the title says it all.

a special thanks to all of you who saw my video from yesterday where I did this at a local park. I realize thanks to all of you who pointed it out that I was in the wrong, and I put a lot of people in danger. I will not be doing that again. So thank you for correcting me.

I did this at about 100 ft, which was well above the Treeline. so I hope you will enjoy watching this and again I'm sorry for what I did yesterday.

sorry about the parts in the video where I made very sharp turns, that's where I kind of lost video feed so I wasn't sure of how smooth the video would be.

Hey man, nice flight!
Dont be too concerned with all the puritans from yesterday, this hobby is for everyone at all levels.
Just need to be aware of what actions FAA might come knocking because of.

Dont you peeps like solar? Think i only seen one convert hehe
Looks like tree fellers would have good employment too in that nice leafy area as well.

if I may ask, what are your video settings? I also got a LOT of trees in my area and lately, my videos have been looking very bad, specifically when looking at trees.
It's like a huge green blurry patch and I'm trying to figure out what I messed up by tweaking my settings...

I'm using D-tone and while it's ok for post processing, it's pretty boring on its own.

chalde Posted at 2017-6-11 16:52
if I may ask, what are your video settings? I also got a LOT of trees in my area and lately, my videos have been looking very bad, specifically when looking at trees.
It's like a huge green blurry patch and I'm trying to figure out what I messed up by tweaking my settings...

Push your sharpness to +1

I know you titled this "Pushing the Mavic Pro to its Limits" but gee....you move it and turn it so fast that I got dizzy watching the first few seconds and stopped watching before I got sick LOL. Slow and smooth motions are the best way to make a video.  LOL

Bent Kangaroo Posted at 2017-6-11 16:59
Push your sharpness to +1

I have sharpness at +1, and I'm actually wondering if that's not one of the culprit. Before I had tweaked those, I don't remember trees looking that bad.
Or maybe it's a combination of D-tone, sharpness and white balance.

chalde Posted at 2017-6-11 16:52
if I may ask, what are your video settings? I also got a LOT of trees in my area and lately, my videos have been looking very bad, specifically when looking at trees.
It's like a huge green blurry patch and I'm trying to figure out what I messed up by tweaking my settings...

yeah, the mavic pro has this blurring problem if you have it the sharpness setting set under style 2-0 or -1 the in camera noise reduction blurs most common colors around it into just a blur. So I had my style sharpness setting set the +1 and I'm running at 4K 30fps with whatever the recommended shutter speed is for the current scene.

Jimmers Posted at 2017-6-11 17:22
I know you titled this "Pushing the Mavic Pro to its Limits" but gee....you move it and turn it so fast that I got dizzy watching the first few seconds and stopped watching before I got sick LOL. Slow and smooth motions are the best way to make a video.  LOL

yeah I had an apology in the description. When I was making the sharp turns the video feed had cut out so I was unable to tell how sharp of a turn I was making.

chalde Posted at 2017-6-11 17:38
I have sharpness at +1, and I'm actually wondering if that's not one of the culprit. Before I had tweaked those, I don't remember trees looking that bad.
Or maybe it's a combination of D-tone, sharpness and white balance.

Def set WB to whatever applies for conditions, leave sharp at +1 and try with no DJI color styles.
Also you are in 4K right?

AndyP you shoot in 4K but this time upload in 1080?

Bent Kangaroo Posted at 2017-6-11 18:01
Def set WB to whatever applies for conditions, leave sharp at +1 and try with no DJI color styles.
Also you are in 4K right?

no its uploaded in 4k
i can play it myself at that resolution.

Gonna have to check my settings - thanks for info

chalde Posted at 2017-6-11 18:48
Gonna have to check my settings - thanks for info

Off topic, but I had the same issue with all my trees blurring into a bright green; I amended the colour settings in the camera settings from 'none' to "True Colour" and that has fixed everything....
Cheers,
Ian

Wellsi Posted at 2017-6-12 11:29
Off topic, but I had the same issue with all my trees blurring into a bright green; I amended the colour settings in the camera settings from 'none' to "True Colour" and that has fixed everything....
Cheers,
Ian

the best way to fix that is this video

Bent Kangaroo Posted at 2017-6-11 16:38
Hey man, nice flight!
Dont be too concerned with all the puritans from yesterday, this hobby is for everyone at all levels.
Just need to be aware of what actions FAA might come knocking because of.

