DJI vision 2 pic blurry help!

[vin100]

Hi Peter

The rx100 kit looks indeed like a good and affordable option but I still have some questions/doubts. For instance, I don't see any anti-vibration mechanisme. Will the rx100's optical stabilisation compensate possible jello? Wat about the range of the FPV and remote shutter? How long could a flight last with a 250 gram camera? And there is no gimbal option.

Many people here will be very curious for your feedback and findings once you have performed some flights and shots!

I've been following dronexpert's webiste for the past two months and almost ordered their P2V gimbal. However I didn't proceed as I found the 500 € option not worth the vision camera. I've contacted them and asked why they didn't build a gimbal for a pocket camera but they told me it would be too heavy.

However, there might be a solution that I didn't think of at first. A camera that is capable of shooting decent footage, has optical stabilisation, weights only 105 grams, is very compact and could be fitted into a small gimbal, and has already WIFI onboard for FPV (range should be extended), namely Sony's DSC-XQ10 http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-gb/p ... ifications
It would be worth doing some research on how this camera could be matched up with a P2.....

What do you think? Thx. Vincent.

 

[Klaus]

The rx100 kit looks indeed like a good and affordable option but I still have some questions/doubts. For instance, I don't see any anti-vibration mechanisme. Will the rx100's optical stabilisation compensate possible jello? Wat about the range of the FPV and remote shutter? How long could a flight last with a 250 gram camera? And there is no gimbal option.

No there are a Gimbal in Peters setup, it is what he call

The RX100 platform arrived at the dealers from Holland yesterday

But I will say that for that kind of money there are many other options, and right now new models are coming out all the time.
Yes it is very difficult to decide, I have just been through the same.

 

[Peter Evans]

Hi Peter

The rx100 kit looks indeed like a good and affordable option but I still have some questions/doubts. For instance, I don't see any anti-vibration mechanisme. Will the rx100's optical stabilisation compensate possible jello? Wat about the range of the FPV and remote shutter? How long could a flight last with a 250 gram camera? And there is no gimbal option.

Many people here will be very curious for your feedback and findings once you have performed some flights and shots!

I've been following dronexpert's webiste for the past two months and almost ordered their P2V gimbal. However I didn't proceed as I found the 500 € option not worth the vision camera. I've contacted them and asked why they didn't build a gimbal for a pocket camera but they told me it would be too heavy.

However, there might be a solution that I didn't think of at first. A camera that is capable of shooting decent footage, has optical stabilisation, weights only 105 grams, is very compact and could be fitted into a small gimbal, and has already WIFI onboard for FPV (range should be extended), namely Sony's DSC-XQ10 http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-gb/p ... ifications
It would be worth doing some research on how this camera could be matched up with a P2.....

What do you think? Thx. Vincent.

Well Vincent, here are my thoughts on that:

The DSC-XQ10 is a small sensor camera 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) so it can't produce the same quality images that the RX100 can, nor does it offer any manual control, nor does it support RAW format. It's 'big brother', the DSC-XQ100, although equipped with the same '1.0' (13.2 x 8.8 mm) sensor as the RX100, suffers from similar deficiencies in terms of lack of manual control and no RAW option - so, as a photographer, that kills it for me.

As to gimbals and anti-vibration mechanisms, my first priority is still photographs and the RX100's stabilisation system, combined with properly chosen shutter speeds, will definitely negate issues in that regard and, from the RX100 videos I've seen online, I have no worries about the video stabilisation either.

Dronexpert claim the FPV, camera tilt, and shutter operation to be good up to 300 metres and I have no reason to doubt that. In any case, under French law (if operating commercially) I'm not allowed to fly further than 100 metres without a ground station and mapping system.

Flight time is estimated at 15-18 minutes.

Unfortunately it's going to be a while before I can report back on the system, see my new post over on the P2 non-vision section!

 

[Peter Evans]

But I will say that for that kind of money there are many other options, and right now new models are coming out all the time. Yes it is very difficult to decide, I have just been through the same.

I'd be grateful if you could point me to those other options, Klaus, because for 2,000 euros, I haven't been able to find anything that will give me the quality offered by the RX100.

Of course, there will always be something new just around the corner but I want to be up and shooting this summer and, before I can do that, I have to have the whole aircraft + kit approved by the DGAC (French civil aviation authority), obtain a ULM pilot theory certficate and prove my competence to fly what I've bought!

