Would Mavic be suitable for photogrammetric purposes?

[AlexSP]

I honestly cant see why the Mavic won't be fit for photogrammetry. I mean, the P3/P4 are perfectly suitable for surveying and mapping, so much so I use my P3P even more than the I1 for these jobs! As long as you don't need RTK accuracy they're fine, really fine.

I'm just speculating here but based on the spec and feature lists I'd even go as far as to say that the Mavic may even have an edge on the P3/P4, as it can "profile" terrain ("climb" grades while keeping the GD), better range and autonomy and it's more compact. I'm looking forward for the app developers to take advantage of these and other features for mapping and photogrammetry!

 

[PeteM]

I'm just speculating here but based on the spec and feature lists I'd even go as far as to say that the Mavic may even have an edge on the P3/P4, as it can "profile" terrain ("climb" grades while keeping the GD), better range and autonomy and it's more compact. I'm looking forward for the app developers to take advantage of these and other features for mapping and photogrammetry!

I know many people who can do (well) this kind of work using a Phantom (even in version 2 or 3).

So the Phantom 4 is certainly suitable.

I was going to buy it when it came out the Mavic... and I went into confusion... because Mavic technologies contains the "next generation"... I really love it... except for the FOV, since I prefer a wider one... the Inspire got wider lens... all the "big-custom-pro-survey" drones mount SLR cameras with wider lenses...

 

[AlexSP]

I'm not selling my P3P but I'll sure get a Mavic when it comes out, and I'm seriously considering selling my I1. Right now I'm assembling an S1000 with A3 and RTK for high-precision mapping jobs that are on the pipeline, but most other mapping and modeling contracts I handle with the P3P. The FOV difference doesn't matter much, it would be worse if it was the other way around (fisheye) because that's harder for stitching programs to figure out. A slightly smaller FOV may even help in some situations, we can always adjust height and all.

 

[John Locke]

Based on the OPs analysis it appears he'd be better off with a Karma with the 130 degree FOV. A little fisheye never hurt anyone!

Oh yeah, there is no mapping software for that. Hmm

 

[Alex Baxter]

I simulated (through a professional software) various photogrammetric flights with Mavic.

I feel I can say that this drone is ABSOLUTELY not suitable for this type of application.

Setting a flying height compatible with the accuracy required to the ground, setting just a discrete overlapping and speed parameters, due to the reduced FOV, the complexity of the flights (number of strips and photos) increases in an unacceptable way.

The issue ends here for me... the optics of this drone is not suitable for making topography...

I hope that many will throw away their P4 for Mavic so I'll be able to buy my first Phantom at a low price...

Pardon me, but surely for mapping purposes you'll need as long a lens as possible to prevent parallax errors, and using a 'longer' lens at a greater height with the same resolution would produce more usable results? I'm not certain I follow your reasoning in any case...

 

[Multicoptertec]

Are your calculations based on square images? Do you see where I am going with this question?


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[PeteM]

The FOV difference doesn't matter much, it would be worse if it was the other way around (fisheye)

it appears he'd be better off with a Karma with the 130 degree FOV. A little fisheye never hurt anyone!

using a 'longer' lens at a greater height with the same resolution would produce more usable results?

So what you're saying is... the Mavic, with its slightly lower FOV, would be even better because it reduces distortions... just go up 10 meters in flight altitude to keep the same number of photos, with less distortions... i'm right ?

Are your calculations based on square images?

4:3 format

 

[AlexSP]

So what you're saying is... the Mavic, with its slightly lower FOV, would be even better because it reduces distortions... just go up 10 meters in flight altitude to keep the same number of photos, with less distortions... i'm right ?

Yep, pretty much. We used to have quite a list of issues due to parallax and distortion with GoPro fisheye's than the P3 series camera for mapping. I admit the stitching programs have evolved quite a bit in that sense but beyond that, capturing is a lot easier and also faster with P3/P4's 2.8 and the results have improved. The whole process is now a lot smoother. Of course time will tell, once it's out and working in the field we'll see about that but judging from specs IMO the Mavic's 2.2 shouldn't be a problem for photogrammetry.

 

[m0j0]

We'll file it all in my "couldn't care less file" either way. I don't plan on doing that anyway.

 

[BDOG]

We'll file it all in my "couldn't care less file" either way. I don't plan on doing that anyway.

