New Firmware Released for Phantom Vision

[wfo211]

Any one having issues importing into LR5 ? After doing IOS updrade and camera firmware, still getting "unsupported error" while trying to import from a card reader with several RAW files that I just took, just like before the updrades. I can however open the raw files from within Photoshop. I know PS and LR use the same version of ACR, not sure why it's not importing into LR. Everything is up to date in all my ADOBE CC products.

I take that back, the raw files are grayscale and all F'd up when I open in PS. The firmware upgrade seemed to work given the flashing yellow light, which settled to greed on the camera, plus the bin file was renamed to bak after. HMMMMM....

 

[iResq]

Try running adobe updater. If it updates, restart computer. That's what I had to do.

 

[AnselA]

Some EXIF data:

---- EXIF ----

Format                          : image/dng
RawFileName                     : DJI00001.DNG

SubfileType                     : Full-resolution Image
ImageWidth                      : 4384
ImageHeight                     : 3288

BitsPerSample                   : 16
Compression                     : Uncompressed

FocalLength                     : 5.0 mm
FocalLengthIn35mmFormat         : 30 mm

GPSAltitudeRef                  : Above Sea Level
GPSAltitude                     : 9.8 m

DNGVersion                      : 1.4.0.0

LensProfileName                 : Adobe (PHANTOM VISION FC200)
LensProfileFilename             : PHANTOM VISION FC200 RAW.lcp

---- END OF EXIF ----

• file naming is "back" to DJI00001.DNG etc. no more time stamp in the name.
  
• bits per sample: 16 ! I'll doubt there's a few insignificant bits... 12-14 bits is common in quality DSLRs.
  
• Vision app (V1.0.38) does not transfer DNG files from camera to the device (Android 4.2) app is running on.
  
• Lightroom 5.3 does not recognise lens correction profile for FC200s DNG. CS5 will, with a hacked profile (PHANTOM VISION FC200 RAW.lcp) (stCamera:CameraRawProfile="True").
  
• I am sure to get better quality from DNG than from JPG. Need more time to make ACR camera profile, but first experiments are promising. My goals are not in commercial photography.

 

[jimre]

I am not impressed , these pictures are not sharp.

RAW images - by definition - are completely UN-sharpened. Sharpening is totally up to you with RAW.

 

[garygid]

Is this camera DNG format 14 bits per pixel, not 14 bits color depth for each
of RGB, which would be 14 x 3 = 42 bits per pixel?

Approximately 4k x 3k pixels is 12 (or 14) megapixels.
14m x 14 bits per PIXEL would be about 27 MB, the size of the DNG file.

Converting to a 16 bit (per color) tiff, I get about 85 MB, 6 bytes times 14 million pixels.
However, the meta-data says that it is only 8-bit ...

Is this camera really storing 14 x 3 bits per pixel, and the DNG just has (should have) lossless
compression?

EDIT:
If I ZIP the tiff file, it shrinks from 82 to 55 MB.
However, if I zip the 27 MB dng file it shrinks to 17 MB. Interesting.

 

[Klaus]

My original Canon D30 was just 1.4Mb (I think) but produces some amazingly clean images - it had a full frame sensor. Took a long time for the 5D range to produce stuff as clean.

Sorry but Canon D30 never had a Full frame sensor! It have a FOV crop factor 1.6.

 

[docngo]

Here are a few photos I took in bright sunlight after camera update. The DNG images were opened in Adobe Camera Raw with minimal processing (only minor color adjustments) and transferred to Photoshop for lens correction (de-noise and minimal sharpening) and saved as JPEG max settings. The images are definitely grainy when zoomed just a little. Don't know if this RAW is any better ... yet. Perhaps someone will come up with post processing tricks to make them great.

 

[jimre]

Here are a few photos I took in bright sunlight after camera update. The DNG images were opened in Adobe Camera Raw with no processing and transferred to Photoshop for lens correction and saved as JPEG max settings. The images are definitely grainy when zoomed just a little. Don't know if this RAW is any better ... yet. Perhaps someone will come up with post processing tricks to make them great.

Did you do any sharpening on them? Remember, RAW files have no sharpening applied.

 

[Nvr2fst]

Did they really think no one would notice if it still looks so bad?
"It is taking longer to release the RAW update because we want to make sure it is right."
If this is right....well you know the rest.

 

[Sledge]

Here is a (ugly) shot out the back of my shop comparing JPEG to the RAW. I did a little bit of noise reduction in the PS RAW converter. The RAW looks a little better, especially around the tree branches and also the brick pattern on the building.

*These images were flattened together into a hi-res JPEG.

 

[Sledge]

Here are a few photos I took in bright sunlight after camera update. The DNG images were opened in Adobe Camera Raw with no processing and transferred to Photoshop for lens correction and saved as JPEG max settings.

It's becoming really apparent that many folks don't understand how to work with RAW files.

RAW files and "no processing" makes no sense.

 

[Studiowise]

DELETED so as not to start anything unintended

 

[AnselA]

The RAW looks a little better, especially around the tree branches and also the brick pattern on the building.

The RAW has much less CA than JPG, could have reduced a little more...

 

[MikeON]

My original Canon D30 was just 1.4Mb (I think) but produces some amazingly clean images - it had a full frame sensor. Took a long time for the 5D range to produce stuff as clean.

Sorry but Canon D30 never had a Full frame sensor! It have a FOV crop factor 1.6.

I also had a D30. It was a 3.1 Megapixel, not full frame, but took great pictures. I now have a 7D.

 

[Klaus]

Hmmm I wonder why DJI just put the update on their site for upload but don't even put it in their news section. Maybe they are not so proud of what they have done.

 

[garygid]

How does seeing a jpg of a dng help very much in looking at detail, sharpness, etc?
Yes, you can see the Jpg artifacts, but only only guess at what the dng thing looked like?

 

[wfo211]

From within LR 5.3, I guess you can't apply the DJI lens corection profile (fisheye elimination) to the DNG file, can only apply the lens correction once you've exported the DNG to JPG?

 

[Bunyarra]

My original Canon D30 was just 1.4Mb (I think) but produces some amazingly clean images - it had a full frame sensor. Took a long time for the 5D range to produce stuff as clean.

Sorry but Canon D30 never had a Full frame sensor! It have a FOV crop factor 1.6.

Sorry - yes, you are right. It was. So long ago, I forgot. Still have the little thing in the cupboard .. bless. The images were still lovely. Had a look and feel to photos not present in today's images.

 

[garygid]

How does seeing a jpg of a dng help very much in looking at detail, sharpness, etc?

Do you expect the RAW DNG to be sharper than a jpeg right out of the camera?

Yes, you can see the Jpg artifacts, but only only guess at what the dng thing looked like?

Is that a question or a statement?

Yes, yes.
Jpg smears a lot of the finer detail, right?
The Jpg hides, or obliterates much, or most, of the fine detail, right?

 

[garygid]

Perhaps somebody with a good setup can do a closeup (out of focus) flatfield picture
and post a link to the dng file, to see what artifacts are being produced by the camera?