Early Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra camera samples raise concerns compared to iPhone 15 Pro Max and last-gen Galaxy despite samey hardware

[Redaktion]

Just a day after the launch of the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, camera samples from the ultra-premium Android smartphone are popping up. Some comparisons with the previous generation as well as the iPhone 15 Pro are far less flattering than Samsung might hope.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Early-Samsung-Galaxy-S24-Ultra-camera-samples-raise-concerns-compared-to-iPhone-15-Pro-Max-and-last-gen-Galaxy-despite-samey-hardware.794582.0.html

[Mr Majestyk]

Laughably bad and Scamsung relying on AI processing to do the heavy lifting, but the result is garbage. Samsung's own image processing has always been 4th rate oversharpened, over-saturated over HDR'd. Just shoot RAW dng images and process yourself. Google Pixel already killed U23 and iPhone Pro Max in double blind tests, these results will see Scamsung fall further down the ladder.

[akdfjlas]

Well it seems worse, but if you look closely there are a lot more details on s24 than on s23. Look at the evacuation sign behind him, or on the second picture look at the forehead, it has regular skin look and it has wrinkled, while the s23 version has all of those things blurry and smudged.

[Dan6]

It's just an early test. Even if there are some issues - they will fix it with software updates, the same did apple and google.. It's more fair to compare a month or two after.

[NikoB]

ust shoot RAW dng images and process yourself.

As I have written here many times in recent years, the majority of the technically illiterate population (yes, yes, even with money for top-end smartphones) shoots with proprietary software and with default settings. As a result, there is not just a difference with raw images, there is a monstrous difference with 8 summer 12-13 MP cameras (in good lighting, of course) in favor of 8 summer cameras, if the pictures are taken on them with other software, where the size of jpeg files is 2-4 times more than in proprietary soft cameras of smartphone manufacturers.

With a grin, every year I compare reviews of top-end smartphones with old smartphones that shoot at the maximum of their capabilities and see how pictures taken on new top-end smartphones with default jpeg saving settings are miserably leaked to 6-8 year old smartphones.

What's the point of cool new hardware - if idiotic manufacturers including Apple/Samsung in the default settings for their soft cameras choose such monstrous compression of jpeg images (despite the fact that the size of smartphone disks has grown by an order of magnitude since then!) that from the very first can you see the loss of detail and the "plasticine" nature of everything in the frame? =)

And 90% of buyers, at a minimum, will shoot with default settings, monstrously losing detail in jpeg pictures. And messing around with raw (even higher quality) will not even be the remaining "advanced" 10%, but at most 1-2%, at best.

[NikoB]

Sorry, stupid google translator with "AI" )):
Edited:
As I have written here many times in recent years, the majority of the technically illiterate population (yes, yes, even with money for top-end smartphones) shoots with proprietary software and with default settings. As a result, there is not just a difference with raw photographs, there is a monstrous difference with 8-year-old 12-13MP cameras (in good lighting, of course) in favor of 8-year-old cameras, if the pictures are taken on them with other software, where the size of jpeg files is 2- 4 times more than in proprietary soft cameras of smartphone manufacturers.

With a grin, every year I compare reviews of top-end smartphones with old smartphones that shoot at the maximum of their capabilities and see how pictures taken on new top-end smartphones with default jpeg saving settings are miserably leaked to 6-8-year-old smartphones.

What's the point of cool new hardware - if idiotic manufacturers including Apple/Samsung in the default settings for their soft cameras choose such monstrous compression of jpeg images (despite the fact that the size of smartphone disks has grown literally by an order of magnitude since then!), which from the first At a glance, you can see the loss of detail and the "plasticine" nature of everything in the frame? =)

And 90% of buyers, at a minimum, will shoot with default settings, monstrously losing detail in jpeg pictures. And messing around with raw (even higher quality) will not even be the remaining "advanced" 10%, but at most 1-2%, at best.

Exactly the same shame happens with video recording on top smartphones. Without studio-quality compression (2 passes with frame analysis), a minimum of 160Mbit/s is then required for 4k@60fps (90-120Mbit/s for 4k@30fps) and at least 200Mbit/s for 8k@30fps.

Let me remind you that the best BD discs, in terms of quality, with films, with studio quality compression in 2 passes, have a bitrate above 70 Mbit/s. Without 2 passes - the bitrate should be at least 1.5 times higher.

Even with a bitrate of 250Mbps (this is the stream level for cinemas in DCP packages supplied by major movie theaters), it is easy to record more than 8 hours of video at 8k@30 on a 1TB SSD in a smartphone.

So what's the problem? Is it the stupidity of engineers and the population or something else?

Maybe they just don't want smartphones to shoot at maximum quality?

[Enma45]

Im Video sehe ich das S24 besser als das iPhone 15 Pro.
Ehrlich gesagt war ich beim Ansehen des Videos überrascht, wie Samsung Apple bei weitem überholt hat.
Jetzt müssten wir mit einem Pixel vorlieb nehmen.

[Eric]

Yeah samsung been all hype lately i bought s23 plus and i thought the zoom was great and pictures looked good, then i saw my girlfriends s21 ultra zoom and pictures, its pretty sad the s21ultra a two year older phone has a better zoom and takes better pictures, i felt so let down by samsung and want my money back, was thinking of getting an s24 utlra but after hearing this might start looking at other brands in the future