

Galaxy Nexus: 1080p Video - dillon
https://plus.google.com/111962077049890418486/posts/EJxn8T21H5o

======
jjcm
It is truly amazing what we can do on cell phones these days. That said, this
isn't any better than anything on the market today. The video is simply better
produced than many of the engadget video-walk-around-the-block-while-holding-
the-phone sample vids we often see. Also note the choice of lighting - outdoor
shots that are mostly shot during the golden hour (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_(photography)> ). Very smart of them
to release a well produced video like this though, as the common user will
assume that the shots will always look this nice.

It's a lovely video, but it's not a real world scenario.

~~~
salmanapk
What do you mean by "them"? It was shot by a Google+ user not Google.

~~~
mgcross
A G+ user and Google employee. From his profile:

"I work at Google as an Android Software Engineer, primarily focusing on
anything graphics and animations related."

------
paperwork
Here is another fantastic one, shot with an iphone 4s:
<http://vimeo.com/30578363>. This video's production is even better than the
one linked by OP. That is the thing to remember, isn't it, these videos are
produced by people who know how to handle their cameras.

I do agree that cameras are getting pretty good. Once I get my 4s, I'm
planning on spending a few hours learning videography (or whatever they call
it).

~~~
jquery
Can someone explain in more technical terms why this looks so much better than
the video shot by the Galaxy Nexus? Something about the quality is so much
more inviting and warm. Is it just the production or is the camera actually
better?

~~~
brianpan
I'm a camera newbie, but I see:

1\. Shallow depth of field (close objects in focus, far objects out of focus).
Doesn't necessarily mean poor quality, but webcams have wide DOF, so you might
associate shallow DOF with good quality

2\. JPEG compression- I see more compression artifacts in the Nexus video.
This isn't related to camera quality at all.

3\. Sensor quality looks better to me. Details in the dark rear-view mirrow,
more detail in the sand.

~~~
tbob22
1\. The only shots with a shallow DOF are the macro shots, this is standard
for any point and shoot or modern phone camera.

2\. Agreed. But it seems like a lot more post-processing was done on the 4S
video, which may have reduced the compression artifacts.

3\. That scene looks like it was shot on an overcast day. Even with my Epic 4G
it would not be difficult to get that level of shadow detail.

------
guywithabike
Editorializing in the title isn't necessary.

For my money, though, the quality is actually fairly middle-of-the-road. The
non-tracked shots are shaky, the highlights are blown out, and shadow detail
is almost completely non-existent. Hardly "amazing".

~~~
ajross
Middle of the road vs. which devices? Seems as good or better than any mobile
device output I've seen so far. Maybe other 1080p devices (this isn't the
first) are comparable, I just haven't seen it.

And the bit about shaky shots seems like a misplaced criticism of the
cinematography. I don't think Google is trying to put this up for an Oscar:
they're showing of their phone. But agreed: it's hard to hold those tiny
devices steady. :)

~~~
sp332
When would having a blown-out 1080p video be preferable to a 720p video with
good dynamic range? I can make a 4K video camera on a phone if it doesn't have
to actually work :)

~~~
ajross
That's not a reply to the question, though. If this is device's video capture
is "middle of the road" where does the high end lie? Are there better demos
out there from other manufacturers? If not, why?

~~~
skeletonjelly
Exactly. For any device with that much bandwidth of video data and CPU
processing power all within the width of a few millimeters I'd say that's
amazing.

------
vailripper
It seems a bit silly to use a video clip created with a 1k slow mo dolly and
another 1k in video editing software. For some reason I just don't see the
average user using that equipment....

And even with that....it doesn't really look that amazing?

~~~
sp332
The point (edit: that they're trying but failing to make) is that you could
replace the $5,000+ camera that you would normally use in those shots with
this <$1,000 phone.

~~~
vailripper
but....you clearly couldn't. There is still a massive difference in quality
between a cell phone and a pro level video camera, and this shows it.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Its been proven often enough that the masses will take cheap over quality in
(almost) any scenario (unless you're talking about a niche market). Sometimes
good enough is just that.

------
kylec
When doing a time lapse, the number of frames you need to capture per second
is much, much lower than the number of frames you need to capture for live
video. As such, I would not be surprised if the frames in this video were
taken using the still 5MP camera and stitched together to create the video. So
while the 1080p, 30fps end product might look great, it really has very little
bearing on what the actual video capture looks like on the phone.

~~~
doctoboggan
There was some non-timelapse footage in there that seemed to be of the same
quality.

------
zyb09
Amazing how good smartphone cameras are these days, I remember taking pictures
with one of the first Nokia phones equipped with VGA cameras, and you couldn't
see a damn think on them.

------
buster
Just fyi: You should check out Romain Guys other posts, he is an Android
developer and does quite a lot of awesome photography in his freetime, always
enjoy his photos.

------
jeffrese
I've got a Galaxy S2 and it looks just as pretty. Only problem is the battery
life is just awful. I would recommend iPhone

~~~
nextparadigms
That's strange because in Engadget's camera tests, the iPhone 4S had
significantly less battery life at the end compared to GS II. Or were you
talking about the original iPhone 4?

------
rorrr
Don't get fooled, it's just a bunch of photos taken and put together in a
video. For 1080p all you need is a 2 megapixel camera.

This has nothing to do with recording/playback of 1080p on the phone itself.

------
schraeds
Obligatory iPhone 4S video looks better comment (it does).

~~~
betterth
I also find it amusing that many great iPhone4S videos are edited on device
with iMovie, but the Nexus video needed a $999 program to get a well-edited
clip.

But regardless of the platform wars, this is just further proof that the
hardware out there is amazing and getting better every day.

~~~
mikeryan
_I also find it amusing that many great iPhone4S videos are edited on device
with iMovie, but the Nexus video needed a $999 program to get a well-edited
clip._

If all he did (as stated) was speed up the video then edit the transitions his
choice of editing program is really moot.

------
chugger
The iPhone 4S takes better video.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Are you just a troll? All you do is rag on Android and blabber about the
iPhone. You're nearing an average of -2 per comment... (edit, seriously, the
last two pages of his comments are nothing but trolling about Android being
stolen, or an iPhone/WP7 ripoff, or praising Jobs and being obnoxious about
it).

~~~
chugger
That's not true. Did you see my comment about Jobs and Page?

And honestly, the iPhone 4S do take better video compared to this phone. I'm
not trolling.

~~~
pyre
You comment is on the level of stating "I hate Steve Jobs" as a comment on the
"Steve Jobs is Dead" new item.

The purpose of these comments is to spawn discussion. A comment of:

    
    
       iPhone does better video
    

leads to nothing but flame wars. A comment of:

    
    
      iPhone does better video and here is why ...
    

leads to _actual_ discussion.

Your comment was either an inadvertent or purposeful attempt to troll. Just
FYI.

------
404error
It also makes phone calls.