 

[chrisverst]

I'm thinking that this rx100 combo is pretty much my solution for modifying my phantom 2 vision to more professional photo's.
But is there a cheaper option then this since this mount is 825 euro and the camera is 600 that adds up quite some to the phantom cost aswell.
Does anyone know why there are not multifunctional mounts for different compact camera's?

Can anyone having this rx100 combo post some pictures for reference. I would love to see the results.


for reference i have a canon 5D mk2 and the only option my local RC shop gave me is buying the s1000 with all features for a cost of 11536 euro. they said the s800 is not made for DSLR camera and it will reduce the flight time to 5 min.

 

[Peter Evans]

I'm thinking that this rx100 combo is pretty much my solution for modifying my phantom 2 vision to more professional photo's. But is there a cheaper option then this since this mount is 825 euro and the camera is 600 that adds up quite some to the phantom cost as well.

I know of no other way to get the RX100 in the air and working properly with FPV and flight telemetry (of course the latter requires a DJI iOSD-mini which is another 60 euros!)

The RX100 is available for just over 400 euros on amazon.fr. You must be looking at the RX100 II which is considerable heavier than the Mark 1 and which (IMHO) offers no practical advantage for our purposes. Maybe selling your Vision and starting again with a Phantom 2 (non-vision) would be a more cost effective option for you?

 

[MrDRC]

You can expect a bit more, if you're willing to invest the time to process your DNG files - at a minimum, to add back in the sharpening & contrast adjustments that are deliberately omitted with DNG/RAW files.

What are you doing in post processing your raw files to regain sharpness? I use Lightroom 5.3 and there is NOTHING I have tried that can sharpen these images. There is so much noise in these images, even under the best shooting conditions, I cant see how post processing is going to clean this mess up.

 

[Klaus]

You can expect a bit more, if you're willing to invest the time to process your DNG files - at a minimum, to add back in the sharpening & contrast adjustments that are deliberately omitted with DNG/RAW files.

What are you doing in post processing your raw files to regain sharpness? I use Lightroom 5.3 and there is NOTHING I have tried that can sharpen these images. There is so much noise in these images, even under the best shooting conditions, I cant see how post processing is going to clean this mess up.

Hi MrDRC

You are exactly right - spot on.
Because of the big amount of noise you can't sharpen anymore because you will just see the noise even more!
I'm sure someone now will tell me that you can use the noise removal tool
No you can't, because no noise removal tool can remove noise without soften the photo and make it even more unsharp.
Again people are expecting way to much for this tiny little and cheap camera.

 

[Klaus]

I'd be grateful if you could point me to those other options, Klaus, because for 2,000 euros, I haven't been able to find anything that will give me the quality offered by the RX100.

Hi Peter
First of all (don't get this wrong, please) I don't understand why you are so fixed on Sony RX-100? Unless you already got one of course, but for people who also are going for a new camera, there are (in my mind) better options and maybe even cheaper
For my setup I have bought the Sony NEX5R, a great camera. I was even more surprised when I first saw the photo quality for the first time. I am normally using a Canon Eos 1D MKIII - a $10.000 camera when I bought it (without any lens). I find this little Sony camera on par with my Canon! And it can take Video which I can't with my Canon.

Compared to the one you are looking at, the Sony RX-100, there are quite a lot of things for what we are doing, that makes the NEX5R a better solution.
Some will now say that the RX-100 are 20 Megapixel and the NEX5R "only" 16 Mega Pixel.
Yes that's correct but it don' say anything (nearly) about the photo quality only how big you can print.
The NEX5 (23.4 x 15.6 mm) have nearly double sensor size of the RX-100 (13.2 x 8.8 mm).
And as you are writing in another post:

The DSC-XQ10 is a small sensor camera 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) so it can't produce the same quality images that the RX100 can, nor does it offer any manual control, nor does it support RAW format. It's 'big brother', the DSC-XQ100, although equipped with the same '1.0' (13.2 x 8.8 mm) sensor as the RX100, suffers from similar deficiencies in terms of lack of manual control and no RAW option - so, as a photographer, that kills it for me.

