It looks like most, if not all the posted YOUTUBE videos from the P3, are shot in 4K.  I am strongly considering the Advance model to save the $250, but I would really like to see some side-by-side comparisons of the video quality. Has anyone with a Pro model shot the same scenes in both resolutions and if so, what were your observations?

Thanks in Advance,

Harry

You need a 4k monitor or tv to see the difference.  If you have a 4k display, and shoot the same scene in 1080p as in 2160p, then do a split screen you can see more detail in the 4k image but it's not as dramatic as say an older DVD vs HD comparison.

If you use a 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 monitor you cant see a difference.   With a 2560x1440 device there is some difference but it's even less than in the 4k monitor comparison.

4k looks better but even on a 4k screen it's not dramatic, unless you have a really large display like 65"+ and sit very close. so that your entire field of vision is covered by the display.

-Roger

Do you have a pc or tv that will actually play and take advantage of 4K?  The major plus of 4K is it makes it really easy to grab stills off the video.  I rarely shoot in 4K on my inspire as I have nothing that will play it to full advantage.  

It completely depends on what you are playing it on. 1080 can't touch 4k when playing on a 4k monitor/tv.

The good part of recording at 4k is you can do "digital zooming/panning" during post production if you are only going for a 1080 final output.

This isn't exactly what you asked, but according to the poster of this video, it was shot with the P3 Advanced model at 1080P.  (It was not scaled down from 4K.)



PLEASE NOTE: This video may show at lower resolutions by default.  To make sure you're seeing 1080P, click the little gear in the lower right corner to change the displayed resolution to 1080P.

To me, this is stunning.  I'm told that a 1080P video can look better if it was scaled down from 4K, but that won't change my life at all.  

Few monitors or TV's can display 4K.  Personally, I just share video with family and friends, I don't see need for more than the Advanced model, although a quicker charger would be a kinda handy... especially since there doesn't seem to be a way to buy several spare batteries.

paul@westpointd Posted at 2015-5-3 10:59
This isn't exactly what you asked, but according to the poster of this video, it was shot with the P ...

Thanks for the comments.  That YOUTUBE over San Francisco has just about convinced me to go for the Advanced Model, and use the $250 savings for a nice backpack.

HEB1022 Posted at 2015-5-3 11:04
Thanks for the comments.  That YOUTUBE over San Francisco has just about convinced me to go for th ...

...or a spare battery AND a backpack.

I paid $149 for this backpack and love it.  

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product ... 0?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Yes, it's for the P2, but I'm pretty confident with a bit of work with a razor blade it will work fine for my P3.  (Disclaimer: I could be wrong.)  Still, I bet it'll come out for the P3 soon.

Hi, take a digital picture at 3840x2160. Look at it. Now scale it down to 1920x1080. That's the difference. It's really THAT easy. I assume you have a display capable of displaying all those pixels, but even if you don't you can easily imagine it. The difference is obviously HUGE. It's 4x the pixels.

NoOne Posted at 2015-5-4 23:05
Hi, take a digital picture at 3840x2160. Look at it. Now scale it down to 1920x1080. That's the diff ...

PS: It's *exactly* the same difference you get from 540p to 1080p. I bet you see that difference. ;)

NoOne Posted at 2015-5-4 23:05
Hi, take a digital picture at 3840x2160. Look at it. Now scale it down to 1920x1080. That's the diff ...

Instead of buying the P3P and then "easily imagining the difference", let me recap for you:

Try this. Go to the beach (or a big sandbox). Sit down. Start counting how many grains of sand you can see next to you. Now do the same with the grains of sand by your feet. Try again with the sand far beyond your feet (like 10 feet/2-3 meters away). The fact that you can see individual grains near you, but not farther away is exactly what we're talking about here. The eye is analog. Randomly analog at that.

Now there are a few obvious factors to being able to detect resolution differences: the resolution of the screen, the size of the screen, and the viewing distance. To be able to detect differences between resolutions, the screen must be large enough and you must sit close enough.
So for a "tiny" screen of 55 inches , for 4k (3840×2160) resolution, you must sit 3 feet/1 meter or closer to see all the available detail.

But hey, don't let me bore you with details. Go buy a 4K UHD SUPERSPECIAL TV DELUXE and call me when your neck hurts. (Yeah, I was being sarcastic.)

andrelundin@me. Posted at 2015-5-5 05:10
Instead of buying the P3P and then "easily imagining the difference", let me recap for you:

Try t ...

The *objective* fact is, there are 4x more pixels in a 4k video compared to 1080p. Whether you see them or not in your particular viewing situation has nothing to do with what difference there actually is. When someone asks "is there a worthwhile difference" between two resolutions, I kind of assume he is interested in knowing if the difference is "something notable" in a situation in which one would actually be *able to see it*. Yes, there is a HUGE difference in information content, it's as huge as "4x".
BTW, I can definitely tell my 27" 5k iMac apart from its "2.5k" predecessor from a couple of metres away. Definitely.

