8K Phone vs 4K Professional Camera | Sony A7S III vs Samsung Note 20 Ultra By Marc Taraz Steiner

What's up guys, my name is mark Steiner, and today we are comparing a 8k phone camera to a 5, 000 professional 4k setup. Let's get right into it, so camera number one. Can you tell which camera we're using here? What about now? I bet you can tell now, so we got the Sony a7s3 on the left and the note 20 ultra on the right. There are some pretty obvious differences between the two right off the bat. If we punch in here, the 8k retains its detail, whereas the 4k looks to get a little mushy, but how much of that is because of resolution, and how much of that is from the post-processing on the phone. If we manually add in some sharpness to the 4k footage, they start to look a lot closer, but the 8k still retains more of that detail and does look a little more real.

Moving on to the next clip we got some leaves. I thought this would be an interesting shot, because the over sharpened phone footage always makes this kind of stuff look really fake. If we crop in again, we do see that the 8k seems to have more detail, but again, if we add in some sharpening to the 4k footage of the a7s3, it looks just as if not more detailed than the 8k. In this shot. We have some water and rocks on the beach right off the bat.

The 8k looks better to my eye nicer, colors, more contrast, more detail and seemingly more dynamic range in the water. This is the kind of scenario where the phone starts to thrive compared to a regular camera. When we crop in the 8k does start to look a little over sharpened and fake and the 4k a little mushy. But once again, when we bring in some sharpness, they look almost identical. Bringing up the sharpness does bring in more noise to the image, however, which we can Denise but is not ideal on to some quick rolling shutter tests here with the a7s iii and its blazing fast readout speeds we're getting practically zero rolling shutter lines stay straight, we're not getting any weird jello effect and the footage.

However, shaky, looks good on the phone. However, motions are super jerky and, as you can see, the towers do a 90 degree bend and there's a massive jello effect going on, and the footage is not stable at all back to some regular camera shots these next two shots are some of my favorites, because this is where it gets fascinating. Can you tell what this was shot on just three years ago? I would have set a phone, but no, this was shot on the a7s3. This was shot on the note 20 ultra look at the colors, the detail, the dynamic range all straight out of camera, where the sky was blown out in the other shot. This one has actual color and cloud formations.

That's crazy! That's because the HDR video on the phone taking and combining multiple exposures into one, whereas the s3 only has one exposure to work with the difference, is really night and day side by side. I can truthfully say I much prefer the phone footage in this shot. Even when we crop in and even after we add sharpness, the 8k image still looks so much better in this shot. Definite win for the phone here on to the second shot based off the last shot. Can you tell what this was shot with? What about now? Yes, the phone shot might look a little more vibrant and less cinematic, but once again the dynamic range and colors and detail straight out of camera look better, and if we throw a quick color grade onto the 8k footage, it is practically impossible to tell the difference between the two, which is kind of crazy now onto some human subject, tests.

This first shot is from the phone, and it's actually pretty good. Vibrant good, colors, natural depth of field, great dynamic range nice highlight roll off and pretty flattering on the skin. What stands out to me in this shot is how the skin retains its usual color, which, when surrounded by all this greenery, can usually lead to some hideous skin tones. When we switch to the a7s iii, it really starts to show its pro strengths, good glass, natural looking image and that both the skin might look a little less flattering, but it has depth and a more realistic gradation of what the light actually looks like compared to the more artificially flat skin from the phone on to some low light tests. As expected, the phone cannot handle this well at all.

It's pitch black, and you can barely make out what this image even is with some lights. But when we switch the s3, it is quite literally a night and day difference full image detail. You can see what the shot contains: trees, foliage apartments, with the lights on and even stars in the night sky. The s3 wipes the floor in this category. But what about human subjects in low light? This next shot was under a streetlamp which is never flattering, as we can see.

There's a ton of noise in the shot, and it looks super soft, there's, absolutely no detail in the skin. Making it look very fake and plastic highlights are super harsh and the color is washed out and really poor, but when we switch over the s3 once again, absolutely no competition whatsoever. Shallow depth of field retains complete detail in the skin. You can see the stubble on the face. Lighting looks pretty adequate and usable, despite it being super unflattering last low light test this time with a small professional light, the future MC, the phone just makes the skin tones.

Looks so bad in this shot. Tomato red, no detail in the face super soft image as a whole, there's also a ton of noise in the dark areas. When we switch the a7s3 it looks like a proper lighting setup is being used. Subject is lit detail in the shirt and the skin, and the hair minimal noise in the shadows and, most importantly, natural looking skin tones. So what are my thoughts after these tests? No, your phone isn't going to be replacing a high-end professional camera anytime.

