4k or 1080/120fps, which setting will offer best video ??Im not a videographer so I don't have a full technical
understanding of this subject however in my mind I
would think more frames per second will result in a
better sharper video...yes / no ??

Thoughts ??

Like you I'm no expert but no more frames will not mean better quality but for example 1080p 120fps would make for great slow motion shots.,, best quality will be to choose 4K

I say 4K. I have a 4K tv, and it looks Amazing!! I love watching my raw video's on my tv.

Drone Man... great question.  I'm no pro either, but I have a little bit of understanding and can offer my 2-cents.  It's complicated to answer because their are many variables to consider when deciding what video size/quality/resolution and fps (frames per second) to shoot at.   To start, we will refer to size/quality/resolution as "size".  Size and fps are 2 separate issues.  The P4 offers the following video modes or settings according to DJI Phantom 4 specs:

UHD: 4096×2160 (4K) 24 / 25p
3840×2160 (4K) 24 / 25 / 30p
2704×1520 (2.7K) 24 / 25 / 30p
FHD: 1920×1080 24 / 25 / 30 / 48 / 50 / 60 / 120p
HD: 1280×720 24 / 25 / 30 / 48 / 50 / 60p

The first part of each mode is the size of the image (Width x Height).  A full HD image is 1920 x 1080 for example.  In my opinion, the "labeling" DJI uses in their specs are a bit inaccurate, as UHD and 4K are two separate formats, and are often referred to interchangeably.   In the DJI specs, I believe they incorrectly call 4096x2160 "UHD (4K)"; and 3840x2160 "4K".   The accurate labeling would be 4096x2160= DCI 4K; and 3840x2160=UHD (Ultra HD).  The differences are minor, and not noticeable to most people.  I will give a short synopsis of each format below:

--HD (1280x720) or 720p (921,600 pixels) has a ratio of 16:9 (the ratio of most computer/tv screens these days).  It's a slightly wider format than the older more square looking monitors/tvs with a 4:3 ratio. When you view an image/video shot in a 16:9 ratio on a monitor/screen that is 4:3 ratio, part of the image from the left and right sides are cut off because of the cropping that takes place to fill the screen from top to bottom.  If you see black bars on top and bottom, then likely the image isn't cropped, and you are seeing the full image.  IMHO 720p has no valuable use anymore, as the other formats are so much sharper and as easy to handle in post production and rendering etc.  The only time I can think of that it might be useful is if you want a really high frame rate (fps) like 120-240fps in order to create slow motion in post.  With a really high frame rate like 240fps, when you play it back at 24fps, you get really smooth slow-motion effects.  But at 720p, the image won't be as sharp as we have become accustomed in the past 5 years or so.

--FHD (Full HD) (1920x1080) or 1080p (2,073,600 pixels)also has a 16:9 ratio.  This is maybe the best format to use when your end result is to share videos with friends and family on your computer.  It can be rendered quickly with most computers, and handles easily in post production editing with iMovie, Final Cut, Premiere, etc..  It can be shot in up to 120fps, which gives a really smooth look in slow-motion.   This format is fairly sharp on most TV's also.  HOWEVER, with the newer UHD and "4K" TV's, we won't settle for 1080p much longer if we are using it on anything but phones/computers.

--2.7K (2704x1520) (3,110,400 pixels) has a 16:9 ratio too, and is a bit sharper than 1080p.  Many cameras don't shoot this format, as it was kinda skipped over as technology went from 1080p to UHD and 4K very quickly.  I don't think you can shoot at a higher frame rate than 30fps anyway, which you can get from UHD.  So lets move on.

--UHD (Ultra HD) (3840x2160) (8,294,400 pixels) also a 16:9 ratio is frickin awesome!  This is very sharp and clear and looks fantastic on large screen TV's that have UHD/4K capabilities.  If you need to zoom in on part of the video image in post, you can, and still will have a pretty sharp image equal to at least 1080p.   I would shoot most stuff in UHD.  This can be downsized in post for smaller file size if needed for Youtube/Vimeo sharing etc.  YouTube will allow up to UHD/4K uploads, but most people can only view in 1080p or less.  Vimeo (at least at one time) would charge for premium service for anything uploaded higher than 720p.  Not sure if that's the case anymore.  Also, although you may be able to upload UHD/4K to online video sharing sites, their disclaimers state that it will only be for future use/capabilities; so even if uploaded in UHD/4k, they only allow viewing up to 1440p (last I checked).

