<p>Bottom line with the canon rebel series cameras is that the video is pulled from a low resolution capture of the chip which is normally used for high resolution photos. The photos from these cameras will resolve many thousands of lines but the video compression chip in the camera cannot deal with these in real time so they just grab the image that goes to the rear LCD screen.</p>

<p>This image is achieved by throwing away the high res photo lines (or pixels), this is called binning (discarding). This makes high contrast edges very aliased or have a stair stepped effect. To fix this Canon soften or blur the image to make it more acceptable. Guess what, all of this results in a video image that ends up resolving at about 480 vertical lines or standard TV resolution 'not' HD resolution. So no amount of sharp lenses or post sharpening will ix the matter. The soft is baked in.</p>

<p>While the phone camera is built specifically to capture a fixed line resolution but it compromises on maximum photo resolution, typically not better than the video resolution.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-26T07:23:58.563Z
The camera isn't mine and I haven't had a chance to play with it in the last month or so, but I'm planning on trying out MagicLantern to shoot in RAW for our next project. Have you done something like that before?
Kenmore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-26T12:35:52.827Z
Actually yes I have tried it on the Rebel series camera. Unfortunately the SD card port is limited to 21mbit per second. So any RAW frames you create will be severely limited. You have to fit the frames into this tiny bandwidth, and faster cards don't help. The port is simply not designed to carry all the data required for larger frames. I was recording either 6 frames per second or 320x240 sized frames.
3pointedit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-28T13:09:49.827Z
2016-01-28T13:09:49.827Z
3pointedit
<p>There are a couple of questions here, so I try to break them down.</p>

<p><strong>Can a smartphone outperform a DSLR?</strong></p>

<p>In optimal conditions, yes. But as soon as you reach the limits of a smartphone camera, you cannot do anything about it. With a DSLR you can do so much to stay within the limits: change the lens, have an optical zoom, manual mode, you name it.</p>

<p><strong>Kit Zoom Lens vs 50mm Prime</strong></p>

<p>I find it convenient to quickly change the framing of the shot without moving the tripod. The downside of a kit lens is that it a) has a mediocre maximum aperture and that b) the aperture may change while you are zooming. And that may be in the middle of the recording. So if you want to use the zoom of your 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 while recording, take care that your aperture is only 5.6, but not wider.</p>

<p><strong>Canon vs Panasonic vs Sony</strong></p>

<p>I don't think there will be a final answer. But besides the specs it's also a question into which lens line you want to invest for the future.</p>

<p>What you didn't ask: <strong>2K vs 4K</strong></p>

<p>Of course for a vlog you only need 2K/1080p. But if you would have 4K, you would find it convenient just record a pretty wide shot and zoom digitally inside your NLE, without loosing quality. That would give your video some variation of an otherwise static shot.</p>

<p><strong>What can you do to improve the quality?</strong></p>

<p>The most important parts are a good (and pleasant) lighting and a flawless sound recording. If you have this, nobody will care about a less-than-optimal camera output. It's worth to invest your time into that.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-22T09:34:01.367Z
Thanks for your answer. We have decided to keep the camera. I think with better lighting and editing it will be acceptable. And I can't argue with the results I see other people getting from it on YouTube. I just need more experience.
Kenmore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-22T12:13:32.843Z
I would agree with this answer, but also add that I think about 75% of the image quality is in the lens, vs 25% in the camera. I would recommend avoiding the 18-55mm kit lens as much as possible, and maybe looking at some second hand (even manual) glass.
Christy James
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T14:32:39.630Z
The latest version of 18-55mm STM found in Canon t5i is actually quite good and you should keep it. Kit lenses were bad in the past, but not now.
kazanaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T17:22:13.030Z
@ChristyJames Do you think I'd get noticeably better sharpness with the 50mm 1.8? I've been eyeing it for the better low-light capability and the low cost, but from a lot of reviews and comparisons I can't notice a huge difference in clarity, just DOF.
Kenmore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-21T00:41:58.020Z
2015-08-21T00:41:58.020Z
Fred42vid
<p>A friend wanted to make some professional looking videos for a weekly vlog type of thing for his church. We went into this planning to buy a better camera and lights etc as we go.</p>

<p>We filmed a video last week with his phone: a Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge. The quality was surprisingly good but I thought we could do much better.</p>

<p>After spending a couple of weeks researching cameras and looking at reviews I ended up picking out the T5i; but I gotta say, I'm pretty underwhelmed. While, the photo quality is pretty good (I haven't had time to take a ton of photos), the video quality is quite a bit worse than the camera phone.</p>

