So...
...A small 2 minutes comparison between details related to Mini 3 HQ mode, HQ off mode (60 FPS) and Autel...
I see a lot of blurred parts in image with details heavy lost in HQ mode.
Dji needs to fix this.
In HQ off mode, the things are a little better, not entirely, but better.
Autel was put in there just for details comparison....is not a Head to Head battle so I do not care about people commenting related to Autel.

Just wanted to ask DJI:
- This blur is from unfinished product that will be reviewed in next Firmware?? Removed lens from discussion, as now in photos tested the texture is fine. seems to have issues only in video at motion (even soft motion).

What is your opinions?

Try your Mini3 against grass, is very easy to spot blurred areas and lack of details at grass, as is very hard work for a sensor. Post your results here.

I dont know, the Autel looked over sharpened to me

I tried watching on YT its only in 720p so its difficult to compare, but I can see the grass out of focus . Was this all done in auto focus ? Be interesting to see manual.

Each has its own merits. I'm hard pushed to find any glaring deficiency on my old laptop.

hallmark007 Posted at 6-3 04:19
I tried watching on YT its only in 720p so its difficult to compare, but I can see the grass out of focus . Was this all done in auto focus ? Be interesting to see manual.

Only Manual mode used. No Auto.
Some regions seems to have a strange lost of detail, like there is a problem with lenses...But in photos is fine, so is not the lens but how is processed the video by drone.I just cut the clips, without editing in order not to alter the results.

Bashy Posted at 6-3 04:09
I dont know, the Autel looked over sharpened to me

As I told, not interested in Autel comments. For you is over-sharpened, for me is More details. I always can apply a blur to sharpness, but I cannot save a detail from where is no detail...
At this point I use Mini 3 for small jobs that are under 1000 USD paid, but there is an issue with this HQ and detail conservation in video.

I really like the Nano+ video and colours, they really seem to pop out. However, the video is jittery compared to the M3P. Possibly a consequence of the transfer to Youtube, but it is shot at 30fps like the DJI footage (or factors of 30, in the case of the 60fps footage). Is that what the original looks like?

As for the blurring, it doesn't really look that bad to me and is possibly a consequence of the apeture size? Someone here with any knowledge can confirm or correct me on this.

RalUK Posted at 6-3 05:04
I really like the Nano+ video and colours, they really seem to pop out. However, the video is jittery compared to the M3P. Possibly a consequence of the transfer to Youtube, but it is shot at 30fps like the DJI footage (or factors of 30, in the case of the 60fps footage). Is that what the original looks like?

As for the blurring, it doesn't really look that bad to me and is possibly a consequence of the apeture size? Someone here with any knowledge can confirm or correct me on this.

Autel was converted with footage reinterpretation, will look a little jittery because of this...In reality is very fluent, but was not the purpose to show Autel, just the details from Mini 3 and how is seen the detail by Autel as a reference in that area.
Tks.PS. Not sure about F1.7 as cause....I see the details lost in middle left mostly...I have tested the lens with photos to a very fine texture, looks ok. So lens is not the reason. In video seems to get a poor compression, also is far from the promised 150mbps that would add some details, all I get is 93-97 Mbps.
Hope to appear a FW update to fix it.

Previous Mini versions also had problem with motion so in my opinion there is a low chance that this will improve.

Nice video!

There does appear to be some detail loss in the footage.  My initial thought would be the lens but since you state no issue in photos that would eliminate the lens being the issue.   Hopefully, this is something that DJI can correct via a FW update.

DowntownRDB Posted at 6-4 03:54
There does appear to be some detail loss in the footage.  My initial thought would be the lens but since you state no issue in photos that would eliminate the lens being the issue.   Hopefully, this is something that DJI can correct via a FW update.

Yes, primary thoughts were I got a DOA with bad lenses. But seems to have the issue only in video at movement...Normal and D-Cine are the same, so I would guess is algorithm of the processing inside drone that makes this detail loss.

Glad to see that a lot of DJI Ops are interested in this ))) ...Meaning NONE. Probably they also look at the videos made by their DJI "influencers", that look soo good (from distance).

Anyway, I think will be a lot of people that will see this, as you use this drone in tight spaces if you want a replacement for a bigger drone (of course, not the case if is for personal use...).

I think you're just not used to dealing with low apertures - with a lens at f1.7 the depth of field is very small, so a lot of your image is simply out of focus more than you are expecting. This especially goes for the sides of the frame, where you always zoomed into when showing the (lack of) details, due to the FOV making sides of horizontal slice of the video further away than the center of the slice. Also, as a rule, the higher the framerate, the more compression artifacts there have to be due to having to squeeze more frames into the same video bit rate. If you want the least compression artifacts, go for a lower frame rate (like the 30 at the start of the video). I haven't done testing yet, but this likely goes for Normal vs D-Cine too (though D-Cine may have a higher bitrate to compensate).

