Please select Into the mobile phone version | Continue to access the computer ver.
DL 16mm Lens very soft at 100%
579 11 2018-1-4
Uploading and Loding Picture ...(0/1)
o(^-^)o
Skyris
Captain
Flight distance : 109865 ft
Australia
Offline

DJI you need to do something about the softness of the lenses, is this a software issue, I know the x5 on the inspire 1 had the same problem and had a fix through firmware, I have tried a fair few times to calibrate the lens but it doesnt seem to get a decent sharp edge.. even when using the focus assistant in app when i select an object in the distance it looks out of focus..I have seen problems with a lot of other lenses esspecially the 35mm.I know dng need some sharpening but this is not good.. Noise reduction in the jpgs are bad too.
dl 16mm.JPG

I also understand that the camera is for mainly cinematic video and you wont need to crop in but you are advertising it as a 24mp still camera so yes some cutomers and my clients will need to zoom in to 100%.. look at the fence in the image above, so blury.. this is a screenshot from photoshop at 100% crop

It is so soft and not sure if I can use this for work.. I think the x5s was slightly sharper.\
Expected so much more from a $2199 AUD lens... but not sure if the lens is soft or there is an issue with the sensor or firmware or a combination.
Is this camera made to look soft to reduce moire???
link to the dng: https://drive.google.com/open?id ... E0XtmODKJ8hKbFAwua6







2018-1-4
Use props
Barry Goyette
Second Officer
Flight distance : 14925 ft
United States
Offline

I know this is an issue for you skyris...but when I look at this 100% screenshot, taken from the area that the camera is focused, I'm having a hard time seeing anything wrong here.
2018-1-5
Use props
DTK
Second Officer
Flight distance : 1943159 ft
Australia
Offline

The second photo is in fact sharper than the first one though.
2018-1-5
Use props
Skyris
Captain
Flight distance : 109865 ft
Australia
Offline

Its the same dng... with no sharpening applied, I get sharp focus with objects quite close but the house was my focus point here for a test and for me its not acceptable for the price of these lenses, fence has no detail unless post sharpening applied and a lot of it. Just disappointed.. was hoping for more.
2018-1-6
Use props
DJI Mindy
Administrator
Flight distance : 7 ft
Offline

Hi Skyris, we have checked the picture and it is normal, if you still have the concern, please provide us more original pictures. Thank you.
2018-1-6
Use props
DTK
Second Officer
Flight distance : 1943159 ft
Australia
Offline

Is it a lens calibration issue? It seems strange the close object is sharper but the distant object which has the focus is soft.
2018-1-6
Use props
fansa84fe8a4
First Officer
Flight distance : 3 ft
United States
Offline

With the downloaded file, it does look fairly sharp in Lightroom or RAWTherapee.  Could be the editing software used.

The power meter on the blue house's siding looks better in Barry's image than the first by the OP which says something for the software used.

2018-1-6
Use props
Skyris
Captain
Flight distance : 109865 ft
Australia
Offline

Barry Goyette Posted at 2018-1-5 13:59
I know this is an issue for you skyris...but when I look at this 100% screenshot, taken from the area that the camera is focused, I'm having a hard time seeing anything wrong here.[view_image]

Hi Barry, I agree the foreground looks ok... I was focusing on the house with the blue roof, auto focused many times and achieved the same results, everything in the foreground is always a lot sharper than the actual focus region. Most of my shots have the subject way further than the blue roof and am worried now I wont get sharp distant shots... will test when the wind dies down here. I have also noticed the images require a lot more sharpening than other cameras

2018-1-6
Use props
Barry Goyette
Second Officer
Flight distance : 14925 ft
United States
Offline

Skyris Posted at 2018-1-6 20:59
Hi Barry, I agree the foreground looks ok... I was focusing on the house with the blue roof, auto focused many times and achieved the same results, everything in the foreground is always a lot sharper than the actual focus region. Most of my shots have the subject way further than the blue roof and am worried now I wont get sharp distant shots... will test when the wind dies down here. I have also noticed the images require a lot more sharpening than other cameras