<p>In general, the video is not as clear, bright, contrasted or colorful, and there's more noise and artifacts. I've tried Auto, as well as few other modes, and also manual (1/60, F/5, ISO 800). To reduce grain I also tried bumping the ISO down to 400 and the shutter to 1/30 to compensate. But after more research I don't think the grain was a problem. I'm guessing I was actually seeing compression artifacts.</p>

<p>At first I had trouble believing that a smartphone could outperform a dedicated camera. Especially one that has countless reviews saying it's the best entry-level camera.</p>

<p>What might be the problem? Is a $600 phone really better than a $700 camera? Do I need a better lens? I've been eyeing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 because it's very affordable and footage I've seen with it looks much better in low lighting.</p>

<p>Maybe it's the lighting? Our lighting setup is definitely not ideal, at the moment, but I would expect it to at least still look clear even if it's underexposed. We have 3 work lights purchased at Walmart with 65w flood bulbs (if i recall).</p>

<p>We definitely want to get better lights; but it's still disconcerting how last week we used the same setup and got much better results on the phone.</p>

<p>Although, one area where the new camera was definitely more helpful was the focal length. With the phone we had to be very close in order to keep our backdrop in frame. With the T5i kit lens we were able to go to 50mm and backup and get much more natural framing.</p>

<p>I really want to make this work; it could be something we're doing wrong. Video tests I've seen on YouTube from the Rebel line seem to show better quality than we're getting; even T3i videos. I was hoping it was just post-processing, but after spending a day trying to color correct and color grade the footage, it's still not any clearer (of course).</p>

<p>At this point, we're considering returning it and getting something better but I'm not sure what to get.</p>

<p>I was hoping this would be the best of both worlds but it seems like it's really more focused on stills; and for now, video is our primary focus. And, after some research it looks like we'd better off with a Panasonic or Sony. True? The Panasonic GH4 looks great as far as I can tell; but of course, it's twice the price. I also hear good things of the GH2 or GH3.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-21T11:49:18.913Z
Could we have some stills from the videos to compare?
Christy James
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-21T13:23:07.930Z
The colour profiles on the Canon are very customizable. Have you kept them in defaults or did you play around with them?
kazanaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-22T05:22:01.483Z
We have decided, we're probably going to keep it.

This is the one taken with the phone:
https://youtu.be/HuhHFeapPf8

And this one is with the T5i:
https://youtu.be/EN45myKHuSY



The focal length made a big difference. In the first one his face is distorted and too close.
Kenmore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-22T08:35:18.127Z
@ChristyJames Of course that footage is graded (with my current, limited knowledge), and sharpened a little bit. I'm actually not as unhappy with the quality now; I expected it to be sharper but it's usable. I think with better lighting (which we are about to order) it will be much better.
Kenmore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-22T08:35:45.930Z
@kazanaki I did try them all out, as well as make a custom one based on a recommendation I found from a YouTuber: turn sharpness off and contrast down because it's better to do those in post. I also messed with the pre-defined white balance options but I only learned about setting a custom white balance the next day. Needless to say, it helps with the colors but not the clarity. Overall I don't think the image is actually that bad, I was just expecting it to be sharper.
Kenmore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T14:26:54.833Z
There are specific colour profiles for Canon for grading. I have at least 3. Technicolor, Marvel and the "official" from Canon. These are aimed for footage that will be graded in post. Perhaps you can play with those as well.
kazanaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T14:29:44.277Z
Looking at the videos, the canon does not look that bad to me. It is a little redish (white balance problem).
kazanaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T17:28:18.193Z
@kazanaki I agree, I need to learn better white balancing. I'm still trying to nail my workflow. Right now there's some back and forth between AE and Premiere. Something else that I've been learning is that different f-stops can affect the sharpness. Have you experienced this? In my own tests I did find f8-11 to be a tiny bit sharper (as a lot of people suggest). Can't remember exactly, but this video was probably shot at f5 (wide open at this focal length) because of our lighting situation; hopefully that won't be an issue once we get our lights.
Kenmore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T18:54:45.910Z
Yes you are right. Actually this is already known from photography. All lenses have a "sweet" spot of sharpness and in several cases it is at 8-11 as you noticed. In stock lenses going more then f16 is really bad. In lower f-stops the center of the picture is sharp but the edjes are soft.
kazanaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T18:55:57.683Z
Video knowledge really build ups on photography knowledge. It seems to me that you must study some photography first :-). Trying looking at the top-voted questions in the photography stack exchange first. It will save you a lot of time in the long run.
kazanaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T18:58:41.157Z
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34733/what-is-the-useful-range-of-apertures-for-lenses
kazanaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-23T18:58:53.707Z
Also search google for "lens diffraction"
kazanaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-20T09:56:16.190Z
I know this is late, but try to zoom in as far as possible with the lens, manually focus on the subject so I looks as sharp as possible, then zoom out and don't change the distance at all. How does that look?
Shane Smiskol
<video-quality><camera><canon><gh4>
T5i video quality doesn't even match smartphone camera? Where can I improve?
Kenmore
# T5i video quality doesn't even match smartphone camera? Where can I improve?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-19)

