-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Samsung Galaxy 5S 4K Video
- Thread starter Markr041
- Start date
LingoDingo
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,802
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 710
Good video for a phone, but terrible video for a video camera.
i.e. tons of jitter and artifacts, bad color, high contrast, etc...
i.e. tons of jitter and artifacts, bad color, high contrast, etc...
The jitter comes from the lack of any stabilization - this is the main challenge.
I am not a fan of the use of the term 'artifacts' - that is a generic term that therefore means nothing by itself. What exactly do you see that you are calling an "artifact" - aliasing, moire? color bleeding? macro-blocking? sharpening halos? ringing? contouring? posterizing? what?
Oh, and "bad" colors - do you mean inaccurate? limited gamut? too vivid?
And keep in my mind, Youtube is compressing the heck out of the video. So compression artifacts are on Youtube.
The phone is no AX100 and I agree the colors are on the vivid side and the look is contrasty. But the resolution beats the heck out of any video camera that claims to be FHD.
I have posted frame grabs from the 4K video in his thread. These avoid any artifacts produced by Youtube, and give a better idea of what the 4K video is like.
Last edited:
lancespring
Senior Member
People are not going to be satisfied with shooting 1080 HD anymore.
.
.
Kim Letkeman
Forum Pro
The resolution is fine ... few people have monitors that can show above 1080 so it's hardly important that there is 4k in there somewhere ...
What is important, though, is the blown out skies ... there is no disguising a phone with scenes like that ...
JamesJimmy
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 493
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 380
Looks great on my 4K monitor! It is amazing how much cell phone cameras have advanced in the last few years.
M
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Guest
I'm not too sure on this one. The transition, for instance, from DVD to BluRay has been sluggish, with original DVD sources outselling the HD. This doesn't tell me that people prefer DVD, but it does tell me that it is "good enough" without paying the premium price. And then there are the TVs... hi def televisions were once huge sellers as people ditched their old sets and made the transition to digital. By and large, they've done that, and now sales are flat. (Sony has announced that they will even stop making TVs.) Despite being able to get much bigger sets at lower cost, people are satisfied with their 40" sets. And 40" sets won't dramatically benefit from 4K.
I'm not saying that their won't be a market for 4K. But I am saying that it will be small for MANY years.
M
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Guest
Agreed. There's so much more to it than just the number of pixels.
Think about pocket 35mm cameras in years past. You could load the same "high resolution" Kodachrome 64 in them that you put in your Canon F1 or Nikon FM, but the contrast in quality would be huge. How big is that sensor in the S5? What quality of lens is in front of it?
To me, stuffing all these pixels inside such tiny devices is largely a waste.
Kim Letkeman
Forum Pro
Such is life in a saturated market ...
Many people miss the point: Shooting in 4K gives you much better-looking video on HD (1080) viewing devices than shooting HD (1080). Why? because downscaled UHD (4K) has visibly higher resolution and better color than the native HD produced by almost all cameras and camcorders. Why, again? Because HD cameras and camcorders come nowhere near 1080 resolution. This is the deep, dark secret of HD video - it's not, especially on DSLRs (almost all).
All of the people - and I mean all people who see 4K video on HD viewing devices - are immediately impressed by the higher resolution. Why is that? See above.
The bottom line: you do not need to invest in any new equipment to immediately obtain the benefit of shooting in 4K. This is NOT like 3D.
Last edited:
jkoch2
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,198
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 584
Couch potato athletes will want 65"+ 4k screens to indulge in their passion and impress their friends. The market will be at least as large as that of the crowd that spends unseemly sums on sports tickets, travel, paraphernalia, and merry-making.
4k may not become the sportscasting standard until 2016 or 2017, but the June World Cup games will give an early glimpse, and HEVC will make 4k viewing more feasible. Soccer and hockey become much more watcheable in 4k. Baseball, on the other hand, can be conveyed quite graphically by a good radio announcer.
