Still Photo Quality with Phantom 4 Pro

[ribjig]

Higher numbers will give you sharper results

Do not confuse full frame ideal f-stops
(around f8)
with 1" sensor ideal f-stops...
(around f4)

note: it is coincidence that 8 is double 4...

 

[Moonfox]

Pretty happy with center of prints I've made at 36" - RAW, f5.6, iso 100, plenty of light so high shutter speed in low wind - blur wasn't an issue.
Not as good at edges but acceptable.

 

[KevMo Photog]

If you are referring to low apertures, are you talking about low numbers? If so you're defeating the purpose. Higher numbers will give you sharper results

Nope they will not rexster. A smaller aperture which means bigger number btw, will only give you more depth of field in your shot. Not any sharper then the sweetest aperture on this lens which is around F4-5.6. Two diff things your talking about here. Depth of field is not even really an issue with this sensor and lens combo. Everything is in focus after 12-20ft. Sharpness and Depth of Field are two diff topics.

 

[furthertofly]

I'm interested in upgrading from the Phantom 3 to Phantom 4 Pro, but only if the still images could be enlarged to about a 36" wide print. I realize low wind, fairly bright conditions, ISO 100 and low apertures will probably give the best results, but can anyone post some of their sharpest stills and give feedback on whether they think you could make a 36" wide print and be very happy with the results? Thanks in advance for your replies.....

I am a professional photographer flying a P4P for the occasional landscape shot and I've made quite nice prints that size from both single exposures and HDR multiple exposures. The P4P sensor, while large enough in theory, is not very sophisticated and has problems with noise, contrast and dynamic range. You can't get what you want straight out of the camera. However, you can get a good result if you do these things: (1) Shoot in RAW -- DJI uses the DNG format -- and avoid ISO larger than 400. Convert to 16-bit TIFF for editing and printing. USE JPEGs only for web sharing. (2) Be a good editor in Lightroom or Photoshop or another suite and be able to adjust levels, colors, sharpening, dynamic range and use layers with confidence. (3) Use a sophisticated noise control program such as Topaz Denoise. LR is okay but there is better stuff out there. (4) The aircraft is stable enough to do HDR, but the built-in AE bracketing is not very good as the intervals are just .7 EV and not adjustable. I recommend changing exposures manually, on the fly, using 2.0 EV intervals. Takes longer but it works.

A few samples at lower resolution are attached.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

I don't perform all the F stop and ISO adjustments on my P4. I just set the camera and video settings to AUTO. Oh, and JPEG works just fine.View attachment 84062

That's a nice selfie, Austin Ace. I see you with the controller behind the center house.

 

[KevMo Photog]

I am a professional photographer flying a P4P for the occasional landscape shot and I've made quite nice prints that size from both single exposures and HDR multiple exposures. The P4P sensor, while large enough in theory, is not very sophisticated and has problems with noise, contrast and dynamic range. You can't get what you want straight out of the camera. However, you can get a good result if you do these things: (1) Shoot in RAW -- DJI uses the DNG format -- and avoid ISO larger than 400. Convert to 16-bit TIFF for editing and printing. USE JPEGs only for web sharing. (2) Be a good editor in Lightroom or Photoshop or another suite and be able to adjust levels, colors, sharpening, dynamic range and use layers with confidence. (3) Use a sophisticated noise control program such as Topaz Denoise. LR is okay but there is better stuff out there. (4) The aircraft is stable enough to do HDR, but the built-in AE bracketing not very good as the intervals are just .7 EV and not adjustable. I recommend changing exposures manually, on the fly, using 2.0 EV intervals. Takes longer but it works.

A few samples at lower resolution are attached.
View attachment 84077 View attachment 84078
View attachment 84076

Great photos man! I have a good friend that is a film maker in Salt Lake City btw. And I agree with 99% of what you listed here. For your first time edit out of RAW there is no need really to edit it as a TIFF. You can edit it as a 16 bit jpeg and it will be same unless you close it and open it again and edit some more and then re-save again. I also use Topaz De-Noise as well. Have their whole suite in fact. Use it for all my portrait work some as well.

 

[bucky123]

Great info in this thread. Thanks guys.

 

[HawkOwl]

There is a fine balance between depth of field & diffraction with these sensors. Judging from everyone's feedback, it sounds like f4.5 - 5.6 is the ideal balance between the two. The photo sites on these small sensors compound diffraction at anything beyond f8. Also, much of the image degradation appears to come from high frequency vibration. I bet the highest quality still images come from conditions that allow f 4.5 - 5.6 @ 1/500th sec or higher shutter speeds.

