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
ESC2000 - Monday, October 7, 2013 - link
I'm not sure how anyone could consider the body of work on this site and conclude that it is biased in favor of Samsung.Spunjji - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
They couldn't. But these guys are all weighing in after one single review that they did not read correctly.repoman27 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Anand, could you please hurry up and post your review of the new iMacs so I can read 150 comments about how this site is so Apple biased? I'm really tired of reading all these comments about how this is obviously no longer the best review site on the Internet because Ars Technica has uncovered something you've been reporting about continuously for 2 months now.Maybe all the long time readers who are so outraged by Brian's misrepresentation missed the past couple podcasts, or the article that really broke the whole story: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7187/looking-at-cpug...
1ndian - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
"whose awkward double lobed shape gives it forwards compatibility with microUSB 2.0" it should be "backward compatibility"Spunjji - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
I think they meant what they said. The MicroUSB 2 cable is forwards-compatible with the MicroUSB 3 socket, whereas the MicroUSB 3 cable is not backwards-compatible with MicroUSB 2. Ir's a slightly different way of saying something similar.Truth.lover - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Dear Anand. I Loved your site with their deep insightful reviews until today. You are hurting yourself so much by not explicitly stating who commits benchmark fraud and who doesn't. You should take down these benchmark numbers or replace them by accurate ones that arstechnica shows how to get. If not you shouldn't be surprised why samsung et al are not stopping the benchmark doping. You also should not be surprised why readers will leave you. We need journalism. The fourth pillar of democracy. Consider me gone.BMNify - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Disappointed by Anandtech's decision of showing cooked benchmarks in the benchmark table which will be posted everywhere on the web as reality.wrkingclass_hero - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
People, quit bitching about the benchmarks and harassing Brian and Anand. Keep in mind who originally broke the story. In short order there will be an article on Anandtech discussing boosting in Android, and you will see that Samsung is not alone.I personally admire the tact that they have shown.
JMFL - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Anand and Brian,I am so disappointed that you have apparently passed given Samsung a pass on their benchmark shenanigans. Simply stating that other manufactures do the same without pointing out which manufacturers do so is trite. It also encourages future shenanigans.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm hoping that you both are simply preparing for a story that sheds light on the phone industry as a whole in terms of benchmark tweaking. If this is not the case, I think that your site has lost it's status as the premier site for technical reviews.
At the very least, on the benchmark charts, results for the Note 3 should be amended with a star noting that there is a tweak involved. Or better yet, also run the benchmarks in a manner that Arstechnica did and show both results. In fact, I can't see any credible reason why your wouldn't do this!
Squuiid - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
"I'm hoping that you both are simply preparing for a story that sheds light on the phone industry as a whole in terms of benchmark tweaking. If this is not the case, I think that your site has lost it's status as the premier site for technical reviews."Exactly my thoughts. I was hoping for the same, but it's almost as if Anand has pressed a self destruct button for his site. This sham review has done irreparable damage to Anandtech's reputation, and given the many comments backing this up, I cannot understand why Anand hasn't come out and clarified the situation by doing as you suggest. In fact, his comments have only made things worse by suggesting that 'everyone is doing it' and so it is ok not to flag it. Wha?!