Lumia 950 - Impressive Low Light Videos

[talknshoot]

I've had many high end cameraphones before, including the 808 PureView.

I recently had a Galaxy S6 with the Cinema4K app installed. I must say that the Lumia 950 does a much better job than the Cinema4K app with 1/4 of the bit rate, even considering the Cinema4K has a flat colour profile.

The intriguing bit is that I found that the Lumia 950 features a 'hidden' flat colour profile too, and that kicks in every time the light dims. Take a look at this sample I've uploaded to my YT channel:

I am not a professional, but I am really impressed by the results.

Nevertheless, I found that the E.V. has to be tuned down quite a bit to achieve these great results.

On this video, I used -2.3 to -3.0. But I would say that -3.0 is the best option.

I am really impressed. Fast panning is tricky due to the slow shutter, but using it on a tripod yields pretty clean (and with great dynamic range) videos for such a small sensor.

It even records the full colour range, 0-255. I've never seen that on a smartphone. Download the file and check it for yourselves.

It also doesn't feature sensor crop at 4K and doesn't seem to suffer from aliasing artifacts. Full sensor readout?

Also notice that it allows for a 1.3x zoom with almost no quality loss.

The most intriguing bit is: why Microsoft didn't advertised all of this?

It even features Direction Audio recording, which I demonstrate here:

P.S.: I am running a blog to comment on mobile cameras. I am not a professional, but I decided to put all my efforts on providing more detailed reviews of mobile cameras. If you're interested, the link to the blog is on the video's page.

[sanveer]

4 hours ago, talknshoot said:

I've had many high end cameraphones before, including the 808 PureView.

I recently had a Galaxy S6 with the Cinema4K app installed. I must say that the Lumia 950 does a much better job than the Cinema4K app with 1/4 of the bit rate, even considering the Cinema4K has a flat colour profile.

The intriguing bit is that I found that the Lumia 950 features a 'hidden' flat colour profile too, and that kicks in every time the light dims. Take a look at this sample I've uploaded to my YT channel:

I am not a professional, but I am really impressed by the results.

Nevertheless, I found that the E.V. has to be tuned down quite a bit to achieve these great results.

On this video, I used -2.3 to -3.0. But I would say that -3.0 is the best option.

I am really impressed. Fast panning is tricky due to the slow shutter, but using it on a tripod yields pretty clean (and with great dynamic range) videos for such a small sensor.

It even records the full colour range, 0-255. I've never seen that on a smartphone. Download the file and check it for yourselves.

It also doesn't feature sensor crop at 4K and doesn't seem to suffer from aliasing artifacts. Full sensor readout?

Also notice that it allows for a 1.3x zoom with almost no quality loss.

The most intriguing bit is: why Microsoft didn't advertised all of this?

It even features Direction Audio recording, which I demonstrate here:

P.S.: I am running a blog to comment on mobile cameras. I am not a professional, but I decided to put all my efforts on providing more detailed reviews of mobile cameras. If you're interested, the link to the blog is on the video's page.

Soft video. Also, Lumias are a dying breed. 

Nobody wants to be on a smartphone that has no future. Apparently a lot of the buggy issues were being solved not so long ago:

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/12/23/lumia-950-and-lumia-950-xl-update-fixes-tons-of-bugs/

[Mattias Burling]

I never ever understood that. Who cares if its dying, you only have it for a year or so and if its great today its all good.
The Lumia cameras have always been better than iPhone and Android for video. I mean how many years before we got manual exposure and focus on Android.... not to mention iPhone. Lumias where also first with OIS and decent lowlight.

I will edit together my well over due Lumia 950 Camera review soon. But I can tell you its reall nice. Awesome macro.
Never had any bugs on any Lumia or iPhone, that's exclusively an Android experience for me.

Meanwhile I shot this with the L950 (speaking of soft  ), don't watch in full screen, its SD def.

