pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Best cellphones for 4K video  (Read 2754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 14, 2019, 14:09 »
0
Hi guys and ladies, trying to figure out which phone can be used for pro stock video

The result of my digging:
a. Huawei 30 Pro - beats Samsung 10S Plus in image quality department but not so great for video (review here https://www.dxomark.com/huawei-p30-pro-camera-review/)
2. Samsung 10S Plus - best for video, ok for images. (review: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s10-plus/4)

A couple of questions:
- Would you pick Samsung over Huawei for 4K video?
- Would it be possible to create successful commercial 4K videos with the cellphone?

Thank you!


« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2019, 17:24 »
+4
Neither

« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2019, 21:06 »
0
Huawei is amazing but not sure about video. Photography is very cool... Maybe you can try its 4K.

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk


« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2019, 21:09 »
0
They have both 97 in video. But you can use the Huawei to take better pictures. I don't think you would have a better video cmara than those two. Maybe LG?

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk


« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2019, 05:40 »
+1

« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2019, 07:05 »
0
No such thing as "best".

What situation will you capture? Daylight? Night? Indoors? Outdoors? Steady? Moving? Linear motion? Walking? In water? many aspects....

....and many accessories that you will need I believe...

If I can suggest, rent and try a 4K camcorder or mirrorless, download the footage, edit it, and guess
it will be cheaper than buying a hi end phone and a bag of accessories after, just to discover
that e.g. you cannot optically zoom x20 or that your computer and storage also need an upgrade...

:)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2019, 09:00 »
+3
Neither

Sensor the size of a grain of rice, lens the size of a thumbtack, made of plastic? Neither is my vote too.

« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2019, 10:33 »
0
No such thing as "best".

What situation will you capture? Daylight? Night? Indoors? Outdoors? Steady? Moving? Linear motion? Walking? In water? many aspects....


Mostly daylight in bright sun and mostly landscapes and cityscapes. Occasionally people doing some routine stuff, like cooking, eating, etc.

Thank you!

« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2019, 10:35 »
0
Sensor the size of a grain of rice, lens the size of a thumbtack, made of plastic? Neither is my vote too.

... yet those little things can produce photos that can successfully be sold on stock sited. Why not to assume that the video can be decent too?

« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2019, 11:21 »
+4
Sensor the size of a grain of rice, lens the size of a thumbtack, made of plastic? Neither is my vote too.

... yet those little things can produce photos that can successfully be sold on stock sited. Why not to assume that the video can be decent too?

You can shoot images in RAW, and the quality can be comparable to lower end cameras in bright light.

But, when it comes to video, the bitrates are unfortunately very low and they usually apply way too much sharpening and contrast.

Of course, some shots can be usable, just like a GoPro, but compared to a real camera for half the price, the difference is quite big.

Get a low end 4k Panasonic and the image quality will be much better.

« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2019, 11:35 »
+7
I was under the impression that mobile phones were meant to talk to people who are far away.
But I know, I am getting old...
:-)

« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2019, 14:31 »
0

a. You can shoot images in RAW, and the quality can be comparable to lower end cameras in bright light.

b. Get a low end 4k Panasonic and the image quality will be much better.

a. Yes, and they can be successfully sold. This is the reason why I'm trying to make a point that my criteria at this point is 'sellability on stocks", not the high-end camera comparison.

b. Respectfully disagree. Panny LUMIX G7 has a quite unacceptable image production, in spite of decent entry-level video capabilities.

Thanks for taking time and replying, much appreciated!

« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2019, 17:26 »
0
I love my iphone. It has excellent stabilization and I have uploaded a lot of iphone clips.

Otherwise I prefer a real camera, but my xsmax is really amazing.

« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2019, 21:10 »
0
I love my iphone. It has excellent stabilization and I have uploaded a lot of iphone clips.


Thank you. Would you be able to provide links to your videos shut on your cellphone?

« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2019, 23:32 »
0
I love my iphone. It has excellent stabilization and I have uploaded a lot of iphone clips.


Thank you. Would you be able to provide links to your videos shut on your cellphone?
I would choose anything over iPhone...

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk


« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2019, 23:44 »
+2

a. You can shoot images in RAW, and the quality can be comparable to lower end cameras in bright light.

b. Get a low end 4k Panasonic and the image quality will be much better.

a. Yes, and they can be successfully sold. This is the reason why I'm trying to make a point that my criteria at this point is 'sellability on stocks", not the high-end camera comparison.

b. Respectfully disagree. Panny LUMIX G7 has a quite unacceptable image production, in spite of decent entry-level video capabilities.

Thanks for taking time and replying, much appreciated!

That of course meant to read "VIDEO image quality", since that's what we're discussing. If you think the G7 has unacceptable video quality, well, then I don't think you'll be happy with any phone.

But I haven't yet been able to find original video files from either of those two phones, have you? I would be interested in taking a look as sensor technology is improving. However, a tiny sensor will always have a hard time competing with a larger one...


This is the reason why I'm trying to make a point that my criteria at this point is 'sellability on stocks", not the high-end camera comparison.

By the way, what is this fascination about making stock as bad as possible? I really don't understand it. Why strive for the absolute lowest quality someone MAY accept? It's understandable for drone footage and GoPro footage, because those cameras provide perspectives not possible with better cameras.

Believe me, I'm one of those who even bought a gimbal for my cellphone, thinking it could be nice in certain situations. The number of clips uploaded from that: 0. Compared to my GH5 I have a hard time asking for money for that quality.

:)

« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2019, 00:03 »
0
Quote
fascination about making stock as bad as possible

Perhaps, this is a wrong conclusion.
We all think that this is our best output any given time.
One year later, we might be embarrassed of previous work, but this is how it goes I guess...

