100MP and 25MP DNG please

[KS-6]

Here are 4 sets of jpg+dng images from each of the 3 cameras, shot at the lower resolution.

dng_jpg comparisons - Google Drive

drive.google.com

I shot some comparisons yesterday to see how the 100/48/50 MP resolutions comp[are and I'm not yet convinced that the higher resolutions show any appreciable improvement.
Will have to do some more testing of that to be sure.


That's surprising.
Can you point me to that comparison?

Can you check on something for me?

Apparently there is a person on the DJI forum who says that even though he selects raw on the controller, he is still only getting jpegs when doing panos:

https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=340877&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtypeid%26typeid%3D948%26typeid%3D948

I’d be interested to know if this is an isolated incident or a glitch.

Thanks!

 

[SkySteve83]

Here are 4 sets of jpg+dng images from each of the 3 cameras, shot at the lower resolution.

dng_jpg comparisons - Google Drive

drive.google.com

I shot some comparisons yesterday to see how the 100/48/50 MP resolutions comp[are and I'm not yet convinced that the higher resolutions show any appreciable improvement.
Will have to do some more testing of that to be sure.


That's surprising.
Can you point me to that comparison?

Thanks for the sample images! While the details don't look razor sharp, they are a vast improvement over my Mavic 3 Pro. By the time I sharpen and reduce the file sizes to what I deliver (usually around 6000px wide), the Mavic 4 shots should look far superior to what I'm getting now. Let's hope I can take delivery of one soon

 

[Filmarik]

Thanks for the sample images! While the details don't look razor sharp, they are a vast improvement over my Mavic 3 Pro. By the time I sharpen and reduce the file sizes to what I deliver (usually around 6000px wide), the Mavic 4 shots should look far superior to what I'm getting now. Let's hope I can take delivery of one soon

That is not what I see. I see finer cleaner and better defined micro detail from M3P than what I can achieve in Lr from M4P 25MP DNG files. How can you say that the details of M4P are not razor sharp and at the same time that they are vast improvement over M3P? What criteria are you using? What am I missing?

 

[KS-6]

That is not what I see. I see finer cleaner and better defined micro detail from M3P than what I can achieve in Lr from M4P 25MP DNG files. How can you say that the details of M4P are not razor sharp and at the same time that they are vast improvement over M3P? What criteria are you using? What am I missing?

I think until someone does a same subject / side by side test, it will be too subjective to be conclusive.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I think until someone does a same subject / side by side test, it will be too subjective to be conclusive.

Absolutely. Lab tests like Pilot Institute tends to do will also be telling.

 

[Filmarik]

I think until someone does a same subject / side by side test, it will be too subjective to be conclusive.

100% agree. I am just "sensitive" when someone wants to probably justify his decision to get M4P by stating something and nonsesically contradicting himself at the same time.

 

[wco81]

Haven't watched the review yet but supposedly he says 100 Mp still has similar artifacts as the Air 3S QB shots.

Also, 14-bit in 25 Mp mode vs. 12-bit in 100 Mp mode.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SkySteve83]

That is not what I see. I see finer cleaner and better defined micro detail from M3P than what I can achieve in Lr from M4P 25MP DNG files. How can you say that the details of M4P are not razor sharp and at the same time that they are vast improvement over M3P? What criteria are you using? What am I missing?

Having a 100MP image will give me many more options in post-production. The images I looked at on my screen from the web links look far better than what I'm getting from my M3P. I'm just tired of the 5k images from the Mavic 3 for the work I'm trying to do. I've tried uprezing with Topaz AI, but they are still far from great. I know I should be using an Alta with my Sony A7R4, but I just can't justify that cost for the bulk of my shoots. Hoping the higher resolution on the new M4 will be a step in the right direction, and from what I looked at on the images he uploaded, they looked very good to me.

 

[SkySteve83]

100% agree. I am just "sensitive" when someone wants to probably justify his decision to get M4P by stating something and nonsesically contradicting himself at the same time.

I agree I'd love to have a Mavic 4 and do my own tests, but all I can do is look at what other people are uploading. Hopefully, more people will continue to offer raw files that we can download and process ourselves. I don't see any contradiction, but maybe my points were poorly communicated. I'd love to see a cityscape at 100MP and 25MP (what I assume is the sensor's native resolution). The vertical stitching of panoramas should also work very well for most of my needs if any lens distortion is well-controlled.

Also, for my needs, if it has any advantages at all, it's easy to justify the purchase. The new, larger, and brighter screen on the controller alone will be a major improvement for me. The ability to have obstacle avoidance in low light is also very useful for me.