Power is pretty cheap in large parts of America so Solar is kinda pointless as there is no return on investment.  You can end up paying more for it than simply paying for power.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-6-12 13:41
Power is pretty cheap in large parts of America so Solar is kinda pointless as there is no return on investment.  You can end up paying more for it than simply paying for power.

where the f*ck did that comment come from.

AndyP. Posted at 2017-6-12 14:57
where the f*ck did that comment come from.

From the statement about only one roof having solar panels.  Apparently it must be a normal thing to have solar in Australia.  Probably makes sense too as they get a lot of sun.

AndyP. Posted at 2017-6-12 12:49
the best way to fix that is this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEQvOAsY6ks

Yeah, f*** me - I just checked my settings and I had my settings inverted... -1 for sharpness, +1 for the last one, saturation.

Just did a quick flight by re-adjusting and my trees look like trees.

Thanks man - appreciate both the video and responses.

chalde Posted at 2017-6-12 15:43
Yeah, f*** me - I just checked my settings and I had my settings inverted... -1 for sharpness, +1 for the last one, saturation.

Just did a quick flight by re-adjusting and my trees look like trees.

No problem man anytime.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-6-12 15:09
From the statement about only one roof having solar panels.  Apparently it must be a normal thing to have solar in Australia.  Probably makes sense too as they get a lot of sun.

So far I've counted about three or four houses in my neighborhood that I've seen so far have solar panels on their roof. I think the average is about 12 cents per kilowatt here.

AndyP. Posted at 2017-6-12 16:17
So far I've counted about three or four houses in my neighborhood that I've seen so far have solar panels on their roof. I think the average is about 12 cents per kilowatt here.

hehe no wonder you dont need solar.
We are paying more than double that for our power at 28c KW/h.
This price gouging along with government incentives worth thousands of dollars per house makes solar attractive here in Australia.
Recently market contracts were paying house owners above 40c per KW/h for excess power making almost good income and promoted more panels being installed by money hungry/smart people.
Now people are looking into $9K solar battery that stores enough energy for entire house for long periods enabling self sufficiency.
That is Australian dream to be self control of own water and power for free... mine anyways

Bent Kangaroo Posted at 2017-6-12 17:56
hehe no wonder you dont need solar.
We are paying more than double that for our power at 28c KW/h.
This price gouging along with government incentives worth thousands of dollars per house makes solar attractive here in Australia.

I bet. But there's also very huge incentives here in America for installing solar power on houses

So it's ok to fly under 300 feet above private property and record the footage?  Illegal where I live. Here you need the landowners permission.

anthonyb Posted at 2017-6-12 20:01
So it's ok to fly under 300 feet above private property and record the footage?  Illegal where I live. Here you need the landowners permission.

As long as you're not specifically in their backyard or hovering directly over their property with ill intent it's completely legal here in the states.

AndyP. Posted at 2017-6-12 20:03
As long as you're not specifically in their backyard or hovering directly over their property with ill intent it's completely legal here in the states.

But how do you define ill intent?  What if something was naked sunbathing by one of those pools and you inadvertently posted it.  Does that make you liable to prosecution?

Prosecution for what?
More likely to get rewarded with many YT views lol

very nice neighborhood...a lot of green and only big houses and almost all with their own pool dream place....

AndyP. Posted at 2017-6-12 16:17
So far I've counted about three or four houses in my neighborhood that I've seen so far have solar panels on their roof. I think the average is about 12 cents per kilowatt here.

Ouch!  I think I am paying about 8 cents a kw!  You are getting gouged!

anthonyb Posted at 2017-6-12 20:01
So it's ok to fly under 300 feet above private property and record the footage?  Illegal where I live. Here you need the landowners permission.

83 feet is the rule.  This comes from an old court case in which the court ruled that the land owner owns from the ground up to 83 feet AGL.  

