Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Cell Phone Shoots 4K Video  (Read 3865 times)
RFPhotography
Guest
« on: September 02, 2013, 09:56:46 AM »
ReplyReply

http://fstoppers.com/want-to-take-4k-video-with-your-phone-meet-acers-new-liquid-s2

I think I know what folks on here are going to think.  Grin  But when you consider that an Academy Award-winning film was finishex with an iPhone because the filmmaker ran out of money for film, http://petapixel.com/2013/02/28/oscar-winning-documentary-fimmaker-used-his-iphone-when-money-ran-out/, is 4K video in a phone really that much of a stretch?
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2013, 12:44:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Now a second smartphone spec'd to offer 4K video, the newest Samsung Galaxy Note, http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_note_3-5665.php
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2013, 04:34:49 PM »
ReplyReply

A lot of phones are going to come out soon with the new Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 processor, and this can handle 3840x2160p30 video (a.k.a. "4K"). So I guess it is then almost automatic to equip them with a sensor at least 3820 pixels wide (say 13MP) and offer the 4K video option.

If it achieves nothing else, this will help to upsell customers on large capacity micro SD cards, and maybe even knock on to selling multi-terabyte hard drives for archiving all those "friends, kids, annd cats" videos, now in ultra-HD.


P. S. No disrepect for the far smaller number of talented people who might actually find some good use for a phone with this capability.

P. P. S. It is slightly surprising that, while still camera marketing makes the resolution sound as big as possible by counting pixels, video often uses the most understated measure: vertical pixel counts like 720, 1080, and now "2160p". (A hangover from counting horizontal lines in analog television transmission.)
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2013, 05:32:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it is a result of the new processors that can move data of the sensor faster.  And while I have no illusion that a '4K capable' smartphone is going to rival a RED for image quality, it's still an interesting development.  Makes one wonder, as well, if they can get it done in a cell phone that costs $600, why not in a DSLR that costs 3-20 times as much.

I started this thread because I'm a fan of what mobile technology can do.  Not just for the inherent capabilities of the mobile device itself, but also for what these devices can do for photographers who use DSLRs.  And with the right apps, that's a hell of a lot.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2013, 05:58:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Makes one wonder, as well, if they can get it done in a cell phone that costs $600, why not in a DSLR that costs 3-20 times as much.
Indeed an intriguing contrast.

Some pessimistic options:
(a) The far smaller sensors of phone-camera modules make it easier to move the photosite signals at the high rates needed, due to shorter signal paths.
b) Designs that support higher read-rates compromise on still image quality (e.g. dynamic range), a trade-off that is more acceptable in phones than in SLRs ... at least amongst customers who think that the most important review of a new SLR is the one from DXO!

Some more hopeful thoughts:
(c) SlR sensors and processing chips have been designed by and /or for companies with a heavy still-photography priority, who have simply not put as much effort into video support ... yet.
(d) Companies like Canon and Nikon are tied to their separate, proprietary, in-house processing chip designs, that cannot keep up with the technological progress in the far larger and far more vigorously competitive world of ARM processors and UNIX-based operating systems. The OS options include not only Android (which ironically, was originally developed with cameras in mind, before Google bought it) but other Linux-based options, and derivatives of Free BSD, like Darwin, the open source guts of iOS. This too could change: Samsung and Nikon have tested the Android waters in some compacts.

P. S. in case I worried anyone, I certainly do not mean that SLRs should adopt a phone's style of user interface or apps; just using those core technologies as a platform, "under the hood".
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 06:14:58 PM by BJL » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2013, 06:16:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Would the shorter travel path of the signal make that much of a difference?  I'm not sure the designs to support faster read rates would compromise still image quality.  I'm not saying they wouldn't.  I don't know and don't know why that trade-off should need to exist.

I agree with point (c) but think that is changing, it will take time; which then falls into point (d) and says it may take a fair amount of time.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad