Personally I think that all of these discussions are fruitless and boil down to almost nothing other than opinion unless they are accompanied with relevant samples. i.e. "I like 2k over 4k and here is the footage that I am seeing"
Ziggy01 and I have been in a another forum where the virtues of -1,0,0 / 0,0,0, and +1,0,0 was being discussed. By the way I engourge you all to visit it and jump in. Here is the link:
Is there actually an answer to the camera settings question?
Anyway as you can imagine there were as many opinions as there are possible combinations. Why is that? Heres what I think. I am getting the sneaking suspicion that the reason why there are such vast discrepancies in settings is not personal taste, but a quality control issue at DJI that is making each Mavic and sensor placement just different enough that we are all picking the settings (corrections) that work for our personal unit and shooting conditions. And to put my samples where my mouth is, below is a link to a video clip (with as little compression as practical). In this particular link we were judging images captured at 3840x2160 and 2720x1530 all shot in D-Cinelike at 100 ISO 24fps at a 50th and at the various sharpness settings. What I would like to know is if after looking at these ungraded images and associated settings if any of it looks familiar to everybody or if you are getting totally different results from the same settings. Also because the thread was started to speak only to the 2k vs 4k, here is a link to the same stuff just limited to only a side by side comparison of the identical scene shot at 2k and 4k. In this particular case I standardized on the +1,0,0 because that's what seems to look best on my bird. In my opinion there is little difference and further would give it to the 4k sample. Lastly I understand the common sense associated with the smaller image and the better quality you should get at the same data rate, but remember that cameras are built to a "native" performance setting and then all the other settings up and down are created afterwords for consumer choice. But sometimes they simply aren't as good. Lets face it if 2k really looked better than 4k based on less compression, that logic would tell us that 1920x1080 would be even better. And, as virtually every post I read says that 1920 x 1080 is generally an unusable setting, I would submit that there might be more there than the conventional data rate theory.
I would love to here everyones thought and more importantly PLEASE submit samples for us all to see and compare.
Thanks,
rb
Sharpness settings link;
PW: mavic
Just 2k vs 4k link of same footage:
PW: mavic