A friend wanted to make some professional looking videos for a weekly vlog type of thing for his church. We went into this planning to buy a better camera and lights etc as we go.

We filmed a video last week with his phone: a Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge. The quality was surprisingly good but I thought we could do much better.

After spending a couple of weeks researching cameras and looking at reviews I ended up picking out the T5i; but I gotta say, I'm pretty underwhelmed. While, the photo quality is pretty good (I haven't had time to take a ton of photos), the video quality is quite a bit worse than the camera phone.

In general, the video is not as clear, bright, contrasted or colorful, and there's more noise and artifacts. I've tried Auto, as well as few other modes, and also manual (1/60, F/5, ISO 800). To reduce grain I also tried bumping the ISO down to 400 and the shutter to 1/30 to compensate. But after more research I don't think the grain was a problem. I'm guessing I was actually seeing compression artifacts.

At first I had trouble believing that a smartphone could outperform a dedicated camera. Especially one that has countless reviews saying it's the best entry-level camera.

What might be the problem? Is a $600 phone really better than a $700 camera? Do I need a better lens? I've been eyeing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 because it's very affordable and footage I've seen with it looks much better in low lighting.

Maybe it's the lighting? Our lighting setup is definitely not ideal, at the moment, but I would expect it to at least still look clear even if it's underexposed. We have 3 work lights purchased at Walmart with 65w flood bulbs (if i recall).

We definitely want to get better lights; but it's still disconcerting how last week we used the same setup and got much better results on the phone.

Although, one area where the new camera was definitely more helpful was the focal length. With the phone we had to be very close in order to keep our backdrop in frame. With the T5i kit lens we were able to go to 50mm and backup and get much more natural framing.

I really want to make this work; it could be something we're doing wrong. Video tests I've seen on YouTube from the Rebel line seem to show better quality than we're getting; even T3i videos. I was hoping it was just post-processing, but after spending a day trying to color correct and color grade the footage, it's still not any clearer (of course).

At this point, we're considering returning it and getting something better but I'm not sure what to get.

I was hoping this would be the best of both worlds but it seems like it's really more focused on stills; and for now, video is our primary focus. And, after some research it looks like we'd better off with a Panasonic or Sony. True? The Panasonic GH4 looks great as far as I can tell; but of course, it's twice the price. I also hear good things of the GH2 or GH3.

**Tags:** video-quality, camera, canon, gh4

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Could we have some stills from the videos to compare?  
> **username_2**: The colour profiles on the Canon are very customizable. Have you kept them in defaults or did you play around with them?  
> **username_0**: We have decided, we're probably going to keep it.  This is the one taken with the phone: https://youtu.be/HuhHFeapPf8  And this one is with the T5i: https://youtu.be/EN45myKHuSY    The focal length made a big difference. In the first one his face is distorted and too close.  
> **username_0**: @ChristyJames Of course that footage is graded (with my current, limited knowledge), and sharpened a little bit. I'm actually not as unhappy with the quality now; I expected it to be sharper but it's usable. I think with better lighting (which we are about to order) it will be much better.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I did try them all out, as well as make a custom one based on a recommendation I found from a YouTuber: turn sharpness off and contrast down because it's better to do those in post. I also messed with the pre-defined white balance options but I only learned about setting a custom white balance the next day. Needless to say, it helps with the colors but not the clarity. Overall I don't think the image is actually that bad, I was just expecting it to be sharper.  
> **username_2**: There are specific colour profiles for Canon for grading. I have at least 3. Technicolor, Marvel and the "official" from Canon. These are aimed for footage that will be graded in post. Perhaps you can play with those as well.  
> **username_2**: Looking at the videos, the canon does not look that bad to me. It is a little redish (white balance problem).  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I agree, I need to learn better white balancing. I'm still trying to nail my workflow. Right now there's some back and forth between AE and Premiere. Something else that I've been learning is that different f-stops can affect the sharpness. Have you experienced this? In my own tests I did find f8-11 to be a tiny bit sharper (as a lot of people suggest). Can't remember exactly, but this video was probably shot at f5 (wide open at this focal length) because of our lighting situation; hopefully that won't be an issue once we get our lights.  
> **username_2**: Yes you are right. Actually this is already known from photography. All lenses have a "sweet" spot of sharpness and in several cases it is at 8-11 as you noticed. In stock lenses going more then f16 is really bad. In lower f-stops the center of the picture is sharp but the edjes are soft.  
> **username_2**: Video knowledge really build ups on photography knowledge. It seems to me that you must study some photography first :-). Trying looking at the top-voted questions in the photography stack exchange first. It will save you a lot of time in the long run.  
> **username_2**: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34733/what-is-the-useful-range-of-apertures-for-lenses  
> **username_2**: Also search google for "lens diffraction"  
> **username_3**: I know this is late, but try to zoom in as far as possible with the lens, manually focus on the subject so I looks as sharp as possible, then zoom out and don't change the distance at all. How does that look?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-01-28. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Bottom line with the canon rebel series cameras is that the video is pulled from a low resolution capture of the chip which is normally used for high resolution photos. The photos from these cameras will resolve many thousands of lines but the video compression chip in the camera cannot deal with these in real time so they just grab the image that goes to the rear LCD screen.

