Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the but-magic-lantern dept.

Cellphones 201

Iddo Genuth (903542) writes "Photographer and videographer Alec Weinstein was in the market for a new smartphone. He realized that the new Samsung Galaxy S5 and the Note 3 both have 4K video recording capabilities and decided to compare those to his 1080p 5D MKIII pro DSLR camera – the results are extremely interesting — Can you tell the difference between a Canon 5D MKIII shooting 1080p video and a Samsung Galaxy Note III smartphone shooting 4K video?"

cancel ×

201 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I could presumably count the pixels? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910555)

No?

Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 months ago | (#46910617)

ANSWER?

Lenses, lenses, lenses...

Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910695)

Gravity lens! I'm so fat, I can bend light...

Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | about 6 months ago | (#46910951)

ANSWER?

Lenses, lenses, lenses...

Ah, true, but only half-right.

In today's world, the much more relevant factor is playback, playback, playback...

(In other words, how many of your 100 friends have the hardware even remotely capable of true 4K playback...needless to say, this is a solution without a problem...)

Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (2)

drkim (1559875) | about 5 months ago | (#46911491)

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.

Re:I could presumably count the pixels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46911549)

A zoom lens, at f13.

Yes, it's going to be crap.

EXIF (5, Funny)

alex4u2nv (869827) | about 6 months ago | (#46910559)

Yes, their exif meta tags are different ;)

DOF (4, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | about 6 months ago | (#46910577)

The site is slow to load (surprise?)

I assume the obvious difference is going to be the depth of field or DOF.
The Galaxy will have oodles of it but lacks the ability to isolate the subject, the Canon will make a nice sharp shot on the subject leaving the surroundings vague.

And then there's this thing with zoom/ interchangeable lenses...

Re:DOF (3, Interesting)

Teun (17872) | about 6 months ago | (#46910763)

Just saw the video via the Youtube link below.

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

Re:DOF (4, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46910779)

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

Re:DOF (3, Insightful)

viking80 (697716) | about 6 months ago | (#46911003)

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.

The dynamic range problem (2)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 5 months ago | (#46911561)

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.

Phone Videos Have Big Black Bars On The Sides (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46911123)

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

That's pretty obvious really!

No different than asking... (5, Insightful)

Pollux (102520) | about 6 months ago | (#46910587)

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

Besides, why would I use a DSLR to shoot video? Wrong tool for the job. That's like using a Ferrari to haul construction equipment or using an F-150 on racing day.

On the other hand, just try to use a smartphone to take pictures of fireworks at night or shoot a picture of your child making a layup at his basketball game in an indoor gym. Then tell me how the two compare.

Re:No different than asking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910685)

I'm glad there's somebody left on this sight who has a fucking clue.

I only wish the editors would buy one.

Re:No different than asking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46911059)

I'm glad there's somebody left on this sight who has a fucking clue.

I only wish the editors would buy one.

I wish you'd buy a dictionary.

Re:No different than asking... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910697)

Professional wine tasters can't even generally tell the difference

Re:No different than asking... (4, Insightful)

dagamer34 (1012833) | about 6 months ago | (#46910699)

Are we assuming perfect world or what the average enthusiast might have? Because I'd rather shoot video on a dSLR which has far better optics and real physical zoom than a smartphone that has to cram everything into 7mm or less of space.

Re:No different than asking... (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 5 months ago | (#46911521)

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.

Re:No different than asking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910707)

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/canon_dslrs_used_to_shootmarvels_the_avengers_feature_film/

http://forums.skateperception.com/index.php?/topic/295683-list-of-movies-that-dslrs-have-been-used-in/

Re:No different than asking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910745)

A video camera may be a better fit for the job, lacking one I can't tell, but shooting video with a DSLR is okay-ish.

The biggest problems is the often capped recording time (has to to with licenses) and that it's quite possible to hear the auto focus in the audio. So if you make short videos with external microphone(s) or don't need a short DOF or just don't need to refocus its okay. ;)

At least it's way better, than a smart phone.

Re:No different than asking... (5, Informative)

MichaelJ (140077) | about 6 months ago | (#46910787)

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.

Re:No different than asking... (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 6 months ago | (#46911125)

You can kind of do it with the 7D by hitting the AF button, and with STM lenses you avoid getting the AF noise. You're still best off with an external mic since the integrated mic on every DSLR is not intended for the best fidelity, but for ruggedability (and weather-sealed on the pro-level and prosumer bodies) and to be good enough to "just get the job done."

