I work with video creation for a living. TV commercials, corporate videos, social media, etc. After some time with my Action 3, I can see what is the real problem with this camera. We know the ergonomics and design stuff, all good. The sensor is a very good one considering its size. But the biggest problem the camera faces is its compression. It can suppass GoPro 11 with a better compression. Many times it seems faces are particularly mushed out, which makes it seem like an out of focus issue (which does exist, I am on my second unit and it is fine but the previous one was not). So, if DJI could make a better compression algorithm for the Action 3 (maybe a more direct and less complex one) and give us the option to select sharpness and noise reduction like the Action 4, I would certainly stick to the Action 5 (the Action 4 is a better camera but I just bought my action 3).
So, DJI, please refine your compression algorithm and give us the option to select sharpness and noise reduction in the next firmware upgrade and this camera will be perfect.

The fix was doing parameters they say and sure the y corrected it wit hte Action 4   no more firmware its done and over

Fishycomics Posted at 8-13 10:34
The fix was doing parameters they say and sure the y corrected it wit hte Action 4   no more firmware its done and over

I don't think DJI can leave the Osmo Action 3 as it is, it's important for the reputation that the Osmo Action 3 will be further refined even if the new baby is the Osmo Action 4..

If they go the gopro way, they will give a big F in previous versions like OA3.
Gopro done it since 7 and people still buy their cameras.

Nah. DJI has a record of refining their products well over their launch. And there is a big room for improvements for the Action 3 on the firmware side. And nothing too hard to do.

Money makes the world go around...
Improving the FW takes time and effort. There's no money in it for doing so.

Money is also involved here. If you want to switch to the Osmo Action 4, you may have to sell the Osmo Action 3. But you can only sell the Osmo Action 3 if it's usable, and for that we need a software update.

  Model   more or less is decommissioned as well the team for the firmware,  DJI good luck they will only pass info to the relivent team.

Fishycomics Posted at 8-13 14:45
Model   more or less is decommissioned as well the team for the firmware,  DJI good luck they will only pass info to the relivent team.

If you are correct in your assumption, then a lot of people will be very disappointed....

Andreas Dueck Posted at 8-13 14:31
Money is also involved here. If you want to switch to the Osmo Action 4, you may have to sell the Osmo Action 3. But you can only sell the Osmo Action 3 if it's usable, and for that we need a software update.

I think there is even more to that. If a company is known for not caring about its own customers or products, would you buy from them again? If Im very disappointed with my Action 3, would I buy the 4 or 5?
On the other hand, if I feel like i have something of value, I will look no where else next time I am going to purchase.
Again, I have a very happy memories of DJI further enhancing the products I bought.
Selling the Action 4, it doest mean they stopped selling the Action 3. They are still selling the Action 2.
Further enhancing a product only helps improve sales and the brand itself.

Yeah I hope I am wrong but that is my Opinion   oh look no more sales on the Action..... and BAM its back up, remember that when the Action 3 was out, everyone thought hey Removed the camera. so Yeah L i f e

I wrote a post some time back saying that I hoped that this wouldn’t be a repeat of the Hero 9 fiasco. GoPro produced a really problematic camera and tried to fix it for a year. The Hero 10 was the fix, since the 9 still has internal popping on the audio.

Well, here we are with the 3 being replaced very quickly by the 4.  Now it’s a question of whether the 3 fades away into history like the Hero 9……..

I suspect that it will. It might be a bit obvious if it were suddenly discontinued and 'apparently' there was no problem. Mind you, they have kept the 2 on sale, but maybe because some really do like the form factor. No real reason for the 3 to hang around now.

DJI could have done better by helping people with 3's wanting to upgrade but that might hint at a problem with the 3 that wasn't admitted to. Or maybe some 3's are worse than others and those that are perfectly happy don't actually have the same problem..... their 3 's are perfectly sharp. Mine wasn't by a long way compared to the 4; and my 4 is actually focusing closer than my 3 did!!

Yeah. Time will tell. But a firmware upgrade would be great. Nothing to hard to do.

Ulysses Posted at 8-14 08:12
Yeah. Time will tell. But a firmware upgrade would be great. Nothing to hard to do.

You don’t think it was a ‘lens’ thing?

Iancraig10 Posted at 8-14 08:15
You don’t think it was a ‘lens’ thing?

I think it was! I had a problematic one and replaced by another from the same batch. But what really adds up to that is the compression algorithm they are using. If we have better compression, even the problematic samples would be improved. The faces are mushy. Sometimes the t-shirts have more definition than the faces, to cite 1 one example. On the Action 4, to mimic a better dynamic range, they brighten the shadows to make it look like its seeing more into dark areas. You can tell that by the increased noise in those particular areas. But it only shows in specific scenarios.
Action 3 seems to have something similar going on but for the faces like some sort of filter. I can clearly see the compression characteristics.
The best way to see the real capability of the sensor is to take a raw photo. Its a great sensor considering its size. But when it comes to video, its very poorly implemented. It can do so much more! Maybe an option to select/increase bitrate? And no filters-like algorithm. Surely they can make the 3 and the 4 GoPro killers. The hardware is there.
For a specific lens/focus case, they are replacing on demand as far as I can tell.

