Disclaimer: I've worked in video for over 30 years and have a broadcast video background.

I prefer frame rate to frame size - in my experiance, with usual viewing distances and with the TVs and monitors currently available, 1080P50 is much preferable to 2160P25.


(Yes, I shout at my TV when I see inappropriate use of 25P)


So, I've shot a few hours of 1080P50. I'm really upset by the quality of the vider recordings. It looks to me like the down-scale from the sensor native to 1920x1080 has been done with pixel binning instead of a filtered down-scale. That means all horizontal and all vertical lines are too sharp and any movement causes the horizontals and verticals to wobble. A filtered down-scale would smooth the sensor-native high-frequency detail down to 1920x1080 and the resulting video would be much less objectional.


I've shot some UHD1 2160P25 and image-wise it looks great, but   t h e   m o v e m e n t   i s   s o   s t u t t e r y (especially on a sunny winters day without any ND filters).


What are other people's opinions?

2160p 30 footage is fluid for me.

can dropbox you some footage i just shot this weekend that plays back smoothly for me - can also document my playback environment if need be.

i work in tv and film production as well.  what device are you using to decode the footage?

you will need a decent bit of CPU power to decode 264 at 60mbps at 3840x2160 (also not all software or hardware players will decode the footage as smoothly as others)  ...also the data i/o from where you are reading the footage will need to be decently speedy as well.

what are the specs of your playback environment?

i typically shoot and post UHD (2160p), but will be tinkering with 2.7k over the next couple weeks - i believe it's the same data rate as 2160p, but less resolution, so you get the benefit of the encoder throwing more data at a smaller image canvas.

dave

Yep, pixel binning at >30fps.  So you'll get that super nasty aliasing using 48, 50, 60, 96 and anything else I forgot to mention higher than 30fps.  

DJI <MESSED UP> and was only supposed to make 60/96fps do this for the upcoming DJI Goggles, but they did it on all framerates above 30.  There's no way around this now & hope you're happy with 25/30fps.  This has been covered many, many times.  You're not the first.  

I am also disappointed in the 2k 30fps which I shot round Aberdeen yesterday, even with ND Filters keeping the shutter speed at 1/60.
I will be sticking to 4k at 24fps & 25fps for downscaling to 1080p for delivery. The final footage is way better this way, in my opinion.

I'm very disappointed in the Mavic's camera. I have another less expensive drone and it's camera is superior in every way. It makes no sense to have such poor image quality on a Mavic " Pro " that leaves you saying "yeah but.....look how small this thing folds up!"

PimpDawg Posted at 2017-2-20 10:22
I'm very disappointed in the Mavic's camera. I have another less expensive drone and it's camera is superior in every way. It makes no sense to have such poor image quality on a Mavic " Pro " that leaves you saying "yeah but.....look how small this thing folds up!"

Exactly my sentiment also. I love the portability of the Mavic and it really does fly great. But image quality is not good for the most part.

Post some pic and vids to see...

Ok - I'll post some examples:

2160P25 with its nasty judder


1080P50 with its nasty scaling - you'll need to view unscaled 1920x1080

Best practice atm is to film at the highest quality, then scale down in rendering.

MDSH Posted at 2017-2-20 13:52
Ok - I'll post some examples:

2160P25 with its nasty judder

you never going to see the quality as youtube compresses the file anyway and how many viewers have 4K res monitors or TV's ?

overall i'm solidly happy with what the mavic offers when you look at the total package...does it produce excellent stunning images? no, not always...BUT...it certainly can once you learn what it does well, and stay away from shots at which it does not excel.  a bit of magic in post/grading often helps what lacks during acquisition.

when i'm going out to acquire the highest quality footage or imagery, i'll use my p4pro, but the p4pro is quite a bit more obtrusive from a size and sound perspective.  with that said, the camera, and image processing, on the p4pro is undoubtedly a significant step up over the mavic.  Sorry that's a bit of a digression.

as most folks who capture images/video either for a living, as a hobby, or just for fun know...the best camera is the one you have with you - that's the chord the mavic aims to strike.

mavic form factor with the p4pro imaging ability?  home freaking run.  i can't tell you how many times i said this over and over all weekend as i was out flying in multiple locations with both platforms.

