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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on Saturday May 3, 2014 @12:07PM 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?"

145 of 201 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I could presumably count the pixels? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 12:25 · Score: 1

No?
1. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-03 12:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ANSWER?
  Lenses, lenses, lenses...
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
2. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Gravity lens! I'm so fat, I can bend light...
3. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by geekmux · 2014-05-03 14:18 · Score: 4, 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...)
4. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by drkim · 2014-05-03 17:27 · Score: 2
  
  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 higher resolution now, than TV audiences did back when they were first broadcast.
  Finally, If you shoot in 4K, you can crop into the video to feature or eliminate things, without losing too much resolution.
5. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by sjwt · 2014-05-03 20:13 · Score: 4, 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
  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
  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
  And last but not lest a Mk3 with Magic lantern firmware and post processing.
  5D Mark III 14 bit RAW Video with Magic Lantern
  
  --
  You have 5 Moderator Points!
  Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
6. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by Zappy · 2014-05-03 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by marcello_dl · 2014-05-04 01:16 · Score: 2
  
  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)
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
8. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by Oysterville · 2014-05-04 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  So then what you are saying is having an expensive camera doesn't automatically make someone an expert video camera operator?
9. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by BitZtream · 2014-05-04 03:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
10. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-04 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  So then what you are saying is having an expensive camera doesn't automatically make someone an expert video camera operator?
  Exactly. That's why this is the point where car analogies begin to break down.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
EXIF by alex4u2nv · 2014-05-03 12:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, their exif meta tags are different ;)

--
-Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
DOF by Teun · 2014-05-03 12:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
1. Re:DOF by Teun · 2014-05-03 13:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
2. Re:DOF by Anubis+IV · 2014-05-03 13:17 · Score: 4, 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).
3. Re:DOF by viking80 · 2014-05-03 14:34 · 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.
  
  --
  don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
4. Re:DOF by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  (Human eye and astronomical cameras can be up to 100% i.e. detect single photon.)
  Being able to see the effects of a single photon does not imply 100% QE, because you can easily have a bunch of other photons go unnoticed with a chance of seeing effects from any one of them. This comes up in a lot of detectors and imaging that involve avalanche or electron multiplication techniques that will respond to a single photon, but not with 100% efficiency. And the highest estimates I've seen for QE of the human eye is around 10%, although the biology tends to filter out things a little bit to avoid thermal effects.
5. Re:DOF by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Even webcams have a better QE than 10%. Most color cameras have an absolute QE of about 40%. Yes, there are much more sensitive cameras that go over 90%, but usually that is only in a narrow wavelength range. The human eye certainly does not have a QE of 100%, in fact it is only around 10%. Also, a rod or cone in the retina can certainly detect a single photon, however there is a lot of processing going on even before the signal hits the brain, the end result being that you will never be conscious of single photons hitting your retina.
  Apart from QE and photon noise, a camera's dynamic range is also influenced by the read noise from the CCD or CMOS.
6. Re:DOF by asvravi · 2014-05-03 22:04 · Score: 4, 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.
No different than asking... by Pollux · 2014-05-03 12:35 · 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.
1. Re:No different than asking... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 12:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Professional wine tasters can't even generally tell the difference
2. Re:No different than asking... by dagamer34 · 2014-05-03 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:No different than asking... by wasteoid · 2014-05-03 13:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Wine snobs are the worst kind of snobs.
4. Re:No different than asking... by MichaelJ · 2014-05-03 13:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There's no real-time autofocus in nearly all dSLR video recording, including the 5DMKiii used here. In Canon's lineup, only the 70D can do it.
  
