Hi,

Just tried out for the first time to open DNG files in two separate RAW Editors - RawTherapee and CaptureOne20.
Both are using Manufacturer delivered(in DNG) Lens Correction Profile for MavicAir2.
In photo I have specific situation where horizon is not far from frame border and it is easier to see distortion.

In comparision what I have from JPG(produced by MavicAir2), distortion is bigger in DNG.
It has shape of Mustache, same shape like in MA2 JPG, but deeper in DNG.
While in MA2 JPG this distortion is acceptable for me, in DNG it look very bad and noticable.

It seems like Manufacturer Profile(from DNG) for Lens Correction is less effective than the one processed in dron itself when JPG is produced.
In my case, in MA2 JPG horizon is more flat than in DNG.
Take note, I am sure Lens Manufacturer Profile is applied - when I switch it off distortion is much radical with strong falls on the both sides(like for fisheye).

Has anybody same experiences? Any soultion for that? Or is that problem only with my dron?

MavicAir2 JPG:


MavicAir2 DNG in CaptureOne20:


MavicAir2 DNG in RawTherapee:



br
Sem

My understanding was that Capture 1 used its own custom profiles and ignored embedded lens profiles, but maybe that's changed?

Ex Machina Posted at 11-19 14:14
My understanding was that Capture 1 used its own custom profiles and ignored embedded lens profiles, but maybe that's changed?

Thanks for answer.

In CaptureOne 20 you have possibility to select Profile manually.
I choose "Manufacturer Profile". Maybe I am wrong, but this sound for me like Profile delivered with DNG...
Any way I cannot find there any other better option. No speciall profiles for DJI on the list at all.
I think CaptureOne is providing support in general for DNG1.4. And that is from where "Manufacturer Profile" comes. But I have very small experience with it.



For RawTherapee I double checked and I am using one of available profiles - there is only available for MavicAir 1 - non for MavicAir2.


I was not able to find on the internet LCP profiles for MavicAir2.

br
Sem

Tried now also DarkTable Raw editor, with MavicAir FC2103/fixed lens profile - and in effect ... I have more deeper Cushion distortion.

br
Sem

Maybe print out a grid pattern and use that and the Generic profile to create your own lens correction.

I am sure Lens Manufacturer Profile is applied - when I switch it off distortion is much radical with strong falls on the both sides(like for fisheye).
How does it appear if you use Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop?
Those definitely use the embedded lens correction automatically

Or post a dropbox link for your original DNG file and I can check.

Hi,

I don't have Lightroom or Photoshop.(CaptureOne/Gimp fanboy;))
I would be grateful if you can check in yours.
Link to DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l85of6opqge59ix/DJI_0091.DNG?dl=0


Now I see from Meta what is my MavicAir2 model: FC3170. This one is not available as expected in RawTherapee and Darktable profiles. These both may display incorrectly.
But in CaptureOne as mentioned I see only "Manufacturer Profile" no concrete brand and model.

Regarding creating my own profile - from simple tools available in my apps(Capture1, RawTherapee and Darktable) - I am not able to correct manually. I mean distortion seems to be to complex to change it with only Barrell/Cusion correction. Maybe you can advice some app where I can do it in more advanced way?
I will do today test with grid pattern.

br
Sem

sem1 Posted at 11-20 02:35
Hi,

I don't have Lightroom or Photoshop.(CaptureOne/Gimp fanboy;))

I tried in the current Photoshop but can't tell because the slightly wavy horizon could just as well be due to terrain.
You really need a sea horizon or a flat plain.
Here's the top part of the image anyway after opening in Photoshop.

Labroides Posted at 11-20 03:45
I tried in the current Photoshop but can't tell because the slightly wavy horizon could just as well be due to terrain.
You really need a sea horizon or a flat plain.
Here's the top part of the image anyway after opening in Photoshop.

Thanks a lot, I see effect is exactly same in Photoshop like in Capture One.

