The Samsung Galaxy Note7 (S820) Review
by Joshua Ho on August 16, 2016 9:00 AM ESTVideo Performance
For this portion of the review we can take a look at video performance, which provides an extra test of encode block performance in addition to ISP, sensor, and optic performance. In the interest of not wasting time on retreading topics that are basically unchanged relative to the Galaxy S7, I would redirect readers interested in an in-depth exploration of this subject and comparisons to other devices to the Galaxy S7 Part 2 review as this part of the review will be almost entirely focused on just comparing the Note7 to the Galaxy S7 to see what’s changed.
| Samsung Galaxy Note7 Video Encode Settings | ||||
| Video | Audio | |||
| 1080p30 | 17 Mbps H.264 High Profile | 256 Kbps, 48 KHz AAC | ||
| 1080p60 | 28 Mbps H.264 High Profile | 256 Kbps, 48 KHz AAC | ||
| 4K30 | 48 Mbps H.264 High Profile | 256 Kbps, 48 KHz AAC | ||
| 720p240 | 76 Mbps H.264 Baseline | 256 Kbps, 48 KHz AAC | ||
Starting with encode settings, we can see that the Note7 retains the same exact encode settings as the Galaxy S7 and S7 edge, which probably isn’t a surprise given that we’re probably seeing the limits of what the Snapdragon 820’s encode blocks can handle in cases like slow motion video, although 1080p30 is likely not encode-limited at this point.
Galaxy Note7
Galaxy S7
In 1080p30 video the Galaxy Note7 and Galaxy S7 look basically identical save for some slight differences in color rendition. The Note7 seems to be slightly more accurate here as the sky is closer to the color of blue that it should be but detail and most other colors look fairly comparable and both still have some jerky OIS reset behavior.
Galaxy Note7
Galaxy S7
In slow motion video the Galaxy Note7 again seems to have slightly improved color rendition but detail and pretty much everything else is identical. I don’t think this is a reason to go out and buy the Note7, but hopefully these improvements to color rendition come to future OTAs for the Galaxy S7.
Overall I don’t think video results appreciably change the Galaxy Note7’s results here. The camera is great from a speed perspective and it’s good for video but in a lot of cases HTC really does have them beat with the camera on the HTC 10. I think the major win for the Note7 continues to be speed and consistency as the one major weakness of the HTC 10’s camera relative to the Note7 is somewhat unreliable contrast AF in low light, although in better conditions PDAF has no issues achieving perfect focus.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
202 Comments
View All Comments
CloudWiz - Thursday, August 25, 2016 - link
Yes, I know it has a Qualcomm modem. I also understand that the S820 versions of the GS7 have comparable Wifi/LTE results because of Qualcomm's modem prowess. However, this has nothing to do with the SoC. The Samsung S820 implementation is still far more inefficient than the Exynos implementation or other OEMs' implementations.The GS6 had a Samsung Shannon modem that was notoriously inefficient on LTE. That is a fact. And your comment forgets that the Note 7 also has a 30% larger battery, and in no way does 50% extra PenTile pixels translate to 50% increased battery drain.
CloudWiz - Thursday, August 25, 2016 - link
Addendum: The Note 7 also comes with an updated modem, further helping reduce battery drain. Coupled with the fact that the S820 is more tightly integrated than A9 with respect to the modem, it really isn't that surprising that the Note 7 is able to last a bit longer.StevoLincolnite - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link
Having Glass on the back AND front of the Phone is just asking for trouble... Wish Samsung would employ more durable materials.It wasn't a great material choice when Apple did the same years ago... It's still not a great material choice in 2016 either.
I had a Note 5 for a whole 2 days, slipped off the desk once and that was the end of that, the Note 7 is just more of the same.
My old Nokia Lumia took more abuse than that and I had it for almost 4 years, without a cover. Heck, I even purposely dropped it a few times and it just bounced without any damage.
jayfang - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link
Agreed. Does not matter how nice something looks when you have to put it in cover for grip and protection.lilmoe - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link
Brah.... As painful as it is, let it go. We never wanted crappy glass backs, but the world has voted with their wallets. They don't want "durable" materials, they want design and features.That being said, glass is still better than metal since it allows better radio and wireless charging. Until you design an alloy or mag-field that can support that, glass is here to stay.
I want my plastic backs back....................................
StevoLincolnite - Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - link
Voted with their wallets? Not really.If a company deserves criticism for various aspects related to their products, then I implore people to criticize, otherwise companies become complacent.
I personally prefer the rubbery polymer materials that some Phones use, it's matte so it doesn't attract fingerprints, it has a good texture that assists with grip and doesn't reduce signal reception and it allows for wireless charging (A feature I have loved for years now with my old Lumia).
Samsung can shove their Glass where the sun doesn't shine, I won't be buying another Samsung device until they change their materials.
lilmoe - Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - link
And how many of you are there? How many of us are there? When samsung made what we liked their sales tanked. Don't blame Samsung, blame the online community.StevoLincolnite - Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - link
Samsung kinda' ignored what the people wanted with the Note 5.* Glass back.
* No MicroSD.
* No replaceable battery.
And then sales tanked.
jospoortvliet - Thursday, August 18, 2016 - link
They nailed it with the S7... including the glass back... and yes I also would have preferred metal.TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - link
We should crowdsource our own phone, with a plastic back, removable battery, ece. Make a truly durable piece of equipment.