 

[SkySteve83]

That is not what I see. I see finer cleaner and better defined micro detail from M3P than what I can achieve in Lr from M4P 25MP DNG files. How can you say that the details of M4P are not razor sharp and at the same time that they are vast improvement over M3P? What criteria are you using? What am I missing?

No, the images I looked at from the M4P were not razor sharp, but the images I'm getting from my M3P are worse. Hope that clears it up.

Sorry for being long-winded, but it's very frustrating to have to work with prosumer gear. As I've said many times before, I wish Sony had kept working on improving their drone. Less convenient but uncompromised image quality.

 

[ps.jpg]

Can someone post a link to a few DNG samples from the 28mm camera, please. Taken in both 100 and 25 MP modes and in 4:3 full frame ratio. Preferably shots of a daytime citiscape.

DNG files

 

[KS-6]

Having a 100MP image will give me many more options in post-production. The images I looked at on my screen from the web links look far better than what I'm getting from my M3P. I'm just tired of the 5k images from the Mavic 3 for the work I'm trying to do. I've tried uprezing with Topaz AI, but they are still far from great. I know I should be using an Alta with my Sony A7R4, but I just can't justify that cost for the bulk of my shoots. Hoping the higher resolution on the new M4 will be a step in the right direction, and from what I looked at on the images he uploaded, they looked very good to me.

From the few samples I have played with that have a well centered camera, I think files from the 28mm camera will uprez to 50MP nicely in PS raw, never been a fan of Topaz’s output. 100MP does not look as good, it’s just a bit too much in my opinion.

We all have to weigh our own wants and needs to see if it is worth it so what I did is look at the files as if I were buying a drone for the first time and ask my self, based on what I need from it, would I be satisfied with the output and in looking at those files I said yes without hesitation. Good drone photography requires skill, forethought and imagination, you simply can’t rely on the hardware and software to do it all for you, one has to meet it half way.

So for me, the cameras if well centered like Meta-4’s are, the massive increase in top speed, vertical speed, battery life and much bigger display on the controller all solidly say yes, this is worth the upgrade, even at the more expensive price my B&H preorder sits at.

All I can do at this point is wait and see if the darn order fills.

 

[Filmarik]

No, the images I looked at from the M4P were not razor sharp, but the images I'm getting from my M3P are worse. Hope that clears it up.

Sorry for being long-winded, but it's very frustrating to have to work with prosumer gear. As I've said many times before, I wish Sony had kept working on improving their drone. Less convenient but uncompromised image quality.

Thanks for taking your time to clarify your previous post.
I downloaded the sample DNG file of Tallinn town posted here earlier and spent time in Lr evaluating it. I played with the 25MP version which is the true native resolution of this sensor. Firstly there is a zone on right size of the frame where the tower of the white church is which is visibly blurry. Lens issue? While the photo overall looks nice, upon close examination the fine organic details (tree foliage, grass, boulders..) look like a watercolor painting. I know it is hard to judge from one image but the fine detail looks like detail from A3S drone with the same QB type sensor. I also agree that DNG files from M3P do not look tack sharp but raw files from any DSLR camera do not look very sharp either. They require processing and some degree of sharpening to be applied. With my M3P I use DxO PureRaw in my workflow as a first step and I can only say WOW. I'd suggest to you to give this little gem piece of software a try. I have the Lens Softness OFF in it and use Lr sharpening instead with parameters 70 05 35. Before delivering to my clients or printing, as a last step in Ps I sharpen very gently (only applying tiny amount of Smart sharpening to Luminosity Channel using Lab Colorspace). To my eyes the results are quite spectacular. I see naturally looking and clearly defined extremely fine detail. I was not able to achieve this level of clarity with the 25MP file from M4P no matter what. I know this opinion is only based on one photo and I am not suggesting that it is conclusive but I have to say that I was expecting to see markable improvement or step up in IQ from M4P and I did not see it when playing with this photo.
Combination of 28mm lens and only 3:2 ratio output limits the vertical angle of view quite significantly on M4P and this played a big role in my decision to stick with M3P for a time being.

From the few samples I have played with that have a well centered camera, I think files from the 28mm camera will uprez to 50MP nicely in PS raw, never been a fan of Topaz’s output. 100MP does not look as good, it’s just a bit too much in my opinion.

We all have to weigh our own wants and needs to see if it is worth it so what I did is look at the files as if I were buying a drone for the first time and ask my self, based on what I need from it, would I be satisfied with the output and in looking at those files I said yes without hesitation. Good drone photography requires skill, forethought and imagination, you simply can’t rely on the hardware and software to do it all for you, one has to meet it half way.