Re:No different than asking... (5, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | about 6 months ago | (#46910825)

The capped recording time is actually the fault of the European Union's import duties, which charge a higher tax rate for anything that can record 30 minutes or longer. Blame excessive government bureaucracy for your DSLR being crippled.

Re:No different than asking... (3, Informative)

wasteoid (1897370) | about 6 months ago | (#46910755)

Wine snobs are the worst kind of snobs.

Re:No different than asking... (4, Funny)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 6 months ago | (#46911253)

Actually snob snobs (those who rate snobbishness in different categories) are worse.

Re:No different than asking... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910793)

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

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

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

Re:No different than asking... (5, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | about 6 months ago | (#46911233)

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

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

(as cans are over bottles for beer,

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

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

I would LOVE to see wine in cans

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

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

Re:No different than asking... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46911465)

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

Re:No different than asking... (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 5 months ago | (#46911565)

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

Re:No different than asking... (3, Interesting)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#46910863)

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

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

Re:No different than asking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910901)

"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."

Actually, DSLRs are used in many video shoots nowadays especially in commercials and music videos. A high-end DSLR is $5K. A low-end production video camera is $10K.

And BTW, apparently even experts can't tell the difference between a cheap and expensive wine.

Re:No different than asking... (2)

geekmux (1040042) | about 6 months ago | (#46910981)

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".

Re:No different than asking... (2)

kimvette (919543) | about 6 months ago | (#46911117)

> 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.

Re:No different than asking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46911223)

The main reason is lenses. A dSLR can get the same size of image that a video camera can, but the lenses are the same that are used by regular photographers. The result is that you get better DOF and more flexible options.

And modern dSLRs do an amazing job with video, hell, even my old Canon PS sx40hs did a remarkable job of taking video, it just had limited battery life and a few other issues, but it puts camcorders of the '80s to shame.

Re:No different than asking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46911281)

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

Even the experts can't be relied on upon to tell the difference. [theguardian.com]

Re:No different than asking... (5, Informative)

bugnuts (94678) | about 5 months ago | (#46911385)

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.

Uh, we need a new monitor for that! (2)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 6 months ago | (#46910595)

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

Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46911015)

4K just isn't here yet in monitors.

Uhhhh....really? Then please explain this:

http://www.amazon.com/s/field-... [amazon.com]

Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 6 months ago | (#46911069)

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.

Re:Uh, we need a new monitor for that! (4, Funny)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 6 months ago | (#46911269)

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.

best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

zr (19885) | about 6 months ago | (#46910601)

seriously speaking, under good lighting conditions phone cams have been on par with SLRs for all practical purposes for quite a while now.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (3, Informative)

zr (19885) | about 6 months ago | (#46910655)

direct youtube link to the comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (5, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#46910721)

Interesting. It looks like the 5D pictures weren't processed at all - they could stand some sharpening.

That is important, because most consumer-oriented cameras (such as in phones) apply quite a bit of sharpening automatically. Professional cameras almost always avoid any processing, so that you don't get further losses when you post-process them (professional photographers almost always post-process).

Also, half of the comparisons used JPEGs taken by the 5D. Again, serious photographers rarely capture JPEGs, because they lose dynamic range and end up being double-processed (and they're lossy besides).

I did note that the RAW photos taken by the 5D handled one of the high-contrast shots much better (lots of shade in the foreground with the sky and sunlit buildings in the background).

Focus speed is also an issue with cell phone cameras - a DSLR will focus MUCH faster and more accurately, especially in low light. They can also capture pictures in rapid succession. Most DSLRs are designed so that if you push the shutter release, they take a picture, no matter WHAT else is going on in terms of modes/etc (well, unless you put it on delay timer or something). A DSLR is always ready to take a picture, and will do so very quickly.

The main advantage of the cell phone is that you always have it on you. However, if you're actually planning on taking photos, I'd pick the DSLR any day. There is just no comparison in the photos they take except under the most ideal conditions.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910919)

It doesn't look like they weren't processed, it looks like the guy using the camera is incompetent. He apparently can't manage to focus it.