I can list some possible reasons:

Millennial minimalism: "one device to do everything"
Lack of extra money for better equipment (yup, that's me and my t3i / 7D)
Youtube pushing ("cinematic" wedding shot on {mobile brand})
Partial knowledge, (people thinking S-Log is a plugin or something  :P )

Evolution of technology does not necessary mean deep knowledge and educated operators.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2019, 08:28 »
0
All shot handheld on a Samsung S8. Some are better than others, none are all that amazing... but I've seen worse!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=358wq1ctg4Q&feature=youtu.be

« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2019, 08:54 »
+1
but I've seen worse!

Well, there's always something worse...

Nice clips, but I have one of those (as well as the same shots of Mynah birds, Thai cliffs and oceans) and while the quality is good enough for home videos and YouTube vlogs, I wouldn't be comfortable charging $179 (or $50) for "4k" clips from that phone. If I bought a "4k" ocean clip and got an S8 clip with Lego water, oversharpened edges and mushy greenery, I would be - not amused. :)

Working with the clips, grading, stabilizing, trying to massage the dynamic range is where you really notice the compression and all the issues that come with that... And compared to a real consumer (prosumer) camera (GH4/GH5) with 100-200 mbit/sec clips and bigger sensors, the quality difference is very big.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 08:57 by increasingdifficulty »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2019, 09:26 »
0
Agreed. Same with the GoPros... not sure if the newer ones are any better, but on my GoPro 5 the 4K is really 'muddy' for want of a better word. Everything seems to blend together, especially when it comes to foliage, and there's no definition in the details. I've got decent results when scaling the content down to 1080p, but I'd rarely want to use the 4K output for anything professional.

Saying that, I have uploaded these ones to a couple of agencies, but don't expect to make much, if anything. Just seemed like something to do rather than sitting in the sun or getting drunk all day! I rarely make live action stock... over 95% of my content is animated, but I did recently buy a Mavic Air and a Sony FDR-AX100 (which seems pretty good, even though it only has a 1" sensor - 100Mbps bitrate though) so I might give the live action game a try!

« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2019, 09:38 »
0
Sony FDR-AX100 (which seems pretty good, even though it only has a 1" sensor - 100Mbps bitrate though) so I might give the live action game a try!

While I haven't tried that particular camera, in my experience, a 1" sensor and 100+ mpbs for 4k is where good (sometimes really good) quality starts, so I'm sure it will work out!

But of course, as technology advances, this will slowly change. However, it's hard to change the laws of physics and a bigger area and/or bigger pixels will be able to gather more light = better quality.

And cell phones must be thin = small sensor, and they must be economical with space = low bitrate.

« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2019, 09:43 »
+2
I was under the impression that mobile phones were meant to talk to people who are far away.
But I know, I am getting old...
:-)
In a close future we will be able to phone with our cameras

« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2019, 09:47 »
0
Quote
I did recently buy ... and a Sony FDR-AX100

@SpaceStockFootage, sorry for the offtopic question but may I ask if you researched ax100 vs ax700? And what was the reasons that you picked AX100? (except of course the price difference).

Thanks!

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2019, 10:04 »
+1
Quote
I did recently buy ... and a Sony FDR-AX100

@SpaceStockFootage, sorry for the offtopic question but may I ask if you researched ax100 vs ax700? And what was the reasons that you picked AX100? (except of course the price difference).

Thanks!

Yeah, only reason was price really. Would like the S-Log option and the 1080p/120fps on the 700, but wasn't sure if it was worth the extra. Same reason i got the Mavic Air rather than the Mavic Pro 2. Didn't want to go too crazy on the spending, as I also got a motorized slider, a gimbal, audio recorder, video mic, lights and a bunch of other stuff. Starting a small video production setup for local business.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2019, 10:09 »
+1
Sensor the size of a grain of rice, lens the size of a thumbtack, made of plastic? Neither is my vote too.

... yet those little things can produce photos that can successfully be sold on stock sited. Why not to assume that the video can be decent too?

I disagree, a video camera would have something like a 1" sensor. A phone would have a 1/2.55 sensor. Phone 1 micron pixels, 1" sensor (rough guess) at least four times larger.



Lens resolution and diffraction, more on a phone, small lens, than a larger glass lens.

You can't fool Mother Nature.

I understand your point, how little can you spend to make money. But honestly, if you have better equipment, your work production will be better and you'll make more money. If you want the minimum to get accepted, you might just have spent the time and money for little or no return. Do you want to make good video that sells? A phone might make video but the phone will be more difficult to work with, limited, harder to get good quality and harder to make video that will attract buyers.

The exception of course, if you have video of something that no one else has, then you can shoot with a phone and maybe make a sale.

If you are going to shoot stock subjects, you need to beat the competition. Someone else posted that 4k is over rated and buyers are still downloading 1080. I don't know if that's a fact? But you might consider a better video camera that doesn't make 4k and that has high quality, instead of "bigger is better", only thinking size, from a phone?

And of course if you question is, how to make money with the phone, because you can't afford a proper camera, then pick one, my answer stands. Neither and a phone isn't suitable for commercial sales. Plus you might not need 4k.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4579 Views
Last post November 23, 2008, 18:22
by stokfoto
0 Replies
6797 Views
Last post February 20, 2011, 01:40
by RedScarlet
3 Replies
1602 Views
Last post April 12, 2012, 17:00
by rubyroo
1 Replies
4018 Views
Last post June 16, 2014, 05:48
by Mantis
1 Replies
2044 Views
Last post January 30, 2015, 13:11
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results