Horizon was flat there. You can see it in JPG I attached on the beggining of post.
In MA2 JPG correction is much better and horizon more flat.

Which profile was applied in Photoshop in your case?

br
Sem

Hi,

I have tested on more reliable "view".

DNG distortion still the same. Strongly seen for 4x3 ratio and from obvious reason less visible in 16.9(top and bottom clipped).

In MA2 JPGs for both (ratio) cases distortion is less deep.

It is really hard to believe nobody notices it before. Do we have here somebody with MA2, who can confirm he has the same or it is only problem with my one?


DNGs from tests:

Hi,

I think I found some solution/work around. I played more with customizing profile by myself.

There is second TAB in CaptureOne called "Movement". I changed Shift Y to -1mm. Horizon gets flattened. So I think it is working for me.
Rest of photo is slightly affected, but nothing noticable.

Interesting if this is common flaw of MA2 what I witnessed or only my one has some optical problems? But same time MA2 JPGs have not such problems(or is smaller to be more precise).


For reference my settings in CaptureOne:



And flattened image:


br
Sem

The "moustache" distortion was plaguing images made by early Phantom cameras, P3P including. Naturally with right tools it is possible to correct such anomaly, but who will do that and why? DJI must apply proper lens profile for MA2, hopefully soon.

Here's the supplied DNG image, processed in Adobe Camera Raw/Photoshop software. The embedded lens profile was replaced by Moment Macro Lens profile with distortion correction at 150 value in Camera Raw. This eliminated the moustache distortion as much as possible, leaving concave horizon line to be further corrected in Photoshop. The process is a PITA, involving both the "moustache" and barrelling distortion corrections ...
A words of advice: 1. Place the horizon line a bit lower in the frame. 2. Move South, closer to Tatry or Sudety ...

Sorry for the naive question, but there seems to be a group of people commenting that have eye for detail.  For run of mill photos that are not for professional use and that are only going to have color grading is there a significant difference between JPG and DNG.

I get that compression is synonymous with quality loss in most cases.  I have been using DNG Raw as the default but should I just use JPG?  I rarely take photos or videos when I fly and want the simplest solution to have a good photo which I can color grade when necessary.  The person who advised me to use Digital Negative was a developer at Adobe and touted the laurels of superiority of DNG.  I use Photoshop but don't have passion for it.  I would not have noticed the mustache effect if was not pointed and do see the need for correction at professional level or for a photograph enthusiast.  Are there any other strong reasons to use DNG in your opinions?

JohnLietzke Posted at 11-20 16:44
Sorry for the naive question, but there seems to be a group of people commenting that have eye for detail.  For run of mill photos that are not for professional use and that are only going to have color grading is there a significant difference between JPG and DNG.

I get that compression is synonymous with quality loss in most cases.  I have been using DNG Raw as the default but should I just use JPG?  I rarely take photos or videos when I fly and want the simplest solution to have a good photo which I can color grade when necessary.  The person who advised me to use Digital Negative was a developer at Adobe and touted the laurels of superiority of DNG.  I use Photoshop but don't have passion for it.  I would not have noticed the mustache effect if was not pointed and do see the need for correction at professional level or for a photograph enthusiast.  Are there any other strong reasons to use DNG in your opinions?

"Are there any other strong reasons to use DNG?"

No, not In your case. You'll be just fine with convenient JPEG format. The image quality difference is negligible for most of Mavic users. The only advantage of DNG format is in more freedom in "fixing" troubled pictures, but that's not what you're after ...

Matthew Dobrski Posted at 11-20 18:28
"Are there any other strong reasons to use DNG?"

No, not In your case. You'll be just fine with convenient JPEG format. The image quality difference is negligible for most of Mavic users. The only advantage of DNG format is in more freedom in "fixing" troubled pictures, but that's not what you're after ...

Thanks you for the reply and the rationalization.  I will switch back JPG based on that information.