This image is achieved by throwing away the high res photo lines (or pixels), this is called binning (discarding). This makes high contrast edges very aliased or have a stair stepped effect. To fix this Canon soften or blur the image to make it more acceptable. Guess what, all of this results in a video image that ends up resolving at about 480 vertical lines or standard TV resolution 'not' HD resolution. So no amount of sharp lenses or post sharpening will ix the matter. The soft is baked in.

While the phone camera is built specifically to capture a fixed line resolution but it compromises on maximum photo resolution, typically not better than the video resolution.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The camera isn't mine and I haven't had a chance to play with it in the last month or so, but I'm planning on trying out MagicLantern to shoot in RAW for our next project. Have you done something like that before?  
> **username_4**: Actually yes I have tried it on the Rebel series camera. Unfortunately the SD card port is limited to 21mbit per second. So any RAW frames you create will be severely limited. You have to fit the frames into this tiny bandwidth, and faster cards don't help. The port is simply not designed to carry all the data required for larger frames. I was recording either 6 frames per second or 320x240 sized frames.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2015-08-21. Score: 1

There are a couple of questions here, so I try to break them down.

**Can a smartphone outperform a DSLR?**

In optimal conditions, yes. But as soon as you reach the limits of a smartphone camera, you cannot do anything about it. With a DSLR you can do so much to stay within the limits: change the lens, have an optical zoom, manual mode, you name it.

**Kit Zoom Lens vs 50mm Prime**

I find it convenient to quickly change the framing of the shot without moving the tripod. The downside of a kit lens is that it a) has a mediocre maximum aperture and that b) the aperture may change while you are zooming. And that may be in the middle of the recording. So if you want to use the zoom of your 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 while recording, take care that your aperture is only 5.6, but not wider.

**Canon vs Panasonic vs Sony**

I don't think there will be a final answer. But besides the specs it's also a question into which lens line you want to invest for the future.

What you didn't ask: **2K vs 4K**

Of course for a vlog you only need 2K/1080p. But if you would have 4K, you would find it convenient just record a pretty wide shot and zoom digitally inside your NLE, without loosing quality. That would give your video some variation of an otherwise static shot.

**What can you do to improve the quality?**

The most important parts are a good (and pleasant) lighting and a flawless sound recording. If you have this, nobody will care about a less-than-optimal camera output. It's worth to invest your time into that.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for your answer. We have decided to keep the camera. I think with better lighting and editing it will be acceptable. And I can't argue with the results I see other people getting from it on YouTube. I just need more experience.  
> **username_1**: I would agree with this answer, but also add that I think about 75% of the image quality is in the lens, vs 25% in the camera. I would recommend avoiding the 18-55mm kit lens as much as possible, and maybe looking at some second hand (even manual) glass.  
> **username_2**: The latest version of 18-55mm STM found in Canon t5i is actually quite good and you should keep it. Kit lenses were bad in the past, but not now.  
> **username_0**: @ChristyJames Do you think I'd get noticeably better sharpness with the 50mm 1.8? I've been eyeing it for the better low-light capability and the low cost, but from a lot of reviews and comparisons I can't notice a huge difference in clarity, just DOF.  

---

