I have a new Phantom 4 Pro.  I shot this photo tonight and at 400 ISO the noise is unacceptable.  Look at the water at the bottom right.  It is so bad that the noise reduction in Lightroom cannot remove it. I tried to attach the photo but the interface on this forum sucks so a dropbox link is attached.  ?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/guwe11 ... c.com-0349.jpg?dl=0

I had a similar issue with the first phantom 4 pro on a long exposure at 100 ISO. I had to send it back. On my second P4 Pro. But doesn't seem as bad as the first one. Will need to test it out.

Even at ISO 200 the noise is terrible!!

?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zjg1n3 ... c.com-0345.jpg?dl=0

It looks to me like there is some processing here (ie. the shadows were brought up).  Can you post the original DNG?

Stewie Griffin Posted at 2016-12-27 20:52
It looks to me like there is some processing here (ie. the shadows were brought up).  Can you post the original DNG?

Sure thing, here is a link to it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4h2833lgt4c4uf/DJI_0348.DNG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4h2833lgt4c4uf/DJI_0348.DNG?dl=0

Stewie Griffin Posted at 2016-12-27 20:52
It looks to me like there is some processing here (ie. the shadows were brought up).  Can you post the original DNG?

I also noticed there are some issues with the Metadata.  This was taken from 250' altitude but it says over 500'. It was taken at 4:55pm but says 6:12pm etc,.  at 6:12pm here it is completely dark.

I think you made a mistake and didn't upload the DNG to the file with the water.

Stewie Griffin Posted at 2016-12-27 21:16
I think you made a mistake and didn't upload the DNG to the file with the water.

You are correct, sorry:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4iize3y0lqjw757/DJI_0349.DNG?dl=0

TravisSRT Posted at 2016-12-27 18:27
You are correct, sorry:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4iize3y0lqjw757/DJI_0349.DNG?dl=0

Thanks.

You do have very heavy post processing here, and you brought up the shadows a fair amount, on a picture that is ISO 400, and you are using the JPEG I think to do your work.  When I convert with PS your DNG, the noise is much less blotchy.

I only have the Mavic so far, but I can tell you the JPEGs from camera are absolute crap.  You need to only use the DNG files.

Let me see if I can make some comparisons and upload them somewhere.  I would say there is nothing wrong with your sensor.

So first, before you uploaded the correct file, I prepared this sample.  With the DNG, you can clearly see the noise structure at ISO 800 is better than the file you said was ISO 200.

Stewie Griffin Posted at 2016-12-27 21:36
So first, before you uploaded the correct file, I prepared this sample.  With the DNG, you can clearly see the noise structure at ISO 800 is better than the file you said was ISO 200.

[view_image]

Here is the raw for the 200 ISO Shot.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yueunsze6v3hi11/DJI_0345.DNG?dl=0

Stewie Griffin Posted at 2016-12-27 21:34
Thanks.

You do have very heavy post processing here, and you brought up the shadows a fair amount, on a picture that is ISO 400, and you are using the JPEG I think to do your work.  When I convert with PS your DNG, the noise is much less blotchy.

I only converted to .jpg to post online.  I have 3 Inspires.  An X3 an X5 and a X5R and even the x3 does better in low light than this larger sensor.

So first is to show the processing you did to your image.



Next is to show the difference between the DNG and your file.



The DNG is on the right, and you can clearly see the noise is much better without the processing, and using the DNG, as opposed to the JPEG which is what it looks like you may have used.

Considering this is an ISO 400 file, shot at night, with some good amount of processing, I think its within the realm of what is considered normal.

Stewie Griffin Posted at 2016-12-27 21:46
So first is to show the processing you did to your image.

[view_image]

Nice comparison for sure.  I don't shoot .jpg at all, only DNG so we were working on same image.  I still feel like I should be able to expose for the sky, bring down the highlights and bring up the shadows and have a usable image.  I can do that with an X3 so not sure why my P4P can't handle it.  I can definitely do it with my X5's.  It seems like 100 ISO shots are great, 200 and up go to crap and it gets a little better around 800.  Not sure what the deal is though.

TravisSRT Posted at 2016-12-27 18:56
Nice comparison for sure.  I don't shoot .jpg at all, only DNG so we were working on same image.  I still feel like I should be able to expose for the sky, bring down the highlights and bring up the shadows and have a usable image.  I can do that with an X3 so not sure why my P4P can't handle it.  I can definitely do it with my X5's.  It seems like 100 ISO shots are great, 200 and up go to crap and it gets a little better around 800.  Not sure what the deal is though.

I know what you mean.  I have a Mavic right now, and its sensor isn't even as good as the P4P, but these are clearly nowhere close to even a cheap DSLR.  The only good thing though is that you can very easily get a steady shot at 1/4 or 1/2 a second, which you could never if shooting handheld.  So just make sure to shoot at ISO 100, and stay under 1 second, take multiple images, and I think 1 should turn out pretty good.  I always shoot so that my histogram is pushed to the right, meaning perhaps rescuing a few highlights, but having to bring up shadows is clearly not going to work with these sensors.

Tommy Tenzo Posted at 2016-12-27 20:45
I had a similar issue with the first phantom 4 pro on a long exposure at 100 ISO. I had to send it back. On my second P4 Pro. But doesn't seem as bad as the first one. Will need to test it out.

How long did it take for you to get a second replacement?