The NEX will give better quality results & offer slightly easier manual control & it has interchangeable lenses, so is far more flexible.
About the lenses. We all know that the photo quality never get better than the lens we put on. This is a VERY important factor for me. You cant change the lens on the RX-100. The NEX5R use the Sony E mount and for that mount you can get adapters for all lens Brands which means you can (nearly) use any lens you want, and there are a lot of great cheap lenses out there. They are cheap because they are old, but very often the old lenses can be better than the new ones because the are made of real glas instead of plastic. Okay normally the lenses Sony are using are very high quality, and I have no doubt about the RX-100 will give you great results, it's just nice to have the options to change the lens.
Another thing to look at, and again for very Important thing is, the Focal length Multiplier.
The Sony RX-100 have a Multiplier on 2.7! which a lot in our case, can be good for other types of photography, but I guess you would like Wide angle shoots, and that is not exactly what you will get. The camera's focal lengt are 28-100mm which means that when you multiply the 28mm with 2.7 gives you equivalent to a full frame 75.6mm :!: which is no where near a Wide angle.
You will for sure not be happy with that. Maybe in the beginning you will be happy and overwhelmed but soon you you would which you have way more wide-angle.
On my NEX5R i have a 15mm lense and withe the multiplier it gives me 22.5mm and even with that I would like it to be a litle more wide! But then I can just find another lens and adapter

Next important thing is how you can control the remote shooting from the ground.
On the RX-100 you have to use a mechanical servo to take a photo, and for what I know you can't go from photo to Video without having to land the copter and change over.
On the NEX5R you do it all by IR from your radio, it only need one channel on the radio.
Other things to consider is the shutter times: The Nex can go up to 1/4000sec. where the RX-100 only the half 1/2000sec.
The weight and size are nearly the same, actually the Nex are 5grams lighter but 9mm longer.
Ok enough about the camera.

The setup I bought (which you can see here http://www.phantompilots.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8139 cost 1822EUR without the camera and Batteries but with a lot of extras I didn't mention in that post like Prof. Charger, extra propellers, prop balancer and more.
You can get the Sony NEX5R with two lenses for around 550 EUR so total that is 2372EUR but for a way better and more professional setup.
Hope it all make sense and will help a little.

 

[jimre]

You can expect a bit more, if you're willing to invest the time to process your DNG files - at a minimum, to add back in the sharpening & contrast adjustments that are deliberately omitted with DNG/RAW files.

What are you doing in post processing your raw files to regain sharpness? I use Lightroom 5.3 and there is NOTHING I have tried that can sharpen these images. There is so much noise in these images, even under the best shooting conditions, I cant see how post processing is going to clean this mess up.

1) don't shoot in poor lighting. This is NOT some amazing low-light camera, far from it. Sunlight is your friend. Shoot at ISO 100, not "AUTO". Noise on this camera goes up rapidly with ISO.

2) spend time practicing with the Details panel of Lightroom. Sharpening and Noise Reduction affect each other, and go hand-in-hand. Biggest tip is to use the "Masking" slider aggressively. Even with DSLR photos, I'll usually crank Masking up to 60-80%. This limits the Sharpening only to edges, not the broad areas in-between - that way you're not sharpening the noise.

3) read the "bible" on Sharpening Real-World Image Sharpening, written the by the guys who wrote much of Lightroom's sharpening code.

4) increase the contrast of any DNG/RAW vision images. The DNG files from this camera are deliberately flat, and lacking in contrast. Many techniques for that, simplest is just the Contrast slider in Lightroom. Another technique is increase the Whites slider, and decrease the Blacks slider to the point just before they start clipping.

EDIT: these suggestions apply to ANY camera, especially when shooting in RAW.

EDIT AGAIN: added ISO 100 comment above.

 

[djscoutmaster]

I would like to throw my picture in for inspection. Took shots from 8am-11am and this is the best one i got. All blurry and over exposed. Is this user error or camera blurriness? should i send mine back?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzZXan ... sp=sharing

 

[Peter Evans]

Hi Peter
First of all (don't get this wrong, please) I don't understand why you are so fixed on Sony RX-100?

Thanks for the input, Klaus, but there's obviously a misunderstanding here. I want to stay with the Phantom because it's small and relatively simple. And, very importantly, it gets me into the <2kg 'D' classification of r/c aircraft under the DGAC (French Civil Aviation) regs which are a lot less demanding than those for heavier craft. In any case, that hexacopter and controller looks way too complicated for my simple brain!

