When using the P3P for shooting photos, I am noticing a large amount of lens distortrion in the form of a fisheye effect. Horizon lines have a defined curve. I am having to manually adjust this in Adobe Camera RAW. What are you guys doing to get rid of this distortion with still images? Is there a profile to fix this easily? I heard Adobe released a profile for the P2 but I can't seem to find it. I doubt it would be accurate because of camera differences, but I am seeking any kind of alternative.
Let me know your thoughts.

DJI recommended the Inspire 1 profile and when I tested in Lightroom it worked quite well. Need to get an image of a level horizon, perhaps the sea to be 100% certain but it looks quite good to me.

Hmm...don't see it here...the P3P lens is very close to rectilinear, and needs very little, if ANY correction.

You don't see it in that photo?  Really?  The rectilinear adjustment may have helped with the fish-eye, but the barrel distortion looks like its coming right at ya.  I am still trying to figure out what exactly makes the P3 camera live up to all of the hype cause I am not seeing it.  At least in the stills they took the same sensor and the same focal length lens and really didn't do much other than that.  On the video they made it 4K capable which to me is a big so what.  This thing was hyped as coming out with this amazing camera when all it really did was massage the same tired old camera on the V+.  I don't know what to tell you as far as a lens profile.  With the V+ they actually had one you could use in your software.  With this cam you're kinda stuck.  I guess try the inspire as another poster suggested.  

gary.ok@hotmail Posted at 2015-5-21 04:54
You don't see it in that photo?  Really?  The rectilinear adjustment may have helped with the fish-e ...

Nope. What I DO see isn't what I would call barrel distortion - it's perspective distortion, and that's not a function of the lens; it's a function of this being a 22mm (or whatever the equivalent focal length is) lens. I don't lay that on the lens - that's just Physics.

If you guys want to stress out over this, by all means, do so. I'm just gonna take more photo's and videos.
Here's the same image with a bunch of straight lines, and maybe I'm just dumb, or blind, but the lines in this image that are supposed to be straight, ARE straight.

Changes in perspective as it relates to differing focal lengths is not distortion.  That's a normal function of the lens and can be used to a creative advantage.  It could be the curvature of the building up front, but to me the shot shows a barrel distortion where those front buildings seem to be protruding forward.  The vertical straight up and down lines don't do anything to highlight or distinguish a barrel distortion.  Could totally be how I am seeing the photo, but I have seen lots of photos now from the P3 including my own, and the lens is not even close to advertised.  Not really stressing out though, its a simple software fix which was the point to the thread.  My only comment is that although I can still correct this with software DJI's super camera really isn't much better than a cell phone, and even with the "rectilinear" lens the stills are not much better than the V+.  I actually think they are a little worse.

I was able to find the correct profile in Lightroom, which does help with quicker speed than manually adjusting in ACR. I would also agree that camera really isn't all it was made out to be my DJI. I was expecting higher quality images before receiving the quad. DJI must have a backlit APS-C sensor in mind for Phantom 4, right!?!?!?!?! One could only hope...

gary.ok@hotmail Posted at 2015-5-21 09:06
"the shot shows a barrel distortion where those front buildings seem to be protruding forward."

Look, OK, enough of this nonsense: that building up front seems to be "protruding forward" because it IS protruding forward - it's a ROUND BUILDING!

I'm done worrying about anyone seeing what isn't there. If you look hard enough for a unicorn in a herd of horses, eventually you can convince yourself that you seen one.

Barrel distortion looks like the image below. There is also mustache distortion and pin cushion distortion. These aren't evidenced in the P3 lens, either.

I have two wide angle professional lenses, a 24-70 f/2.8L and a 16-35 f/2.8L (you see, I take photo's for a living), both of which each cost around TWICE what the entire P3 costs, and they BOTH exhibit mild barrel distortion when zoomed to their widest.

The P3 lens is virtually distortion free, especially compared to these MUCH better yet MUCH more expensive pieces of glass...but if you want to "correct" for it, have at it.

gary.ok@hotmail Posted at 2015-5-21 09:06
Changes in perspective as it relates to differing focal lengths is not distortion.  That's a normal  ...

The V+ had way more fishey effect compared to the P3, to say both are the same is really weird

dmwierz Posted at 2015-5-21 19:17
Look, OK, enough of this nonsense: that building up front seems to be "protruding forward" because  ...

You act as if you are the only professional in the room.   Not exactly sure why a little criticism of your shot has got you so upset. I even said in my post that it could be the way I am seeing the photo, but to me something in it is a bit off as are most of the shots with the P3. Your first shot has a slight amount of barrel distortion the second shot has a lot which I am guessing was to illustrate your point.  Not a big deal, just not the end all beat all that DJI hyped.  If you are truly the professional photographer that you claim to be how could you possibly be happy or satisfied with the camera offering in the P3.  It's a snap shot camera at best.   As far as the V+ and the fisheye, why does everybody assume that Fisheye is bad and removing it is good.  I actually own several wide angle fisheye lenses. It's a nice effect in certain situations. Easy to remove, harder to put back. I stand by the statement the V+ has a better camera.