This video will answer your question:

NoOne Posted at 2015-5-5 06:39
The *objective* fact is, there are 4x more pixels in a 4k video compared to 1080p. Whether you see  ...

It's great you can tell difference on different screens, and I'm not telling there isn't a difference, but there can be so many reasons for that.

However, something "worthwhile" and something "notable" is not necessarily the same thing.
If a salesperson tells you "Buy this awesome 4K TV on sale now, just look at the details!", it only applies for a specific video at a specific viewing distance and over a specific screen size.

If you want to maximize the noticable difference, take a look at this chart:

andrelundin@me. Posted at 2015-5-6 01:07
It's great you can tell difference on different screens, and I'm not telling there isn't a differen ...

Hi, I get your point. I agree with the diagram, at least conceptually. What i KNOW however is that I see a HUGE difference on my 27" 5k display @ 1m distance, which would be a "normal" viewing distance for a desktop monitor.

andrelundin@me. Posted at 2015-5-6 01:07
It's great you can tell difference on different screens, and I'm not telling there isn't a differen ...

Hi, I get your point. I agree with the diagram, at least conceptually. What I KNOW however is that I see a HUGE difference on my 27" 5k display @ 1m distance, which would be a "normal" viewing distance for a desktop monitor (I'm assuming a computer is used for editing).

On top of that, even if your final output is to be @1080p there would still be huge benefits by shooting in 4k with regards to cropping/"zooming" or even downscaling.

I really thought 4k was "nonsense" myself until I got this screen. ;)

NoOne Posted at 2015-5-6 02:08
Hi, I get your point. I agree with the diagram, at least conceptually. What I KNOW however is that ...

"there would still be huge benefits by shooting in 4k with regards to cropping/"zooming"
I agree.

However for the downscaling part if the sole purpuse is viewing 1080p, I have not been convinced. Yet.

andrelundin@me. Posted at 2015-5-8 04:16
"there would still be huge benefits by shooting in 4k with regards to cropping/"zooming"
I agree.
...

I suppose I need solid excuses to back up my "fun" purchases. ;) Please don't break them ;)

rogeruzun@gmail Posted at 2015-5-3 10:45
You need a 4k monitor or tv to see the difference.  If you have a 4k display, and shoot the same sce ...

It is not exactly true, that you need a 4K monitor or TV to be able to see the difference.

Downsampling the 4K video to 1080P will produce a visually sharper result than the native 1080P.

And then we've not touched upon the advantages of being able to zoom or even introduce some dynamics by moving the video in editing.

For me the choice is clear.

There are drawbacks of shooting 4K - not least if you have no use for it   The files are much bigger, will take up more storage-space. And it is quite heavy to edit - you need a good computer to get reasonable editing speeds. Not least when you start putting effects on the videos, the rendering for 4K footage takes a lot longer than for 1080P footage.

FantomDK Posted at 2015-5-8 05:32
It is not exactly true, that you need a 4K monitor or TV to be able to see the difference.

Downsa ...

"Downsampling the 4K video to 1080P will produce a visually sharper result than the native 1080P."

Most important.

flydronefly Posted at 2015-5-8 06:06
"Downsampling the 4K video to 1080P will produce a visually sharper result than the native 1080P." ...

True.  And that's exactly what happens in the Phantom 3 Advanced version.  Both the Phantom 3 Professional and the Phantom 3 Advanced use the exact same 4K sensor and lenses.  The only difference is that the Phantom 3 Advanced has a software lock that down samples the 4K image to 1080P and has a limit set to 1080P.

So if you buy the Phantom 3 Advanced you ARE getting down sampled 4K.

NoOne Posted at 2015-5-8 04:27
I suppose I need solid excuses to back up my "fun" purchases. ;) Please don't break them ;)

Ha ... NoOne, that's hysterical - and you just uncovered about 99% of the reasons for all the heated arguments on this forum.

So, according to the chart, if I have a 40" monitor, and my couch is say 6 feet away, in theory a 1080 or 4K video will look the same, correct?  

I got a PH3 for the whole package, of which the 4k is just one feature.  For the 4k, the zooming & panning were the main reasons cause I knew most monitors aren't 4k-ready yet.  But I was under the impression that scaling down from 4k to 1080 would still make a difference in the quality.  So, are we saying that scaling doesn't compress the pixels (which I would think creates a better picture), but actually removes pixels in order to fit it all into the same size package - thus having the same look?

Thanks - good discussion.

tchavalas@panos Posted at 2015-5-8 06:16
True.  And that's exactly what happens in the Phantom 3 Advanced version.  Both the Phantom 3 Prof ...

Can you tell me what the "name" of the P3Advanced camera is? The P3Pro is called "FC300X". For reference, the Inspire camera is called "FC350". I'm curious to see if it is called the same as the Pro. Because it MIGHT be a different Sony Exmor chip.

