Phantom 3 alternatives?
- Thread starter dunginhawk
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 425
- Reaction score
- 13
Haha. It's true he's coming up with stuff which is totally unnecessary. P3 camera is better. He's talking bs because he doesn't have the money!
IMHO it is too early to judge a winner between the P3 and Solo, three months after the solo is released I think there may be a clear winner. Each will show its strengths and weaknesses. In the meantime, I look forward to trying both and then deciding which serves my needs the best. And I definitely think the competition between the two will benefit us all.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Of all the videos I have taken for myself for fun or for clients, noone has ever said a word against the GoPro's lens. Not even guys that incorporated my videos into flicks shot mostly with DSLRs. The argument is weak and barely any "DJI fanboy" complained about Vision's fisheye. Anyone who is serious in working with camera technology this size knows they have their bounds and a true pro/amateur filmmaker will make the magic happen in post, not just download to a phone and claim victory over all other cameras.
I will go as far as to say 90% of people here reading things about shutter speeds, ISO etc. have no idea what they are and will end up setting some kind of Auto Mode and never touching other settings. This is why most Vision videos in the past and future end up looking like poo anyways, because the Phantom is in a price range which allows people with zero videography knowledge to make shots and upload them directly to youtube. That is also the main reason GoPro's Auto setting looks very good. They hit the sweet spot so that a layman can film a nice video by just hitting record.
Much more important to me and others is being able to film outside the Phantom. I have a handheld gimbal that allows me to make Phantom-like aerial shots in places the Phantom could never go. I have mounts for cars and bikes to make more diverse videos.
You have to realize that it is not the GoPro lens that will bore the person watching the video (99% of viewers have no idea what camera is used), rather a long aerial video with no shots on the ground. Like it or not, it just gets old quickly.
So all in all, I do agree that whatever the P3 camera ends up being able to shoot is maybe interesting to us geeky video freaks, but most of the videos uploaded by P3 owners won't be winning any awards and won't be getting many hits on youtube. Unless you happen to be in Kathmandu when a quake hits, and in that situation anyone interested to see the impact really doesn't care what lens or filters were used.
I will go as far as to say 90% of people here reading things about shutter speeds, ISO etc. have no idea what they are and will end up setting some kind of Auto Mode and never touching other settings. This is why most Vision videos in the past and future end up looking like poo anyways, because the Phantom is in a price range which allows people with zero videography knowledge to make shots and upload them directly to youtube. That is also the main reason GoPro's Auto setting looks very good. They hit the sweet spot so that a layman can film a nice video by just hitting record.
Much more important to me and others is being able to film outside the Phantom. I have a handheld gimbal that allows me to make Phantom-like aerial shots in places the Phantom could never go. I have mounts for cars and bikes to make more diverse videos.
You have to realize that it is not the GoPro lens that will bore the person watching the video (99% of viewers have no idea what camera is used), rather a long aerial video with no shots on the ground. Like it or not, it just gets old quickly.
So all in all, I do agree that whatever the P3 camera ends up being able to shoot is maybe interesting to us geeky video freaks, but most of the videos uploaded by P3 owners won't be winning any awards and won't be getting many hits on youtube. Unless you happen to be in Kathmandu when a quake hits, and in that situation anyone interested to see the impact really doesn't care what lens or filters were used.
Last edited:
I have all options everyone else has except no ultra wide or medium which means no fisheye. That's ok with me as I have two cameras.
I purchased the lens from www.peauproductios.com for $140 usd. Other sources is www.ragecams.com but they don't sell just one lens instead you have to buy 2 for $229.99 usd.
Btw the magenta corner discoloration affected only some of the lenses. I don't remember if they were just fakes from China or a bad batch. I read a whole thread about it, just can't remember where.
Interesting video of the solo in action. Footage looks really good, no idea how much work it took. Still shows work needs to be completed on the solo though.
In 2 mins of video 5 seconds of real footage, one crash and as always take off from perfectly flat surfaces because of the ridiculous landing gear, the worse ever seen in a quadcopter.
3dr confirmed the landing gear will be a little bigger to allow lift off in non flat surfaces.
I down-rez from 4K to 1080p. Now you tell me. This footage was done as a test and nothing more. It was shot in Protune and the only thing added in post was color.
Have had no magenta corner discoloration, jello/rolling shutter, fisheye and all footage is 60° wide angle with this lens.
I am not talking about the picture quality, which is ok, but the fps. you need 25 or 30fps to create a proper video footage, the Go Pro3+ is unable to do better than 15fps in 4k. Any movement of the camera at this speed is jerky. The Go Pro 4 however is able to shoot 4K at normal frame rate of 25/30
Really to much hype about 4K and 2.7K while there isn't any programming being done on a mass scale for public consumption let alone 4K set in very home to watch those productions. What 4k and 2.7K footage have to offer is a much sharper HD when down-rezzed to either 1080p/720p.
Last edited:
And some "zoom" in HD without loosing quality.
2.7k is what I most use, give me better quality and this zoom ability while still have 60fps (in the 4 black).
I think his hand held shots are made with the inspire as well, as they are very well stabilised, inside the land rover, that fast on the track....They also show the same colorimetry IMO. I don't think it's a dslr on a steady either, (couldn't shoot the lions this way) And the shakings on a track are probably too importants for a post stabilisation keeping this FOV.... But I was not in the car
Similar threads