I just did an ISO test in my dining room and the noise was what you would expect from this camera.  Very strange.  I put the camera on auto everything except ISO, shot in DNG and imported to LR.  I exported as JPG without making any adjustments.  Here are the files:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ewwat ... YHFFxqKKspNRoa?dl=0

Well I'm glad to read this thread....I've been ready to pull the trigger on the 4Pro with hopes of better image quality.  Currently own two 3pros and have desired to upgrade for better photo quality.  This may not the route to go.  Wonder how the new Inspire 2 is performing in this area?

TravisSRT Posted at 2016-12-28 15:23
I just did an ISO test in my dining room and the noise was what you would expect from this camera.  Very strange.  I put the camera on auto everything except ISO, shot in DNG and imported to LR.  I exported as JPG without making any adjustments.  Here are the files:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ewwato3lujm11hx/AAAuraJy4XMYHFFxqKKspNRoa?dl=0

This is too bad. The noise on the grey (and blurred) lower portion of the sample pictures is really not acceptable.
Reminds me of a video problem we had with a Sony A7S shooting in flat picture profile (unchangeably set at high ISO by system default) with catastrophic S/N results.
We had to send everything through the "Neat Video" denoise AE plugin, which "saves your ass" if results go astray like this.
AND: the architectural lines in the first aerial dusk shot, which are off the center become bended quite soon, which is (IMO) on par with my P3P lens...

vr-pilot Posted at 2016-12-28 12:35
This is too bad. The noise on the grey (and blurred) lower portion of the sample pictures is really not acceptable.
Reminds me of a video problem we had with a Sony A7S shooting in flat picture profile (unchangeably set at high ISO by system default) with catastrophic S/N results.
We had to send everything through the "Neat Video" denoise AE plugin, which "saves your ass" if results go astray like this.

Just did a test at same time as last nights problem shots.  Went to same area (roughly) and went through the ISO range from 100-6400 keeping exposure at 0.0EV.  Shot in DNG and converted to .jpg in LR with no other tweaks.  Here are the files if you want to see straight out of camera.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9hcsv ... FsF29nJYzOtI3a?dl=0

TravisSRT Posted at 2016-12-28 23:45
Just did a test at same time as last nights problem shots.  Went to same area (roughly) and went through the ISO range from 100-6400 keeping exposure at 0.0EV.  Shot in DNG and converted to .jpg in LR with no other tweaks.  Here are the files if you want to see straight out of camera.

Historically and technically seen "blue" is the most problematic color regarding S/N behaviour.
The dark blue sky's reflection on the lake is the worst part of the picture, even at ISO 100 and is already unacceptable at ISO 200.
The problem with the augmentation of blue is that itself has the least brightness (energy) and additional "power" has to be lent from the other side of the whole spectrum which results in the occurence of green and red pixels (where are naturally none) that become visible as noise.
In earlier days (maybe still today?) large LED screens had groups of four pixels: one red, one green and two blue. This was because of the low energy of blue LEDs.
I don't know (and I am too lazy to google it now) if camera sensors do compensate for this blue weakness in any way, but if they do: something went wrong here in the P4P camera.
If not: something like a larger blue spectrum reception (pixel area) could be necessary.
O.K., just googled that there are 1 red, 1 blue and 2 green pixel receptors. You will get good (bright) mid spectrum results (like Technicolor made use of it), but it is no surprise that there has to be some amplification going on when only catching the "blues" with just one pixel.
This is obviously done by adding information from the green (x2) and red pixels.
This remembers me of the fact that "in earlier days" a fast way of good film/video noise reduction was to add blur to only the blue channel. Maybe that process is missing here?  

TravisSRT Posted at 2016-12-28 14:45
Just did a test at same time as last nights problem shots.  Went to same area (roughly) and went through the ISO range from 100-6400 keeping exposure at 0.0EV.  Shot in DNG and converted to .jpg in LR with no other tweaks.  Here are the files if you want to see straight out of camera.

Thanks for this, very informative.  I think these look really good.  Of course its ideal conditions, but its obvious that the lens can resolve a good amount of detail and the noise, even at ISO 400 is very acceptable.  I would always make sure to overexpose so that I'm never having to bring up the shadows as mentioned before.  But since we can shoot at roughly 1/2 second exposures, and using maybe ISO 200 or 400, I think low light scenes are very possible.

Noise in shadows brought up in post is nothing new. You should really bracket your shots and composite them in post or do an HDR. This scene would be tough on a full frame DSLR and it's a huge dynamic range. The Sony sensor is good but it's not a miracle worker. On most scenes I tend to ETTR (expose to the right on a histogram) to be sure that I have shadow detail. Another thought would be to get a graduated ND filter so that you can properly expose the entire image.

fans3208d094 Posted at 2016-12-27 21:22
How long did it take for you to get a second replacement?

I purchased from BH because they had another in stock. I'm still waiting for my refund from DJI after a month

flowbie Posted at 2016-12-28 16:22
Noise in shadows brought up in post is nothing new. You should really bracket your shots and composite them in post or do an HDR. This scene would be tough on a full frame DSLR and it's a huge dynamic range. The Sony sensor is good but it's not a miracle worker. On most scenes I tend to ETTR (expose to the right on a histogram) to be sure that I have shadow detail. Another thought would be to get a graduated ND filter so that you can properly expose the entire image.

and although the 1" (sic) sensor is larger than the P4 sensor it is still significantly smaller than micro four thirds and way smaller than APS let alone full frame so as you say there is a limit and with 20m pixels crammed onto the sensor some noise even at iso 200 or 400 is inevitable.