With that said, it is not very neighborly to be hanging out above their property filming them, just like it is not cool to simply stand outside someones house and watch it either.

Bent Kangaroo Posted at 2017-6-12 17:56
hehe no wonder you dont need solar.
We are paying more than double that for our power at 28c KW/h.
This price gouging along with government incentives worth thousands of dollars per house makes solar attractive here in Australia.

A couple issues with solar:

1.  The panels go bad over time.  Takes many years, but they will.
2.  Batteries will go bad over time and need to be replaced too.
3.  You will eventually have an electronics or distribution failure that will need to be replaced.

With that said, I need to pipe in some power from a road a half mile away in a specific location.  When I learned it will cost me about $75,000 to do that, I am thinking solar is looking pretty good at this point!  Probably can get away with a $15,000 system.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-6-13 07:23
83 feet is the rule.  This comes from an old court case in which the court ruled that the land owner owns from the ground up to 83 feet AGL.  

With that said, it is not very neighborly to be hanging out above their property filming them, just like it is not cool to simply stand outside someones house and watch it either.

83 feet was only relevant in that particular case (U.S. vs. Causby); there's no standard height below which the FAA considers flying over others' property to be a problem.

The legality of his videos was already discussed at length in another thread, and there's nothing in them that's against any applicable law or regulation.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-6-13 07:27
83 feet was only relevant in that particular case (U.S. vs. Causby); there's no standard height below which the FAA considers flying over others' property to be a problem.

The legality of his videos was already discussed at length in another thread, and there's nothing in them that's against any applicable law or regulation.

More than one case here.  Here is the latest one:

Edit:  Better link:  http://www.wdrb.com/story/303541 ... who-shot-down-drone

Xman1 Posted at 2017-6-13 07:28
More than one case here.  Here is the latest one:

Edit:  Better link:  http://www.wdrb.com/story/303541 ... who-shot-down-drone

That's a story about someone's drone getting shot down and has no relevance to this discussion about there being some specific height above which one must fly to comply with FAA regulations or avoid violating privacy laws.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-6-13 07:31
That's an article about someone's drone getting shot down and has no relevance to this discussion about there being some specific height above which one must fly to comply with FAA regulations.

Note the court judge said 'Below The Treeline' so yes there is a height involved.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-6-13 07:37
Note the court judge said 'Below The Treeline' so yes there is a height involved.

That was a judge in Kentucky; the OP was flying in Texas. Plus, you've moved the goalposts: you claimed before that there's a specific (83-foot) limit that applies across the country regarding privacy.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-6-13 07:39
That was a judge in Kentucky. The OP was flying in Texas. Plus, you've moved the goalposts: you claimed before there was a specific 83-foot limit.

No.  That is not what I am saying.  The point I am making is there is more than one court case on it.  The courts moved your goalpost (and probably not much if any), not me, but until a specific height is verified by the courts, you have both.

83 feet; and,
Above the treeline (Which is probably around 83 feet in most places)

I don't make these rules, just reporting what happened.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-6-13 07:43
No.  That is not what I am saying.  The point I am making is there is more than one court case on it.  The courts moved your goalpost (and probably not much if any), not me, but until a specific height is verified by the courts, you have both.

83 feet; and,

There's no standard "treeline height", nor is there any nationwide standard below which drone pilots are considered to be invading someone's privacy. The only privacy laws that he needs to be concerned with are those of Texas.

And the 83 feet in U.S. vs Causby had nothing to do with privacy or treelines.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-6-13 07:42
There is neither a treeline nor an 83-foot standard nationwide for drone pilots invading someone's privacy. The only privacy laws that he needs to be concerned with are those of Texas.

And the 83 feet in U.S. vs Causby had nothing to do with the treeline.

I can neither agree nor disagree with what you write as it is pure speculation on your part.

What I can tell you is how the courts operate and they will reference the Texas ruling in all other states as precedent.  Will it hold?  I can't tell you.  Depends on how liberal or conservative your court is.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-6-13 07:47
I can neither agree nor disagree with what you write as it is pure speculation on your part.