  --
  
  Michael J.
  Root, God, what is difference?
5. Re:No different than asking... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 13:22 · 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. 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, 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?)?
6. Re:No different than asking... by dgatwood · 2014-05-03 13:30 · 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.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
7. Re:No different than asking... by rogoshen1 · 2014-05-03 13:48 · Score: 3, 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.
8. Re:No different than asking... by geekmux · 2014-05-03 14:25 · Score: 2
  
  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 other media combined. Your "purist" mentality won't matter, because once we have 300-megatastical-pixel capability in our smarphones, we will have far surpassed "good enough".
9. Re:No different than asking... by kimvette · 2014-05-03 15:00 · Score: 2
  
  > 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 - and hobbyists.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
10. Re:No different than asking... by kimvette · 2014-05-03 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  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."
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
11. Re:No different than asking... by vux984 · 2014-05-03 15:36 · 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.
12. Re:No different than asking... by petes_PoV · 2014-05-03 15:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Actually snob snobs (those who rate snobbishness in different categories) are worse.
  
  --
  politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
13. Re:No different than asking... by bugnuts · 2014-05-03 16:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
14. Re:No different than asking... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 17:10 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Whoa, whoa, whoa... what's going on here? A /.'er understanding some of the values of living life? Colour me confused.
15. Re:No different than asking... by Solandri · 2014-05-03 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  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 practical limit really is how much light the sensor needs, at least for the focal lengths on most cell phone cameras. When you start to get to telephotos, the bigger lens is necessary due to the Rayleigh criterion. But at the typical 20-40mm equivalent focal lengths, the tiny lens on a cell phone camera is just fine; the ultimate manifestation being a pinhole camera which can take pictures despite not even having a lens. In fact, the only reason wide-angle lenses on DSLRs are so big is because you need to make room for the mirror to flip up. That mandates a retrofocus design (basically two lenses stacked on top of each other: a wide-angle + a projector to refocus that wide angle image at a further distance than the focal length). When you eliminate the mirror and turn the camera into a MLC (mirrorless equivalent of a DSLR) or film rangefinder, the wide-angle lenses are comparatively tiny. Exactly the same aperture to sensor size ratio as with cell phone cameras.
16. Re:No different than asking... by fyngyrz · 2014-05-03 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Also, it's been a while since an an uncorked bottle cut my lips or fingers. No so long (or infrequent) for metal caps.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
17. Re:No different than asking... by ignavus · 2014-05-03 18:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I would LOVE to see wine in cans
  Cans are opaque.
  
  --
  I am anarch of all I survey.
18. Re:No different than asking... by cheekyboy · 2014-05-03 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox has spelling corrections, pitty SLASH cannot prevent a post without a spelling fix.
  
  --
  Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
19. Re:No different than asking... by cheekyboy · 2014-05-03 18:56 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
20. Re:No different than asking... by Kjella · 2014-05-03 20:27 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
21. Re:No different than asking... by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-03 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re:No different than asking... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-03 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  what about meta snob snobs who are snobish about snob snobishness?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
23. Re:No different than asking... by Hognoxious · 2014-05-03 21:47 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
24. Re:No different than asking... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-03 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  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 are certainly good cheap wines ut there are also awful cheap wines. If you know nothing about them it's worth spending a little bit more simply because the frequency of awful ones drops, and the frequency of good ones goes up.
  The thing about those "the experts can't spot the cheap wine" tests is that they're comparing the carefully selected very est of the cheap wines against much better ones. I'd bed if you did a sweep of the cheapest bottles from a selection of supermarkest, even *non-experts* could on average determine which were the cheap ones and which were the more expensive ones.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
25. Re: No different than asking... by shiruba3094 · 2014-05-03 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not if you use transparent aluminum!
26. Re:No different than asking... by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-05-03 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  If you drink beer from the bottle then you need to stop using words like 'pageantry'.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
27. Re:No different than asking... by Rich0 · 2014-05-03 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  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...
28. Re:No different than asking... by mattr · 2014-05-03 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why shit beers taste good when icy cold. Next?
29. Re:No different than asking... by GrumpySteen · 2014-05-04 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not all of them
30. Re:No different than asking... by MrNemesis · 2014-05-04 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  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-...âoeupstream-colorâ-shot-on-panasonic-gh2
  
  --
  Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
31. Re:No different than asking... by BitZtream · 2014-05-04 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
32. Re:No different than asking... by BitZtream · 2014-05-04 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  Its turtles all the way down mate.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
33. Re:No different than asking... by drainbramage · 2014-05-04 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps he was using 'cans' as the slang term for restroom.
  