RS-YVR Posted at 6-4 08:32
I think you're just not used to dealing with low apertures - with a lens at f1.7 the depth of field is very small, so a lot of your image is simply out of focus more than you are expecting. This especially goes for the sides of the frame, where you always zoomed into when showing the (lack of) details, due to the FOV making sides of horizontal slice of the video further away than the center of the slice. Also, as a rule, the higher the framerate, the more compression artifacts there have to be due to having to squeeze more frames into the same video bit rate. If you want the least compression artifacts, go for a lower frame rate (like the 30 at the start of the video). I haven't done testing yet, but this likely goes for Normal vs D-Cine too (though D-Cine may have a higher bitrate to compensate).

Hi
Zoom is not made on a complete side, but in the area where should still be detailed.
If you look, the out of focus is in almost middle...as my experience in editing is not small, I never heard about a lack of focus between upper and lower focused areas...is impossible, as DOF does not work like this.
But thanks for idea.

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-4 08:37
Hi
Zoom is not made on a complete side, but in the area where should still be detailed.
If you look, the out of focus is in almost middle...as my experience in editing is not small, I never heard about a lack of focus between upper and lower focused areas...is impossible, as DOF does not work like this.

Nano+ is well known to over sharpen and I really don't care for it. Also the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. I'll take the more natural result from the Mi3P over nanao+ any day.

Wiz33 Posted at 6-4 08:55
Nano+ is well known to over sharpen and I really don't care for it. Also the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. I'll take the more natural result from the Mi3P over nanao+ any day.

As I have told, not interested in NANO comments, is not the point of this post.
Thanks.

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-4 07:26
Yes, primary thoughts were I got a DOA with bad lenses. But seems to have the issue only in video at movement...Normal and D-Cine are the same, so I would guess is algorithm of the processing inside drone that makes this detail loss.

Glad to see that a lot of DJI Ops are interested in this ))) ...Meaning NONE. Probably they also look at the videos made by their DJI "influencers", that look soo good (from distance).

The DJI Influencer videos are 99% positive and very biased in their opinions.  I'd much rather watch the videos where the pilots buy their own drones because they list the pros and cons and don't have to worry about hurting DJI's feelings.

DowntownRDB Posted at 6-4 11:42
The DJI Influencer videos are 99% positive and very biased in their opinions.  I'd much rather watch the videos where the pilots buy their own drones because they list the pros and cons and don't have to worry about hurting DJI's feelings.

Very good point !

Considering that it is pretty windy,[the tree is blowing about a fair bit] it is hard to determine whether the wind is blowing the grass around and making it difficult to look sharp. Try it on a day when it is not so windy.
-M

Nothing wrong other than being out of focus!

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-3 05:01
As I told, not interested in Autel comments. For you is over-sharpened, for me is More details. I always can apply a blur to sharpness, but I cannot save a detail from where is no detail...
At this point I use Mini 3 for small jobs that are under 1000 USD paid, but there is an issue with this HQ and detail conservation in video.

Then stop showing or talking about your perceived "issues" against the Nano. You didn't even need to mention the Nano here did you?

Bashy Posted at 6-4 18:55
Then stop showing or talking about your perceived "issues" against the Nano. You didn't even need to mention the Nano here did you?

I did not want to irritate some dudes like you...so for you only, consider that the other drone is Mavic 3 or any you want.

Mobilehomer Posted at 6-4 15:16
Nothing wrong other than being out of focus!

You cannot be out of focus in middle and in focus at closer and farther range.
Is impossible as how the focus works. It can be in reverse, have a focused area in middle and rest blur, but never can be blurred in middle and focused closer and farther.

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-4 12:07
Very good point !

Thanks.  

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-4 20:42
You cannot be out of focus in middle and in focus at closer and farther range.
Is impossible as how the focus works. It can be in reverse, have a focused area in middle and rest blur, but never can be blurred in middle and focused closer and farther.

When you are on the white tree the whole frame is out of focus.

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-4 20:42
You cannot be out of focus in middle and in focus at closer and farther range.
Is impossible as how the focus works. It can be in reverse, have a focused area in middle and rest blur, but never can be blurred in middle and focused closer and farther.

I think MH is correct, you could be seeing slight bokeh , this is something you won’t get with the Nano because of its very high sharpness.

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-4 20:40
I did not want to irritate some dudes like you...so for you only, consider that the other drone is Mavic 3 or any you want.

Ok then, then the Mavic 3 is over-sharpened

Bashy Posted at 6-5 07:34
Ok then, then the Mavic 3 is over-sharpened

i DON'T GIVE A SHXT OF WHAT YOU THINK !
PERIOD.

Two things to take into account here.
Firstly, youre zooming in to what is essentially a quarter of the sensor, or image. That doesnt help to begin with as its like digital zoom.....you just loose clarity.The most important thing though, is your POF, or Point Of Focus. The 1.7 paerture on the 3 means your DOF is going to be extremely narrow, especially this close to a subject. So whereas the tree may be in focus, objects just behind or in front will not be and will lack structure, detail and definition by default. Its the price you pay for an aperture which, on the other hand, offers better footage in low light. Its just a kind of trade off.