Hi,

@JohnLietzke

Regarding if you should use JPGs or DNG...
That was my first play with RAW/DNG in MA2. So I am not experienced with this how much more benefit you can get from it in case of MA2.

But there are generaly two potentiall benefts of RWA/DNG(noticed for other Camera I use):
- more control over color - in theory you can apply different Color temperature and color grading in post processing with more flexibility than on JPG, but if you are happy with color grading JPGs and results are good for you, I think no point to change
- and in my case most important benefit, you can change with much bigger flexibility dark and light parts of the screen. More data, and more details in shadows and highlits you can retrive. This is mainly usefull if you have scenes with high dynamic range. I.e. more chances to retrive nice blue sky from photos where it was initially overexposed(this can be common scenario for dron).

Quality lost is less important I think, any way you process your RAW to JPGs in the end. Without pixel picking you will not notice(artifacts) even if you will process and save jpg second time.
But if you anyway Color Grading JPGs, not much difference for you in workflow. Just bigger files, you grade them same way as JPGs. I am not (semi)professional and I do not use in my workflow Adobe Photoshop. It is to advanced for my needs and you may correct me if I am wrong, but it is not apropriate tool for developing RAW(in most cases). For RAW I use CaptureOne and other alternative is Adobe Lightroom. If I would have to color grade 300 photos in Adobe Photoshop I would raher stop making photos ;)
But I am not professional
Try Lightroom or CaptureOne and you will see that working with JPGs or DNG makes you no difference reagarding worflow or time spent. But with RAW/DNG you have potentially more flexibility.


Going back to Lens Profile topic. Point here is that I am suprised that DJI did not provide working Lens Profile. I am using Sony Cameras for over decade and till now I never even look into tab with lens Profile. All works like charm for Sony.
If DJI is saying they provided DNG functionality, they should provide working lens profiles. Especially they have fixed lens so this should be simple for them.

Any way that is still the question - is it problem with my dron only - maybe lens is not calibrated perfectly for the profile. But still JPGs are perfectly fine - so I would rather say DJI failed with providing correct Lens Profile. Maybe in some update they will fix it.

I will report this to DJI Customer Support, lets see what will be the answer ;)

P.s. @Matthew Dobrski - Thanks for advice to go to the mountains area ... for better results Seems I dont need to, DJI is changing my lowlands to hillland, so I have it everywhere without travel ;)

br
Sem

JohnLietzke Posted at 11-20 16:44
Sorry for the naive question, but there seems to be a group of people commenting that have eye for detail.  For run of mill photos that are not for professional use and that are only going to have color grading is there a significant difference between JPG and DNG.

I get that compression is synonymous with quality loss in most cases.  I have been using DNG Raw as the default but should I just use JPG?  I rarely take photos or videos when I fly and want the simplest solution to have a good photo which I can color grade when necessary.  The person who advised me to use Digital Negative was a developer at Adobe and touted the laurels of superiority of DNG.  I use Photoshop but don't have passion for it.  I would not have noticed the mustache effect if was not pointed and do see the need for correction at professional level or for a photograph enthusiast.  Are there any other strong reasons to use DNG in your opinions?

To add my 2 cents, I shoot with DNG+JPG on my original Mavic Pro -- is that an option on MA2 birds?

Sometimes the JPG is good enough, other times I want to adjust the image and DNG is best for that.

Ex Machina Posted at 11-21 13:29
To add my 2 cents, I shoot with DNG+JPG on my original Mavic Pro -- is that an option on MA2 birds?

Sometimes the JPG is good enough, other times I want to adjust the image and DNG is best for that.

I don't have drone in front of me to start it and connect the controller to get open the camera settings.  But from memory the Raw setting creates both a JPG and DNG Raw image.  For me it seems like a waste of space on the memory card as I am not going to do in-depth editing.  

Inevitably, if I turn it off an epic moment will happen that I would to do serious editing on.

Thank you for your thoughts, it is definitely something to think about.

sem1 Posted at 11-21 04:01
Hi,

@JohnLietzke

Thank you for the information.

