Hi guys!

Did you notice that P4P/P4P+ lens is not really what it seems? The real raw image recorded by the sensor has a typical fish-eye distortion with heavy vignetting! It looks like a gopro picture. Then a built-in profile is applied in-camera to correct it, so when you open the image in ACR/Lightroom etc. you see image that has been fixed (notice that fine-print on the profile tab in ACR about buil-in profile being applied).

Luckilly there are applications that can open a truly raw image and reveal the sad truth - like Capture One (you need to disable manufacturer profile and set it to generic).
Disappointing, isn't it?

  Very interesting....  Thanks for sharing.  

Most compact camera and most micro 4/3 camera embed a profile in the dng to correct lens "problems". DSLR apply these profiles only for jpg (when enabled) also because there is not really a standard for custom RAW formats, but most photog apply profile on the RAW from lightroom or cameraraw. Lens that costs more than double the p4p have strong barrel distortion (what you call fisheye....) and strong vignette. in fact my main sports lens Canon 200-400 does vignette quite strongly and cost more than 5 P4p.....

Comparing this to a gopro fisheye lens is a bit of stretch... please take a gopro dng and a p4p dng with profile disable and then you will see.... Take also in to the account that the cameras are about the same phisical size and one has a much better sensor, aperture iris, much higher resolution and much higher dynamic range and you will see that there is absolutely nothing to be disappointed. I wish my gopro would have the p4p camera and lens!!!

This lens cost almost like the whole p4p and check the barrel distortion and the vignetting: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1

Funny here people complain that the P4p applies the lens profile on the dng and on the inspire 2 forum people complain that the profiles are not applied to ProRes....

Sweeeeet!

There's also possibility that old Gdański Bridge need some maintenance to fix this bend ...

I agree with other posters: what is wrong with being a fish-eye lens ? EVERY RAW image will show you the compromises engineers have made to make the most of the lens they wanted to make.
EVERY RAW image needs to be edited, always for the lens defects and , if you really want a good picture, much more than that alone. I you don't what to do that, just shoot in jpg and you will get a picture that OTHER people decided YOUR picture should look like.

PhanFran Posted at 2017-2-5 13:23
I agree with other posters: what is wrong with being a fish-eye lens ? EVERY RAW image will show you the compromises engineers have made to make the most of the lens they wanted to make.
EVERY RAW image needs to be edited, always for the lens defects and , if you really want a good picture, much more than that alone. I you don't what to do that, just shoot in jpg and you will get a picture that OTHER people decided YOUR picture should look like.

It's not a fisheye lens at all.
It's a normal rectilinear wide angle lens with a little distortion (like all lenses have).
The only disappointing thing is that DJI haven't yet corrected this completely with a firmware update as they did for the P3 pro and Advanced.

Very Interesting.. My friends one does not do that. My Phantom 3 Standard, sometime distorts and has the "fisheye" effect.

KevDrones Posted at 2017-2-5 16:20
Very Interesting.. My friends one does not do that. My Phantom 3 Standard, sometime distorts and has the "fisheye" effect.

I'd be extremely surprised if your standard sometimes shows fisheye distortion.
If the lens has distortion it will show all the time - not just sometimes.

Labroides Posted at 2017-2-5 16:44
I'd be extremely surprised if your standard sometimes shows fisheye distortion.
If the lens has distortion it will show all the time - not just sometimes.

You see sometime yes and sometime not because the barrel distortion is more visible on the top and the bottom of the image.... so if you have the horizon or the bridge vertically centered you will see less distortion than on top or bottom. Also if you tilt the gimbal you will see more this effect. I guess the p3 standard does not have lens correction this is why the barrel distortion is more visible

Btw it is not a fisheye... fisheyes are 170 or more degree mostly 15mm or 8mm FF equivalent lens with a completely different lens design. You can google rectilinear vs. fisheye

Hi, i have ween the same few days ago. I use Capture One Pro as main first stage RAW software (instead of Lightroom/ACR). One another advantage is that the resolution of the original RAW is bigger than the cropped. The full image resolution is about 25.2 MPX ! However it's effectively not a fish eye lens ;-)

fansf1cc01f2 Posted at 2017-2-6 01:59
Hi, i have ween the same few days ago. I use Capture One Pro as main first stage RAW software (instead of Lightroom/ACR). One another advantage is that the resolution of the original RAW is bigger than the cropped. The full image resolution is about 25.2 MPX ! However it's effectively not a fish eye lens ;-)

Is it possible to utilise these additional 5Mp?
If so how?
Thanks in anticipation.