Also, if what you say is exactly true, the 4K rendered in 1080P, would look the same as 1080P recorded on the P3Pro (or Advanced for that matter). But from what I see, thats not the case.

What is the bitrate of the 1080P 30 FPS taken with the Advanced (or the Pro for that matter)? As far as I know, it is not the 60mbps of the 4K stream (or the 1080P 60fps stream which if I recall correctly, is also about 60 mbps). Just that fact means you save more video data with the 4K, and that will help, also if your output is 1080P.

HunterBrooks Posted at 2015-5-8 06:18
Ha ... NoOne, that's hysterical - and you just uncovered about 99% of the reasons for all the heat ...

Hi, well, I was actually joking there ;)

My experience with 4k is limited to my iMac, which is actually 5k on a 27" screen. I can definitely tell a huge (HUGE) difference with this display. My usual vieweing distance would be about 80-100 cm.

There is no doubt that the diagram above makes sense. I cannot tell you however if I agree with the actual data it contains because I haven't tested all the situations myself. My 55" TV is 1080p and I'm not going to change it anytime soon. I believe it is somewhat subjective though, at least to some degree.

But again, I'd rather talk about things I have experienced first-hand rather than assumptions. ;)

FantomDK Posted at 2015-5-8 11:04
Can you tell me what the "name" of the P3Advanced camera is? The P3Pro is called "FC300X". For ref ...

The engineers at DJI already confirmed it's exactly the SAME Sony CCD used in the Pro and Advanced.  The only difference is that the software in the Advanced is locked at 1080.
However...  Shooting at 4K and downsampling in post may still have some advantage in the resulting 1080 footage.  The scaling & compression in the Advanced camera may not do as good a job at downsampling as a profesional editing app such as FinalCut Pro, Premere or Avid.

tchavalas@panos Posted at 2015-5-8 06:16
True.  And that's exactly what happens in the Phantom 3 Advanced version.  Both the Phantom 3 Prof ...

I do not believe this is true.

I believe this is the sensor (or a variant, maybe IMX172LQT which I can't find a pdf for):

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC- ... ol_70/imx117cqt.pdf

The sensor has multiple modes of pulling video.  I'm assuming the 1080p capture uses Mode 1 and is only capturing 2.21M pixels.  Various DJI staff have said that the Advanced model doesn't have the same hardware as the Pro model, thus can't capture the full sensor data (which is required for 4k capture).  Whether this is true or not, we can't really tell.  One thing that may point to that being true is that you can do 60fps in 1080p but not 4k on the P3P.  However, if it is indeed that sensor, it can capture 4k at 60fps.  Most likely the P3P hardware can't support it (or it gets too hot for the platform).  If it was capturing the full frame at 60fps then scaling to 1080p, then why wouldn't they offer a 4k60p option?  (or at least 4k48p).

From my own tests and from examples I've seen from others, 4k scaling down to 1080p produces significantly more detail then capturing at 1080p.  I'm able to notice the difference even in youtube videos.

The best way to see this is flying over grass and looking at the detail.  In 1080p captures the blades can come out looking "muddy", whereas in 4k scaled down to 1080p you can actually see the individual blades.

Maybe not everyone can see this, and I've been called a pixel peeper before, so it could be just me.  I'm quite happy with the results of scaled down 4k.

I am not disputing what you say...  But I also heard a DJI engineer interview where he stated the camera is identical CCD & lens hardware but the internal programming is different.  (And cannot be changed by the user.)

Your comments about watching YouTube video is not quite valid because YouTube recompresses the video at each size and you are looking at double compressed footage from YouTube... Not the original footage.  No telling what blurring happens when YouTube recompresses footage to 1080.

I am not sure what data rate the Advanced is limited to.  But the Pro may also allow higher data rates at 1080 and 4K... SO that would make a difference too.  All I was saying is that the engineer I saw in an interview said it was the same Sony CCD used in the Inspire, Phantom 3 Pro and Phantom 3 Advanced.  He did not go into detail about the recording modes of the CCD and encoding rate differences.  But I do believe the Phantom 3 Advanced has the same CCD and lens as the Pro version...  It's just programmed differently.

tchavalas@panos Posted at 2015-5-9 02:25
I am not disputing what you say...  But I also heard a DJI engineer interview where he stated the ca ...

Re: Youtube, just mentioned I've been able to see a difference in the same footage there.  But I also can in my own recordings (ie, viewed in After Effects), and "non-touched" footage from the testers.

There's no dispute that the sensor is the same.  The question is in the hardware that processes the image after its pulled from the sensor.  I've been told the hardware on the Advanced isn't the same as on the Pro.  The Advanced hardware isn't capable of pulling the full sensor at speed (which is why it can still take stills at full size).  Again, whether or not this is true is hard to tell until someone rips both units apart and inspects the hardware.