The Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Review
by Joshua Ho on October 15, 2014 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Samsung
- Android
- Mobile
- Galaxy Note 4
Camera
While the 16MP camera of the Galaxy Note 4 is mostly what we would expect, Samsung has really changed things up with the addition of OIS. Outside of this addition and the Sony IMX240 sensor, there’s really not a lot of change when it comes to the Galaxy Note 4. This means that we see the same 31mm equivalent focal length and F/2.27 aperture. At this point, it seems that OIS has finally reached mainstream adoption as both Samsung and Apple are shipping OIS solutions on their phones. The front facing camera is noticeably different though, with a Samsung S5K6D1YX sensor that I haven't seen elsewhere.
However, before we get into the proper image quality analysis I wanted to first cover shot to shot latency and focus/AE latency, as both are critical to a good image capture experience. Even if it’s possible to get amazing photos from a camera, it doesn’t really matter if the moment is missed. In order to test this, we look at the ideal case, which is when the phone is pointed at the ISO chart with bright lighting to maximize contrast.
As one can see in the graphs above, capture latency and focus latency are quite competitive with on the Note 4. However, there is one crucial detail that the focus latency graph misses, which is that Samsung doesn’t have continuous auto-focus in preview with the Note 4. As a result, there’s realistically an additional latency period before the auto-focus begins to run. The result is that the total time from out of focus to in focus is realistically closer to 800ms, but if one immediately taps the display to begin an AF run it’s possible to achieve the lower bound value, which is just south of 300ms.
Still Image Performance
While I'm still working on moving towards a better test for cameras, for now we have our standard photo comparisons that should give a good idea of what to expect from a smartphone camera in comparison to other cameras. Our first test is the standard ISO chart, which allows for a good test of maximum resolution.
For this first test, it seems that Samsung hasn't really changed much when it comes to maximum resolution, and in general the Note 4 produces similar output to the Galaxy S5. To verify this and a test of dynamic range, we'll look at a landscape shot next.
In this test, we see that the Galaxy Note 4 generally does well with detail and dynamic range as the landscape is generally well-detailed, although there's quite a bit of detail that seems to be smudged away on the grass as it seems to be a flat green texture for the most part. There's also noticeable color artifacting on the bleachers in the distance. We'll look at the same scene in low light to get a better idea for what the Note 4 really brings to the table.
Here, in low light we see significant improvements in image quality when comparing the Galaxy S5 to the Galaxy Note 4. The iPhone 6 Plus and Note 4 are quite close in overal quality, but looking at the brick building on the right of the image shows that the iPhone 6 Plus is maintaining a higher level of detail in this scene.
In the case of HDR, Samsung continues to do a great job with their implementation. For the most part this feature is successfully implemented with no real halos or other artifacts even when there are moving objects in the shot. This is likely to be implemented through on-sensor HDR rather than image combination.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
195 Comments
View All Comments
darkich - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link
Yep, different approach to low power design.Apple use just two underclocked but very beefed up, large cores, while Qualcomm uses more small, simple, but high clocked cores.
Just think about the fact that Snapdragon 805 probably doesn't draw more power than the A8, even while being clocked twice higher and built on a larger node.
If you doubt that, the Galaxy Note 4 itself is your proof - longer battery endurance than iPhone 6+(according to every other review) despite of having a modestly larger battery, supposedly less efficient OS, triple the RAM, bigger screen and larger resolution panel.
There's probably no way it could achieve that if snapdragon 805 was any less efficient than A8
darkich - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link
One more thing.. the CPU benchmarks posted here are nothing but a single threaded Web scripts. Which means, almost entirely dependant on software optimization and single core performance.If you want a good raw performance indication of the CPU setup itself, look up Geekbench.
There the Snapdragon 805 easily beats the A8 in overall score.
The A8 beats it even more easily in the single core part though.
KPOM - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link
Not many apps are designed for multicore support. Also, Apple chips run at top speed for longer. It's like comparing Carl Lewis to Paula Radcliffe. Lewis can run faster for short bursts but Radcliffe has more endurance and is still running at the top of her game after 26.2 miles.KPOM - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link
Not necessarily. The biggest drain on the battery is the screen. OLED is more efficient than LCD. So perhaps the Qualcomm CPU is less efficient but Samsung makes it up in the display. Now that Samsung seems to have solved the saturation issue perhaps the real story is that if Apple and Samsung were still partners instead of frenemies the battery life on the latest iPhones would be absolutely amazing instead of just good considering the smaller batteries they use.tralalalalalala40 - Saturday, October 18, 2014 - link
not more efficient when browsing the web (white background)tralalalalalala40 - Saturday, October 18, 2014 - link
Because you were lied to by a 100 billion dollar marketing machine. more megapixels is not better (if you don't account for pixel size etc.). more RAM is not better (if you don't account for fast memory compression techniques). more clock speed is not better (if you don't account for electromigration and current leakage, etc. in the transistors).techcrazy - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link
Samsung amoled display doesn't appear as sharp as other LCD display. It's because of their PenTile subpixel layout. Their PentTile subpixel layout is lower than a conventional RGB stripe, so true subpixel density increases around 20%. - So basically Samsung's QHD display only 20% sharper than FHD display which has RGB stripe where as LG's QHD display is nearly 80% sharper than FHD display which has RGB stripe. LG's QHD display is the true QHD display and Samsung's QHD is the fake QHD display.grayson_carr - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link
Doesn't change the fact that the G3 display isn't very well calibrated, has very poor contrast, and has a terrible oversharpening algorithm that makes things look weird.MattL - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link
Good review... two things though:1) Your screen analysis results differ from display mate in an oddly large way, different review unit calibrations maybe? They found it to rate much better on accuracy results than here.
2) Battery life results differ a bit than most other sites, they find the note 4 does better than the iPhone 6. In fairness the web browsing results is where it rates the lowest which is where the iPhone 6 barely beats it here, so that doesn't different too much.
Why don't you do a video battery life test? Or a mixed content test. These are areas that OLED screens should do much better due to white screen vs black energy efficiency, something display mate analyzed in much more detail.
Arcetnathon7 - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - link
Don't you think strange that diplaymate submit the test weeks before the launch ?Same thing with Galaxy Alpha and GSMarena review.
I really suspect Samsung chosing prototypes. Every other review after launch never meet those results.