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?"
EXIF (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, their exif meta tags are different ;)
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...
Re:DOF (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
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
The dynamic range problem (Score:3)
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
Counter rate (Score:2)
We can already fab counters that are *way* faster than that. 1 ns is 1 GHz. 10 is only .1 GHz or 100 MHz. I must be missing something here?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means the photon detector itself, not the actual counter. The detector needs a cool off or reset period before it is ready for the next photon. This can easily be of the order of several 10's of ns.
Re:DOF (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Phone Videos Have Big Black Bars On The Sides (Score:2, Funny)
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!
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Professional wine tasters can't even generally tell the difference
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why shit beers taste good when icy cold. Next?
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
what about meta snob snobs who are snobish about snob snobishness?
Re: (Score:3)
Its turtles all the way down mate.
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Informative)
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?)?
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:No different than asking... (Score:4, Funny)
Whoa, whoa, whoa... what's going on here? A /.'er understanding some of the values of living life? Colour me confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's been a while since an an uncorked bottle cut my lips or fingers. No so long (or infrequent) for metal caps.
Re: (Score:3)
Try pouring it into a glass, you chav.
We can talk about which shape later.
Re: (Score:3)
Stella, seriously?
What? I like Stella on a hot day. Its a light crisp lager that's readily available... I'm sure its not to everyone's taste but its not unequivocably bad.
I mean... I could have said "Bud Light Lime Mojito".
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Funny)
I would LOVE to see wine in cans
Cans are opaque.
Re:No different than asking... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
> 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
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
DSLR is great for video fool (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can kind of do it with the 7D by hitting the AF button, and with STM lenses you avoid getting the AF noise. You're still best off with an external mic since the integrated mic on every DSLR is not intended for the best fidelity, but for ruggedability (and weather-sealed on the pro-level and prosumer bodies) and to be good enough to "just get the job done."
Re:No different than asking... (Score:5, Interesting)
The capped recording time is actually the fault of the European Union's import duties, which charge a higher tax rate for anything that can record 30 minutes or longer. Blame excessive government bureaucracy for your DSLR being crippled.
Re: (Score:2)
The capped recording time is actually the fault of the European Union's import duties, which charge a higher tax rate for anything that can record 30 minutes or longer. Blame excessive government bureaucracy for your DSLR being crippled.
I'm actually impressed that the manufacturer figured out that legal optimization and applied it. Many companies seem to struggle just to figure out what tariff to use for their products, let alone optimizing the design of the product in order to match a particular tariff...
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox has spelling corrections, pitty SLASH cannot prevent a post without a spelling fix.
Re: (Score:3)
"Sight" is a word. It's even a noun, like "site".
How would a spiel-chucker catch that?
Uh, we need a new monitor for that! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a a seiki 39inch 4k monitor, it works, (albeit only at 30FPS due to HDMI 1.4 being rather limited), and it was under 500 dollars delivered, so... the colour etc. aren't as good as monitors 6-10x the price. But it works.
But it's not mainstream, and for that price point the quality is mediocre at best, and most people aren't going to blow 3 or 4k on a monitor. You could do 4 1080p monitors and have a similar to 4k experience today (or even more monitors I think eyefinity will handle 6 with a decent
Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! (Score:5, Funny)
4K just isn't here yet in monitors.
Then please explain this:
Pretty easy to explain. That monitor is there (on Amazon). I'm here. Ergo, 4k monitors aren't here yet.
When I have a 4k monitor here,in front of me, then looking at 4k video will be a sensible thing to do. But until there's a 4k monitor here it would be pretty pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
When I have a 4k monitor here,in front of me, then looking at 4k video will be a sensible thing to do.
Bah, still seems pretty pointless to me. If you have a 4k monitor, just imagine how many xterms you can have!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded of a previous Slashdot story ... http://hardware.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
OMGPWNIES (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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:OMGPWNIES (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't work like that. Your tires and the lug nuts are always the same size.
With a camera, if you pair a small lens with a small sensor, you can produce the exact same image size upon viewing. So long as the minimum conditions of diffraction/resolution, optical quality, and sufficient photons per pixel to keep noise below a threshold level are met, the images from a small camera (your leatherman) and a large camera (the socket wrench set) are indistinguishable. It's only in the more extreme cases (low light, telephoto) where the larger camera starts to pull ahead.
The images from a modern cell phone camera are competitive with the images from a DSLR from about 15 years ago. Sensor noise has been reduced and sensitivity increased. You can apply these improvements by either holding the sensor size (and pixel pitch) constant and getting much higher ISOs (we've gone from 1600 ISO as a max to 256,000 ISO as a max on DSLRs). Or you can hold ISO constant and reduce sensor size. Cell phone cameras just do the latter. As long as you aren't trying to make a telephoto or shoot in low light, the tiny lens size doesn't hurt you because we aren't yet close to the diffraction and resolution limits for the 20-40mm equivalent that's typically found on cell phone cameras. We still have some size reduction that's possible before we'll hit diffraction limits.