I'd bet heavily on Samsung paying him for this.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (5, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#46910657)

seriously speaking, under good lighting conditions phone cams have been on par with SLRs for all practical purposes for quite a while now.

Under good lighting conditions $20 cameras have been on-par with $800 cameras for decades.

The problem is that good lighting conditions are fairly rare.

I'd love to have a decent phone camera, but it is really hard to accomplish in optics that are a few mm across what you can do with optics that are several cm across. My current phone camera is very prone to lens flares, has fairly poor dynamic range, and isn't terribly light-sensitive. It captures plenty of blurry pixels though.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (0)

zr (19885) | about 6 months ago | (#46910689)

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.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#46910739)

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).

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

zr (19885) | about 6 months ago | (#46910773)

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.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#46910805)

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.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

zr (19885) | about 6 months ago | (#46910835)

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 :)

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 6 months ago | (#46911153)

I shoot Q&As at film festivals. I'm not allowed to use a flash, and the light is usually yellow with a lot of red from the velvet walls.

No phone can tackle that, but I can get good pictures from a DSLR.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

zr (19885) | about 6 months ago | (#46911183)

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.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46911247)

Except most of these situstions you think aren't common really are, wrt taking interesting pictures.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910747)

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.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910761)

Bah, was talking about incandescent at first. Good CRI, terrible color cast if not corrected properly, still too dim.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

zr (19885) | about 6 months ago | (#46910789)

"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.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 months ago | (#46910815)

good lighting conditions aren't all that rare for most people. we usually don't hang around in poorly lit situations. we're talking about civilians, not pro photographers here, i hope that goes without saying.

Your average indoor setting is not a "good" lighting condition, our eyes adapt but generally there is way, way less light used indoors than you get on a sunny or even overcast day. A family living room has maybe 50 lux of illumination, an overcast day 1000 lux and direct sunlight 10000 lux. I don't care because the cell phone is about capturing the situation, but if I wanted technically good photos I'd use something else.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46911237)

Ok. Open field outside during normwl daylight hours. Twilight/dusk/night sucks. My particular? At indoor pool for swim meeteven when it seems like "good" light, isn't good light unless you have some decent glass. As in, not a cell phone camera or other POS camera.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46910979)

but lense flares add atmosphere!

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

BobNET (119675) | about 6 months ago | (#46911103)

but lense flares add atmosphere!

In Soviet astrophotography, atmosphere adds lens flare!

Soviet... (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 5 months ago | (#46911583)

In Soviet astrophotography, asteroid adds lens flare!

FTFY [youtube.com]

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 6 months ago | (#46910913)

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.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

zr (19885) | about 6 months ago | (#46910947)

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.

Re:best camera is one on hand when need it (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 6 months ago | (#46911175)

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.

Of course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910627)

Sure, one is a shitty phone video and the other is a lovely professional video. Which one is the phone video? Um.... Well, it's so obvious I shouldn't even have to tell you!

Depends on the skill of the user (1)

375 (863865) | about 6 months ago | (#46910631)

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.

Can't tell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910641)

I can't tell the difference between a the of either a the of these. A the of Canon looks good but so does a the Samsung.

OMGPWNIES (4, Informative)

wickerprints (1094741) | about 6 months ago | (#46910647)

Let's see if the Galaxy Note 3 can:

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

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

Re:OMGPWNIES (0)

csumpi (2258986) | about 6 months ago | (#46910743)

Let's also see which one fits in your pocket, making it available at all times.

Or, wouldn't you be happy with a sip of the $10 wine from a flask if you can't carry the $100 bottle around?

.

Re:OMGPWNIES (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910841)

I can tell from his post that he'd be happier telling you he can't touch your $10 wine because he wants his $100 Chateau Le Feete. Your music is intolerable as well without his $1,000 record player and $500 Denon platinum plated RCA cables. He could probably only stand to be at your party for 10 minutes at most, plebe.

Re:OMGPWNIES (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#46910909)

Let's also see which one fits in your pocket, making it available at all times..

Cell phone cameras have their place. However, if you're actually going someplace to take photos, they're not the tool you should be reaching for.

I have a leatherman for situations where I just need a bunch of tools handy, but when I do maintenance on my car, I grab my toolbox and not my leatherman. Sure, I could probably manage to get the oil plug out using the pliers tool on it, but I own a socket wrench and a set of metric sockets for a reason. When I'm going to change tires, I grab my breaker bar too, and my torque wrench for putting them back on.