So for me, the cameras if well centered like Meta-4’s are, the massive increase in top speed, vertical speed, battery life and much bigger display on the controller all solidly say yes, this is worth the upgrade, even at the more expensive price my B&H preorder sits at.

All I can do at this point is wait and see if the darn order fills.

Congrats to making the leap! I look forward to hearing from you once you get it.

 

[SkySteve83]

Thanks for taking your time to clarify your previous post.
I downloaded the sample DNG file of Tallinn town posted here earlier and spent time in Lr evaluating it. I played with the 25MP version which is the true native resolution of this sensor. Firstly there is a zone on right size of the frame where the tower of the white church is which is visibly blurry. Lens issue? While the photo overall looks nice, upon close examination the fine organic details (tree foliage, grass, boulders..) look like a watercolor painting. I know it is hard to judge from one image but the fine detail looks like detail from A3S drone with the same QB type sensor. I also agree that DNG files from M3P do not look tack sharp but raw files from any DSLR camera do not look very sharp either. They require processing and some degree of sharpening to be applied. With my M3P I use DxO PureRaw in my workflow as a first step and I can only say WOW. I'd suggest to you to give this little gem piece of software a try. I have the Lens Softness OFF in it and use Lr sharpening instead with parameters 70 05 35. Before delivering to my clients or printing, as a last step in Ps I sharpen very gently (only applying tiny amount of Smart sharpening to Luminosity Channel using Lab Colorspace). To my eyes the results are quite spectacular. I see naturally looking and clearly defined extremely fine detail. I was not able to achieve this level of clarity with the 25MP file from M4P no matter what. I know this opinion is only based on one photo and I am not suggesting that it is conclusive but I have to say that I was expecting to see markable improvement or step up in IQ from M4P and I did not see it when playing with this photo.
Combination of 28mm lens and only 3:2 ratio output limits the vertical angle of view quite significantly on M4P and this played a big role in my decision to stick with M3P for a time being.

Congrats to making the leap! I look forward to hearing from you once you get it.

Thanks for your detailed explanation of your process. I have found the results from my M3P have been mixed. Sometimes sharp and other times soft. But overall the files are too small. I'm going to download and look at the latest DNGs that have been posted by PS.JPG and see what they look like. Could be my M3P lens is just not a great one. There is no question that there are many variables when shooting; from where we focus to wind knocking the camera around, to what f-stop we are using. Or I'm just expecting too much from a tiny lens on a M4/3 camera, which means the M4 may not be much better in the end, or worse if you're right about the quad-bayer sensor. I think we still have a bit of time before we take delivery, so more research will help.

 

[UAVquadman]

Thanks for your detailed explanation of your process. I have found the results from my M3P have been mixed. Sometimes sharp and other times soft. But overall the files are too small. I'm going to download and look at the latest DNGs that have been posted by PS.JPG and see what they look like. Could be my M3P lens is just not a great one. There is no question that there are many variables when shooting; from where we focus to wind knocking the camera around, to what f-stop we are using. Or I'm just expecting too much from a tiny lens on a M4/3 camera, which means the M4 may not be much better in the end, or worse if you're right about the quad-bayer sensor. I think we still have a bit of time before we take delivery, so more research will help.

I find for photos on the M3P telephoto cameras, the color accuracy is poor especially ocean shots. I did my best on this shot to get the colors right but with the main camera is easy with better results.

 

[Filmarik]

Thanks for your detailed explanation of your process. I have found the results from my M3P have been mixed. Sometimes sharp and other times soft. But overall the files are too small. I'm going to download and look at the latest DNGs that have been posted by PS.JPG and see what they look like. Could be my M3P lens is just not a great one. There is no question that there are many variables when shooting; from where we focus to wind knocking the camera around, to what f-stop we are using. Or I'm just expecting too much from a tiny lens on a M4/3 camera, which means the M4 may not be much better in the end, or worse if you're right about the quad-bayer sensor. I think we still have a bit of time before we take delivery, so more research will help.

The lens variability is a massive issue with these tiny cameras. IMHO it is bigger than DJI and users are willing to admit. I get it that vast majority of users are happy with the photos and videos they see on their smarphones because they do not subject them to the same level of scrutiny the small minority of people here do. These are consumer or at best prosumer drones after all. The very few people on this forum who use these drones for work have higher treshold level for what's acceptable and what's not and that has been sorce of a few misunderstandings here in the past...
As for my workflow and processing there is more parameters in Lr which need to be set right for the best possible outcome to be achieved. I have created user presets for each of the 3 cameras including custom camera color profiles using X-rite colorchecker passport and my results are very consistent from all 3 cameras. The variability in sharpness, especially where there is not a dominant subject AF can lock on, is from my experience caused by AF misfocussing marginally. Therefore I use MF where it is safe to do. My particular M3P needs different setting for each camera. The 7x needs the cursor on the focusing scale to be 4 bars below infinty. At infinity the photos are soft and blurred. That is just one example of a small detail which when overlooked will degrade significantly IQ, and can easily sway people to reach a wrong conclusion.