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-5 22:31
i DON'T GIVE A SHXT OF WHAT YOU THINK !
PERIOD.

Damn, that soon escalated...  You started it, changing the name made no difference, it still looked over-processed ;)  
if you add a comparison then you're gonna get a comparison with varying opinions, it is a public forum after-all,
Shouting at me changes nothing, the nano still looks fake to me, i would prefer the Mini 3 Pro from what you've shown, any day, period.

Bashy Posted at 6-6 18:50
Damn, that soon escalated...  You started it, changing the name made no difference, it still looked over-processed ;)  
if you add a comparison then you're gonna get a comparison with varying opinions, it is a public forum after-all,
Shouting at me changes nothing, the nano still looks fake to me, i would prefer the Mini 3 Pro from what you've shown, any day, period.

Please add your footage from your Mini 3 with details revealed.
Tks.

Geo_Drone Posted at 6-6 21:46
Please add your footage from your Mini 3 with details revealed.
Tks.

What gave you the impression that i have one? i said from what you've shown ;)

Manich Posted at 6-6 14:40
Two things to take into account here.
Firstly, youre zooming in to what is essentially a quarter of the sensor, or image. That doesnt help to begin with as its like digital zoom.....you just loose clarity.The most important thing though, is your POF, or Point Of Focus. The 1.7 paerture on the 3 means your DOF is going to be extremely narrow, especially this close to a subject. So whereas the tree may be in focus, objects just behind or in front will not be and will lack structure, detail and definition by default. Its the price you pay for an aperture which, on the other hand, offers better footage in low light. Its just a kind of trade off.

Thanks, I also thought is from zooming and F....but I believe that can be seen without zoom that is loosing the details in middle left...
I will try with manual focus too, in order to eliminate the hypothesis that is wrongly auto focused....I encourage you to do the same, maybe we can have more results from more Mini 3....I don't exclude also the possibility to have a DOA one.

Bashy Posted at 6-6 21:49
What gave you the impression that i have one? i said from what you've shown ;)

Ok, tks..................                    

on my old mavic pro I had a similar problem (watercolor effect) whenever i used filters. where you using any nd or polarizing filters?

caixadoricardo Posted at 6-27 02:51
on my old mavic pro I had a similar problem (watercolor effect) whenever i used filters. where you using any nd or polarizing filters?

No filter...is already found that are 2 problems in here:
1. HQ mode that is having a very slight ghosting.
2. Noise filter that is so aggressive that blurs the image.

Maybe will be changes in next Fw.

yes you explicitly ask for no comments about Autel but I know which one I prefer - funny how the „looks oversharpened“ mantra comes out right away. Details and sharpness are two different things.
I have the Autel and the Mini3 and although I like the Mini3 for a lot of things your comparison shows where DJI need to put work in. I hope it can be fixed in FW as some things are not possible to fix in firmware.

What I miss with the Mini3 is Dynamic Range and Details which both could be intrinsic qualities of the sensor/optic combination and only limited to be fixed in FW.

does it get better with ND filters - they might have better optical qualities (for example coatings) compared to the front cover/protection glas of the mini3?
has smeone made the test with the front cover off?

De Fender Posted at 6-28 03:35
yes you explicitly ask for no comments about Autel but I know which one I prefer - funny how the „looks oversharpened“ mantra comes out right away. Details and sharpness are two different things.
I have the Autel and the Mini3 and although I like the Mini3 for a lot of things your comparison shows where DJI need to put work in. I hope it can be fixed in FW as some things are not possible to fix in firmware.

“does it get better with ND filters - they might have better optical qualities (for example coatings) compared to the front cover/protection glas of the mini3?
has smeone made the test with the front cover off?”

"What I miss with the Mini3 is Dynamic Range and Details which both could be intrinsic qualities of the sensor/optic combination and only limited to be fixed in FW."

Well putting a filter over the glass lens cover won’t change anything least of all DR,  the front glass or protective glass is not removable. Its pretty strange those complaining about the camera haven’t even bothered to look at it, and for this reason I find their negative findings are probably best ignored.

you are free to ignore my comments but at least do your homework first: „Well putting a filter over the glass lens cover won’t change anything least of all DR,  the front glass or protective glass is not removable.“

optical qualities and the influencing factors are way to complex to approach it with „easy concepts“ but I know a lot of people would like to reduce complex problems to easy ones like:
higher resolution sensor = more details = better
bigger aperture = more light = better

De Fender Posted at 6-28 04:50
you are free to ignore my comments but at least do your homework first: „Well putting a filter over the glass lens cover won’t change anything least of all DR,  the front glass or protective glass is not removable.“

optical qualities and the influencing factors are way to complex to approach it with „easy concepts“ but I know a lot of people would like to reduce complex problems to easy ones like:

There is no such thing as a filter for the mini 3 drone camera that will improve DR. CPL may enhance greens or blues but not DR. Everyone is aware bigger sensors bigger apertures and yes better glass may improve things.
“But you cannot remove the glass on the front of the mini camera so . Its not removable, the fact you didn’t know this just shows you haven’t even looked at it.