Labroides Posted at 2017-2-5 16:10
It's not a fisheye lens at all.
It's a normal rectilnear wide angle lens with a little distortion (like all lenses have).
The only disappointing thing is that DJI haven't yet corrected this completely with a firmware update as they did for the P3 pro and Advanced.

Agreed. NOT a fish eye. Perhaps the OP is using the term loosely.

Hi,
Yes it is possible to use the full resolution of image without any problem. The only thing is that there is some vignetting at the corner of the full resolution image. Correct easily in post-prod or crop a little bit. I personally will use the entire resolution image, according to the fact i use only Capture One to develop my raw image (Capture One Pro is a lot better than LightRoom / ACR in RAW process).

Vignetting and distortions are the real issues with P4P lens... a bit disappointing
On the left its a Lightroom DNG, on the right its a different RAW editing software.

Distorsion is not caused by camera lenses but happens when light passes the aperture.
Technical term is 'optical abberation'.

It is an effect that comes with any camera lens with aperture, ZEISS or CHINA.
It becomes more visible the shorter the focal length is and can be amplified by cheap lenses.
But it will always be there.

To be exact its caused by the lens and usually the lens of this equivalent should not have this amount of distortion (8.8 mm/24 mm (35 mm format equivalent)).
Its clearly not the case here as its looks like a barrel distortion from the ultra wide angle.

This is not Fisheye!    but lenses wider them 50mm will have some distortion in most cases, some are handling it better then others. Wider lenses are more likely to have more distortion then narrower lenses like 20mm and wider is more likely to have more distortion then 24mm or 35mm and so on.

Fisheye
The angle of view of a Fisheye lens is usually between and around 100 and 180 degrees.
For 35 mm (film) format the focal lengths is usually between 8 mm and 10 mm and 14–16 mm for full frame.
For 6.4 mm 1⁄4 in and 8.5 mm 1⁄3 in  CCD and CMOS sensors close to 1 to 2 mm.

Sorry, but just to be clear:
Fisheye lens are not necessarily wider than a rectilinear lens, at the same focal length subject at the center of a fisheye lens will be magnified the same amount as a rectilinear lens with curved lines but rectilinear lenses will remain straight.
Barrel Distortion is another thing, causes curved lines at the edges of the image and is more visible in cheaper rectilinear wide-angle lenses. Fisheye has curved lines all over the image.

Of course its not a fish eye...JoiCam
Its not the case at all... ( at least for me ). Think the Tittle is wrong.
Im just disappointed that there is a distortion that shouldn't be as big for this FOV or 35equivalent as Specification claims.
Vignetting is another thing because its look like sides of added filter rather than a standard vignette present on wide open lens.

If anyone is happy with this amount of distortion and vignette can assure themselves whatever they want
I personally didnt expect that it will be so bad. Thats all

Not really.  I'm actually glad they embedded the lens profile. As stated in the manual, there's some processing to get the 20MP pictures.

Mobilcams Posted at 2017-5-11 04:18
Not really.  I'm actually glad they embedded the lens profile. As stated in the manual, there's some processing to get the 20MP pictures.

Yeah, I think they wouldn't sell a lot of them without that processing in place ;)

Crio Posted at 2017-5-11 04:25
Yeah, I think they wouldn't sell a lot of them without that processing in place ;)

Exactly! As stated above though - there are lenses that cost as much as the P4P out there for professional applications that have distortion and edge vignetting.. In zoom lenses this is especially true. I love the pictures I get from my P4P, and even a few I have gotten with my P4.. The camera is a tool - the photographer is the one with the idea for the picture..  I have seen amazing shots done with equipment 10+ years ago with lower resolution, nosier, lower dynamic range cameras than what the P4P has on it..

Crio Posted at 2017-5-11 04:05
Of course its not a fish eye...JoiCam
Its not the case at all... ( at least for me ). Think the Tittle is wrong.
Im just disappointed that there is a distortion that shouldn't be as big for this FOV or 35equivalent as Specification claims.