But, for the benefit of others who may be following these discussions, I want to correct you on a couple of facts in your post, I'm not sure where you get your figures from but, according to DP-Review, the NEX5R weighs 276g, body only (with battery) - http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-nex-5r/2. So add a lens to that and you're way, way above the RX100's all-in weight (i.e. including lens) of 240g (that's the original RX100, the Mark 2 weighs 281g)

Secondly, Klaus, you can't apply a crop factor to a camera with a fixed lens!! When Sony say that the RX100 lens is 28mm-100mm they've already taken into account the crop factor and so that 28mm is the full frame equivalent!

Finally, just to clarify, the RX100 will take 17mp stills whilst it's shooting video, just by firing the shutter - that's about the only advantage I can think of in having a dedicated 'Movie' button - so I can do both at once. In practice however, out in the field, I'll know from the outset whether I'm there to shoot video, or to take stills (but still, it's nice to know that, if I've taken off shooting video, I'll still have the option to take photos as well if I see something that's not likely to be repeatable)

Finally the maximum shutter speed is not really an issue and, should it ever be, we're only talking about one stop when all is said and done and so a polariser will take care of that.

 

[vin100]

Peter, Klaus,

Thx for the feedback. I guess it all depends on personal preferences and what you're expecting from it.

The nex5/6/7 is a popular camera. Most companies over here use it for their areal shooting, however as Peter pointed out you can't use it with the Phantom. Including the lens it weights nearly 500gr. You'll need a hexacopter to fly it.

As many people over here I'm also looking for the best camera upgrade for my P2(V). The RX100 looks indeed like the best trade off in terms of performance, quality and weight if you're sticking to your phantom.

Instead of buying the rx100 kit from dronexperts I wonder if it won't be possible to build a platform under the P2V and use the visions camera only for the FPV. You could probably tilt the platform using the vision camera. a remote shutting won't be needed if you use this solution http://vimeo.com/57715522

Another solution to fix the rx100 to the Phantom is by building a wire rope isolator. see youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cajoxGhFQck
and here some footage results https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_KfOD9pVhI

 

[MrDRC]

1) don't shoot in poor lighting. This is NOT some amazing low-light camera, far from it. Sunlight is your friend. Shoot at ISO 100, not "AUTO". Noise on this camera goes up rapidly with ISO.

2) spend time practicing with the Details panel of Lightroom. Sharpening and Noise Reduction affect each other, and go hand-in-hand. Biggest tip is to use the "Masking" slider aggressively. Even with DSLR photos, I'll usually crank Masking up to 60-80%. This limits the Sharpening only to edges, not the broad areas in-between - that way you're not sharpening the noise.

3) read the "bible" on Sharpening Real-World Image Sharpening, written the by the guys who wrote much of Lightroom's sharpening code.

4) increase the contrast of any DNG/RAW vision images. The DNG files from this camera are deliberately flat, and lacking in contrast. Many techniques for that, simplest is just the Contrast slider in Lightroom. Another technique is increase the Whites slider, and decrease the Blacks slider to the point just before they start clipping.

EDIT: these suggestions apply to ANY camera, especially when shooting in RAW.

EDIT AGAIN: added ISO 100 comment above.

Thanks for the tips, especially the ISO 100. When trying to shoot a sharp image I always shoot in perfect conditions, low wind, lots of light, etc. I just can not get a decent sharp image for the life of me. Im not expecting miracles from this camera but Ive seen $100 point and shoots put out sharper images than this thing!

I am pretty good in LR but have not read that book. Might be worth the investment.

I did post some images in another topic here as a sample so I wont repost it but for the advertised specs of this camera and resolution these images are terribly noisy even in good shooting conditions.

 

[Peter Evans]

Well, we had a comparison on here of 100% centre crops from various P2Vs, plus I've been in discussion with various people on the subject. What seems to be in no doubt from that is that there is a quality control issue with the Vision's camera. Some lucky people are getting acceptable images, some are not so lucky and are getting images which are out of focus on one side, some are even more unlucky and are getting images which are out of focus all over, some are getting noisy images, and some really unfortunate buyers are getting out of focus AND noisy images (as was the case with me).

