DSLRs.

    It only takes once expensive vacation with poor shots for someone to start wishing they had brought something a bit better than their cell phones along.

    -Matt

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      There are a few situations where 4k video on a phone is handy. When gathering evidence, say of the cops beating some poor guy, having all those frames of 4k video increases the chances of you getting enough detail to capture their ID numbers.

      It's similar to dashcams. When watching the video in real-time the very high resolution ones don't look that much better, but when you pause and single-step looking to read number plates it helps. Not a 4x increase as per the number of pixels, but definitely better.

  • By the time YouTube is done compressing the video, you no longer have much difference in dynamic range and per frame image quality left. This on top of the lens quality and control/ergonomics of the individual settings that won't show in the end product, but will make some video extremely hard to shoot with one of these devices.
    • Maybe not, but higher quality input gives a better chance of higher quality output. Even if only marginally better.
  • ...is the one you have with you, when you need it.
  • You can have the biggest, baddest sensor you like on a smart phone, it is NEVER going to compare favorably to a DSLR, or proper video camera simply due to the ability of the lense to capture light and give you proper depth of field.
  • by unami (1042872) on Sunday May 04, 2014 @06:12AM (#46911973)
    obviously, under ideal conditions for the samsung (brightly lit, mounted to a tripod, canon lens stopped down, canon footage graded in post to match the overly sharp look & oversaturated colors of the galaxy), they will produce similar videos. but that's the one exception, not the rule.
  • I have a Note 3 and while the video quality is pretty good, the low light photography (as in anything not perfectly lit) is shockingly bad.
  • Night is when small sensors and show all their noisy crappyness.

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

Working...