--DCI 4K (4096x2160) (9,437,184 pixels) NOT 16:9; the ratio is actually 256:135 or commonly referred to as 190:1 for short.  Notice the height is still 2160 just like UHD.  This means to fully realize the value of this setting, you would need to view on one of those NEW monitor formats out there that are super wide and have a 21:9 ratio screen.  So a comparison would be this:  remember how we lost part of the image (if it were cropped to fill from top to bottom) when we viewed HD images on a 4:3 screen/tv?  This will now happen on a 16:9 screen when trying to view true DCI 4K 4096x2160.  Either you will have black bars on the top and bottom so you can see the full image left to right, or if it is cropped to fill the 16:9 screen from top to bottom, then the left and right portion of the image will be cut off.  That being said, you will likely have to zoom in a bit in post when editing your videos shot in 4096x2160, which in essence gives you a UHD image that is 3840x2160 anyway.  So why not just shoot in UHD for now!

Again, fps is a different issue.  There are other effects besides great, smooth looking slo-mo you get from high frame rates such as 120 or 240fps.  If you are shooting something that is high speed, such as race cars, sporting events, water drops, etc., where you want to see detail in every frame, then higher frame rates might be a wise choice.  However, under normal viewing, a slower frame rate (30fps or less) is more pleasant to the eye.  We have become accustom to the cinematic look which is 24 fps (23.97 exactly).  25fps is mostly a standard used in Europe.  24fps makes video images flow more smooth, where higher frame rates seem to have more flicker or seem more jumpier for the lack of better terms.  Sometimes that's the effect you may want for the purpose you are going for.  Then there is the issue of what shutter speed to shoot at based on the frames per second you are shooting... that's a whole other subject, but closely related.  I won't get into those details here, as I am running out of ink (haha); but as a general rule of thumb, if you are shooting in manual mode, you should set your shutter speed at roughly double your fps setting,  So at 24 fps, your shutter speed should be at least 50 etc.  This helps reduce some "jello effect" and other artifacts that result in mis-matching the shutter speed with fps.

Sorry this was so long... hope it helps.

Dirty Bird Posted at 2016-3-19 23:05
This depends on your ultimate goal.  Obviously 4K provides twice the resolution  of 1080 but it won' ...

(Obviously 4K provides twice the resolution  of 1080). Obviously it's 4 times the resolution

Thanks guys !!

DoctorDrone Posted at 2016-3-19 11:56
Drone Man... great question.  I'm no pro either, but I have a little bit of understanding and can of ...

Doctor Drone: I flew my p4 for the first time today.  Although it was very overcast the pictures and video that I shot while doing so turned out quite overwashed, bright; without much color and ugly.  I think I might have turned the control wheel for the cameras setting by accident before the flight.  

When I returned home I checked the camera settings and did not know what I was looking at, so I pushed the "reset" button for all camera settings.  My main question here is: can I just leave the settings alone after resetting them to insure getting a decent video or do I need to tweak the settings?  

Dirty Bird Posted at 2016-3-19 11:05
This depends on your ultimate goal.  Obviously 4K provides twice the resolution  of 1080 but it won' ...

4K = 4x the resolution of 1080p.

DoctorDrone Posted at 2016-3-19 23:56
Drone Man... great question.  I'm no pro either, but I have a little bit of understanding and can of ...

Good tutorial DD.  Looks like FHD and UHD are the best fit for what I'll be doing.

For all of the already stated reasons, 4k is the right choice for you. I'd recommend 3840x2160 at 30fps.

1080p120 would be great for slow motion videos, but currently there are a number of downsides to the implementation of it, which make it problematic. I have a thread with more details about it (http://forum.dji.com/thread-45784-1-1.html), but aside from the smaller Field of View (about half), the image is a lot softer (you actually will have to add Sharpness) and the bitrate is lower than it needs to be (which can create compression artifacts). Plus the resulting video is in slow motion, so you would actually have to go through an editing program to see them in real speed.