By the way I'm no stranger to the L series glass,.  Own several myself.  

The P3 is like a camera with a 400ft.* "tripod" that allows you to place it virtually anywhere over sea or land, good enough for me, for a price that's lower than many professional video tripods alone.
You can always get an octa+5D if you need better. Consider also that previously the only game in town was the GoPro that turned buildings into baloons...

*if you stick to FAA rules...

It does not have the fisheye like GoPros or the P2V+ camera. But it still have lens distortion. I believe you'll find that in almost every lens.

At least in Lightroom6 this is easily fixed by adding the lens-correction from the Inspire 1 (FC350) which is included. It does not yet recognize the P3Pro (FC300X) camera.

-

Buy your DJI Phantom 3, DJI-gear, extra DJI Batteries, DJI Hardshell Backpacks from the DJI Store by using this link - it'll help me out

This is the tricky part of building a single device that brings two different types of customers together in an attempt to please both; pilots and photographers.  

For the pilots, the PH3 is an awesome craft (yes, even with its frustrating starts and stops).  For pilots, it either flys as advertised or it doesn't - pretty much black and white.  You can measure the distance, alltitude, speed, etc. and report on it.

For photographers, a lot more subjectivity plays into the opinion of the PH3 camera as being rated somewhere between grappy and amazing.  

So gary.ok, I didn't get a sense that your photo (thus your photographic skills) are being questioned.  What I heard was that the physical camera on the PH3 was being questioned as far as living up to the DJI hype.

I actually appreciate all of your open debates on photo & video quality on the PH3.  I'm the pilot type as you might have guessed, and your comments have convinced me to start taking some photography classes.  I'm pretty good with Photoshop, and can fix just about any problem I create.  But "garbage in/garbage out" still applies.  So I might as well start doing it right.

HunterBrooks Posted at 2015-5-23 05:53
This is the tricky part of building a single device that brings two different types of customers tog ...

HunterBrooks, you nailed it here. Thanks for your input.

I've been an aerial photographer for many years.

I've just begun looking into drones since some of my customers and prospects seem to be going in that direction.

I was very interested in the Phantom 3, as it is well-priced, but am disappointed that the camera only has an ultra wide angle view.  I'm wondering why they don't also make a camera with a more normal focal length or if they have plans to do so.  I don't find this wide angle view for every image to be aesthetically pleasing and would not want to promote that to my customers.
I would rather have a drone that could carry my DSL, but I suppose that would cost many times more and I can't budget that right now.  

I would definitely buy a Phantom 3 at this time if they had an option for lenses of other focal lengths.

"I'm wondering why they don't also make a camera with a more normal focal length or if they have plans to do so. "

They do, it's called the X5, a camera that takes an MFT lens, and costs a lot more. If you want that sort of quality, then you buy the Inspire 1 fitted with the X5 or X5R. Even then, you will still get some lens distortion because the correction is not built-in like it is in many MFT cameras.

You want an aircraft that can carry your DSL, OK, but do you really want to drop your DSL from a height and trash it?

The P3P is, like every product, a compromise, and it does the job it is intended to do very well. Saying the camera was not what you expected really only says you did not do your research very well.

dmwierz Posted at 2015-5-21 04:31
Hmm...don't see it here...the P3P lens is very close to rectilinear, and needs very little, if ANY c ...

I thought that was a selling point on the new camera for the P3....Mine is perfect also.

Im happy with the camera. Also a professional photograpther and owner of all the canon L primes. Trying to keep the subject in the center though, since it tends to drag out on the edges of the frame.

I think if critics considered this is a $100- $150 camera you might have a different outlook on it.
The rest of the money is in the remote, the gimbal, the battery, the actual machine and flight controller, boxing, credit card feeds, shipping, etc.

It's not a bad cam for $100.

The only thing we can really compare it to are other flying machines in the same price range - those all use GoPro or the Yuneec CGO cams, none of which seem to take stills or video of the same quality (GP can do OK with lots of post processing).

For $5K you can start looking at the Inspire with the micro 4/3 cam. That's really the next step up.

droneflyers.com Posted at 2015-10-11 15:13
I think if critics considered this is a $100- $150 camera you might have a different outlook on it.
...

If you have a major crash and need to replace the gimbal and camera, you're looking at about $600.  The camera is certainly worth more than $100 IMO anyway.

dunderhead Posted at 2015-10-11 16:59
If you have a major crash and need to replace the gimbal and camera, you're looking at about $600. ...

Of course - because parts are always sold at high prices - and the gimbal and the amazing amount of electronics inside it are very expensive.

That's the whole point! There are many many expensive parts on this model and a frame of mind which looks at it as a 1K or even a $300 camera is not the right one.

If you buy the replacement gimbal and camera at $500 (advanced, which has same stills) - or even at $350 for the standard (similar), you are paying markup, higher parts costs and getting a full gimbal and brushless motors, etc. - leaving very little $$ for the actual camera (lens and sensor) itself.

No matter how you slice it the camera itself is a very small part of what you are buying.