  --
  No brain, no pain.
34. Re:No different than asking... by Hognoxious · 2014-05-04 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  "Sight" is a word. It's even a noun, like "site".
  How would a spiel-chucker catch that?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
35. Re:No different than asking... by vux984 · 2014-05-04 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you drink beer from the bottle then you need to stop using words like 'pageantry'.
  Some beers I'd agree with that :)
  But on a hot day at a BBQ I enjoy a drinking a Corona with a lime wedge straight from the bottle.
36. Re:No different than asking... by vux984 · 2014-05-04 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Try pouring it into a glass, you chav.
  Why? Is Bud light lime mojito really better from a glass? :p
  -shudder-
  But in all seriousness, I agree with you about the glass most of the time for most beer, but outside on a hot day I don't think there is anything wrong with a cold Corona or Stella from the bottle.
37. Re:No different than asking... by rioki · 2014-05-04 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I see it, the mic is basically there so you can sync up the external sound recording latter on. The sole focus of camera maker is on picture fidelity, they know if you have the money to pay 5K for just a camera body and need good sound, you will pay a few K on proper sound recording hardware, like for example a boom mic.
38. Re:No different than asking... by rioki · 2014-05-04 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think many people misjudge it that an expensive wine is the better wine. All these "the expert can't spot the cheap wine" and similar things just show us this over and over again. Nobody that really is into these things is surprised about it; the only people who are surprised/appealed are the snobs, who just got robed of their superiority.
  The cork thing is a bit more difficult. Yes uncorking a bottle of wine is nice and all. The reason why I prefer whine in a corked bottle and in the case of red wine, with the bottom of bottle indented inwards, is because these are the inside tip for a better wine. Granted some wine producers are engaged in deception in the effort of rising their profit margin, but on average this works out quite good.
  Interestingly, in France much wine is either sold directly or through wholesale vendors. In these cases the wine actually never gets into a bottle. It transported in large steal or plastic vats and sold in 5l brown/read plastic canisters, that are refilled. But the wine is never served directly form these canisters, it is always filled into a decanter or flask.
  So yea the mode of transportation has nothing to do with the quality, even though most people prefer specific "presentation".
  By the way whats up with all the Americans insisting of having plastic cups at their parties?! You know, because glass is so unsafe...
39. Re:No different than asking... by Muad'Dave · 2014-05-05 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  using an F-150 on racing day...
  Seems to work for Farm Truck.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
40. Re:No different than asking... by r_jensen11 · 2014-05-05 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's like using a Ferrari to haul construction equipment or using an F-150 on racing day.
  Can't speak for the Ferrari, but it's a known fact that adding racing stripes to your F-150 adds 10HP and shaves a second off your 0-60.
41. Re:No different than asking... by Hognoxious · 2014-05-05 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  You know, I almost added that if it's not worth drinking from a glass it's barely worth drinking at all.
  Stella, seriously?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
42. Re:No different than asking... by vux984 · 2014-05-05 10:49 · Score: 2
  
  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".
43. Re:No different than asking... by balbus000 · 2014-05-06 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Hey guys, I'm going to see how good 4K video really is. To do that, I'm going to use a DSLR to record 1080p video, and a smartphone to record 4K video and then scale that down to 1080p.
  Comparing the results is sure to be meaningful. Really, why is this a story?
Uh, we need a new monitor for that! by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-05-03 12:37 · 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.
1. Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! by Sir_Sri · 2014-05-03 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  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 setup fairly easily). But as a practical matter the vast majority of end users aren't ready for 4k displays, the hardware and software to support it exist, but are not quite ready for primetime. GPU's don't have enough memory, lots of applications don't play nice high density displays or just with ultra high pixel counts.
2. Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! by petes_PoV · 2014-05-03 15:49 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
3. Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-03 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  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!
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! by MikeBabcock · 2014-05-04 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm reminded of a previous Slashdot story ... http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
5. Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-04 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm reminded of a previous Slashdot story ... http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
  I'd agree with that. I have an Apple Cinema Display panel (i.e. a cheap Korean monitor from a defunct company). Fantastic screen quality. Would probably e great for films but I only use it for coding at work.
  I would love to get a 4k screen when they come down in price.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-05-04 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  $2,422.34 for a 31.5 inch 4K Monitor is what I see... that's definitely a "not ready yet!" price from my point of view.
best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-03 12:38 · Score: 1