If this was just a camera, plain and simple, then it would get so much criticism on all the camera review websites that the manufacturer would have to do something radical to put matters right. Nikon is a case in point; thousands of buyers of their D600 suffered from crap being splattered onto the sensor by a faulty shutter mechanism and now, finally, Nikon have offered to replace the shutter mechanism of any dissatisfied buyer for free (but only after being threatened with a class action in California!). However, because the Vision's camera is part of a Quadcopter package (albeit that the camera is costing almost 400 euros) its deficiencies and poor quality control get completely overlooked.

It's a shame because the copter itself, I think, is brilliant, which is why I want to stay with it.

 

[Peter Evans]

That 'stretching' of the car is not a fault; it's a result of the lens profile trying to remove the fish-eye distortion from the image. Note the white buildings next to it too, how they've become elongated.

That happens even on my 750 euro Nikon fish-eye lens when the fish-eye effect is removed in software.

 

[hilitephoto]

You can expect a bit more, if you're willing to invest the time to process your DNG files - at a minimum, to add back in the sharpening & contrast adjustments that are deliberately omitted with DNG/RAW files.

What are you doing in post processing your raw files to regain sharpness? I use Lightroom 5.3 and there is NOTHING I have tried that can sharpen these images. There is so much noise in these images, even under the best shooting conditions, I cant see how post processing is going to clean this mess up.

Hi MrDRC

You are exactly right - spot on.
Because of the big amount of noise you can't sharpen anymore because you will just see the noise even more!
I'm sure someone now will tell me that you can use the noise removal tool
No you can't, because no noise removal tool can remove noise without soften the photo and make it even more unsharp.
Again people are expecting way to much for this tiny little and cheap camera.

I agree,

Lightroom 5, Photoshop CC won't help. I tried the NIK define plug in and that made matters even worse. DJI needs to get rid of their claim of 'High End Camera' in their advertising. I returned three Visions and the fourth does not have any blurred corners as the others did but does have the same noise problem and overall softness. Viewed at 100%, the files are worse than the files from my iphone. They are fine when used for sharing and viewing when downsized though.

 

[MrDRC]

What seems to be in no doubt from that is that there is a quality control issue with the Vision's camera.....

...some are getting noisy images

If this was just a camera, plain and simple, then it would get so much criticism on all the camera review websites that the manufacturer would have to do something radical to put matters right....(the camera is costing almost 400 euros) its deficiencies and poor quality control get completely overlooked.

400 Euro's for this camera? Thats mind blowing since the quality of these images is pi$$ poor with unacceptable noise. I seem to be one impacted by having a camera with just plain noisy images. I am in contact with my dealer about getting the camera replaced and sent sample images from my camera and some reasonably decent images posted in this forum. Even the ones I consider reasonably decent arent great they are so much better than mine it seems they were taken with a completely different camera.

I agree,

Lightroom 5, Photoshop CC won't help. I tried the NIK define plug in and that made matters even worse. DJI needs to get rid of their claim of 'High End Camera' in their advertising. I returned three Visions and the fourth does not have any blurred corners as the others did but does have the same noise problem and overall softness. Viewed at 100%, the files are worse than the files from my iphone. They are fine when used for sharing and viewing when downsized though.

One of my biggest concerns with my camera is 100% view, its horrible. It's pretty telling when an iphone can produce vastly superior images at 100% view than my vision camera at its advertised specs.

 

[jimre]

Using the lens correction profile from DJI gives this result

Take a close look at the blue car in the right down corner.

How to solve this problem ?
Any suggestions ?

You could try the Adaptive Wide Angle filter in Photoshop. Using the "Perspective" correction will help normalize object shapes, especially those closer to the camera. Will never be perfect in the corners of an ultra-wide fisheye, but it may help. Example:

 

[Peter Evans]

400 Euro's for this camera?

Welll that's based on the fact that I paid 999 euros for the P2V which I sent back and the P2 I'm buying in its stead is 589 euros, so I make that a cost of 410 for the camera. That's how much I paid for the Sony R100 I bought last month!

On second thoughts though, there's the FPV and flight telemetry electronics in there too which aren't in the P2, so maybe the actual camera cost is, say, around 300 euros?

Even so, for 300 euros, I think we could expect better.