So what's the deal with the camera?

[dirtbird]

What a totally missed opportunity in this review. I find this guy to be hysterical, and typically, he has done a great job with covering the things I'm curious about, but he seems to be holding on to the fact that the Mavic's camera is somehow better than the P4. Yes, it beats the P4 in low light. But for me personally, this is not the bulk of my footage.

What he does show between the two in this review still makes the Mavic look really soft to me. In his previous video he alludes to the fact that this is not the case, but in this video he does?

Here is where I feel he really missed it. He touches on the fact that Style changes on the Mavic can mirror the same video quality as the P4, but he only shows about 3 seconds of footage comparing and doing just that. I would really like to see whether the Mavic can truly mirror the P4's video quality with more footage and in differing scenarios. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me with the exception of low light footage a P3P or P4 will best Mavic's video quality. I've just seen nothing that tells me differently yet.

 

[DarkEnergy]

Here is my 10p contribution. Below are side by side crops of the zoomed by 200% views of the pier in iPhonedo's YouTube comparison.

To me, the one on the left is a bit sharper. The one on the right is from the P4.
Not a big difference, but Mavic's looks better.

 

[DefaultIT]

Ugh....what he pointed out was P4s stronger default in-camera sharpening setting, which most of us doing post work would disable anyway. It's artificial, and if you really look closely it can do at least as much harm (artifacts, harsh outlining, etc) as it does good. Taking camera settings and video compression out of the equation, look at the DNGs blade strike posted on RCGroups and you'll see that when properly focused, sharpness is indistinguishable between the two.

Ignoring for the moment that sharpness is one of many aspects that make up a pleasing image (color response, for instance, I've actually liked better on all the Mavic samples I've seen), the fine detail rendering ability of both ships after 60mbps compression is so close there's almost no chance you'd be able to distinguish them without close side by side exanimation, which you will NEVER do. Take it from a 10-year post-production professional, this is splitting finer hairs than any of us would.

In the end, camera comparison is a complex and often vague set of trade-offs that make the appropriate selection heavily dependent on the specific use and taste of the photographer/ cinematographer, just like a painter might select the right brush for the stroke. It's rare one is universally better than another, the question is will it do what you need it to do today. In light of that, there's only so much you're going to know from any one measurable property, like sharpness. Nonetheless, as far as we've seen from any pre-release craft, the sharpness is simply too close to matter on any practical level.

 

[Avia7or]

For what I have seen, both camera's are doing good. The main difference is the POV, lens angle. Wide angle for the p4, less wide angle for the mavic. That's also why 200% zoom looks different.

 

[dirtbird]

Ugh....what he pointed out was P4s stronger default in-camera sharpening setting, which most of us doing post work would disable anyway. It's artificial, and if you really look closely it can do at least as much harm (artifacts, harsh outlining, etc) as it does good. Taking camera settings and video compression out of the equation, look at the DNGs blade strike posted on RCGroups and you'll see that when properly focused, sharpness is indistinguishable between the two.

Ignoring for the moment that sharpness is one of many aspects that make up a pleasing image (color response, for instance, I've actually liked better on all the Mavic samples I've seen), the fine detail rendering ability of both ships after 60mbps compression is so close there's almost no chance you'd be able to distinguish them without close side by side exanimation, which you will NEVER do. Take it from a 10-year post-production professional, this is splitting finer hairs than any of us would.

In the end, camera comparison is a complex and often vague set of trade-offs that make the appropriate selection heavily dependent on the specific use and taste of the photographer/ cinematographer, just like a painter might select the right brush for the stroke. It's rare one is universally better than another, the question is will it do what you need it to do today. In light of that, there's only so much you're going to know from any one measurable property, like sharpness. Nonetheless, as far as we've seen from any pre-release craft, the sharpness is simply too close to matter on any practical level.

We'll see. This is just my two cents and probably worth less, but from what I've seen in numerous videos is disappointing to me. I only have a P3A, but I find the level of detail provided in my own captures (far from professional quality) to be much more appealing than what I've seen from the Mavic and this is even after post-work.

Once the public can largely get their hands on the Mavic we'll see tons of video online and it should become pretty obvious what the difference is. Admittedly, I hate the poor portability and setup time of my P3A, but the video quality is so good it doesn't have me jumping for the Mavic yet.

 

[rbarry12]

We'll see. This is just my two cents and probably worth less, but from what I've seen in numerous videos is disappointing to me. I only have a P3A, but I find the level of detail provided in my own captures (far from professional quality) to be much more appealing than what I've seen from the Mavic and this is even after post-work.

Once the public can largely get their hands on the Mavic we'll see tons of video online and it should become pretty obvious what the difference is. Admittedly, I hate the poor portability and setup time of my P3A, but the video quality is so good it doesn't have me jumping for the Mavic yet.

But you can't compare what you see on the internet to your own footage unless you know:
1. What the original settings for the captured clips were, and...
2. What compression has been applied to it when it has been uploaded.

The only examples you can trust, if you trust the guy that posted it in the first place, is a side by side view of his footage from different drones with the exact same conditions and settings, both at the time of capture and the compression when uploaded. Like for like ambient light conditions will also play a small part. His captures on the day and yours are unlikely to compare unless you know these facts. Its like watching ads on TV for Television sets that claim to show a better picture quality than your set, but you're watching the ad on your TV set, so how could you know!
The only way you could tell would be to set the shoot up yourself with your drone and the Mavic and watch the raw footage on your tv set.