Ulysses Posted at 8-14 08:27
I think it was! I had a problematic one and replaced by another from the same batch. But what really adds up to that is the compression algorithm they are using. If we have better compression, even the problematic samples would be improved. The faces are mushy. Sometimes the t-shirts have more definition than the faces, to cite 1 one example. On the Action 4, to mimic a better dynamic range, they brighten the shadows to make it look like its seeing more into dark areas. You can tell that by the increased noise in those particular areas. But it only shows in specific scenarios.
Action 3 seems to have something similar going on but for the faces like some sort of filter. I can clearly see the compression characteristics.
The best way to see the real capability of the sensor is to take a raw photo. Its a great sensor considering its size. But when it comes to video, its very poorly implemented. It can do so much more! Maybe an option to select/increase bitrate? And no filters-like algorithm. Surely they can make the 3 and the 4 GoPro killers. The hardware is there.

Yes, it was the focus on my face that I didn’t like. Especially when the background was sharp, but I also noticed that small details, like leaves in trees almost appeared ‘painted’. So you could get a really mushy looking video.

Never even considered the compression being used. If they continue to develop the 3 firmware, I think I’ll continue with it now, just in case it more to do with compression.

All I ever got here was that it’s an action cam and not designed for vlogging, but now, I’m finding the 4 spot on. I know I can’t refocus the background, but it’s fast so you don’t miss quick things. Dead light so easy to carry around and the stabilisation is brilliant. All fantastic things for vlogging.

If I want to defocus  the background, then I just use one of my mirrorless cameras, but the 4 is great for quick shots on the fly and imo, what the 3 should have been. Even with the smaller sensor.

Iancraig10 Posted at 8-14 08:52
Yes, it was the focus on my face that I didn’t like. Especially when the background was sharp, but I also noticed that small details, like leaves in trees almost appeared ‘painted’. So you could get a really mushy looking video.

Never even considered the compression being used. If they continue to develop the 3 firmware, I think I’ll continue with it now, just in case it more to do with compression.

The Mushiness (is that a word?) you see is one of the characteristics of a higly compressed/low bitrate image. Considering the bitrate around 90mbps, it should perform better. I dont know if the hardware can support higher bitrates. Maybe not. Giving us the option to choose sharpness AND noise reduction strength is a good step towards it. Some need it fully automatic but some need the file as raw as possible to get the most out of it. And its not something hard to do. If DJI could focus their attention to this just a little bit... they could change these cameras A LOT.

Hi, Ulysses. Thank you for reaching out. We appreciate you sharing your insight with us. We will forward it to our relevant team as a suggestion of yours. Thank you for your continued support.

You said the “mushiness” is “…one of the characteristics of a highly compressed/low bitrate image…”

Currently the OA3 gives you a 30Mbit footage in good lighting using H265 using 1080p. It is higher when using H264. I am curious what would be an “acceptable” bitrate for such footage?

The reason I’m asking is because you can find plenty of Q&A about “what is a good bitrate for 1080 video”. Yes, I know most of you are 4k fanboys but let’s stick with this for a moment. (you can scale it up to 4k at 130Mbits) One of the answers I found is given by Norm Hurst, senior research engineer, video systems at SRI international. I don’t know the guy but he doesn’t sound like a hobbyist and action camera collector. You can read his answer here:
https://www.quora.com/What-bitrate-is-1080p-30fps

At the end of his answer he says that 1080p provides pretty good video quality around 5-10Mbit. Don’t just take this at face value, read his entire explanation. Now, if according to a senior research engineer, 1080p footage is considered pretty good quality at 10Mbit and the OA3 gives you 3x as much at H265 (and even more at H264) what would you say an acceptable bitrate would be - since you referred to a 30Mbit H265 footage as “low bitrate”.

osmonauta Posted at 8-15 02:19
You said the “mushiness” is “…one of the characteristics of a highly compressed/low bitrate image…”

Currently the OA3 gives you a 30Mbit footage in good lighting using H265 using 1080p. It is higher when using H264. I am curious what would be an “acceptable” bitrate for such footage?

There is a difference between acquisition format and delivery format. Throughout the whole process of recording, editing/transcoding and delivering, much information is lost. So you need to acquire the footage with as much information as you can to have room untill you finalize your content. For delivery, its best to source it from the best quality possible files so the algorithm have a lot information to help it compress and deliver a smaller, realtime best possible quality file. The delivery format is choosen based on the plataform where it will be shown (theater, tv, youtube, netflix...) You are probably seeing it at the point of view of whom just needs to shoot and deliver straight out of the camera or does minimum editing. In this case, you dont need to record as much information as you can because the highest possible quality is not your goal. You have another goals.
Back to bitrate. In h264, you can do the tests yourself, for 1080p, below 10mbps you can quickly see the degradation in footage each step you go down. Try in 2mb decrease each time. Or even 1 mb and you will notice how bad it gets the less you go. But above 20mbps for 1080p in h264 it gets harder to see a difference each time you go up. You can see it gets better but is increasingly harder to see. Doing the above, you will see the exact characteristics I mentioned.
5mbps is a good quality for live streaming. Again, I've been through that too.