M Stuart K Posted at 2016-3-20 07:30
Doctor Drone: I flew my p4 for the first time today.  Although it was very overcast the pictures a ...

should be okay after reset for GENERAL shooting... but you'll want to get familiar with the settings sooner or later... go through each item in the app... just to see what it does.  But what you see on your device is close to what your video and pics will look like, so I'm surprised you didn't notice the over-exposure while you were flying.  It's easy to hit the dial on the txmtr and change the exposure, but again, you should be able to see that on the image while you are flying.

DoctorDrone Posted at 2016-3-20 18:05
should be okay after reset for GENERAL shooting... but you'll want to get familiar with the settin ...

Thanks; and you are correct I did notice the poor image on my screen but being this was my first flight I guess I concentrated more on the flying.  I took it out again yesterday after the reset and the image was a lot better.  

Hi,
I have tried to record 1080p 120fps ans I was really surprise how bad was the video.
Of course 4K is great but you could have an excellent 1080p feed and here it seems the videos has been filmed in 480p and scaled in 1080p.
It is dramatically pixellised and the video itself is far from 1080p has everyone is familiar with.
Anyone knows how to solve this?
Many thanks!

I do not know what others do, but I need to downscale 4K to 1080p.

monica66 Posted at 2016-3-30 16:43
I do not know what others do, but I need to downscale 4K to 1080p.

I do that. I shoot in 4K, then put the footage through Blackmagic Resolve. I do all the colour correction and tweaking, then output it to a high quality intermediate file at 1080p. I then edit in Vegas Pro and finally recode to MP4 using Handbrake. All those stages are free except for Vegas.

You have to downscale to 1080 because it is upscaled from that to get 4K. Based on the complete lack of detail that is showing in the 4K when looked closely at, it becomes clear that there is a compression algorithm happening that needs to use "nearest pixel" upscaling to get an image size of 4K, but there is definitely not 4X the amount of real pixels in the image, just duplicated ones. 120fps video is completely unusable as it is far overcompressed with too low of a bitrate of recording.

To the original question, I too was surprised my 1080 120fps played back in slow motion and poor video quality. The other 1080 speeds do not play back in a similar manner so my question is why is that so? I feel like I missed something, or did dji intend on this difference. I shot a guy swinging out of a tree over water at 102fps, then edited the sceine to a faster speed until he let go of the rope and then back to slow motion, neat effect, but video did not match quality of the rest of the video put together in 4K.

DoctorDrone Posted at 2016-3-19 23:56
Drone Man... great question.  I'm no pro either, but I have a little bit of understanding and can of ...

Great Doctor just what I needed,I'm a newbie phantom 4,this is really informative thanks for sharing your information

4K will provide you with a sharp and clear video while the 1080/120fps will slow down the action like a football replay. It depends on what you want to do.

Anyway, both options require you to use a fast and large capacity (32GB) SDHC card.

4K at 24 frames will be best image. But slow frames "stutter" when you move too fast. It looks "laggy" like if you play video games with slow computer. It is first best in image but big disadvantage in frame rate.

However, Ultra HD or UHD 3840x2160 (not true 4K) ar 30 frames is good enough. But still cannot handle very fast movements. It is second best in image, with slight  disadvantage in frame rate.

Full HD 1080x1920 at 60 frames will give you the best in terms of not being 4K. 60 frames is very smooth and the 1080 resolution is easier and faster to edit. It is third best in image with some advantages in frame rate.

True 4K is 4x the resolution. Twice the height and twice the width means four times. Think of it like a room, in terms of square feet. If you have a room twice the width and twice the length, you have a room four times bigger.

How is everyokne changing the resolution from 4K to 1080p???

120 fps is NOT a playback format. It is only used to record high speed/slow motion video. A videofile recorded at 120 fps is usually saved as 25 or 30 fps video. One second of real time = 4-5 seconds video.
Recording in 120 fps will reduce the picture quality.

All tv-screens support 25/30 fps. Most screens support 24 fps. Support for 50/60 fps is still in development. A computer can play all.

