Not very pleased with the P4

Obviously not the full-res file? but it looks good! Finally coming close to Hero 4 black stills. I was comparing some of my P3P stills with my hero 4 black and the GoPro were far sharper imo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, unaltered jpg straight from the camera. I agree with you on the 4 black, but I am impressed from what I have seen so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arizeda
Here is a still posted by Ken. I am highly impressed. Mine cannot get here quick enough.

View attachment 46106

It does appear a very good ND filter was used (i.e., glare/haze removed so sky, water appear crisp in contrast).

I'm curious.. if it is the same camera sensor in the P4 as the P3 then color saturation based on aperture/ISO would be identical. The differences then would only be in the lens (newer on the P4 )and any internal software instructions DJI added to the processing chip (i.e., to compress the photo with enhancements when not using RAW).

As a hobby photographer I'm looking forward to camera enthusiasts and their side by side comparison.
 
I wouldn't base any opinions, on a small sampling of undocumented videos, You Tube compression, as well as poor technique, can make 4K look bad sometimes.
In the near future we will start to see a lot of P4 videos, and then we can consider owner comments, as well as video.

By which time people will be selling up to get the P5! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


UK
 
It does appear a very good ND filter was used (i.e., glare/haze removed so sky, water appear crisp in contrast).

Yup. You can tell he is using an nd filter. He stated that he would post some raw images too. (Still waiting on those though) Seems like I read that there were some internal changes other than the lens, but now I cannot find it.
 
I agree, camera looks great! Handled the roof tiles very well. I must say I don't have much experience with the P3P camera to compare it to, but it looks good. The roof tiles and cladding on the side of the building appeared sharp and with no "jagged" edges - not sure what the term is for that.

Also I agree with the tracking being quite organic. handled it quite well
The word that things that bad video can cause with thin edges very close to themselves where it looks like they have "marching ants" are called aliasing, The process of removing that artifact is anti-aliasing but that needed none! Stoked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arizeda
The word that things that bad video can cause with thin edges very close to themselves where it looks like they have "marching ants" are called aliasing, The process of removing that artifact is anti-aliasing but that needed none! Stoked.
Yes I did think it was aliasing, thanks for confirming :) I know about aliasing from gaming :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jussaguy
The basic problem with the P3 & P4 camera unit which are all the same are the following. Its not a ultra wide angle or fish eye like the P2 or the Gp Pro and its set for f2.8 The smaller the FOV the higher the effect of a small aperture like the f2,8 used on these cams. To make this more challenging is the fact that the focus point is on average set for 5 to 10 meters away from the camera. That means everything from approximately 2 or 3 meters up to 25 to 28 meters will be in-focus, the rest of the background will go out focus like a typical depth of field effect on better photographic gear. Exactly this is visible in the displayed image of the OP. The first few meters are sharp and the more you look into the background the more the image blur.......

You can quickly determine the focus point on your P3 / P4. Hold it in the hand and stand 3 to 6 meters away from a clearly identified subject, take an image and move closer or further away until you get a sharp image of the subject....that will be the setting for your particular camera part (they all differ because of manufacturing variations). From their you can use the 3 thirds rule to determine what will be in focus....

What would have been the best condition.......if the focus point was set for say 200 - 300 meters........then the foreground and back ground would have been sharp
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,356
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.