Slashdot Mirror

← 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 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?"

11 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. EXIF by alex4u2nv · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, their exif meta tags are different ;)

    --
    -Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
  2. No different than asking... by Pollux · · 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 MichaelJ · · 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?
    2. Re:No different than asking... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?)?

    3. Re:No different than asking... by dgatwood · · 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.

    4. Re:No different than asking... by vux984 · · 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.

    5. Re:No different than asking... by bugnuts · · 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.

  3. Re:I could presumably count the pixels? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ANSWER?

    Lenses, lenses, lenses...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  4. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Rich0 · · 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.

  5. Someone should kick the guy in the balls by toxygen01 · · 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.

  6. Re:best camera is one on hand when need it by Rich0 · · 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.