Not sure what software you're using to process, but I noticed that you had sharpening turned down to 0 when I opened in ACR. This is generally considered a "negative" value for ACR (25 is default or neutral_ sharpening). I've never seen a camera with an AA filter that didn't require some sharpening in raw. perhaps you're used to a camera with no AA filter. Generally I use .8 pixel radius and 25-75 depending on how crunchy I'm trying to make it look. (truthfully I rarely sharpen much in RAW...I usually save the heavy sharpening for final sizing and output.) As for whether this shot is focused where you want it or not, I'm not sure. I think you'd be better off getting it in the air and focusing there to see what you're getting. I haven't used my 16mm yet, but all the other lenses make me very happy in terms of sharpness.
2018-1-8
Use props
Skyris
Captain
Flight distance : 109865 ft
Australia
Offline

Barry Goyette Posted at 2018-1-8 16:40
Not sure what software you're using to process, but I noticed that you had sharpening turned down to 0 when I opened in ACR. This is generally considered a "negative" value for ACR (25 is default or neutral_ sharpening). I've never seen a camera with an AA filter that didn't require some sharpening in raw. perhaps you're used to a camera with no AA filter. Generally I use .8 pixel radius and 25-75 depending on how crunchy I'm trying to make it look. (truthfully I rarely sharpen much in RAW...I usually save the heavy sharpening for final sizing and output.) As for whether this shot is focused where you want it or not, I'm not sure. I think you'd be better off getting it in the air and focusing there to see what you're getting. I haven't used my 16mm yet, but all the other lenses make me very happy in terms of sharpness.

I didn't realise that putting sharpening at 0 put it in negative... interesting.
I usually sharpen later after working on the image so always export my images in with 0 sharpening from ACR to Photoshop.. I understand all images require sharpening to a certain level but these need a lot more than most, just expected more for the price.. the 24mm looks like it could be a winner for me.

Will get the x7 in the air this week as I have a few jobs on but will take the x5s incase as well as the s900&a7r2....
2018-1-9
Use props
Barry Goyette
Second Officer
Flight distance : 14925 ft
United States
Offline

Skyris Posted at 2018-1-9 01:34
I didn't realise that putting sharpening at 0 put it in negative... interesting.
I usually sharpen later after working on the image so always export my images in with 0 sharpening from ACR to Photoshop.. I understand all images require sharpening to a certain level but these need a lot more than most, just expected more for the price.. the 24mm looks like it could be a winner for me.

FWIW, I've just run some studio tests comparing the x5s 25mm with the x7 35mm in ProRes and RAW CDNG. Still compiling results, but the general consensus is this.

Both cameras under Cinecore 2.1 produce about the same amount of DR. X5s clips highlights a bit sharper than the x7.

in Raw CDNG, it is best to shoot at native resolution 6k, 5.7k on the X7, or 5.2k on the x5s) as the 4k versions show aliasing caused by in camera conversion. Converting in ACR or LR is cleaner.

X7 produces slightly less noise in shadows, and has greater color accuracy in the deepest tones. X5s appears to have greater color noise reduction leading to accuracy issues with fine color detail, especially in the shadow.

x7 at 6k produces meaningful additional detail compared to x5s at 5.2k. X5s at 5.2k produces minor false color errors and aliasing, probably due to the lack of, or a weaker, AA filter compared to the X7.

The x7 lenses seem universally sharper in the margins and  corners than the various m4/3 lenses, with the possible exception of the 16mm (compared to the 12mm Oly), otherwise, both lens sets appear to be out-resolving the sensors. I'll do some more testing with the 16mm, but from everything I've seen, including your shot,  it appears to be a perfectly fine lens, although perhaps not quite as stellar as the 24, 35, and 50. My favorite of the bunch is the 35mm.
2018-1-11
Use props
Skyris
Captain
Flight distance : 109865 ft
Australia
Offline

Barry Goyette Posted at 2018-1-11 09:24
FWIW, I've just run some studio tests comparing the x5s 25mm with the x7 35mm in ProRes and RAW CDNG. Still compiling results, but the general consensus is this.

Both cameras under Cinecore 2.1 produce about the same amount of DR. X5s clips highlights a bit sharper than the x7.

Thanks for sharing Barry.
I don't suppose you tested this with prores? I still don't own licences for this setup yet as clients mainly require stills and if they ask for video h264 is the usual preset as they need files immediately and just hand over a memory stick..
I am pushing my business towards video production for 2018, I am leaning towards prores as the workflow looks faster and need less HD space.  Obviously no compression is better.
Look forward to seeing the results.
With the 16mm, it sounds like this was made by a separate company to the other 3... remember seeing this in another post somewhere.
2018-1-11
Use props
Advanced
You need to log in before you can reply Login | Register now

Credit Rules