There was a small problem with the 4K record. The image jerked at the sharp changes in the camera. I was forced to reduce to 1080r. I solved the problem - I replaced the memory card from the Mavik's basic package with a very fast 64GB. Since then I shoot in 4K.
I saw the view that the transmission of halftones and gradations of color in 2K mode is better than in 4K mode. And, for example, shooting in the evening hours or at night is worth doing in 2K mode. I compared. But I did not see the differences! Therefore, I continue to make a video in 4K.

I made a comparison between 2.7k and 4K in this little tutorial on my youtube channel. All the conclusions are in the video at the end.

1080p because I like using the DJI editing

boostedford Posted at 2017-5-22 14:30
the way i see it why not use the best quality possible?  you can always downsize

Couldn't say it better myself.

boostedford Posted at 2017-5-22 14:30
the way i see it why not use the best quality possible?  you can always downsize

Because you will have to watch your computer suffer when importing footage to it...

Film in 4K most the time depending on storage space, also easy to compress 4K to 2.7 or 1080p and retain pixel quality.

boostedford Posted at 2017-5-22 16:12
oh thats awesome ill have to give it a try

Or just crop it in post, that way you can select exactly the "level" of "zoom" you want.  All it does is remove pixels and make the overall image smaller.  It makes nothing bigger.
You're better off filming in full then cropping as you have more scope to trim from exactly where you want.

The 4k v 2.7k argument was mainly due to the fairly hideous flickering and interframe compression caused by the low 60mbps bit rate of 4k.  In theory 2.7k should be a lot better at the same bit rate....Sadly though DJI reduce the bit rate for 2.7k writing so if you work out the actual bits per pixel its slightly WORSE than 4k for compression.  You dont see it as clearly though purely because the image is smaller so each pixel is "bigger".

alexmbraMav Posted at 2017-10-31 18:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFN6TMgXEPE

Interesting video...however, you didn't specify the profile and style that was used

I'm experimenting more with 4k...so far so good.

2.7 always. 4k is not much bettet and the files are to dang big. Im happy with the 2.7k quality.

4K is better for when you want it to look cinematic and zoom it in.

4K for me. 1080 can look great but 4K on my TV looks phenomenal. Not had too many issue editing on my MB Pro or slightly older iMac

I cant say that I see much difference between my previous 2.7k videos and my new 4k videos shot on the mavic but if you plan on grabbing stills 4K is the way to go. Especially if you ever want to have the pictures printed.

The choice obvviously depends on other factors though. Personally i bought a new laptop specifically for editing so my PC power is not an issue at all when working with 4K. And i have plenty hard drives for storage.

I was shooting in 4K once I got the 64gig memory card, but then my fast laptop only shows 2.7k and my tv is only 1080, so what’s the point of 4K for me? My laptop will take a 4K monitor by thunderbolt connection but I doubt I will have one any time soon. Maybe once 4K monitors become more popular I will change over to 4K shooting, but until then I think I will save the storage space.

SeaComms Posted at 2017-11-14 02:35
I was shoot8ng in 4K once I got the 64gig memory card, but then my fast laptop only shows 2.7k and my tv is only 1080, so what’s the po8nt of 4K for me? My laptop will take a 4K monitor by thunderbolt connection but I doubt I will have one any time soon. Maybe once 4K monitors become more popular I will change over to 4K shooting, but until then I th8nk I will save the storage space.

People also shoot in 2.7k and upscale to 4k, some say there is no loss in quality so I think you'll be good shooting in 2.7k

90% of the time I'll shoot 2.7K with the Mavic - 1080p in slow mo and 4K in confined areas for added detail in the resolution.

Ex Machina Posted at 2017-5-22 14:07
I originally recorded 2.7K but as I more and more grab still frames from video, I've decided to  switch to 4K.

I agree with this, I tend to grab still pictures from video also.

I've mostly been shooting in 4k, except for a period when I forgot to change it after a firmware update reset my settings. However, I may try shooting in 2.7k, at least on my longer trips, to keep from filling up the cards too quickly.