Soon they still have their place in the world. They have a bigger full-frame sensor, a more professional, more durable body, interchangeable cards. So you never run out of space faster, read, write speeds, better, codecs, better 10 bit color 422, like high frame rates full frame sensor. So it's better in low light interchangeable lenses, so you can have a different focal length with high quality, glass and different effects. You can screw on lens filters like there's so much that goes into a professional level, camera that you just can't get on a phone, but all that being said, I was genuinely surprised at some shots.

I was able to get with a phone. This thing: that's in your pocket is able to produce in ideal situations, some incredible shots that do rival, that of a professional level camera and that in and of itself is mind-blowing. The shots that really allow the phone cameras to thrive is those HDR situations where they can take multiple exposures and put them together into one video file. That's something that no consumer camera can do right now, and it's something you only really see on super high-end cinema cameras and not even all of them have that feature where they're actually taking two or more exposures and combining them into one. So the fact that you're getting that incredibly high dynamic range because of that that is where the phones thrive.

These sensors that are on these professional cameras, they're only taking one exposure when you're doing that. So sometimes you need to just be like all right. You know what the sky is going to be blown out, because I am exposing for the shadow and that's fine. You know you're getting what you need. The important thing is exposed properly and that's what matters and the dynamic range has been getting better.

We're now between like 13 and 15, stops on some of these cameras, which is absolutely insane. But when you can have multiple exposures into one exposure, it doesn't really matter what the dynamic range is, because if you have the sky perfectly exposed in 100 detail and the shadow areas exposed in 100 detail, does it really matter if it's 15 stops? That's just like the full range. That's all the stops in one exposure, and that is crazy and in those ideal situations where the phone really thrives, I wouldn't mind just putting on a decent color grade and matching the color, with my other footage from a pro level camera and no one would be able to tell the difference. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference when you're just looking at it without knowing that stuff and that's crazy. I do personally think that the 8k is a little of a headline.

Gimmicky feature. That's on these new phones. Is anyone going to be shooting 8k? No, you shouldn't be shooting 8k, it's its way too big and although file sizes were pretty impressive, so I'm thinking that there's some very nice compression going on but again not all codecs are created. Equally, that's why some 4k looks better than 8k or 12k. You know, so you have to keep that in mind.

Do I think that the 8k is a headlining feature? No clearly we saw that a lot of that stuff that makes it look good, is in the post-processing, and you can easily emulate that with a bit of color grading. If you know what you're doing and if you do know what you're doing you are never cranking up your sharpness that much because it is not aesthetically pleasing being able to shoot.8K is a little unnecessary in my opinion, as we saw that good quality 4k with a little of color grading can actually look the same or better than 8k quality. So again, it just depends on the codec and the quality of that 8k, but I will say that the 8k is helpful for cropping and reframing and stabilizing in post. So you know it gives you double the resolution to work with, which is kind of crazy. In my personal opinion, phones are starting to catch up with professional level cameras in terms of photography, and this is not surprising when they have a super computer.

In the palm of your hand, that's doing all that post-processing. It starts to compete with high quality pro level gear, but where I think that the camera's pro level cameras still have a very important place is in the video market, because it's much harder to emulate the organic feel of a good four frames, sensor, cinematic colors, cinematic lenses and all the other stuff that goes into a professional level. Camera autofocus, that's just not something you're getting in the palm of your hand. Just yet the processing power isn't there, and I don't know if it ever will be, where a sensor that big with a lens that big is going to compete with something like this in terms of video in terms of photo, I think we're almost there, but in terms of video, I think the gap is still pretty wide. That being said, the video camera in your pocket is pretty dang amazing and honestly, I have so many people.

Ask me: hey: mark I'm trying to buy my first camera. My budget is like 300 to 500. What should I get, and I have to tell them your phone is better than anything in that price range and they kind of look at me like no. I want something more professional, I'm like then that gets a little more expensive than your budget. Your phone is out competing these entry-level cameras in terms of video, and I think that people need to start looking at their phones and taking them more seriously when you're at that level.

The fact that phones have already caught up that much to wipe off point-and-shoots off the face of the market, and they're already eating into entry-level, DSLR and mirrorless cameras is kind of mind-blowing and phones are only going to continue to get better. But I want to know what you guys think. Were you surprised by the results of this test? Do you think that phone filmmaking is the future of filmmaking? Let me know in the comment section down below my name is mark Steiner, and I'll see you next time.

Source : Marc Taraz Steiner