I have Just been shooting 1080 60fps just for the simple fact that 4k just takes up so much more memory.

flormo2002@yaho Posted at 2016-3-19 11:03
(Obviously 4K provides twice the resolution  of 1080). Obviously it's 4 times the resolution

Actually it is only twice the resolution....in 1080p the 1080 is the vertical resolution, which makes 1920 the horizontal resolution. 1080p is actually 2k as compared to 4k, since 4k refers to 3840 × 2160....in other words 3840 is exactly twice the width of 1920 and 2160 for the height of 4k 2hich is twice the resolution. Therefore if 4K is almost 4000 pixels wide and 1080p is almost 2000 pixels wide, thus making 1080p=2k video

fans4ed590c2 Posted at 2016-12-16 15:59
I have Just been shooting 1080 60fps just for the simple fact that 4k just takes up so much more memory.

if you speed up 1080p 120 frames per second to 4x original speed using Adobe Premiere or something similar, then it will still have half the resolution as 4k but 1080p will be 4x smoother (which unless you are recording fast action scenes then people will not be able to notice difference).

fansb1fe1104 Posted at 2016-12-16 21:20
Actually it is only twice the resolution....in 1080p the 1080 is the vertical resolution, which makes 1920 the horizontal resolution. 1080p is actually 2k as compared to 4k, since 4k refers to 3840 × 2160....in other words 3840 is exactly twice the width of 1920 and 2160 for the height of 4k 2hich is twice the resolution. Therefore if 4K is almost 4000 pixels wide and 1080p is almost 2000 pixels wide, thus making 1080p=2k video

Strictly speaking 4k is exactly what it says, I have a 4k monitor which supports the following:

The DCI 4K resolution standard, which has a resolution of 4096 × 2160 pixels

UHD-1, or ultra-high-definition television (UHDTV), is the 4K standard for television and computer monitors It has a resolution of 3840 × 2160

Many manufacturers advertise their products as UHD 4K, or simply 4K, when the term 4K is traditionally reserved for the cinematic, DCI resolution. This often causes great confusion.

Edit:- and of course the P4 supports both these resolutions

One thing to keep in mind is that the 1080 x 120 fps uses a cropped sensor mode, which means it is not as good in comparison to normal speed 1080 or higher resolution settings.

Dirty Bird Posted at 2016-3-19 07:05
This depends on your ultimate goal.  Obviously 4K provides twice the resolution  of 1080 but it won't be as smooth, particularly if you are flying aggressively.  The 1080x120fps will be great for slow-motion but your field of view is dramatically reduced.  If you choose the setting you will see how much smaller your FOV becomes.  1080x120fps would be great if you are recording an action sequence that you want to view in slow motion such as a motorcyclist making a jump.   

For my personal use I generally prefer 1080x60fps.  I'm not filming professionally, I don't have 4K viewing equipment, the files are a reasonable size & easy to work with, footage remains fluid even when flying aggressively, & they are viewable by nearly any computer or device without becoming choppy.

4k provided more than 4 times the resolution of 1080. You can always render to a lower resolution when editting or have the capability of in-frame zooming but 4k is best for capturing the greatest amount of detail for archiving or source video.

RSW Posted at 2016-12-17 11:04
4k provided more than 4 times the resolution of 1080. You can always render to a lower resolution when editting or have the capability of in-frame zooming but 4k is best for capturing the greatest amount of detail for archiving or source video.

Again, although corrected in a post above, 4K is not four times the resolution, it is ony twice or slightly more, depending upon whether you choose 3840 x 2160 or 4096 x 2160. It is four times the number of pixels though, but resolution is measured in pixels in a given direction, vertical.

Here is some 120fps footage at 1080p if u were curious guys

Geebax Posted at 2016-12-16 18:36
Again, although corrected in a post above, 4K is not four times the resolution, it is ony twice or slightly more, depending upon whether you choose 3840 x 2160 or 4096 x 2160. It is four times the number of pixels though, but resolution is measured in pixels in a given direction, vertical or horizontal.

I think the confusion lies in how the term 'resolution' is applied.