What I can tell you is how the courts operate and they will reference the Texas ruling in all other states as precedent.  Will it hold?  I can't tell you.  Depends on how liberal or conservative your court is.

No, it isn't speculation on my part. Unlike you, I'm actually familiar with the laws that are relevant to where he flew and can provide a link to support what I say. And what "Texas ruling" are you talking about? First you said there's an 83-foot federal standard, then it was "below the treeline", and now you're talking about some non-existant state ruling.

This is starting to remind me a lot of the thread where you claimed the FAA has a group of employees dedicated to surfing social media in order to find violators. But when challenged to provide evidence of this you just kept posting links to videos that didn't support your claim.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-6-13 07:52
No, it isn't speculation on my part. Unlike you, I'm actually familiar with the laws that are relevant to where he flew and can provide a link to support what I say. And what "Texas ruling" are you talking about? First you said there's an 83-foot federal standard, and now you're talking about a non-existant state ruling.

This is starting to remind me a lot of the thread where you claimed the FAA has a group of employees dedicated to surfing social media in order to find violators. But when challenged to provide evidence of this you just kept posting links to videos that didn't support your claim.

I will answer both of these.

1.  I believe the chicken farmer was in Texas.  I could be wrong on the state, but he was then one that established the 83 foot rule for aircraft.  Where the guy shot down the drone, I think he was from the Southeast, but I don't recall where.  They used the 83 foot rule in the court hearing and won the judgement.  I have 2 in my side.  You have 0.  Enough said.

2.  I posted video of people claiming they got a call from the FAA.  You said, they are lying.  Why?  Again, you are assuming.  I have no reason to doubt them unless you call up the FAA and they told you that they haven't called anyone.  Me - At least 2.  You - 0 again.  You know what assume means.  ass-u-me.

Can we have a logical conversation for once?  I could tell you the moon is made out of rock, show you moon rocks, and you would still claim it is made of cheese.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-6-13 08:02
I will answer both of these.

1.  I believe the chicken farmer was in Texas.  I could be wrong on the state, but he was then one that established the 83 foot rule for aircraft.  Where the guy shot down the drone, I think he was from the Southeast, but I don't recall where.  They used the 83 foot rule in the court hearing and won the judgement.  I have 2 in my side.  You have 0.  Enough said.

I believe the chicken farmer was in Texas.

No, he was in North Carolina. How is it that you don't even know the most basic facts about the case but still feel qualified to argue about it?

I could be wrong on the state

You are on that and on a lot of other things. See my previous posts and comments below.

but he was then one that established the 83 foot rule for aircraft.

No specific height was established as being valid (or not) in the Causby case. Google it and educate yourself before arguing about something you know little about.

Where the guy shot down the drone, I think he was from the Southeast, but I don't recall where. They used the 83 foot rule in the court hearing and won the judgement.

It was in Kentucky; don't you even read the content of your own links before posting them? So no, that case wasn't in Texas and no specific height was established there or in the Causby case.

I have 2 in my side.  You have 0.  Enough said.

Actually you have none. Neither the Causby case nor the one where the drone was shot down established an 83 foot minimum height to avoid privacy violations, and neither of them was in Texas so that it would matter if they had.

I posted video of people claiming they got a call from the FAA. You said, they are lying.

No, you posted a video of one person claiming that. And what I said was that one video by a guy who calls himself "D-Ray" that creates a video in his own garage isn't proof that the FAA has a whole group of people scanning social media. I asked for evidence more authoritative than some individual's YouTube video and you couldn't provide it. The other guy whose video you linked to never said he was contacted or fined by the FAA; he was given a ticket in person by Fish & Wildlife (this is even shown in the still shot for the video) for flying where it was prohibited. Oh, and then there was the video you linked to of a YouTube "talk show" where an anonymous caller said a friend of his had gotten a call from the FAA. Apparently you can't even remember your own "proof" correctly. Oh, and none of these claimed there's a group of FAA employees dedicated to monitoring social media, which was your original claim.

I could tell you the moon is made out of rock, show you moon rocks, and you would still claim it is made of cheese.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which of us knows what he's talking about and which of us has just dug in his heels because he doesn't want to admit to being wrong.