Exactly!

When the Mavic was being engineered I am sure that they took into account that this "bird" was not meant to be something that the average Joe would use to do terrain mapping. Its a small segment of the overall large recreational "hobbyist" flyers. Of course DJI wants to appeal to the largest segments of the market and not focus on the small niche of flyers that would want to use the Mavic for this purpose.

It will "probably" be able to terrain map just fine with alterations to the height of flight and or the terrain mapping software / firmware of the new Mavic Pro.

 

[With The Birds]

I know many people who can do (well) this kind of work using a Phantom (even in version 2 or 3).

So the Phantom 4 is certainly suitable.

I was going to buy it when it came out the Mavic... and I went into confusion... because Mavic technologies contains the "next generation"... I really love it... except for the FOV, since I prefer a wider one... the Inspire got wider lens... all the "big-custom-pro-survey" drones mount SLR cameras with wider lenses...

The widest lens you will fly with the X5 on the inspire is a 12mm (24mm full frame SLR equiv).

You will still need to fly higher than your mandated 40m altitude unless you want to deal with additional images in post processing.

Flying slightly higher is no issue safety of control wise.

You are, unfortunately, trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[PeteM]

What about this ? (posted in another topic)

 

[r62ewa]

I honestly cant see why the Mavic won't be fit for photogrammetry. I mean, the P3/P4 are perfectly suitable for surveying and mapping, so much so I use my P3P even more than the I1 for these jobs! As long as you don't need RTK accuracy they're fine, really fine.

I'm just speculating here but based on the spec and feature lists I'd even go as far as to say that the Mavic may even have an edge on the P3/P4, as it can "profile" terrain ("climb" grades while keeping the GD), better range and autonomy and it's more compact. I'm looking forward for the app developers to take advantage of these and other features for mapping and photogrammetry!

Have you tried Map Pilot? It has a terrain aware setting so it will adjust it's flight altitude to ensure you maintain the same GSD throughout your grid.

 

[Deckyon]

Talk about a very specific use of a drone. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess this is not something that was given serious thought at the R&D sessions at DJI when they were designing this foldable drone.

 

[With The Birds]

What about this ? (posted in another topic)


View attachment 66485

What's your point? OP needs to increase altitude by 30%?

 

[PeteM]

Calculations on hands... or the FOV is narrower than what the DJI stated in the specifications or the focal length is lower than that DJI stated in the technical specifications...

It's not a question of flying higher... it's not a matter of tapping to focus... the optics of this drone is "lower" than that of the Phantom... its good just for selfies and social content...

 

[With The Birds]

Calculations on hands... or the FOV is narrower than what the DJI stated in the specifications or the focal length is lower than that DJI stated in the technical specifications...

It's not a question of flying higher... it's not a matter of tapping to focus... the optics of this drone is "lower" than that of the Phantom... its good just for selfies and social content...

It's hard to understand what your opinions are based on Pete. Would be interesting to ascertain what, if any, facts have allowed you to arrive at the conclusion the Mavic imaging system is inferior to phantom. By all accounts the images from the reviews suggest the Mavic is as good, it may be better. The sensor specs are the same. The lens may be physically smaller however that is not determinant if imaging quality. Just look at how a Leica Summicron 50mm compares physically to a canon f1.2 L series 50mm and consider the merits of the resultant images. The summicron pulls the pants down on just about anything going.

As to suitability for photogrammetric imaging your simulations demonstrate nothing. Reality is that any flyable imaging system with a rectilinear lens (within an appropriate focal length range) may be successfully used. 16 to 50mm (35mm full frame dslr equivalent) would all prove suitable.

 

[PeteM]

From DJI official FAQ:

The two cameras have the same features, but the Mavic’s camera has a smaller FOV, is able to focus as closely as 0.5m and can be rotated 90° for portrait shots and selfies. The Phantom 4’s larger FOV makes it better suited for landscape imaging.

 

[DarkEnergy]

It's not a question of flying higher... it's not a matter of tapping to focus... the optics of this drone is "lower" than that of the Phantom... its good just for selfies and social content...

What do you mean by 'lower"? Most of the comparisons I've seen published so far have clearly shown the the resolution/sharpness of the Mavic images are as good if not better than those of the P4.

 

[syotr]

What's your point? OP needs to increase altitude by 30%?

What if you are already at 400 feet?