The resolution of still images is always measured in Megapixels (Pixel Length X pixel width).   If you read the specs, you'll see that the Phantom 4 has a 12 Megapixel camera.  4000 pix X 3000 pix = 12MP

But, when referring to video resolution, the height is disregarded and only the pixel width is used.  4096, 2160, 1080, etc...

Geebax Posted at 2016-12-16 16:36
Again, although corrected in a post above, 4K is not four times the resolution, it is ony twice or slightly more, depending upon whether you choose 3840 x 2160 or 4096 x 2160. It is four times the number of pixels though, but resolution is measured in pixels in a given direction, vertical or horizontal.

Actually, we are all using semantics that are incorrect but I think most people understand. Technically, resolution is the number the pixels per given unit of measure. So while the display on my Android phone and my 48 inch TV are both the same pixel dimensions (1920 X 1080), the android has MUCH greater resolution. Let's just say that  4k has 4 times the total number of pixels of 1080. It captures 4 times the information.

jwt-873 Posted at 2016-12-17 13:16
I think the confusion lies in how the term 'resolution' is applied.

The resolution of still images is always measured in Megapixels (Pixel Length X pixel width).   If you read the specs, you'll see that the Phantom 4 has a 12 Megapixel camera.  4000 pix X 3000 pix = 12MP

"But, when referring to video resolution, the height is disregarded and only the pixel width is used.  4096, 2160, 1080, etc..."

Not quite... even more confusing. 4096 is the width but 1080 is the height.

RSW Posted at 2016-12-19 12:49
"But, when referring to video resolution, the height is disregarded and only the pixel width is used.  4096, 2160, 1080, etc..."

Not quite... even more confusing. 4096 is the width but 1080 is the height.

1080 is the height when the width is 1920. If it was 4096x1080 then on say a 10 inch screen it would be  like a really thin strip...maybe 3 inches high  by 10 inches wide...I have never seen any device that can record at 4096x1080

RSW Posted at 2016-12-19 12:47
Actually, we are all using semantics that are incorrect but I think most people understand. Technically, resolution is the number the pixels per given unit of measure. So while the display on my Android phone and my 48 inch TV are both the same pixel dimensions (1920 X 1080), the android has MUCH greater resolution. Let's just say that  4k has 4 times the total number of pixels of 1080. It captures 4 times the information.

This is not true, you are trying to compare the wdith of 4k at 4096 pixels wide with 1920x1080 where the width would be 1080 instead of height instead of the actual 1920 as the width. 4k compared to 1080p is....1920x2=3840 which is just a little less than 4096...if it was 4x resolution than it would be 4096 by 1024 , as 4096 divided by 4=1024. So the actual difference between 4096 and 1920 is 2.13. So in all actuality 4k is 2.13 better resolution than 1080p. The simplest way to look at it is 4k video is 4096 and 2k video is 1920.
4k divided by 2k is 2.

fansb1fe1104 Posted at 2016-12-20 07:02
1080 is the height when the width is 1920. If it was 4096x1080 then on say a 10 inch screen it would be  like a really thin strip...maybe 3 inches high  by 10 inches wide...I have never seen any device that can record at 4096x1080

You missed the point. 4096 and 1080 were both given as examples of width.

fansb1fe1104 Posted at 2016-12-20 07:23
This is not true, you are trying to compare the wdith of 4k at 4096 pixels wide with 1920x1080 where the width would be 1080 instead of height instead of the actual 1920 as the width. 4k compared to 1080p is....1920x2=3840 which is just a little less than 4096...if it was 4x resolution than it would be 4096 by 1024 , as 4096 divided by 4=1024. So the actual difference between 4096 and 1920 is 2.13. So in all actuality 4k is 2.13 better resolution than 1080p. The simplest way to look at it is 4k video is 4096 and 2k video is 1920.
4k divided by 2k is 2.