 

[sanveer]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

I never ever understood that. Who cares if its dying, you only have it for a year or so and if its great today its all good.
The Lumia cameras have always been better than iPhone and Android for video. I mean how many years before we got manual exposure and focus on Android.... not to mention iPhone. Lumias where also first with OIS and decent lowlight.

I will edit together my well over due Lumia 950 Camera review soon. But I can tell you its reall nice. Awesome macro.
Never had any bugs on any Lumia or iPhone, that's exclusively an Android experience for me.

Meanwhile I shot this with the L950 (speaking of soft  ), don't watch in full screen, its SD def.

 

Nokia was way ahead of it's time, a long time back. Then it stopped innovating fast enough, had a terrible management team, and then looked like it had some multi-billion dollars in scams (which should have been investigated IMHO), and then they just simply lost the plot.

Till the N series, they were fine, I guess. Their quality control seems abyssal (the author of this post pointed out in his blog, that way too many Lumias with lousy lenses have made it through him), and basically not listening to customers. The Management is STILL Old School. Microsoft should have Thrown Out all the ENTIRE Management from all previous teams. But, I guess they didn't, and we are left with whatever remains. 

It's like the Panasonic CM1. ONLY if they added OIS and FLAT 4k @ 24, 25 and 30p (and lowered its price). It would have been a runaway success, regardless of its other shortcomings.

The Nokias have had some great features for a very long time. And TBO honest, they were pretty good at photography, and arguably had RAW before almost anyone else. Also, their Zeiss association seems to have paid off well in their optical scince bit. For most people Samsung and LG are the standard for Video and Photos. And then the iPhones. Not sure if the Lumias are really relevant anymore. 

 

[talknshoot]

2 hours ago, sanveer said:

Soft video. Also, Lumias are a dying breed. 

Nobody wants to be on a smartphone that has no future. Apparently a lot of the buggy issues were being solved not so long ago:

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/12/23/lumia-950-and-lumia-950-xl-update-fixes-tons-of-bugs/

WOW, how's that for a comment?

Take any other SMARTPHONE to that spot and I will bet anything you want that this will be both the sharpest and the cleanest you will get. C'mon. Take a look at the foliage there.

Even some dedicated cameras would struggle.

I should have anticipated that some enlightened gods of the image quality would come up with such kind of comment.

As to the other part of your comment, yes, it's quiet a long time since that review, and the latest .164 update it's pretty much stable now. I had some buggier droids, that's for sure.

Also, you should take into account that the universal apps for Windows Mobile 10 may keep it well alive.

 

 

49 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Nokia was way ahead of it's time, a long time back. Then it stopped innovating fast enough, had a terrible management team, and then looked like it had some multi-billion dollars in scams (which should have been investigated IMHO), and then they just simply lost the plot.

Till the N series, they were fine, I guess. Their quality control seems abyssal (the author of this post pointed out in his blog, that way too many Lumias with lousy lenses have made it through him), and basically not listening to customers. The Management is STILL Old School. Microsoft should have Thrown Out all the ENTIRE Management from all previous teams. But, I guess they didn't, and we are left with whatever remains. 

It's like the Panasonic CM1. ONLY if they added OIS and FLAT 4k @ 24, 25 and 30p (and lowered its price). It would have been a runaway success, regardless of its other shortcomings.

The Nokias have had some great features for a very long time. And TBO honest, they were pretty good at photography, and arguably had RAW before almost anyone else. Also, their Zeiss association seems to have paid off well in their optical scince bit. For most people Samsung and LG are the standard for Video and Photos. And then the iPhones. Not sure if the Lumias are really relevant anymore. 

 

Yes, I've had a share of bad lenses coming from Zeiss, specially with the Lumia 930. I indeed had to return two just to get one that didn't have strong corner softness. I acknowledge that.

The point of this post, in the case you have forgotten, is to demonstrate how good it is in low light compared to other smartphones. I know that this video alone does not prove it directly, but I've tested some in that situation and I can stand up to the statement.

I would not agree with you that Lumias are irrelevant.

I would even say that this 950 series is the best cameraphone you can buy right now.

[talknshoot]

2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I never ever understood that. Who cares if its dying, you only have it for a year or so and if its great today its all good.
The Lumia cameras have always been better than iPhone and Android for video. I mean how many years before we got manual exposure and focus on Android.... not to mention iPhone. Lumias where also first with OIS and decent lowlight.

I will edit together my well over due Lumia 950 Camera review soon. But I can tell you its reall nice. Awesome macro.
Never had any bugs on any Lumia or iPhone, that's exclusively an Android experience for me.

Meanwhile I shot this with the L950 (speaking of soft  ), don't watch in full screen, its SD def.

 

Nice! I'm looking forward to your review!

Have you noticed this kind of flat profile it enables in low light?

Once again, I'm not a pro, but I found it flatter than my FZ1000 in Cinelike D.

It also seems to pack more dynamic range than any other smartphone, with spot on contrast and saturation.

I think it's a very mature approach.

[sanveer]

1 hour ago, talknshoot said:

I should have anticipated that some enlightened gods of the image quality would come up with such kind of comment.

 

I am not sure what you were attempting to articulate, but there are No GODS in the field of anything.

Everyone who tests cameras has millions of self-appointed critics, and other testers who dish those tests. And, there is nothing wrong with any group. 

There are As Many people who believe that the Samsung phones rule the charts, as there are people who do for every other smartphone camera, and many more. That's why on many forums and sites, Samsung phone top charts. 
 

 

[talknshoot]

14 minutes ago, sanveer said:

 

I am not sure what you were attempting to articulate, but there are No GODS in the field of anything.

Everyone who tests cameras has millions of self-appointed critics, and other testers who dish those tests. And, there is nothing wrong with any group. 

There are As Many people who believe that the Samsung phones rule the charts, as there are people who do for every other smartphone camera, and many more. That's why on many forums and sites, Samsung phone top charts. 
 

 

I was afraid to express my thoughts on a pro forum, but now I saw you came with Pocket Now-like reviews I am relieved. Phew!

If you seriously belief that reviews like this prove anything, then I feel even more confident about my statement.

'Let's use Auto Mode and see what is the best camera'. I am sorry, but these reviews are simply pathetic.

I am uploading a Galaxy S6 footage taken with the Cinema4K app so you can compare with the 950 one.

BTW:

If you're going to cite these kind of Auto Mode only reviews, take a look at GSMArena's reviews and comparisons regarding the 950's camera. They are a bit better.

[sanveer]

3 minutes ago, talknshoot said:

I was afraid to express my thoughts on a pro forum, but now I saw you came with Pocket Now-like reviews I am relieved. Phew!

If you seriously belief that reviews like this prove something, I feel even more confident about my statement.

'Let's use Auto Mode and see what is the best camera'. I am sorry, but these reviews are simply pathetic.

I am uploading a Galaxy S6 footage taken with the Cinema4K app so you can compare with the 950 one.

BTW:

If you're going to cite these kind of Auto Mode only reviews, take a look at the GSMArena's reviews and comparisons regarding the 950's camera. They are a bit better.

This is another test.

http://www.androidcentral.com/camera-showdown-s7-vs-6s-vs-6p-vs-950

I have seen most of the GSMarena's reviews of the Samsung S7. Maybe your should read it too (FYI, they say, "Still, the Galaxy S7 edge snaps the best pictures we've seen from a smartphone camera to date and with the return of the water-protection, it's an excellent portable camera for any trip."

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s7_edge-review-1409p9.php


And, since you dismiss everything and everyone else, why don't you Publish YOUR OWN Comparisons, and share them with everyone less enlightened that you.
 

16 minutes ago, talknshoot said:

I was afraid to express my thoughts on a pro forum, but now I saw you came with Pocket Now-like reviews I am relieved. Phew!

 

Are you serious???

[talknshoot]

25 minutes ago, sanveer said:

This is another test.

http://www.androidcentral.com/camera-showdown-s7-vs-6s-vs-6p-vs-950

I have seen most of the GSMarena's reviews of the Samsung S7. Maybe your should read it too (FYI, they say, "Still, the Galaxy S7 edge snaps the best pictures we've seen from a smartphone camera to date and with the return of the water-protection, it's an excellent portable camera for any trip."

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s7_edge-review-1409p9.php


And, since you dismiss everything and everyone else, why don't you Publish YOUR OWN Comparisons, and share them with everyone less enlightened that you.
 

- Well, if you read it right, I written that if we're going to look at 'Auto Mode'-based reviews, than I guess THIS is the wrong place to discuss them. I don't need to prove that this kind of reviews are bad in a forum like this. I didn't think it would be a matter of discussion.

- I am not saying that GSMArena's reviews are different. I only said they were A BIT better than Pocket Now's. But it's clearly, and essentially, all about Auto Mode still. It's not hard to understand that. Or is it?

- I do not dismiss everything and everyone else. You're trying to say things I haven't said. Perhaps you have some problems with text comprehension.

Regarding your Androidcentral comparison:

'HOW WE SHOOT

[...] we left each camera in full automatic mode with automatic HDR enabled.'

You cited precisely a kind of review that we all know it's, let's say, kind of useless. You may cite a thousand of those reviews. They won't make your point any better. I am sorry.

When I quote GSMArena, it's implicit that I do not dismiss it. Taking it as an example, from the Comparison between the Lumia 950, the iPhone 6S Plus, the Note 5 and the LG V10 http://www.gsmarena.com/iphone_6s_plus_vs_lumia_950_xl_vs_galaxy_note5-review-1365p8.php.

Regarding LOW LIGHT VIDEO, which is the subject of this topic: 'Winner: Microsoft Lumia 950 XL. The video came out surprisingly crisp with moderate amounts of noise.'

You can further compare that footage to the S7's if you want it to.

Anyway, you asked for it, so here we go, a comparison of my own:

http://talkandshoot.blogspot.com.br/2016/02/lumia-950-vs-galaxy-s7-raw-test.html

- Mind that my ironic reply was due to your monosyllabic statement that the footage was 'soft', without putting it in the right context. You indeed seemed to be the enlightened one when you written that.

P.S.: here's the S6's footage, taken with Medium Flat Profile and 200 Mbps (Cinema4K app), in more or less the same conditions as the 950's.

 

[sanveer]

2 minutes ago, talknshoot said:

Mind that my ironic reply was due to your monosyllabic statement that the footage was 'soft', without putting it in the right context. You indeed seemed to be the enlightened one when you written that.

Wow!!! What does it even mean???



Anyway, the S6 could improve in low light, focus faster and could do with a High Speed Video mode, and that's why the S7. 

We're talking in Parallels. If you take a few mins to actually read Both our posts (yours and mine), maybe you'll realize it. Or maybe you've into monologues, and thole stream of posts is pure soliloquy.
 

[talknshoot]

23 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Wow!!! What does it even mean???



Anyway, the S6 could improve in low light, focus faster and could do with a High Speed Video mode, and that's why the S7. 

We're talking in Parallels. If you take a few mins to actually read Both our posts (yours and mine), maybe you'll realize it. Or maybe you've into monologues, and thole stream of posts is pure soliloquy.
 

If you don't get it, I am not the one to explain it to you.

The S7 doesn't feel like much of an improvement in low light (not a perfect example, but it says something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8MzRjFLADs). High Speed and focus are not, by any means, related to this discussion.

By the way, the topic was to show an impressive result achieved by the Lumia 950 in low light. It's proven, I guess. If you decided to start talking in Parallels, it was entirely up to you.

You also seem to be keen on putting a period on discussions with short statements.

Sometimes it's good. Mostly when they carry enough arguments in them.

[markr041]

Here are two low light videos from the Samsung Galaxy S7:

 

[talknshoot]

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

Here are two low light videos from the Samsung Galaxy S7:

 

Thanks for the samples.

I would say that the first one is the most interesting since it features more or less the same scene, although with brighter lights.

Notice that the contrast seem to be high. We cannot see the pavement.

Take this 950's sample as a good comparison:

 

[markr041]

21 minutes ago, talknshoot said:

Thanks for the samples.

I would say that the first one is the most interesting since it features more or less the same scene, although with brighter lights.

Notice that the contrast seem to be high. We cannot see the pavement.

Take this 950's sample as a good comparison:

 

Sorry, this is not about contrast, it is about exposure. The example you give above has a gigantic hot spot - the big square sign. That is ugly video. All that is going on in that video is that the exposure is too high, hence the blown signage and blotchy detail in the road. In the videos I posted, there are no blown highlights or swatches of noise. It was exposed to reproduce what the eye sees at night or in a dark room. Black is black, dark is dark, lights have colors. A real person cannot see details on unlit streets at night. That person, however does not see white signs when there are full colors.

The purpose of night videos in what I shoot is not to turn night into day, it is to convey what one would see at night.

[talknshoot]

Apologies accepted.

Dark areas are blown on your videos, just as the highlights are blown on the last 950 video.

There are other examples at my first post.

And video is not all about exposure.

 

 

[sanveer]

41 minutes ago, markr041 said:

Sorry, this is not about contrast, it is about exposure. The example you give above has a gigantic hot spot - the big square sign. That is ugly video. All that is going on in that video is that the exposure is too high, hence the blown signage and blotchy detail in the road. In the videos I posted, there are no blown highlights or swatches of noise. It was exposed to reproduce what the eye sees at night or in a dark room. Black is black, dark is dark, lights have colors. A real person cannot see details on unlit streets at night. That person, however does not see white signs when there are full colors.

The purpose of night videos in what I shoot is not to turn night into day, it is to convey what one would see at night.

Excellent video Mark. Btw, you can't debate with him. He's a closed minded and seriously into monologues. 

[talknshoot]

31 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Excellent video Mark. Btw, you can't debate with him. He's a closed minded and seriously into monologues. 

LOL.

Unbelievable.

First of all, the last video I posted wasn't mine. I've just added it to show that there's a quite flat profile on 950's shots. At the end of the video, the guy seems to try to adjust the exposure, but he/she haven't done it to the best extent.

Of course it's always a matter of adjusting the exposure. I would never say the other way round.

But the plain fact is that it's not ONLY a matter of exposure. So we get flat profiles in dedicated cameras. FACT.

Besides, if you both want to delude yourselves by thinking that adjusting the exposure on such tiny sensors will lead you to have ALL the detail on both highlights AND shadows, go ahead, folks... Perhaps I am really closed minded.

----------------------

As far as the basics go, everybody knows it's always a matter of selecting the best TRADE-OFF on high contrast scenes.

----------------------

You talked about dismissing things:

It seems that you both dismiss my first post, which is THE main subject of this thread, when I explore SEVERAL Exposure Values for the first video, even suggesting that one should pick -3.0 to use in low light with the Lumia 950, SO it's more than clear that I take exposure into account very seriously.

[talknshoot]

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

Sorry, this is not about contrast, it is about exposure. The example you give above has a gigantic hot spot - the big square sign. That is ugly video. All that is going on in that video is that the exposure is too high, hence the blown signage and blotchy detail in the road. In the videos I posted, there are no blown highlights or swatches of noise. It was exposed to reproduce what the eye sees at night or in a dark room. Black is black, dark is dark, lights have colors. A real person cannot see details on unlit streets at night. That person, however does not see white signs when there are full colors.

The purpose of night videos in what I shoot is not to turn night into day, it is to convey what one would see at night.

'That is ugly video.'

Your eyes see crushed shadows like these? Well, I feel bad for you, pal.

You're right, yours is the video that DOESN'T look ugly.

Crushed shadows like these hurt my eyes just as blown highlights.

But you know, I AM CLOSED MINDED.