It is obvious that you want to work with the highest bitrate possible for editing for best quality. There are plenty of examples of super results filmed on the OA3 on YT.

The question was, what is an acceptable bitrate for a 1080p footage that people (in this case you) would be satisfied with? You sad 30Mbit is low. I was curious, name the acceptable bitrate for editing 1080 footage. The cheapest iPhone (iPhone SE) is currently $429 plus tax. The OA3 is (was) around $320 plus tax. Would it be reasonable to provide studio quality or uncompressed video with a data rate, oh, I dunno, say 1Gbit for a $320 plus tax consumer camera that would take possibly hundreds of gigabytes of data to store a one minute footage so that I can see the pores on someone’s face while the person is walking down an alley talking about what they had for breakfast?

I mean at some point you need to draw the line somewhere, no? The OA4 has came out. I hear the quality is superb. According to the spec sheet it offers max 130Mbit data rate. Which is the same as what the OA3 offers. Would you buy an action camera that offers uncompressed footage for 2 grand and you need a minimum 2TB micro SD card (does it even exist?) for a 10 minute video? Not to mention you’d need at least the latest laptop otherwise your footage will literally choke the computer.

Some people adjusted their lens on the camera and got super sharp results. In which case it’s prolly not the bitrate that was an issue but the focus with a mis-calibrated lens.

The most expensive action camera I found (only dedicated about 40 seconds for searching) is the Ricoh Theta Z1 with the price range of over a thousand dollars. Offering 120Mbit max data rate. So I don’t think you will find an action camera on the market that will satisfy your request saying a max 130Mbit data rate is “low quality” - hence the mushy faces.

I think I do not understand what you are implying because you seem to be upset about something.
You are using an Iphone as reference, which it is no standard for anything videowise. At no time nor any point I have said I will only be satisfied by X bitrate number. I dont care how much is it, could be 1mbps as long as it gives me the proper quality. Maybe you did not read through the whole topic? I dont get why you are so offended. And I even said it is good that they give us the OPTION to choose so everyone can choose based on their needs. You dont even need to use a higher bitrate if you dont want to. But you cant deny others to have it just because you believe something different.
I did not want to say it but I am gonna say it. You dont understand about video. You are probably a casual/hobbyst videomaker. That is what everything you said shows. Despite of that, as my background os different than yours, I may give you some light somehow.
For your reference:
My most used camera and recording format is what is called "production" format, meaning its not the highest, top notch acquisition format. It records 175mbps 1080p 24 fps video with a DNxHD codec in a .mov container. If I want, I could use raw, which is another level entirely at much higher bitrates.
When I want maximim quality, I use raw, real 4k (higher than UHD) which is something from 150 to 450 bitrate depending on the settings chosen. Acquisition format.

For TV, we send a finalized 1080p 50 mbps file. Delivery format, not acquisition format.
For cinema, delivery bitrate varies to up to 250mbps for 2k resolutoon. Delivery format, not acquisition format.

For Youtube, 45mbs for 4k at least, 15mbps for 1080p at least for a reasonable quality but in this case you can send anything you like. But the highest the bitrate, the better. And this you can test yourself.

Dont get mad because others have different needs than yours.

Adding to that, bitrate is not everything. The codec itself plays the biggest part. But we cant ask for raw video or DNxHR HQX format from a small action camera.

When the OA4 came out.. or the OA3 for that matter, I don't recall ever seeing any mention of what processors are in these cameras, perhaps I missed it. Everyone focuses on the image quality, battery life, close focus and off course sound distortion or not.
A higher bitrate (or a better performing codec) would be most desirable but the question is, can the processor handle it and will it cause heat issues during longer recordings or those in not so well ventilated spaces?

m326 Posted at 8-15 04:47
When the OA4 came out.. or the OA3 for that matter, I don't recall ever seeing any mention of what processors are in these cameras, perhaps I missed it. Everyone focuses on the image quality, battery life, close focus and off course sound distortion or not.
A higher bitrate (or a better performing codec) would be most desirable but the question is, can the processor handle it and will it cause heat issues during longer recordings or those in not so well ventilated spaces?

Yeah. As I said earlier, "I dont know if the hardware can handle higher bitrates" but my main point from the begining was not the bitrate but the compression method/algorithm as stated many times already. They are probably doing many tricks under the hood like filters and stuff to give the results they think its best but they probably should just get a straight simple compression. Thats the point.