seriously speaking, under good lighting conditions phone cams have been on par with SLRs for all practical purposes for quite a while now.
1. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-03 12:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  direct youtube link to the comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
2. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Rich0 · 2014-05-03 12:51 · 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.
3. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Rich0 · 2014-05-03 13:02 · 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.
4. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Rich0 · 2014-05-03 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  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 flash blasted at the subject from an inch away from the lens. A DSLR doesn't need nearly as much flash which automatically makes the photos look nicer, and even the built-in flashes have much more distance between the flash and lens (and anybody serious will be using a bounce flash if not off-camera flash).
5. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Normal indoor lighting is a poorly lit situation. Fluorescent has a reasonably high color rendering index, but in general is very weak compared to sunlight and has a very unattractive color cast (this can, for the most part, be corrected with color balance and/or correction). Fluorescent lighting varies wildly (depending upon bulb type), but is still quite dim. Sodium vapor, and most types of lighting they use for sports or industrial settings are absolutely horrendous (low CRI, dim, terrible color).
  With good natural lighting (sunlight or even somewhat overcast) you can get a photo with an iPhone that is fantastic. 95% of indoor shooting a camera phone will be blown away by any reasonable DSLR, due to the tiny sensor leading to greater noise at a higher ISO.
6. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Bah, was talking about incandescent at first. Good CRI, terrible color cast if not corrected properly, still too dim.
7. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-03 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  i didn't say poor lighting conditions don't exist, just that situations when lighting is poor _and_ you want to take a picture aren't as frequent as you seem to think.
  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.
8. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-03 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  "blown away" is a major over exaggeration in vast majority of cases. quality of the photograph is in the photographer's skill first, equipment is distant second. someone who'll take a crappy picture on the phone, will take a picture thats about as crappy on an slr.
9. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Rich0 · 2014-05-03 13:24 · Score: 2
  
  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 lighting, the last thing you want to do is start shining white lights all over the place.
  The DSLR is going to take very nice pictures at ISO 400-800, and the cell phone is going to be struggling at ISO 50. Sure, if it was your only option you could find a use for the cell phone, but no photographer is going to reach for it.
10. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Kjella · 2014-05-03 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-03 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  i'm an amateur photographer and i do own a 5dm2 with a few L-lenses. and let me tell you from experience, if you want family-album-worthy photos you better figure out the lighting whether its with flash or other means, like choosing the time of day for taking the pics.
  dslr gives you much more options in that regard, for sure. and you can probably pull off decent pics from a wider range of lighting conditions.
  that doesnt change the fact that in most (most, not all!) real life situations phone camera is usually more than enough. and its probably going to be what you'll have in your pocket anyways :)
12. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by dgatwood · 2014-05-03 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  seriously speaking, under good lighting conditions phone cams have been on par with SLRs for all practical purposes for quite a while now.
  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 cell phone could hit its diffraction limit as low as f/2.8, which means you can't stop it down to get a wider depth of field without the lens going soft.
  And for distance, the cell phone loses horribly. A DSLR can handle a 600mm lens or longer. A cell phone is usually stuck at the equivalent of about 30mm, with only digital zoom from there.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
13. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-03 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  how often does one need to shoot distance or cares about DOF yet won't invest in a set of olloclip?
  my point (as i believe the reviewer's) is that the advantages of dslr are irrelevant in vast majority of real life situations. not in all situations, mind you, but in most, for most people.
14. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by epyT-R · 2014-05-03 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  but lense flares add atmosphere!
15. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by BobNET · 2014-05-03 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  but lense flares add atmosphere!
  In Soviet astrophotography, atmosphere adds lens flare!
16. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by SydShamino · 2014-05-03 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
17. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by SydShamino · 2014-05-03 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
18. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-03 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  indeed. yours is an excellent case to use a pro camera.
  but for most people in most real life situations phone is more than enough and most importantly its readily available.
19. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Rich0 · 2014-05-04 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  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...
20. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-04 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  which is plenty enough for most situations for most people.
21. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by zr · 2014-05-04 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  i'm afraid i have to insist, it _is_ vast majority _for majority of people_.
  for some people, like yourself perhaps, its not. and thats fine.
  you will notice that most people don't all show up with dslr at parties.
Depends on the skill of the user by 375 · 2014-05-03 12:46 · Score: 1

