Slashdot Mirror
Can You Tell the Difference? 4K Galaxy Note 3 vs. Canon 5D Mark III Video
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?"
Yes, their exif meta tags are different ;)
-Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
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."
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.
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.
Lenses, lenses, lenses...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
direct youtube link to the comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow.. haven't seen this in years!
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.
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...)
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?...
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
...is the one you have with you, when you need it.
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?
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.
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
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