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
cupholder - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Why wouldn't they? They haven't been able to truly innovate since Jobs left, and no one in their right mind would actually believe at 1.3 dual core beats 2.3 quads in a whole lot.testcss - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Yeah, those 2.3 GHz Athlon X4s sure are faster than dual 1.3 GHz i7s.dugbug - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Huh no... samsung uses string matching to determine if the app is a benchmark app or not. Just create a suite of tools that use gibberish names.itpromike - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Anand, can we see the non-inflated benches for this device vs. the iPhone 5S?ciparis - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
What stuck out to me was the speculation that the results were likely to be minor, while the Ars article demonstrated them to be anything but.This sort of cheating is far from new, but usually it is met with abject rejection. If you recall, when PC GPU vendors have been caught doing this, they were raked over the coals -- and it stopped, immediately. We have to hold these newcomers to competitive metrics to the same standards.
Spunjji - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
Here, I shortened your comment:BLAH BLAH BLAH DIDN'T READ THE REVIEW BLAH.
Jumangi - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
That's not a good enough answer Anand. Samsung and whoever else are blatantly cheating and you guys just post the false numbers in your reviews while basically saying "oh well they all do it". That's not good enough. Ars doesn't let it go at that and they show how they disabled the boosting to give real numbers. If you guys can't be bothered to do what's necessary to give your readers accurate info then why should people bother to come here?Talks - Saturday, October 12, 2013 - link
@Jumangi: "That's not a good enough answer Anand. Samsung and whoever else are blatantly cheating and you guys just post the false numbers in your reviews while basically saying "oh well they all do it". That's not good enough. Ars doesn't let it go at that and they show how they disabled the boosting to give real numbers. If you guys can't be bothered to do what's necessary to give your readers accurate info then why should people bother to come here?" oh really?!, then why are you here anyway! you, are just like the iPhone 5C that you are favoring with…, full of plastic!!! why can't you just humbly admit that by this time, Apple and its was once awesome iPhone now 5S, just like the first; and by far the truest of the true great innovator Nokia, has now being surpassed by the mighty Samsung! first in its Galaxy S3; S4; and now, the true awesome mighty Galaxy Note 3!!!akdj - Wednesday, February 5, 2014 - link
I'm not so sure I saw or read the same review as you....nor did I see the same charts. The n3 and 5s are top of the heap (I own both). The reviews of each are reflective of their performance. And these two absolutely SMOKE the S3,S4, ANY Nokia...as I believe do the year old 5--& 5c? You might wanna take another 'look'. And then think....if Apple didn't exist, would we have an S4? A Note 3? In their present form factor, speed and reliability, capability and Eco system (software and apps)? Or vice versa. No Android? We might still be playing with a 3GS and lacking LTE demand. Competition is awesome....for everyone. It keeps the innovation going....Apple's 5s is an absolutely unbelievable phone. As are the new iPad. The Note 3 is phenomenal. I. LOVE it. If half you bozos defending one company or the other would give the opposite a 'try' you might just see what the 'truth' is. So many strengths to both OSes. The flagships are mothas. Neither are anything but top shelf. The software and 'app' development community is behind both....but iOS tends to get 'some' types of apps faster, with better performance...and a significant 'choice' of whatever it is your interest is. OS updates on time. Significant resale value. Android on the flip side is amazing when it comes to 'power' user, business and professional work---tinkering, display size choice and customization....ICS completely changed the 'lag' while the hardware caught up. Both amazing systems. If justifiable, buy a pair:-). Everyone needs a 'bat-phone'!alovell83 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
I'm more disappointed in your battery charge time metric. We fully charge our phones at night, time until full isn't as important as 2 hours display and 10 hours standby, enough to get you through a night. Or how much life you can get from a 30 minute charge. That's the use-case.