I have Lightroom also so I might as well use it for photo editing based on your suggestions.  I have been using Photoshop since it was released but given what you just mentioned it appears to not be the best tool for the job.  

Your feedback on high dynamic range, over exposure and the details of shadows and highlights which are a benefit of DNG might be useful to have better control over.  

For video I did find in Final Cut Pro that editing in RAW had better end result than MOV.

Thanks for your experience.

JohnLietzke Posted at 11-21 14:16
Thank you for the information.

I have Lightroom also so I might as well use it for photo editing based on your suggestions.  I have been using Photoshop since it was released but given what you just mentioned it appears to not be the best tool for the job.  

"For video I did find in Final Cut Pro that editing in RAW had better end result than MOV."

Whoa, something is not right here ... It is not possible to convert H.264/265 coded video into RAW format. Whatever video file you're getting from your Mavic - with *.MP4 or *.MOV extension, basically identical - can be edited and rendered back to the same codec the original footage was recorded with. To record a footage in RAW you'll need much more advanced camera system, i.e. the one Inspire 2 platform is offering.

Matthew Dobrski Posted at 11-21 15:18
"For video I did find in Final Cut Pro that editing in RAW had better end result than MOV."

Whoa, something is not right here ... It is not possible to convert H.264/265 coded video into RAW format. Whatever video file you're getting from your Mavic - with *.MP4 or *.MOV extension, basically identical - can be edited and rendered back to the same codec the original footage was recorded with. To record a footage in RAW you'll need much more advanced camera system, i.e. the one Inspire 2 platform is offering.

You are correct.  I had the export setting in Final Cut set to RAW.  No wonder the video not pleasant to view.  I would have to go in and manually export it to MP4 or MOV.  

Thanks for questioning my file extension type.  This should make things even smoother.  I realized that the quality was probably effected from doing this.

Hi,

In MA2 there is option to shoot DNG + JPG. This is setting I am using. Probably only drawback is that taking photo is few miliseconds longer, nothing you notice as anoying. And of course one JPG takes 6-8 MB and DNG 24 MB.

br
Sem

sem1 Posted at 11-21 04:01
Hi,

@JohnLietzke

I tried Lightroom today and it is a much better application than photo for color grading.

Thank you

sem1 Posted at 11-22 02:55
Hi,

In MA2 there is option to shoot DNG + JPG. This is setting I am using. Probably only drawback is that taking photo is few miliseconds longer, nothing you notice as anoying. And of course one JPG takes 6-8 MB and DNG 24 MB.

I came to the same conclusion also about leaving it on DNG + JPG.  A slight delay and takes up more space but those are reasonable tradeoffs.  I have two 128gb cards so space is not really an issue.

Interesting post,.
Let me add my disappointment due to the issue with ALL dng images taken with the MA2 that present a wrong WB in the center of the image, along with a heavy vignetting and distortion.
I exepcted from a dng file, these parameters to be constant throughout the whole image but this is not the case.
Making adjustment with C1 to different WB on vrious areas of the image is not what I expect from a camera that is sold by DJI as one of the best on the market.
However, the jpg output is pretty good, reason why DJI knows the issue and correct it via software. But costumers buy MA2 and MA3 for their dng poutput files, not certanly for jpgs.
Sorry for my outburst but after almost 2 years of using MA2 I am pretty tired of this very low image quality.
Piero

  

Hi,

When you told about this problem, I noticed it. I have done some Black-White(Snow) 40Mb/pix photos and clearly I can see huge difference in scene unequal light in DNG(wignetting) where in JPG it is perfectly fine.  
Uneven WB problem is not so obvious to me. But for sure in JPG WB is much better fixed.

I dont understand why "manufacturer profile" in C1 is not fixing these problems by itself. At least Vignetting should be straight forward.
Not sure, is this DJI fault or C1 problem or maybe there is some better "profile"?

br
sem