It depends on how good your skills are with the DSLR. If you just point and shoot, then maybe no difference at all. To get the most out of your DSLR, you have to know what you're doing and how to do it. Handing a $1,000,000 dollar violin and a $500 dollar violin to a beginner produces the same results.
1. Re:Depends on the skill of the user by fyngyrz · 2014-05-03 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Except for panic on behalf of the owner of the $1,000,000.00 violin, that is.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
OMGPWNIES by wickerprints · 2014-05-03 12:49 · Score: 4, 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.
1. Re:OMGPWNIES by Rich0 · 2014-05-03 14:03 · Score: 4, 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.
2. Re:OMGPWNIES by Solandri · 2014-05-03 18:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  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.
3. Re:OMGPWNIES by David_Hart · 2014-05-03 18:39 · Score: 2
  
  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 class.
  http://www.dpreview.com/galler...
4. Re:OMGPWNIES by marcello_dl · 2014-05-04 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  And even if you have to shoot casual video, the hd camcorder half the price of the galaxy and a little larger than your palm is still a better choice because it will focus faster, zoom smoothly and feature optical stabilization.
  A wobbly 4k with focus hunting is better than a HD, or even a DVD resolution, stable and in focus shot? I Don't think so.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
5. Re:OMGPWNIES by Keruo · 2014-05-04 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  There are phones with real cameras in them.
  
  --
  There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Raw? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-03 12:54 · Score: 1

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.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Someone should kick the guy in the balls by toxygen01 · 2014-05-03 12:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Someone should kick the guy in the balls by hey! · 2014-05-03 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Have you got any?
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In a school zone all cars are the same. by sandbagger · 2014-05-03 13:06 · Score: 4, 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.

--
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Slashdotted by log0n · 2014-05-03 13:17 · Score: 2

Wow.. haven't seen this in years!
Yes. by reiserifick · 2014-05-03 13:18 · Score: 1

DSLRs have lenses...
1. Re:Yes. by funwithBSD · 2014-05-03 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean changeable lenses?
  
  --
  Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
I can. by Lumpy · 2014-05-03 13:31 · Score: 1

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...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:I can. by Rich0 · 2014-05-03 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  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 outperform even a $20k camera bag full of top-of-the-line zooms. Of course, if you're taking pictures of a football game, the players aren't going to stand around while you pick the right lens.
compare the videos and not the equipment by __aanbvm4272 · 2014-05-03 13:54 · Score: 1

The question was "can you tell the difference in the videos." Not to compare the equipment... But go right ahead and try to convince everyone why you needed to shell out $.3000. Doesn't a video file usually note the source and say what specific model of equipment took it? My answer is: The notes would be different.
5D III video is inherently soft by Diamonddavej · 2014-05-03 14:41 · Score: 4, 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?...
1. Re:5D III video is inherently soft by noblebeast · 2014-05-05 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  The video in OP did compare the Note to the MK III RAW.
  