Re: (Score:3)
The images from a modern cell phone camera are competitive with the images from a DSLR from about 15 years ago. Sensor noise has been reduced and sensitivity increased. You can apply these improvements by either holding the sensor size (and pixel pitch) constant and getting much higher ISOs (we've gone from 1600 ISO as a max to 256,000 ISO as a max on DSLRs). Or you can hold ISO constant and reduce sensor size. Cell phone cameras just do the latter. As long as you aren't trying to make a telephoto or shoot in low light, the tiny lens size doesn't hurt you because we aren't yet close to the diffraction and resolution limits for the 20-40mm equivalent that's typically found on cell phone cameras. We still have some size reduction that's possible before we'll hit diffraction limits.
Here's some sample photos from the Nikon D1X from 2001. Now, show me a camera phone that is even close to the dynamic range and light handling of even a relatively primitive DSLR.... The night shots alone from the DSLR blow any camera phone away simply because the sensor is physically larger and is able to take in more light and DSLR lenses are light years better... If you had gone with a 15 year old P&S digital camera, I would agree with you, but DSLRs, even old ones, are in a completely different c
Re: (Score:3)
Raw? (Score:2)
Someone should kick the guy in the balls (Score:5, Insightful)
Also (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Have you got any?
In a school zone all cars are the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Slashdotted (Score:3)
Wow.. haven't seen this in years!
I can. (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
5D III video is inherently soft (Score:5, Interesting)
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]
Interesting, but ultimately pointless comparison (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
I don't know (Score:2)
Which one will let me capture at a high frame rate (>60fps)?
...Yes? (Score:2)
Yes, I can.
The smartphone has post-processing artifacts, blown out contrast and no depth of field.
$800 Sigma Zoom Lens (Score:2)
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.
Impossible physics (Score:2)
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
Apples and Oranges (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
youtube compression negates it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best camera... (Score:2)
all in the lens (Score:2)
what is this, a samsung advert? (Score:3, Insightful)
Note 3 (Score:2)
Try it at Night (Score:2)
Night is when small sensors and show all their noisy crappyness.
Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lenses, lenses, lenses...
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: (Score:3)
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...)
Not really an issue... You don't have to deliver 4K to everyone now; just like how Youtube lets you screen selective resolutions.
A few alternatives:
In the future (probably not that far off) more of your friends will have 4K.
The 4K still looks better in the sample than the native 1080, even though we were viewing at 1080.
Also in the future, you will have 4K at home (even if you don't now) and you will be able enjoy your memories @ higher resolution. Just like how we can enjoy TV shows shot on film at a highe
Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (Score:5, Informative)
Set1) The horrible frame rate and jumpness gave it the first set away, the cheap 4K was jumpy in the redrawing, looked like a series of flashcards, 1080
Set2) I chose the colours and natural look of the 4K
Set3) Zoomed in, I liked the shadows and total rang on the 1080
Set4) Beach - This gave away the cheap 4K easily. Horrible processing on the steps in the background was so distracting I couldn't take my eyes off it. 1080
Set5) Beach2 - Jumpy image was horrible on the 4K, you couldn't use that anywhere you were paid. 1080
Set6) Shado2Sun - The 4K was blown out in the highlights and anywhere close to highlights, 1080
The 4K is a lot better than I was expecting, amazing for the price you buy, but I wouldn't want to use it professionally, you would be called out by someone with 1/2 a clue, and I doubt its going to handle low light levels at all with the amount of blowouts in the highlights, its clearly compensating there.
Try taking the samsung out of the light, and seeing how it goes in say areas lit by 1-3 candles at night, that would be fun!
Canon 5D Mark III with 35mm 1.4L lens low-light noise test [youtube.com]
For F16, that seemed to have a horrible Depth of feild on the Cannon, i'm left wondering about that..
This guy seems to have better DOF at F1.8, showing how badly this guy botched up, at F16 everythign should be sharp as a tack unless hes picking an insanely stupid focus point. 5D Mark III Low Light Playground [youtube.com]
Let us not forget that what you shoot with a professional level digital camera is supposed to be edited and altered, its captured to preserve as much data as accurately as possible, you then process it.. Imagine running this kind of editing on his video, and this is a MK2 not a mk3
5D Mark 2 RAW Grading and Dynamic Range Test and Graded Da [youtube.com]
And last but not lest a Mk3 with Magic lantern firmware and post processing.
5D Mark III 14 bit RAW Video with Magic Lantern [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the scenes it obviously showed the limited number of stops presented in the note3 video. Scenes with both shadows and full sunlight.
Overall though I was surprised at how close the two video's where.
Re: (Score:3)
That and sensor sensor sensor.
A tiny ass cell phone sensor coupled with the fact that they have to stuff tiny lenses in a tiny as little space is never going to be able to compete with a larger sensor and optics that don't have to warp the light like a black hole to get it where it needs to be.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes you may count, but I can anticipate that the youtube video is 1024px wide.
Now, if you shoot better 4k video it might show at 1k resolution and after the compression the video site might impose.