Yes it is true. You ignored the whole point about a "given unit of measure" like in a display or a printed images, regardless of the total number of pixels. One inch on the phone screen contains more pixels than on inch on the TV. Wikipedia explains this in some detail with all the caveats but concludes, "The term resolution is often used for a pixel count in digital imaging, even though British, American, Japanese, and international standards specify that it should not be so used, at least in the digital camera field." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution)

On the other hand, the term "total resolution" is often used as the video equivalent of megapixels for a still image. "Total resolution" a bit different than the simple definition of "resolution". It is the width in pixels times the height in pixels and does not take into account any pixels per unit of measure. It's really the total number of pixels is all. When you talk about "total resolution", 4k is indeed 4 times the resolution of 1080. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about.

https://www.dpreview.com/what-is-4k/
"4K footage has four times the total resolution of HD."

http://aframe.com/blog/2013/05/w ... or-video-producers/
"The term 4K is based on the horizontal resolution of the format which is approximately 4,000 pixels. This is around 4 times the resolution of standard HD..."

http://www.dchomesystems.com/what-does-4k-really-mean/
"The other reason it is called 4K, is the total resolution of a 4K TV is actually 4-times greater than your trusty 1080P TV."

http://www.cedia.co.uk/cda_/imag ... -Whitepaper_ENG.pdf
"Ultra HD-4K must be approximately four times the total resolution of 1080p,..."

http://4k.com/news/4k-technology ... llion-by-2020-8668/
"The latter resolution sits at 3840 x 2160 pixels, still more than 4 times the total resolution of Full HD at 1920 x 1080p."

None of this matters, the resolution of a video signal is always expressed in the number of vertical lines, simple. And video reolution has never been quoted as the pixel area count, that only applies to still images. Even the term 4K is wrong when applied to television, as the vertical resolution is 2160. The last value that got it right is 1080, the correct value of resolution for HD video, after that it got mangled.

I noticed for example in RSW's post above, one line reads "The other reason it is called 4K, is the total resolution of a 4K TV is actually 4-times greater than your trusty 1080P TV." This is a classic case where they use 1080p as the resolution quantifier then claim the resolution of a 4K TV is 4 times larger, changing the rules to refer to it by the horizontal value.
From the beginning, the television system resolution has always been quoted in vertical lines:

1. 405 Lines, the early British standard
2. 525 Lines, US standard.
3. 625 Lines,  Widely used world standard
4. 576 Lines, Digital standard definition.
5. 1080 Lines, HD world standard.

RSW Posted at 2016-12-19 22:19
Yes it is true. You ignored the whole point about a "given unit of measure" like in a display or a printed images, regardless of the total number of pixels. One inch on the phone screen contains more pixels than on inch on the TV. Wikipedia explains this in some detail with all the caveats but concludes, "The term resolution is often used for a pixel count in digital imaging, even though British, American, Japanese, and international standards specify that it should not be so used, at least in the digital camera field." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution)

On the other hand, the term "total resolution" is often used as the video equivalent of megapixels for a still image. "Total resolution" a bit different than the simple definition of "resolution". It is the width in pixels times the height in pixels and does not take into account any pixels per unit of measure. It's really the total number of pixels is all. When you talk about "total resolution", 4k is indeed 4 times the resolution of 1080. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about.

Resolution has never been defined by total number of pixels. Resolution is always measured in either Pixels per inch or dots per inch....so on a diagonal 40 inch screen 1920x1080 has a resolution of 55 pixels per inch. while 4096x2160 on a 40 inch screen=115 pixels per inch. So while yes it is true that it contains 4 times the amount of total pixels, the pixels per inch is just a little over 2 times....which means that for every inch of HD 1920x1080 you can fit twice as many pixels in the same inch...Which obviously means its able to store twice the amount of information into each inch. Hence the detail in UHD is only twice as much than HD.

raph_london Posted at 2016-3-29 11:06
Hi,
I have tried to record 1080p 120fps ans I was really surprise how bad was the video.
Of course 4K is great but you could have an excellent 1080p feed and here it seems the videos has been filmed in 480p and scaled in 1080p.

When you record video the shutter speed should be set 2 times the frames per second. Which summed up in a nutshell typically if you shoot at 30fps you set it at 60. When recorded at 120fbs that would be 240 for shutter speed. In other words slow mo needs a lot more light than if you were shooting 30fps....Ive noticed the exact same thing on my phone, if I try to record slo mo video on my phone where it wasn't really bright the video just doesn't even record for you..