Better Codec for for Mobile Phone

[sanveer]

I want to ask why mobile phones do not have better codec. While mobile phones record in H.264 (and H.265, like the Sony Z5 series), they record rather lousy video quality.

Is there some way to enable better quality video recording on mobiles phones? I downloaded an app called Cinema 4k that shoots much higher bitrate (upto 200 mbps), and much flatter profile than the original video quality on the phone. But, I wish codecs on mobile phones could record at 4:2:2 croma sub sampling rates. I know that some of the phones, especially those with better sensors (like the Nexus 6p that can do upto 35 frames at 12 bit RAW, and upto 60fps at 10 bits), are pretty capable and most likely can do it. Also, the Snapdragon sensor seems to be able to handle quite a bit of processing requirements too, easily handling pretty high bitrates. It can't be only an issue of heat, since some very high end games can be played on these phones, for long hours, even though the phones heat up noticeably.

My question is, that, if all this is possible, why isn't it being explored, for actually shooting quality video on mobile phones, instead of the stuff that professionals are shooting, under the guise of good quality. If paid apps for filmmaking are so popular, why isn't better codec for shooting video being explored? What could be the reason(s) for such hesitation?

[KarMa]

It's a phone. For the same price as one of these expensive smart phones, you could just buy a decent DSLR with probably a much better sensor and lens options.

[Cornucopia]

Codec choice in this scenario has VERY LITTLE to do with the quality, as h.264 and h.265 are 2 of the most efficient codecs available. It has more to do with bitrate, but as KarMa said, it also has quite a LOT to do with sensor & lens options.

If the phone could guarantee a consistent 65-100Mbps bitrate (at Constant Framerate), even with h.264, its quality would easily improve over 200%.
But then you still have issues with noise level & light sensitivity, mainly because you have small sensors: Nokia's Lumia 920 is one of the best, with a 1/3" sensor, but this is ~ 25mm², while a full frame 35mm DLSR's sensor is 864mm² or over 34x the size! More light gathering capability (assuming comparable # of pixels, though it is easier for such a larger sensor to have more pixels too). Much less noise, and that gives much better dynamic range.

Then you have lens choices: there are very few optical zoom adjustment options available for phones (most use digital zoom, which just enlarges the pixel size). Yes, you can add WideAngle or Telephoto attachments to some phone cams, but those are just Dioptors and are not "optically optimized", so you end up with increased aberrations and or blurriness, as well as decreased light sensitivity.

That app you used may give the "option" for higher bitrates, but those are MAX possible bitrates - it doesn't mean that your phone can actually physically achieve them (most cannot even get close, even with UHS3 cards). Plus, unless you have PLENTY of light coming in, phones (currently ALL of them!) attempt to improve perceived sensitivity by varying the framerate ("faking it" by merging frames), which F*U*C*K*S with your motion (much more & varying judder) and fluctuates the overall exposure, and makes it a major pain to edit with.

Scott

[theewizard]

look at the front end, the optics, very few phones have high grade lenses, to gather the light and the image quality
to make it worth while for the mfg to invest in software development
your blaming the codec for your video quality, its not the codec, its the optics
if you ask this on a phone forum, i'm sure people on Howardforums.com would be glad to explain it all to you

[Cornucopia]

Granted, this is not specifically saying that in the hands of a professional, creative artisan, good or even great material cannot be gotten. Lots of outdoor light in the right direction(s), with a tripod, and controlling the subject motion and distance, and one could make phone shots "demo-worthy".
Content is always king, and good material has been gotten from even the most limiting of devices (8mm film, VHS, kinescope, B&W orthochromatic silent film, spy cams, endoscopes).
But why would one intentionally limit themselves, unless it had to do with convenience or budget, (or going for a specific look) etc.?

Scott