Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Review
by Brian Klug on October 1, 2013 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Samsung
- Mobile
- Android 4.3
- galaxy note 3
Camera
The cadence for camera on the Note platform has been pretty steady so far, it just inherits the camera module from the Galaxy S that came before it. In the case of the Note 3, that means the same module from Galaxy S 4, which is as far as I can tell what happened here. There’s an IMX135 sensor inside the Note 3, same as what shipped in GT-I9500, from Sony’s Exmor RS line. Specifically that means the Note 3 includes a 13 MP CMOS on the back with 1.12µm size pixels and a 1/3.06" optical format. Focal length changes slightly from 4.2 to 4.1 mm, but I’m not sure if this is just a rounding error, I suspect the same optical system is shared between the two, this works out to 31mm of focal length if you’re thinking 35mm equivalent numbers.
On the front is a 2 MP Samsung S5K6B2 CMOS with 1.34µm and 1/6" format. This is also shared with Galaxy S 4, which isn’t too surprising. So we have the same imaging on the back and the front as that flagship, with just different ISP in front of it with 8974.
Stills
For image quality we turn to the normal set of tests which I seem to always be adding to. Image quality bench locations taken at our usual set of locations, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 with the Note 3. In addition lights on and lights off in the lightbox, and the usual set of test targets.
Gallery: Smartphone Camera Bench
The Note 3 looks good outside and obviously reminds me exactly of the Galaxy S 4 when it comes to imaging performance. I never really had issues with SGS4 outside or in well lit scenarios, the Note 3 ends up being just about the same. I can’t say there’s really any surprises when it comes to still images out of the device, although the Note 3 absolutely struggles with white balance in the lightbox for some reason, which is odd considering Galaxy S 4 definitely didn’t have similar problems. Anyhow if you liked SGS4 imaging performance, Note 3 is definitely the same, it doesn’t really change the formula in low light however against the competition that now has OIS and bigger pixels, but I won’t belabor that point again.
Video
On the video side of the Note 3 we have an interesting new addition, 4k30 (or UHD) video record support, alongside both 1080p60 and 720p120. Higher framerate video has been an increasingly common thing lately, and the Note 3 supports this with the new video encode and decode capabilities of the 8974 SoC (Exynos 5420 doesn’t get any UHD video record features).
In the video recording UI you can select between the above video resolutions, at a framerate of 30 FPS. To get to 1080p60 you have to go under a different menu and select smooth motion, and 720p120 is under slow motion.
4k30 video gets recorded at 48 Mbps H.264 high profile with 1 reference frame, which will eat up space quickly but obviously blows things away with that much resolution, and 8974 doesn’t drop frames either. The 1080p60 video comes in at 28 Mbps H.264 high profile and also doesn’t seem to have any dropped frames. Audio in both cases is 128 kbps 48 kHz stereo AAC.
I uploaded two UHD samples to YouTube since it’s already 4K aware, if you select original quality from the switcher drop down. I don’t have a 4K display to view these on, but oversampled on the high resolution panels I do have it looks amazing. The 1080p60 content also looks great, although you’ll have to grab that one and view it on your own since YouTube (and really nowhere online I’m aware of) will show you 60p video at native framerate. I shot UHDp30 and 1080p30 videos in Times Square in NYC which you can grab, and UHDp30 and 1080p60 videos at the bench location which you can also grab if you want to look at that buttery smooth 60 FPS video.
I’m really impressed with video quality coming out of the Note 3, obviously having smartphones coming with UHD onboard is a big treat, and we now have smartphones beating other bigger standalone cameras to that punch.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
302 Comments
View All Comments
Impulses - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Android fanboy here... Personally I think the plastic and finish/design used for both the 5c and the Note 3 both suck. Glossy finish on the 5c = yuck and if it wasn't Apple they'd be getting called out for it more. Faux stitching on the Note 3 = beyond yuck. Seriously, why does Samsung keep trying to masquerade their plastics (faux leather, faux metal band on the SGS4, etc). Just use something like what the Nokias, Moto X, One X, etc use. Feels just fine, I guess it can be harder to implement soft touch when you don't have a unibody design but still...ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Well, the big problem of samsung was the glossy finish, the faux leather fixes that. And faux leather with faux stitches is not all that bad, certainly better than real leather and real stitches (considering they are purely cosmetic and serve no actual purpose). Faux leather without the faux stitches would actually look a tad worse.The note 2 was mighty ugly, I agree, but the note 3 looks significantly better.
Aluminum is not really all that better, it is not expensive, it is not hard, it is not durable or scratch resistant, engineering-wise it offers no advantage to polycarbonate, except it is a good heatsink, which apple might be interested in considering how tiny their phones are.
I don't think Moto X looks any better than the note 3, and I've been a professional designer for 9 years. But hey, let's not forget samsung is a Korean company, people there are quite wacky in lots of ways. That may be the reason samsung is doing all that stuff with plastic, which other cultures perceive in a very different way than the native market.
ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Last but certainly not least, since the back cover is actually replaceable you can just wait a few weeks and get whatever finish you want. If faux leather with faux stitches is really such a downer for you, you are not out of choice (unlike with the direct competition).I don't mind the faux leather when it comes to its looks, however, I feel the white one will get quite dirty quite fast, and overall it will capture dirt in the "pores" and "folds" of the "leather" and it will be harder to clean.
darkcrayon - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
You realize repeating stuff like "fanboy" makes you sound even less intelligent than your conclusions suggest? This is a tech discussion site, you might want to start acting like it instead of out of childish anger.ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
So you fanboy are out of any actual arguments, clutching to the straw that is your ridiculous claim that the use of the word fanboy dictates poor intellect. Fanboy is a very descriptive term, that is the reason I prefer it because it is indicative of stupidity, but not of the one who uses the term but the one, targeted by it.Or maybe it was officially accepted that only dumb people use "fanboy" and I missed it?
As you can plainly see, I am not absent of argumentation, you said "not all plastic is the same" but the plastic of the 5c and all the samsung devices IS the same, you said the 5c is low-end but its price certainly isn't. You on the other hand seem to have nothing on me, so ... make the conclusion if you can ;)
bji - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
It's officially accepted that only dumb people use "fanboy". You missed it.steven75 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
The feel of the plastic on a 5C or Lumia is not at all the same and Anand and Brian agree on this. You are BY FAR the outlier here!Both of those devices have essentially plastic unibodies while the Samsung devices always have a rinky dink shell that feels like something from a happy meal toy.
imaletufinish - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Now you sound like Billy Mays. "BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE...THIS PHONE IS MADE FROM SPACE-AGE PLASTIC POLYMERS!!!"Gunbuster - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Giant screen Windows Phones are just around the corner.darwinosx - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Another hunk of derivative plastic junk from Samsung.