But these guys took all the effort to compare those cameras and did it all in outdoor + sunlight conditions. Where are the indoor shots? Where are the newer cameras like the panasonic gh4 and the sony a7? (I guess an a7s with proper lens beats everybody else in low light)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
direct youtube link to the comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting. It looks like the 5D pictures weren't processed at all - they could stand some sharpening.
That is important, because most consumer-oriented cameras (such as in phones) apply quite a bit of sharpening automatically. Professional cameras almost always avoid any processing, so that you don't get further losses when you post-process them (professional photographers almost always post-process).
Also, half of the comparisons used JPEGs taken by the 5D. Again, serious photographers rarely capture JPEGs, because they lose dynamic range and end up being double-processed (and they're lossy besides).
I did note that the RAW photos taken by the 5D handled one of the high-contrast shots much better (lots of shade in the foreground with the sky and sunlit buildings in the background).
Focus speed is also an issue with cell phone cameras - a DSLR will focus MUCH faster and more accurately, especially in low light. They can also capture pictures in rapid succession. Most DSLRs are designed so that if you push the shutter release, they take a picture, no matter WHAT else is going on in terms of modes/etc (well, unless you put it on delay timer or something). A DSLR is always ready to take a picture, and will do so very quickly.
The main advantage of the cell phone is that you always have it on you. However, if you're actually planning on taking photos, I'd pick the DSLR any day. There is just no comparison in the photos they take except under the most ideal conditions.
Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (Score:5, Informative)
seriously speaking, under good lighting conditions phone cams have been on par with SLRs for all practical purposes for quite a while now.
Under good lighting conditions $20 cameras have been on-par with $800 cameras for decades.
The problem is that good lighting conditions are fairly rare.
I'd love to have a decent phone camera, but it is really hard to accomplish in optics that are a few mm across what you can do with optics that are several cm across. My current phone camera is very prone to lens flares, has fairly poor dynamic range, and isn't terribly light-sensitive. It captures plenty of blurry pixels though.
Re: (Score:2)
but lense flares add atmosphere!
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet astrophotography, atmosphere adds lens flare!
Soviet... (Score:2)
FTFY [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
but lense flares add atmosphere!
Those artificial ones that simulate some zoom lens with 47 elements with an diffused point source of light (as if in space) look a bit neat the first 35 times around.
However, for the typical cell phone camera, a lens flare just means that half the picture looks like it is covered in haze. It is really annoying trying to take pictures while holding your hand over the top of it just outside the field of view...
Re: (Score:2)
good lighting conditions aren't all that rare for most people. we usually don't hang around in poorly lit situations. we're talking about civilians, not pro photographers here, i hope that goes without saying.
Uh, just about any indoor setting is poor lighting. Any situation where there is a mixture of sun and shade is poor lighting. Anything in the evening or later is poor lighting (and while aesthetically sunrise/sunset is EXCELLENT lighting, in terms of technical performance they will challenge cheap cameras).
That's why all those teenager-taken phone shots at parties have white faces and eyes against dark clothes and really dark backgrounds. The camera can't handle the light, and you get a dinky little flas
Re: (Score:3)
quite frankly if your solution to poor lighting is dslr instead of finding a way to bring in more light, you're on the wrong idea trail buddy.
It depends on the situation. If you're taking candid photos at a family party, then changing the lighting isn't appropriate, unless you mean adding flash. Certainly I would at least do that if possible.
If you're taking pictures at your kid's recital, then even the flash is a no-go - you need all the performance you can get out of the camera.
Now, if I'm doing portraits, then I'm going to use the right lighting, but even then if you are doing Christmas pictures in a nicely decorated house with subdued light
Re: (Score:2)
I shoot Q&As at film festivals. I'm not allowed to use a flash, and the light is usually yellow with a lot of red from the velvet walls.
No phone can tackle that, but I can get good pictures from a DSLR.
Re: (Score:2)
good lighting conditions aren't all that rare for most people. we usually don't hang around in poorly lit situations. we're talking about civilians, not pro photographers here, i hope that goes without saying.
Your average indoor setting is not a "good" lighting condition, our eyes adapt but generally there is way, way less light used indoors than you get on a sunny or even overcast day. A family living room has maybe 50 lux of illumination, an overcast day 1000 lux and direct sunlight 10000 lux. I don't care because the cell phone is about capturing the situation, but if I wanted technically good photos I'd use something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're okay with a roughly f/2.0 to f/2.8 depth of field and you're no more than a few feet from your subject....
Even in good lighting, if you want to shoot with a shallow depth of field, a camera phone is likely to be softer, because you'll be shooting with the camera phone wide open, whereas you'll be shooting stopped down with an f/1.2 DSLR lens. Also, the cel
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of real life situations are pictures that I Like on Facebook because I like the person, while the photo itself has poor light, composition, and depth of field. If "the guy who took it doesn't know better and the picture is going to be forgotten about in 10 minutes" is all that matters, we should have stopped innovating phone cameras ten years ago. Most people don't know what's better until they're given better, then they're silently happier that more of their photos don't look like shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean changeable lenses?
Re: (Score:2)
Except for panic on behalf of the owner of the $1,000,000.00 violin, that is.