  --
  Its not so bad as long as you can keep the fear from your mind.
2. Re: 5D III video is inherently soft by Diamonddavej · 2014-05-05 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, the article says the 5D Mk. III filmed in 1080p, it's the Panasonic G4 that can shoot in 4K raw.
Interesting, but ultimately pointless comparison by Golden_Rider · 2014-05-03 14:58 · 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 lenses and the low light performance of the sensors, which are far better than what you will ever find on a smartphone - it is simple physics, nobody would want to carry around a smartphone which weighs 2kg or more to get the same optical performance / depth of field which the DSLR lenses allow. Yes, the DSLR makers are a bit behind when it comes to shooting video (as far as I know, Nikon is so far only considering making 4K video available and from Canon, only the obscenely expensive EOS-1DC can do 4K) - but that is because these cameras are primarily PHOTOGRAPHY devices and not video cameras.
If you'd switch the test around and made a comparison of photos shot with the DSLR and the Galaxy Note (and compared stuff like noise, distortion, sharpness in the corners of the picture, picture quality when using the built-in flash of the phone and a dedicated flash on the DSLR), you'll see that the DSLR is better at what it is designed to do than the smartphone and that there is a reason why it is more expensive.
So yes, under optimal lighting conditions, the 4K video mode of the Galaxy Note has a better resolution than the EOS 5D Mark III. It's just a bit of a pointless comparison, because it only compares one single aspect, like only comparing the acceleration of two vehicles and then declaring the faster one the better car, completely ignoring that some people might be interested in a different aspect, like ride quality, space, top speed or fuel consumption.
Phone Videos Have Big Black Bars On The Sides by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 15:03 · 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 4k display by Iniamyen · 2014-05-03 15:12 · Score: 1

I'm guessing since most have a 1080ish display and very few have a 4k display, there will be very little perceived difference.
I don't know by Trogre · 2014-05-03 16:35 · Score: 1

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

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Also by Sycraft-fu · 2014-05-03 17:27 · Score: 1

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 video I've seen from 5Ds was pretty soft overall. Whatever kind of processing it does internally for video softens the image a lot. I'm not sure the reason they chose to do that, but it does not look near as good as a consumer camcorder like the one I mentioned.
I'm amazed at how good smartphones can do for pictures and video these days, and ti is really nice to have a reasonable quality camera with you at all times. However it just can't compete with something that has a big lens on it.
...Yes? by Ceriel+Nosforit · 2014-05-03 17:36 · Score: 1

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

--
All rites reversed 2010
$800 Sigma Zoom Lens by OYAHHH · 2014-05-03 17:47 · Score: 1

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.

--
Caution: Contents under pressure
Impossible physics by Kim0 · 2014-05-03 17:53 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Impossible physics by Andy_R · 2014-05-04 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  To paraphrase Pauli, that's so bad it's not even wrong.
  
  --
  A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Apples and Oranges by m.dillon · 2014-05-03 17:58 · Score: 2

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
1. Re:Apples and Oranges by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-03 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The dynamic range problem by fyngyrz · 2014-05-03 18:05 · Score: 2

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 can take advantage of. Which in turn provides some statistical advantages in analyzing data from neighboring sensels. Or in other words, if the resolution of the lens is much lower than the sensor, then the behavior of the *group* of sensels is going to give you the information you want, which in turn will reduce noise.
Major problems include extremely small XY geometries required, extreme speeds required for first few counter stages, noise photons (electrons) that are not part of the incoming stream -- some kind of ultra stable, effectively "cold" material seems to be needed. Perhaps something analogous to a ping-pong-ball accumulator for orderly counting of captured PPBs/photons.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
1. Re:The dynamic range problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe in the distant future, but the numbers now are kind of orders of magnitude off. A fast reseting photon counter might get you 10 ns reset time between photons, while glare from the Sun into a 1 cm^2 light collection system would get you ~10^17 photons a second, requiring ~a billion specialized sensor. And that would be an underestimate since you would be still getting quite a bit of overlap from photons causing your count to underestimate. And you would either need much fancier counters and detectors to get energy resolution, or would need to have more sensors for color information (at the cost of quantum efficiency too). Such detectors exist, but at the moment it is kind of a big deal on some experiments to have an array of a 100, with the electronics of each being the size of a deck of cards.
Re:Interesting, but ultimately pointless compariso by m.dillon · 2014-05-03 18:09 · Score: 1

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
Soviet... by fyngyrz · 2014-05-03 18:18 · Score: 1

In Soviet astrophotography, asteroid adds lens flare!
FTFY

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
youtube compression negates it by dutchwhizzman · 2014-05-03 18:30 · Score: 1