That doesn't mean that there aren't situations where the leatherman is handy to have.

Re:OMGPWNIES (3, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about 5 months ago | (#46911555)

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.

Go Figure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910649)

Multiple 4k video streams have shuttered the server.

stupid fucking question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910663)

Under ideal conditions no it really doesn't matter.

But outside, when things are moving fast or there may not be adequate lighting, there's huge fucking difference.

In a studio where you have an interesting lighting setup and you need to trigger the lights from the camera, huge fucking difference.

I'll give you a hint, the secret to the difference isn't in the sensor.

Of course being a Canon boy, I'm guessing he's part of the megapixel's rule club.

the coming shakeout in the camera industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910669)

We've reached the point where camera phones are good enough for 99%+ of uses, and the sales of traditional "just camera" cameras have been in freefall for a while now. There's still a small market for high end cameras, but it's not big enough to sustain the industry as it now is. Industry insiders think there will soon come a consolidation of the various companies that now produce SLRs, to cope with the new market realities.

I wouldn't want to be holding stock in an SLR company at the moment...

Site does not respondent but. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910671)

Most mobile phone videos seems to suffer from rolling shutter although not so much as they used to.
Some can make quiete nice videos under the right conditions and then just plain suck in the wrong.

Raw? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46910679)

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.

Someone should kick the guy in the balls (5, Insightful)

toxygen01 (901511) | about 6 months ago | (#46910693)

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.

Re:Someone should kick the guy in the balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910713)

Why don't you come kick me in the balls yourself, tough guy!?

--Alec

Re:Someone should kick the guy in the balls (1)

hey! (33014) | about 6 months ago | (#46910811)

Have you got any?

Also (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 5 months ago | (#46911487)

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.

In a school zone all cars are the same. (4, Interesting)

sandbagger (654585) | about 6 months ago | (#46910737)

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

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

Slashdotted (2)

log0n (18224) | about 6 months ago | (#46910781)

Wow.. haven't seen this in years!

Yes. (1)

reiserifick (2616539) | about 6 months ago | (#46910785)

DSLRs have lenses...

Re:Yes. (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 6 months ago | (#46910857)

I think you mean changeable lenses?

Fetishism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46910791)

Just as most "audiophiles" can't tell the difference between a good MP3 and FLAC we have reached a point where most people simply won't notice a difference in video. They tried to sell us on 3D but anyone over 30 laughed that off and the latest target demographic is doing the same. Now they want people to "upgrade" to 4K TV but the market remains skeptical. I remember being blown away by the difference between HD & then standard definition TV but seeing a 4K TV next to an HD made me yawn.

I can. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46910829)

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

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

Re:I can. (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#46910861)

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 (1)

Grow Old Timber (1071718) | about 6 months ago | (#46910883)

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 (4, Interesting)

Diamonddavej (851495) | about 6 months ago | (#46911033)

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

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

The results are spectacular:

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

Interesting, but ultimately pointless comparison (2)

Golden_Rider (137548) | about 6 months ago | (#46911105)

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.

Re:Interesting, but ultimately pointless compariso (1)

m.dillon (147925) | about 5 months ago | (#46911567)

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

no 4k display (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about 6 months ago | (#46911155)

I'm guessing since most have a 1080ish display and very few have a 4k display, there will be very little perceived difference.

get making 35mm adaptors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46911347)

i'd rather take my phone and a good lense in my pocket from a pool of thousands of variations available, screw on a lense and its then down to the sensor, think more modular in construction, we only want to use the phones sensor, than cram it lense and all into a 7mm phone, fit it with a basic lense and have the ability to screw an external 35mm standard lense to it, otherwise i have to carry 3 things, 35mm camera, lenses AND my phone..we can cut out one of those surely

I don't know (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 5 months ago | (#46911403)

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

...Yes? (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | about 5 months ago | (#46911507)

Yes, I can.

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

$800 Sigma Zoom Lens (1)

OYAHHH (322809) | about 5 months ago | (#46911525)

The comparison was a crock!

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

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

Impossible physics (1)

Kim0 (106623) | about 5 months ago | (#46911541)

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

IAARP, I Am A Real Physicst

Apples and Oranges (2)

m.dillon (147925) | about 5 months ago | (#46911551)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?