I for sure agree with you Crio. I am not happy with this amount of distortion and vignette. It shouldn't be as much as it is.
But I can live with it because it is in my opinion a fair quality flying camera for its price.
For example when I need the perfect footage I will need to use the 18.000 usd drone and some lets say not so expensive 5 to 6.000 camera with not so expensive  3 to 4.000  lenses. Total 26 to 28.000.
So for 1.500 us in my opinion this is a fair quality flying camera.
But do not take me wrong, I still agree with you, I think they could do better and I think they will.
At least, I hope so

You can take pictures with a shoe box as well you know...
Im still disappointed by P4P lens ;)

Here's one of my flashy-flash Mobilecams ;)

JoiCam Posted at 2017-5-11 04:44
I for sure agree with you Crio. I am not happy with this amount of distortion and vignette. It shouldn't be as much as it is.
But I can live with it because it is in my opinion a fair quality flying camera for its price.
For example when I need the perfect footage I will need to use the 18.000 usd drone and some lets say not so expensive 5 to 6.000 camera with not so expensive  3 to 4.000  lenses. Total 26 to 28.000.

Cant agree more - Cheers

Crio Posted at 2017-5-11 04:45
You can take pictures with a shoe box as well you know...  
Im still disappointed by P4P lens ;)

I have not tried take pictures with a shoe box yet but would like to try some day
Beautiful picture by the way.

Thanks JoiCam
The weirdest camera obscura picture that I've saw it was taken by whole room. However crazy it sounds.
The whole room was doing as a camera box and the windows were covered with bags with a small hole in the middle. in the opposite wall there was a picture of a street flipped 180 degrees. Madness

So no fancy lenses needed

Thanks Crio.
This is a new one!
Threw all my cameras and lenses in the trashcan.
I am now converting my living room into a camera.
Just trying to figure out a way to ad propellers onto the house and how big they need to be

Pretty big I guess ;)

Crio Posted at 2017-5-11 05:10
Thanks JoiCam
The weirdest camera obscura picture that I've saw it was taken by whole room. However crazy it sounds.
The whole room was doing as a camera box and the windows were covered with bags with a small hole in the middle. in the opposite wall there was a picture of a street flipped 18 degrees. Madness

Old Masters like Vermeer, Rembrandt and Caravaggio have used the Camera Obscura to help them paint their masterpieces... with an infinite exposure time

Crio Posted at 2017-5-11 04:45
You can take pictures with a shoe box as well you know...  
Im still disappointed by P4P lens ;)

I want to go there so bad!! One of my friends just got back and she loved it!!

Antonio76 Posted at 2017-5-11 06:58
Old Masters like Vermeer, Rembrandt and Caravaggio have used the Camera Obscura to help them paint their masterpieces... with an infinite exposure time

This is really getting me thinking. I need to find some time away from work now Obscura on a really stable drone

See... we just discovered a new branch of hobby flying ;) Why bother with digital camera, a flying obscura thats the way to go...

Lets go for it!

It is possible to use the P4 camera without the wide angle, is there any setting for reducing the POV?. If not, is there any choice to install a lens over the camera for getting better detailed zoom at shorter distances?

Thanks in advance.

Im not quite sure if I understand you correctly hyprfrco, but the answer for all is ''No''
You cant use P4 camera on P4P.
You cant use different lens on any of them ( P4P camera or P4 camera )
By POV you mean FOV ? If so the answer is still ''no''
You can crop the 4K footage in post production so it will give you a closer view but thats it.

Crio Posted at 2017-5-8 15:27
Vignetting and distortions are the real issues with P4P lens... a bit disappointing
On the left its a Lightroom DNG, on the right its a different RAW editing software.

Wow, that's interesting! Have you noticed, that the lightroom result has a fair bit less FOV, I'd guess around 10-15%? The problematic image borders were simply cut off...

I wonder which one corresponds to the 24mm equivalent/84° FOV? We either have a wider lens in our birds or they see less, than the spec 84°.

FlyingUser Posted at 2018-9-5 22:24
Wow, that's interesting! Have you noticed, that the lightroom result has a fair bit less FOV, I'd guess around 10-15%? The problematic image borders were simply cut off...

I wonder which one corresponds to the 24mm equivalent/84° FOV? We either have a wider lens in our birds or they see less, than the spec 84°.

We either have a wider lens in our birds or they see less, than the spec 84°.

What you get is what's in the specs.
Like any wideangle lens, the Phantom's lens uses correction factors.
This silly thread is from people that are complaining about what the image looks like when they go outside the built-in correction.
It's a non-story.

Very interesting,  but it's way above my pay grade !