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.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
1. Re:youtube compression negates it by second_coming · 2014-05-03 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not, but higher quality input gives a better chance of higher quality output. Even if only marginally better.
The best camera... by unique_parrot · 2014-05-03 18:38 · Score: 2

...is the one you have with you, when you need it.
DSLR is great for video fool by cheekyboy · 2014-05-03 18:50 · Score: 1

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 same digichipset as a $400 DSLR. Technology will advance past your old stereo types and NEED to have a 1980s video of a VIDEO CAMERA vs a STILL CAMERA.
There is no reason why both can merge and NEED to.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Counter rate by fyngyrz · 2014-05-03 19:50 · Score: 1

A fast reseting photon counter might get you 10 ns reset time between photons
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?

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
1. Re:Counter rate by asvravi · 2014-05-03 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Counter rate by fyngyrz · 2014-05-04 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I see. So it'd be fair to say we would need a different kind of photon detector, then.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why I still own a videocamera by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-03 21:25 · Score: 1

This is why I still own video cameras. I use one at work - an older Sony tape-based one that cost about $5000 - and my personal video camera cost about $2000. There's nothing about a dSLR that screams "buy me". My video cameras have great auto focus, built in mics, the ability to attach XLR mics, the Sony has 3 CMOS sensors as well as built-in ND filters.
Around $5000 today will get a professional 4K video camera that is just as easy to handle and records in a 422 high bit rate codec without any external equipment, nor does it need a viewfinder attached.
There is a place for dSLRs, but they are not a replacement for most videography.
all in the lens by smash · 2014-05-03 22:05 · Score: 1

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.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
what is this, a samsung advert? by unami · 2014-05-03 22:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Note 3 by second_coming · 2014-05-03 22:22 · Score: 1

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.
Try it at Night by BrendaEM · 2014-05-04 00:32 · Score: 1

Night is when small sensors and show all their noisy crappyness.

--
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Magic Lantern firmware by Coop · 2014-05-04 01:07 · Score: 1

Here's an open source firmware project for Canons that can help free your camera.
http://magiclantern.wikia.com/...

--
"If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
1. Re:Magic Lantern firmware by dgatwood · 2014-05-06 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, no, ML doesn't currently fix the 30 minute limit, at least according to its user guide. When asked about it a few months back, the devs implied that it probably wasn't practical to patch out all the different places in Canon's firmware where that limit is enforced.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Let's ask Vincent Laforet by RogueWarrior65 · 2014-05-04 02:24 · Score: 1

I'm surprised nobody has brought up color gamut yet. I have to roll my eyes whenever I see that Samsung vs Apple commercial "So your Galaxy has more pixels" So what? You could be shooting 8k video and it would still suck if the device were only 8-bit.
Huge difference between raw and cooked on Canon by Shirley+Marquez · 2014-05-05 06:21 · Score: 1

The bonus round suggests that most of the softness in the Canon images lies in the camera's JPEG processing. There is much more visible detail in the RAW images, bringing them on a par with the Samsung images, and they retain the advantage in dynamic range. The Sigma zoom lens was probably also not the best choice to get the most out of the Canon body.
So... the phone isn't going to take the place of a good camcorder or DSLR for shooting movies. Yet. Besides the problems with shadow and highlight detail, it also falls down on creative control, low light ability, and lens flexibility. And probably audio as well. But the twilight of the dedicated camera may be closer than we think.
5D low resolution? by Mirar · 2014-05-08 19:55 · Score: 1

What surprised me in this video and in the 5D Mark III 14 bit RAW Video with Magic Lantern video is how low resolution you seem to get from the 5D Mark IIII. It seems rather blurry even in 1080p. I did not expect that.
Actually it seems slightly worse than my full-HD car dvr.
I have a long time been angry at my pocket camera (Sony) for not giving me the 14Mp it should have. The image files are that big, but it seems to be blurry and grouped in a way that I can maybe use a fourth of those pixels.
Where does this blurring come from?
If it needs to be there, I can totally see why you would want to use a sensor that is 4x the size of the target resolution.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Canon 5D is a more useful full-HD camera when it comes to lenses and settings. But I didn't expect the sensor resolution to be that bad, and the effects from it.