1080p @ 25fps for me so far (PAL)  until I get a 4K TV ...

Xman1 Posted at 2017-5-26 08:23
It creates artifacts that can be seen.  That is the issue.  I'd rather have a clean 1080p video than a 1440p video with artifacts, but to each his own I guess.

I agree, many times I have d/graded from 2160 (2.7K & 4K) only to find the artifacts trashing the video. My rule of thumb is to film in the same resolution you want to watch. I always ask my customers what type of device they will be watching the product on. As for my personal photos/videos I always shoot in 4K as all my devices support 4K.

Cinema 4K 4028x2160p, I prefer, to 4K UHD 3840x2160p.

I rather have the capability to shoot in Cinema 4K 60 mps than to shoot in UHD 4K 100 mps, but that's just me.

I don't own the Mavic Air yet, but do enjoy UHD content. I own a Samsung 60" 4k television, and I believe at that size you can not tell the difference between 2.7k and 4k with the human eye. I believe that you would have to have much larger screens to see the difference in resolution. However, sets and screens are getting better all the time, and who knows when we look back at videos in 10 years, if people will only watch 4k because anything less will look like VHS. That's why I always shoot in the highest quality, just to make sure some day I don't look back at my videos and regret it.

Parkker Posted at 2017-5-22 15:16
Well, this guy has pretty good explanation about sharpness settings and others. He said he will come out with part 2 explaining other settings like 4k or 2.7k but I think he got too busy and hasn't done it yet.
He did say this:
"Just a quick tip since I won't have the video ready. I'd shoot at 2.7k with +1 sharpening. D- Cinelike or D-log, and plan for neat video NR in post. I'll explain more later.

Wow!  I noticed this problem in a still I took the other day and was wondering why on earth one tree looked blurry while a house right next to it looked perfect.  

I'm curious about where to leave the other settings since I've turned sharpness, contrast and saturation down to -3 to leave more headroom for color correction in post.  should i turn them up to +1 as well, or leave them at 0 or below?  

Edit: read further down the page, +1, -1, -1 on D-Log

I agree with the others about 4K.  If you have the storage space for it, use the best quality.

Since buying my Mavic Pro I've also been experimenting with 2.7K vs UHD on D-cinelike 30p (I much prefer the smoothness of 30p compared to full 4K 24p, even when using the 180 degree shutter rule, 30p just looks smoother...but that's a different topic anyway!.  To me it boils down to this: UHD is a tiny bit sharper, but has much more noise and flicker; 2.7K is a tiny bit softer, but waaaayyy less noise and near zero flicker. I have Neat Video and the Film Poets profiles for each res, and while they do a good job, the NR needed on UHD to get rid of the noise and flicker, even on ISO 100, takes away the extra sharpness anyway, so 2.7K looks better in the final result due needing less NR. If you pause a frame pre-NR, then yes, UHD shows a tiny bit more detail on my 5K iMac screen, especially on close together straight lines; but post-NR, then 2.7K is a winner for me due to needing less NR, and thus retaining more of its sharpness. NV has sharpening built in, but a) it's easy to create halos, and b) to eliminate DJI's built in NR you need to make sharpening +1 anyway, so do you really want to add even MORE sharpening to an already over-crispy noisy image?!!

My pennies worth anyway, but of course everyone is different. The OSMO is a different ball game though as the X3 doesn't seem to suffer from noise and flicker as much at UHD, so I always shoot at this res, then mix the Mavic and OSMO footage together in FCPX and export at 2.7K. I think exporting at 4K can make the Mavic's 2.7K footage a little soft and it's more noticeable in comparison to the OSMO sections.