dave

SkyHigh UAV Posted at 2017-2-20 14:50
Best practice atm is to film at the highest quality, then scale down in rendering.
https://vimeo.com/203561495

Oh my gosh that is beautiful footage. Tell me how you did that.

dnorm Posted at 2017-2-20 20:09
overall i'm solidly happy with what the mavic offers when you look at the total package...does it produce excellent stunning images? no, not always...BUT...it certainly can once you learn what it does well, and stay away from shots at which it does not excel.  a bit of magic in post/grading often helps what lacks during acquisition.

when i'm going out to acquire the highest quality footage or imagery, i'll use my p4pro, but the p4pro is quite a bit more obtrusive from a size and sound perspective.  with that said, the camera, and image processing, on the p4pro is undoubtedly a significant step up over the mavic.  Sorry that's a bit of a digression.

While I agree with some of what you said, I also disagree on a major point. The Mavic is marketed as a small form-factor drone without having to compromise on performance. Instead, it's now being relegated to "the best camera is the one you have with you - that's the chord the mavic aims to strike." So the compromise is obvious.

SkyHigh UAV Posted at 2017-2-20 14:50
Best practice atm is to film at the highest quality, then scale down in rendering.
https://vimeo.com/203561495

Thanks fore the examples. The 4k downscale shows how beutiful it can be done.

PimpDawg Posted at 2017-2-20 21:26
While I agree with some of what you said, I also disagree on a major point. The Mavic is marketed as a small form-factor drone without having to compromise on performance. Instead, it's now being relegated to "the best camera is the one you have with you - that's the chord the mavic aims to strike." So the compromise is obvious.

The Mavic Pro is a 1K USD highly portable flying computer with gps/optical stabilization (that is incredibly rock solid), realtime telemetry and realtime HD video downlink...it also has a a UHD/12Megapixel 3 axis stablized camera...AND stereo vision forward facing obstacle avoidance sensors...if you want more features and improved image quality...i can only suggest buying a P4Pro...it's a bigger, heavier flying computer, with improvements to the aforementioned abilities for an additional 500 USD.

i don't believe DJI has ever positioned the Mavic Pro as to cannibalize their phantom (which is now only the p4pro as the p4 has ben discontinued) market?  From whre are you formulating such a contrarian and negative opinion of the product?  You could go buy a karma and then come back and visit ;)

The Mavic Pro is an exceptionally unique and spectacular product, and i don't believe i was sold on anything more than what i purchased.

i say this knowing everyone has their own perspective, this just happens to be mine

dave

dnorm Posted at 2017-2-21 19:35
The Mavic Pro is a 1K USD highly portable flying computer with gps/optical stabilization (that is incredibly rock solid), realtime telemetry and realtime HD video downlink...it also has a a UHD/12Megapixel 3 axis stablized camera...AND stereo vision forward facing obstacle avoidance sensors...if you want more features and improved image quality...i can only suggest buying a P4Pro...it's a bigger, heavier flying computer, with improvements to the aforementioned abilities for an additional 500 USD.

i don't believe DJI has ever positioned the Mavic Pro as to cannibalize their phantom (which is now only the p4pro as the p4 has ben discontinued) market?  From whre are you formulating such a contrarian and negative opinion of the product?  You could go buy a karma and then come back and visit ;)

I also own a $700 Autel XSP that has a far superior camera so I don't need to purchase a P4P. To suggest such simply because my Mavic has a camera defect is absurd.

The video quality of my Mavic containing jello effect is not normal and I along with others experiencing the same issue are not out of line to expect after spending $1000 to have a decent flying camera without the defect. Some have it, some don't. My first Mavic Pro did NOT contain the jello effect. To claim one needs to just go buy another drone if they want one without poor video quality is asinine. Thanks for your suggestion, but no thanks.

Glad you got a good one.

bantis Posted at 2017-2-20 20:23
Oh my gosh that is beautiful footage. Tell me how you did that.

Thanks bantis, If I remember correctly.....Mavic had nsg 4 or 8......iso-100-50-5700k.....art.
Editing just increased the blue sky effect. Hope it helps, I find art setting the best and always use mov format.