 

[Providian623]

No, there is not more data in a TIFF. A TIFF is not compressed each time it is saved or sent at same size. A J-peg is compressed until it is opened up to it's full size in an app. But as long as you do not make changes as far as tonal contrast or anything else and then save it again it will not lose any quality much at all. Over time they may degrade a tad but not much as long as you are not opening and making changes to it. Some printer may just be set up for a TIFF profile maybe. However,I print 40in INK JET prints on an epson all day long from jpegs and they don't look any diff than a TIFF. TIFFS are a losless type file meaning they are not compressed though. They also store on your computer at their full uncompressed file size too. I would only use TIFFS if I knew the files were going to be edited several times down the road possibly. But you always have a RAW file to start from scratch anyway. And yes, you can def print at least 40in prints from this camera''s files. Even night shots at 100 ISO of brighter cities look incredible taken at 2-5 sec exposures! This camera is pretty awesome! You'll freak when you see the images up against your P3P!!!! Here's a couple from the P4P last weekend.

Great pictures !

 

[furthertofly]

Great pictures !

A 16-bit TIFF fIle has the advantage of retaining virtually all the color space of the camera's RAW files. That and non-compression are the reasons why you would want to do your editing as TIFFs.

JPEG is, by definition and specification, an 8-bit format. There is no such thing as a 16-bit JPEG. Converting RAW to JPEG reduces the number of colors that can be represented in the image by a factor of about 2^8. For most images this is not a big deal, but occasionally it will make visible difference. This is why TIFF is a more desirable editing format. TIFF files are huge, it is true, but memory is cheap and this should not be a concern.

 

[KevMo Photog]

A 16-bit TIFF fIle has the advantage of retaining virtually all the color space of the camera's RAW files. That and non-compression are the reasons why you would want to do your editing as TIFFs.

JPEG is, by definition and specification, an 8-bit format. There is no such thing as a 16-bit JPEG. Converting RAW to JPEG reduces the number of colors that can be represented in the image by a factor of about 2^8. For most images this is not a big deal, but occasionally it will make visible difference. This is why TIFF is a more desirable editing format. TIFF files are huge, it is true, but memory is cheap and this should not be a concern.

Thx furthertofly. Was not aware that jpeg did not support 16 bit. Possibly could get some banding in solid tones here and there such as blue sky. And I have plenty of memory. No issue there. LOL

 

[Russ43Phantom]

No, there is not more data in a TIFF. A TIFF is not compressed each time it is saved or sent at same size. A J-peg is compressed until it is opened up to it's full size in an app. But as long as you do not make changes as far as tonal contrast or anything else and then save it again it will not lose any quality much at all. Over time they may degrade a tad but not much as long as you are not opening and making changes to it. Some printer may just be set up for a TIFF profile maybe. However,I print 40in INK JET prints on an epson all day long from jpegs and they don't look any diff than a TIFF. TIFFS are a losless type file meaning they are not compressed though. They also store on your computer at their full uncompressed file size too. I would only use TIFFS if I knew the files were going to be edited several times down the road possibly. But you always have a RAW file to start from scratch anyway. And yes, you can def print at least 40in prints from this camera''s files. Even night shots at 100 ISO of brighter cities look incredible taken at 2-5 sec exposures! This camera is pretty awesome! You'll freak when you see the images up against your P3P!!!! Here's a couple from the P4P last weekend.

Great images !!! How did you get permission to fly over such populated areas.

 

[KevMo Photog]

Great images !!! How did you get permission to fly over such populated areas.

Thx Russ43Phantom! I was never over people at all. And also not in any airspace either. As a recreationist it is also totally legal to fly at night. As long as you are not over 400ft.

 

[Capo]

So what are you gonna do? Land your bird after you take a video clip to take your ND off real quick and then go back up to your spot and shoot a still with no ND. Don't think that's very feasible! ND is a good idea to leave it on all the time in the daylight hours! The coatings on the glass are better than the stock UV that is on the bird! For night time no filter is a must! But your right Capo! If your gonna shoot some water in a creek thats running and you want to slow your shutter way down to make water blur all together or you are very close to something and you want to blur fast beyond subject with F 2.8 you might need an ND depending on how bright the scene is. So it's really easiest if you just leave one on all the time.