Since buying my Mavic Pro I've also been experimenting with 2.7K vs UHD on D-cinelike 30p (I much prefer the smoothness of 30p compared to full 4K 24p, even when using the 180 degree shutter rule, 30p just looks smoother...but that's a different topic anyway!).  To me it boils down to this: UHD is a tiny bit sharper, but has much more noise and flicker; 2.7K is a tiny bit softer, but waaaayyy less noise and near zero flicker. I have Neat Video and the Film Poets profiles for each res, and while they do a good job, the NR needed on UHD to get rid of the noise and flicker, even on ISO 100, takes away the extra sharpness anyway, so 2.7K looks better in the final result due needing less NR. If you pause a frame pre-NR, then yes, UHD shows a tiny bit more detail on my 5K iMac screen, especially on close together straight lines; but post-NR, then 2.7K is a winner for me due to needing less NR, and thus retaining more of its sharpness. NV has sharpening built in, but a) it's easy to create halos, and b) to eliminate DJI's built in NR you need to make sharpening +1 anyway, so do you really want to add even MORE sharpening to an already over-crispy noisy image?!!

My pennies worth anyway, but of course everyone is different. The OSMO is a different ball game though as the X3 doesn't seem to suffer from noise and flicker as much at UHD, so I always shoot at this res, then mix the Mavic and OSMO footage together in FCPX and export in UHD.

Sorry for the double post, it was meant to be an edit!

Basically I shoot in 4K unless I really can't do anything else.  I figure its better to post process it down than want 4K and not have it.

It took me some time to get the editing sorted for 4K as I don't have a massive PC.  I've now got a tool chain sorted (including a server I bought of ebay for £60).

Also archiving might become a problem at some point in a few months.  But the way I figure it, I can easily record 4K to SD and keep archiving it.  If / when I run out of archiving space I'll just downsize my old footage or buy a new hard drive.

I prefer Cinematic 4K 4096x2160p, although UHD 4K vs. 2.7K is a real toss-up.

ro_flyer Posted at 2017-8-28 15:09
Because you will have to watch your computer suffer when importing footage to it...

This is irrelevant if you ask me because when processing you need a high end PC/MAC anyway.  Why downgrade because you have a bad PC?  just does not make sense really.  

davidmartingraf Posted at 2018-5-18 07:02
I prefer Cinematic 4K 4096x2160p, although UHD 4K vs. 2.7K is a real toss-up.

It really is not and you can see a clear difference if you have a good TV/Monitor to view 4k.  

SparksBird Posted at 2018-5-26 10:03
It really is not and you can see a clear difference if you have a good TV/Monitor to view 4k.  https://youtu.be/r2m5FpaOpJ8

I would say resolution is higher with 3840p 4K than with ~2700p 2.7K, but the difference in size of file and amount of bit rate needed to play/edit the footage doesn't make the higher resolution justifiable compared to the slightly lesser 2.7K.

For this reason is why I say they are comparable and splitting hairs.

davidmartingraf Posted at 2018-5-26 10:45
I would say resolution is higher with 3840p 4K than with ~2700p 2.7K, but the difference in size of file and amount of bit rate needed to play/edit the footage doesn't make the higher resolution justifiable compared to the slightly lesser 2.7K.

For this reason is why I say they are comparable and splitting hairs.

I just figure in the near future the viewing technology of say 6k or 8k will make even more of a difference looking at the difference between 4k and 2.7k .  But your point is a good one.  I for one though can see a difference on my 4k tv between the two as it is.  I for one have an attention to detail.  

SparksBird Posted at 2018-5-26 11:59
I just figure in the near future the viewing technology of say 6k or 8k will make even more of a difference looking at the difference between 4k and 2.7k .  But your point is a good one.  I for one though can see a difference on my 4k tv between the two as it is.  I for one have an attention to detail.

Fair point, I think the higher resolution standards will start to show glasses-less 3D viewing ability to the higher and more image detail defined picture. The effect of this resolution, I agree, will have more value between two different resolutions than we see today.

1080p because I am a broke college kid with a drone but not enough money to buy SD cards.

SparksBird Posted at 2018-5-26 10:03
It really is not and you can see a clear difference if you have a good TV/Monitor to view 4k.  https://youtu.be/r2m5FpaOpJ8

One of best How to videos.

4K for me, I really like the response I get when in post.