But the golldarndest irony is that 4k video capture is more common on $300 phones, or POV cameras, but does not exist in any dedicated cameras other than ones that approach or exceed the cost of a 65"+ 4k display. This leaves one in a situation like the characters in the O. Henry story about gift givers: one sold her hair to buy a watch chain, the other sold the watch to buy a fancy hair comb. Some of the cheap 4k screens won't be upgradable or may fail after a year or two. The more expensive ones sell with dilluted claims of support and plenty of disclaimers. Will any conform to whatever 4k protocols rule in three years?
4k may not become the sportscasting standard until 2016 or 2017, but the June World Cup games will give an early glimpse, and HEVC will make 4k viewing more feasible. Soccer and hockey become much more watcheable in 4k. Baseball, on the other hand, can be conveyed quite graphically by a good radio announcer.
But the golldarndest irony is that 4k video capture is more common on $300 phones, or POV cameras, but does not exist in any dedicated cameras other than ones that approach or exceed the cost of a 65"+ 4k display. This leaves one in a situation like the characters in the O. Henry story about gift givers: one sold her hair to buy a watch chain, the other sold the watch to buy a fancy hair comb. Some of the cheap 4k screens won't be upgradable or may fail after a year or two. The more expensive ones sell with dilluted claims of support and plenty of disclaimers. Will any conform to whatever 4k protocols rule in three years?
Jamon47
Forum Enthusiast
Interesting... but if HD cameras and camcorders were made to deliver full 1080 resolution and at 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0 would that come close to look as good as UHD (4K) on a HD (1080) viewing device?
This ignores the fact that you can impress your friends (if that is the point) with 4K video without any upgrades of viewing devices. 4K-origin video looks better on your old 1080 TV than any 1080-origin video, because almost no 1080 video comes close to true 1080.
My friends and family are indeed impressed by even the Galaxy 4K because they see the difference, and none have 4K TV's or monitors. They are seeing true HD for the first time.
Oh, and I have taken baseball videos for many years. 4K baseball looks better than HD baseball. You can see a comparison here:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1527328/4...sus-panasonic-tm900-fz200-z1000-and-sony-hx9v
Last edited:
Yes.
LingoDingo
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,802
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 710
It could be all of that. Without seeing the original phone-camera files, I could only guess if the visual problems are YouTube or the phone.
Lots of issues: over-saturation, bleeding, color-balance, etc...
If this footage came out of a camcorder, I would immediately return the camera for a full refund. For a phone, it's quite acceptable.
I have seen some very nice footage shot with the iPhone 5s, where the subjects chosen and lighting used were selected to make the iPhone look very good. This iPhone footage was almost comparable to what you would see from a camcorder. It wasn't 4K, but who cares, the footage was very nice.
It's a bigger sensor (1/2.5) than most camcorders. It's a six-element f2.2 lens. You need at least 8 megapixels for 4K, no matter what the device.
The jitter is from the operator - can't hold it steady. So let's skip that.
I agree there is much more to video than resolution, but resolution and lack of moire and lack of RS (because the sensor is small) and 4:2:2 color (when downrezzed) are some of the big ones.
Finally, if you are going to scrutinize video quality (which is fine), probably you want not to look at Youtube streams.
I posted frame grabs from the video - that is essentially what the video looks like before Youtube compresses the heck out of it. You can make a better judgment from that (on color, and some artifacts you think you see, but not motion artifacts of course).
Last edited:
Five scenes:
1. Focus hold: Shift the camera away from the central object. Object stays in focus even though now on edge of scene.
2. Focus shift: Shift the camera away from the central object and have the camera move focus to the subject in the background.
3. Focus pull: Stationary camera. Change focus from object in foreground to background and back.
4. Focus hold again.
5. Focus shift again.
The camera does very well.
Select 1080 or above!
1. Focus hold: Shift the camera away from the central object. Object stays in focus even though now on edge of scene.
2. Focus shift: Shift the camera away from the central object and have the camera move focus to the subject in the background.
3. Focus pull: Stationary camera. Change focus from object in foreground to background and back.
4. Focus hold again.
5. Focus shift again.
The camera does very well.
Select 1080 or above!
lancespring
Senior Member
Dude: No such cameras exist. That is the whole point.
You are imagining things that do not exist.
.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum