Can Any Camera Do What This Cellphone Can? 8K and Moving Smoothly with the Camera with No Crop and No Gimbal

[markr041]

8K 24.00 fps. These clips are straight from the phone - no stabilization applied in post, no grading, no re-compression.

[markr041]

Vimeo version so that one can download the 8K original, not-recompressed original:

 

[ND64]

Digital stabilization works better with higher shutter speed; cause you don't see the micro motion blur. For serious video production we can't use any shutter speed we like. But for YouTube, sure its good enough. 

[markr041]

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Digital stabilization works better with higher shutter speed; cause you don't see the micro motion blur. For serious video production we can't use any shutter speed we like. But for YouTube, sure its good enough. 

There is no claim by Samsung that the stabilization is digital, there is no extra crop, but it sure acts like it. The high shutter speeds are due to the lack of an ND filter and a a fixed f1.8 aperture!

[FHDcrew]

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Digital stabilization works better with higher shutter speed; cause you don't see the micro motion blur. For serious video production we can't use any shutter speed we like. But for YouTube, sure its good enough. 

I mean if you buy RSMB and have time to kill waiting for motion blur to render, you can just add it in via post. Also gives you the option to use a higher shutter speed as a “built-in variable ND filter”

[The Dancing Babamef]

17 hours ago, markr041 said:

8K 24.00 fps. These clips are straight from the phone - no stabilization applied in post, no grading, no re-compression.

< "no recompression"

< uploads an 8K clip in 4K

[fuzzynormal]

6 hours ago, markr041 said:

high shutter speeds are due to the lack of an ND

I think the point he was getting at was this:  if you lowered the SS to 24fps you would find the digital stabilization process introducing visual artifacts, thereby making the image rather unusable.

Be that as it may, personally I find high shutter speed video in general quite unusable and unattractive.  Unless it's a visceral visual effect that helps tell a story (Saving Private Ryan) then I'd rather not see high SS at all.

Of course, there are post-plug-ins that do emulate motion blur...buuuuttt, that's tricky too on the IQ.

[markr041]

2 hours ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

< "no recompression"

< uploads an 8K clip in 4K

Cmon. Go to the Vimeo site and download the original - it is 8K. The same 8K video was uploaded to YouTube. I have no control over what YouTube streams.

I do not like being called a liar, particularly when  I went out of my way to post on Vimeo so folks could download the un-recompressed 8K original.

It is people like you that steer away posters.

 

 

[herein2020]

21 hours ago, markr041 said:

8K 24.00 fps. These clips are straight from the phone - no stabilization applied in post, no grading, no re-compression.

Truly impressive is an understatement. Clips like these make it so frustrating to spend $2K+ on a camera that still needs a gimbal in 2022, the ninja walk, calibration, and a bit of luck for smooth footage. 

[PannySVHS]

Gimbal like stabilization looks very, very good. Best IBIS in town by far, almost no wobbly edges. Video wise an original Bmpcc and other mft cameras would look more appealing to me. Would be interesting to test the original file in grading for sure. So thanks for uploading on vimeo! @markr041

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

Now imagine a NX2 with this kind of stabilization...

[kye]

11 hours ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

< "no recompression"

< uploads an 8K clip in 4K

It shows an 8K file for download for me...  it was at the bottom of the list of resolutions and specified UHD 8K resolution.  I'm downloading it now.

17 hours ago, markr041 said:

There is no claim by Samsung that the stabilization is digital, there is no extra crop, but it sure acts like it. The high shutter speeds are due to the lack of an ND filter and a a fixed f1.8 aperture!

I'd be absolutely stunned if this isn't either a gimbal or Electronic Image Stabilisation (EIS) done in-camera, or both.  It could also be a fake, but it seems unlikely.

It's fine if you like that "video look" but as many above have stated, it's not the aesthetic they're interested in.  I'm not sure what your preferences are for video, but there are three current main approaches:

1. Proclaim you want a "modern" look, buy camera equipment that gives a modern look, with high-resolution, sharp lenses, and sharpened compressed codecs.
2. Proclaim you want a "cinematic" look, but then turn around and buy camera equipment that gives a modern look, with high-resolution, sharp lenses, and sharpened compressed codecs.
3. Proclaim you want a "cinematic" look, buy camera equipment that gives a cinematic look, with moderate-resolution, more filmic colour science, lenses chosen based on desirable aberrations rather than outright sharpness, and high-quality codecs with as little sharpening applied as possible.

Smartphones give a modern look and aren't easily usable to get anything else, without extensive VFX processing in post.  I asked once about doing a generic and non-accurate emulation of a vintage lens in post on the colourist forums some time ago, and almost started a fight.  The colourists were vehemently opposed to the entire idea and the guy from ILM was like "sure, we do it all the time to comp-in VFX elements" which the colourists took great offence to.  I realise that the colourists perspective is that they don't want it to be known that it was possible because it would be just another thing that they get asked to do that's almost impossible and they're not given any budget for, which seems to be a legitimate concern.  The ILM guy provided enough info to really show how staggeringly difficult it was to do well, and required a whole suite of tools that I'd never heard of.

So in that sense, yes you can do some stuff in post, but realistically, a smartphone is a tool to make video and can't be used to make anything remotely cinematic without a great deal of effort both in production and in post.

[newfoundmass]

Thank you for sharing! I think it looks promising! I too though don't really enjoy the high shutter speed look. I would be interested in seeing this in more challenging conditions, like with faster camera movement.

[Owlgreen]

On 8/29/2022 at 12:40 AM, markr041 said:

8K 24.00 fps. These clips are straight from the phone - no stabilization applied in post, no grading, no re-compression.

I'm genuinely bowled over by the stabilization performance. The level of detail is also pretty astounding. Is it known what are the specs of the sensor capturing this? Is it the 50mp GN5 which is said to bin to 12mp by default? The GN5 uses a "Dual Tetrapixel RGB Bayer Pattern" which I have no idea really what that means. Is it a dual-pixel version of quad-bayer? Whatever it is, it seems to work. Assuming that this is the GN5, did you shoot any 4k 120p?

 

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

Gone to do some research in gsmarena, that usually do some very technical reviews.

The Fold 4 uses the GN3 sensor, 8160x6144 resolution, and yes, the stabilization is electronic. Since 8k is 7680x4320, probably Samsung is using gyro data to do the stabilization on the fly, using the extra area of the sensor as a "fluctuation" zone to avoid cropping.  Probably with more shaky movements, this extra area could not be enough and could be more jumpy, @markr041 could test this.

But why Sony and now Blackmagic don't perform this on-the-fly gyro stabilization in their cameras, since both have internal gyro data? Simple - camera chipsets use much older technology and could not touch the grunt power of a modern smartphone chipset.

Last note: looks like the Galaxy S22 have an even better sensor (GN5) and uses the same kind of stabilization (it have OIS too, but looks like that there is no option to choose between OIS or OIS+EIS, only both or nothing).

[markr041]

1. The video is not "fake." What is wrong with you people?

2. The 8K is indeed from the 50 megapixel sensor, and since 8K requires over 33 megapixels, the 8K is obviously not pixel-binned (but the 4K is). The 8K is from a crop of the sensor because the sensor has more pixels than is required for 8K.

3. The extra pixels, from the above, could be used for the extra room needed for digital stabilization. Given how good the stabilization is, way better than any optical stabilization or sensor stabilization, I can believe there is at least some electronic stabilization.

4. The Samsung has extra, more powerful, stabilization setting; I had interpreted that as adding electronic. I did not use that setting, just the standard stabilization.

5. Samsung only claims its wide lens has optical stabilization. They make no statements that I can find about electronic stabilization, let alone an in-camera gimbal (really?). But I agree, te stabilization is too good to be plain optical.

6. Sony cameras, like the fx3, with gyro do have a setting that uses the gyro along with IBIS and/or OIS while shooting. It is called "Active" stabilization. But in no way can you walk and shoot with these cameras using that setting. You can futher smooth with catalyst Browse in post using the gyro data even when shot using Active stabilization.

7. The Fold4 does not have 4K at frame rates above 60.

8. Whatever the form of stabilization, it has limits. You can hit those with mechanical stabilization (IBIS, OIS) or digital. So showing the limits does not identify stabilization type. Walking briskly with theh camera, as in the video, is a pretty severe test of the stabilization system.

9. If you want to see the video I uploaded from Vimeo do NOT download the "8K UHD" version from Vimeo; download the "original" upload (which is 8K of course). The Vimeo 8K version is compressed by Vimeo and is not what I uploaded (and is much smaller).

I may try 4K60 stabilization tests. At 60p the high shutter speeds are less of a problem. 60p is not an option for 8K.

[Owlgreen]

6 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

The Fold 4 uses the GN3 sensor, 8160x6144 resolution, and yes, the stabilization is electronic. Since 8k is 7680x4320, probably Samsung is using gyro data to do the stabilization on the fly, using the extra area of the sensor as a "fluctuation" zone to avoid cropping.  Probably with more shaky movements, this extra area could not be enough and could be more jumpy

This makes sense.

The GN3 uses a 50mp quad-Bayer pattern color filter. Often 50mp QB will look just like a reduced noise 12.5mp Bayer sensor. This one is looking more like a 50mp sensor than a 12.5mp sensor, to me. 

[newfoundmass]

13 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

But why Sony and now Blackmagic don't perform this on-the-fly gyro stabilization in their cameras, since both have internal gyro data? Simple - camera chipsets use much older technology and could not touch the grunt power of a modern smartphone chipset.

It's also probably easier to do with a smaller sensor, right? 

[Brian Williams]

I have the S22 Ultra which also has an 8K setting, but I've only used it like once because it didn't look very good to me when I was pixel peeping, and I assumed they were just upscaling from 4K; I'll have to give it another try.

I use FilmicPro though most of the time, which gives you log and 580Mbps bitrate, but alas "only" 4K.

[Brian Williams]

Overall, maybe I'm just spoiled, I don't tend to get all that excited by cell phone footage. Ultra wide depth of field, the digital stabilization only works in good lighting conditions (also the reason why I'm am never all that happy with every 360 camera I've owned). I know lot of people think shallow depth of field is overated, and they'll list a bunch of classic movies that were shot on super 16 back in the 60's that have deep DOF, but I think it's magical, and those movies they always list are classics because of their stories, not their cinematography. They're classics in spite of their cinematography