Galaxy Nexus: 1080p Video | Hacker News Reader

Galaxy Nexus: 1080p Video

plus.google.com

99 pointsdillon45 comments

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.

Looks good enough for HD amateur porn....

Agreed - while this is flabbergasting compared to anything, say, three years ago, the crunchy / overly sharp quality and blown-out highlights are the hallmarks of a cheap point and shoot.

And yet, nicely cherry-picked videos and stills from the iPhone 4S promotional material are just fine for stoking the fires of iOS vs the rest...

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

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."

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).

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?

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.

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.

Something about the quality is so much more inviting and warm

From the vid: "I did give this footage a slight grade with the 3-way colour wheel in Final Cut."

I'd say it's the change in colour balance that gives it the feeling you're describing, it certainly feels that way to me.

I honestly don't think it looks better. I am a fan of "proper" color balance, not cross processed type filtering (instagram, lomo, toy cameras, etc). And I think the OP's is definitely better in that regard.

He did post editing on it to give it that colour

Which is why I prefer the Nexus video. :)

The Nexus video is colour corrected as well.

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".

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. :)

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 :)

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?

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.

Sorry for that, it was the first thought in my mind when I saw the video, but you are right and I took care of it.

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?

FTA: "[...] the final video was edited in Adobe After Effects CS5. The only processing done on the original footage was to speed it up in the first clip."

Unless you disbelieve the quote, I think that invalidates the idea the this was "unfairly" (or whatever) post-processed.

I gotta say, I'm stunned at the level of grousing here. This is amateur video (Romain Guy is an Android developer, not a designer nor marketing/PR) shot with a phone, and it looks fantastic to me. I've never seen an equivalent. If there are better demos, folks, post some links!

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.

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.

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.

That's totally subjective though. If the masses agree that this video is as good as a $5k pro camera then almost by definition, you could.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

  > Obligatory troll comment (it is).

Fixed that for you.

(If you disagree, then respond with how that comment was supposed to lead to meaningful discussion rather than flamewars)

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.

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.

I would like to note that there is a video editor app included in Honeycomb that is almost certainly going to also be included in ICS.

The iPhone 4S takes better video.

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).

I think he is serious about what he says. Which seems even worse to me. Ignore and downvote.

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.

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.

It also makes phone calls.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com