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
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
We definitely didn't minimize/brush aside blatant cheating. We were the first to report this story back in July: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7187/looking-at-cpug... The story is nothing new, it's the same thing (minus the GPU max clock manipulation).klagermkii - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
That article makes it sound like it's a Samsung specific thing that was a problem, but now Brian makes it sound like it's across the whole smartphone industry. I never saw any article about that. Is it all of the manufacturers? Does iOS do it as well and does it impact 3DMark there when we're comparing offscreen rendering to Android? When we have benchmarks that include old and new devices, did the old devices not include the optimisations and thus the real world improvement you'd see with an upgrade isn't as big? When did this application targeting start?equals42 - Friday, October 11, 2013 - link
I think Chillin1248 was correct. If you know that the results are compromised do not publish them. I don't know that reviewers from other market segments would continue to quote results if they knew them to be wrong.Think of Consumer Reports reporting efficiency numbers on cars or dishwashers if they knew the results were skewed. They just wouldn't and they'd be beating the manufacturer over the head until the practice stopped. Major news outlets would catch on and cause a furor.
The apparent resignation to the practice that many of these sites promote is part of the problem.
vFunct - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Anandtech definitely lost a lot of credibility by even allowing these cheat results to be published.cupholder - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Apple fanboy detected.bji - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Moron alert.Talks - Saturday, October 12, 2013 - link
hmmm. want a real-world benchmark? see this, and comment afterwards:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXX_35xy8Rc
then, enjoy your iPhone 5S......
PC Perv - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Think hard about what those "other OEMs" might be.Perhaps a certain fruit-named corporation this site gave ravishing reviews very recently?
Or how about the almighty that this site and some of its staffs admire/worship. I thought I'd heard something about the almighty cheating on Antutu or something.
Hard to keep a straight face when you are already in the deep. You reap what you sow.
vFunct - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
So why keep using the benchmark if they're invalid by cheats?akdj - Wednesday, February 5, 2014 - link
Why would you spend A) Time to read the article, understand it and come to your own 'conclusions' ....and B) take the time to comment after the fact....an an article written, on a site 'taken over' by the mighty 'fruit-named corporation'?Man...another DBag alert. I take total exception to your wisdom, age and/or maturity. Find a site you trust. Read that one. Respond to that one. Go away. As an iPhone 5s and Note 3 owner, this review....as well as the 5s review echo my near six month experiences with both products. Just happened across your silky comment. Cheating is cheating. Anand was the first to find AND exploit/expose it. Initially it was during testing of a Samsung handset. Since August, he's now learned (and edited the review to reflect this) Snapdragon equipped sets from several OEMs are exploiting the same 'cheat'. IOW, this isn't inherent to Samsung. iOS he's also made extremely clear that he doesn't 'believe' it's being done...Apple denies any tinkering but he/they (Anand & Brian) aren't able to 'guarantee with confidence' if they are or not. iOS is locked down. As is the A7. Different system and sounds like it's an extremely secure chip and tough to reach the 'root' in order to absolutely confirm or deny with certainty. It's in all recent reviews. They've done more than any other....Ars took Anand's original post as a 'link back' article when discovered. Doesn't matter. Neither is the NY times, Chicago tribune or Brian Williams's nightly NBC newscast. It's a tech site. Of Sammy's billion customers and Apple's half billion....there's an extremely small percentage that will hear, know or but none the wiser of these benchmarks. That they've 'cheated'. Or that they even EXIST. The iPhone 5s and Note 3 are marvels in engineering. Their app and software selections these days are astounding. As a 42 year old avid fan if technology....and growing up with an Apple IIe as my first computer in the early 80s....I'm astounded by the power, speed, displays, battery life....connectivity and LTE speeds, media, mags and music and movies and photography manipulation, motion picture creation...cameras being used by Nat Geo on world shoots. A few ounces. In our pocket...faster than computers a half decade ago, more reliable and faster 'internet access', email download and sends, SMS and Skype/FaceTime. All genuine and powerful apps. GarageBand. The entire productivity suite....both OSx'ea iOS version and a half dozen options in the Play store with excellent editing and creation options for the MS office suite, Word, Excel and PowerPoint. And again, all that in your pocket
What amazes me more....dbags jumping in claiming someone else is an iOS (or Android) 'fanboy' because he or she disagrees with this scandal. That is SILLY! These speeds can't be replicated in a game or number crunching and extended CPU load times with the battery life anything but an hour, maybe 75 minutes. It's a sham. Should be stopped. Anand's done his job. You should A) apologize or B) leave. Don't comment. Find a hobby and site you enjoy and 'trust'
J