No, I wouldn't suggest constant swapping. Some people like to do stills or video only, not both. If you are concentrating on stills, such as real estate or landscapes, best to not use ND filters at all if you want the absolute sharpest images.... faster shutter speed, and smaller aperture. 20 megapixel images can show a lot of flaws.

 

[KevMo Photog]

No, I wouldn't suggest constant swapping. Some people like to do stills or video only, not both. If you are concentrating on stills, such as real estate or landscapes, best to not use ND filters at all if you want the absolute sharpest images.... faster shutter speed, and smaller aperture. 20 megapixel images can show a lot of flaws.

Not to argue with you but I would still leave them on all the time no matter what! Your still gonna get F4- F5.6 (which is sharpest area for this lens) at 120th of a second or so with an ND 16 @ 100ISO. Which is plenty fast enough shutter to freeze any movement from your drone unless it's blowing 30mph. LOL. This camera does not get any sharper by closing down your aperture to say f11 like full frame DSLR's will.

 

[GadgetGuy]

A J-peg is compressed until it is opened up to it's full size in an app. Over time they may degrade a tad but not much as long as you are not opening and making changes to it.

The only correction I would make to the wonderful content you have provided in this thread is that digital files, including jpegs, do not degrade over time, and are unaffected by how many times they have been opened and viewed, or how long they have been stored, unless the media they are stored upon fails, which affects all types of files equally. Not sure how this urban myth got started, but there is no basis in fact to it. Viewing a jpg file does not change it in any way. It doesn't wear out. Some pro photographers actually now think they have to periodically refresh the jpg files on their websites to make sure they haven't been degraded by too many views!

 

[SteveNPhx]

The only correction I would make to the wonderful content you have provided in this thread is that digital files, including jpegs, do not degrade over time, and are unaffected by how many times they have been opened and viewed, or how long they have been stored, unless the media they are stored upon fails, which affects all types of files equally. Not sure how this urban myth got started, but there is no basis in fact to it. Viewing a jpg file does not change it in any way. It doesn't wear out. Some pro photographers actually now think they have to periodically refresh the jpg files on their websites to make sure they haven't been degraded by too many views!

lol I think the mix up happens because if you EDIT a JPG image, when you save it, it will have degraded a bit because it has already been compressed once before and is now a second generation jpg. That is funny that some people think they degrade though. Good old analog days lol!

 

[KevMo Photog]

The only correction I would make to the wonderful content you have provided in this thread is that digital files, including jpegs, do not degrade over time, and are unaffected by how many times they have been opened and viewed, or how long they have been stored, unless the media they are stored upon fails, which affects all types of files equally. Not sure how this urban myth got started, but there is no basis in fact to it. Viewing a jpg file does not change it in any way. It doesn't wear out. Some pro photographers actually now think they have to periodically refresh the jpg files on their websites to make sure they haven't been degraded by too many views!

Guys, I have seen Jpegs degrade over time on websites for sure. Now it's prob because they have upgraded site and possibly reloaded them which meant they got compressed again maybe. But we are talking a rare case I guess. And yeah I am def from the old analog days for sure. LOL. Shot film in our portrait business for 25 years and made the digital switch in 2004. Thank God those film days are over. Bad for business but great for imaging! LOL

 

[SteveNPhx]

Guys, I have seen Jpegs degrade over time on websites for sure. Now it's prob because they have upgraded site and possibly reloaded them which meant they got compressed again maybe. But we are talking a rare case I guess. And yeah I am def from the old analog days for sure. LOL. Shot film in our portrait business for 25 years and made the digital switch in 2004. Thank God those film days are over. Bad for business but great for imaging! LOL

Oh wow! I have never thought about that.. That's so true!

 

[SteveNPhx]

Guys, I have seen Jpegs degrade over time on websites for sure. Now it's prob because they have upgraded site and possibly reloaded them which meant they got compressed again maybe. But we are talking a rare case I guess. And yeah I am def from the old analog days for sure. LOL. Shot film in our portrait business for 25 years and made the digital switch in 2004. Thank God those film days are over. Bad for business but great for imaging! LOL

On another note too, I wish I could have experienced the good old film days honestly. I got the photography bug back in highschool shooting on old Pentax SLR cameras shooting black and white film.. I loved the smells in the darkroom haha!! After that I hadn't touched a real camera until the first digital Rebel came out.