 

[wco81]

If the tele cameras are noticeably inferior to the main camera, why bother including them and weighing down the aircraft?

Because most of the people buying these kinds of devices are content with photos from their phones so they're very critical. If you can get out photos or videos which would go on social media, that's what they mostly care about.

But the Mavic line is positioned and priced as capable of producing quality images. Yet they make a big part of this Mavic 4 Pro about vertical shooting.

Ugh.

 

[Filmarik]

If the tele cameras are noticeably inferior to the main camera, why bother including them and weighing down the aircraft?

Because most of the people buying these kinds of devices are content with photos from their phones so they're very critical. If you can get out photos or videos which would go on social media, that's what they mostly care about.

But the Mavic line is positioned and priced as capable of producing quality images. Yet they make a big part of this Mavic 4 Pro about vertical shooting.

Ugh.

Not sure what you are trying to say.. Age 125 might have something to do with it, perhaps ??

 

[gianlucaballoni]

...and here we are again, even on the mavic4pro you have to be (perhaps) lucky enough to have a unit with the main lens centered, otherwise we are back to the usual, photos with blurry edges. This thing is starting to tire me. I have given a lot to dji and essentially it has given me machines that have allowed me to do beautiful, creative work and has given me the opportunity to express myself as I wanted on a photographic level (yes, alas I am more of a photographer than anything else), but it is not possible that in front of a new jewel of technology (because these drones, thinking carefully about what they do and how they fly, are small works of art of technology at prices, all in all, accessible to more or less everyone), as is this new mavic 4 pro, the problem of the non-centered lenses continues not to be addressed once and for all. And dji would have all the means and all the ways to be able to check the centering of the lenses, only that it continues not to do so. Unfortunately I see that we photographers are always the ones who get angry about this problem and it makes me think that if dji continues not to address the problem, I believe that most dji users use their drones for videos, where the non-centering of the lenses causes "less" damage than it does in photos. I don't know what to think, honestly for my work I would gladly take the 4 pro (creator) and basically I am also "happy" with its price, which is not hyper galactic as many thought, only that I get pissed off that, I spend over € 3500, all happy when the drone arrives, all happy I go to fly and take photos and then... and then you can find the edges blurred (and not just the edges sometimes). How do we put it? Let's say that DJI does what it wants, because it has no competition and sells drones as if nothing were happening.

 

[SkySteve83]

...and here we are again, even on the mavic4pro you have to be (perhaps) lucky enough to have a unit with the main lens centered, otherwise we are back to the usual, photos with blurry edges. This thing is starting to tire me. I have given a lot to dji and essentially it has given me machines that have allowed me to do beautiful, creative work and has given me the opportunity to express myself as I wanted on a photographic level (yes, alas I am more of a photographer than anything else), but it is not possible that in front of a new jewel of technology (because these drones, thinking carefully about what they do and how they fly, are small works of art of technology at prices, all in all, accessible to more or less everyone), as is this new mavic 4 pro, the problem of the non-centered lenses continues not to be addressed once and for all. And dji would have all the means and all the ways to be able to check the centering of the lenses, only that it continues not to do so. Unfortunately I see that we photographers are always the ones who get angry about this problem and it makes me think that if dji continues not to address the problem, I believe that most dji users use their drones for videos, where the non-centering of the lenses causes "less" damage than it does in photos. I don't know what to think, honestly for my work I would gladly take the 4 pro (creator) and basically I am also "happy" with its price, which is not hyper galactic as many thought, only that I get pissed off that, I spend over € 3500, all happy when the drone arrives, all happy I go to fly and take photos and then... and then you can find the edges blurred (and not just the edges sometimes). How do we put it? Let's say that DJI does what it wants, because it has no competition and sells drones as if nothing were happening.

Well yes, at this point DJI has no competition at the $5000 price point. The software and tech are amazing, but the camera is mediocre at best for high quality photography. My ten year old Panasonic m4/3 pocket camera with its Panasonic 14mm 2.8 lens delivers much sharper images from edge to edge. There is no reason they can’t put that kind of quality on a Mavic if they wanted to, but mid level video shooters don’t see the difference. Even the Inspire seems to be handicapped for quality still photography. Sony had the right idea but I guess the market was too small and the technical challenges too expensive to make it worth pursuing.