What's the biggest difference between going 2.7k and 24fps or 30fps? I've settled on liking the 2.7k cine +1, 0 (or -1), 0, but trying to figure out the best fps.
2.7 or 4k?
- Thread starter Ziggy01
- Start date
What's the biggest difference between going 2.7k and 24fps or 30fps? I've settled on liking the 2.7k cine +1, 0 (or -1), 0, but trying to figure out the best fps.
dsmpampis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2017
- Messages
- 173
- Reactions
- 130
- Age
- 39
If you want to have a cinematic look then shoot at 24fps if not then stick with 30fps.
I can't use 30fps because I'm shooting on PAL and the options are 24 or 25. But I like the cinematic/movie look.
SteelFlyer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2017
- Messages
- 339
- Reactions
- 205
- Age
- 62
I did a bunch of tests and agree with most everyone here that 2.7K yields a better result than 4K. I also have found +1 on the sharpness to be the ticket to eliminating the internal noise reduction. As for profile, I prefer Art. It's very close to D-Cinelike after grading but I find it a touch better (more realistic color and better overall saturation). So my formula is:
Art, +1,0,0 2.7K . 24 fps
Art, +1,0,0 2.7K . 24 fps
Thank you all and I promise that this is NOT directed at anyone in particular as everyone here is very cool and genuinely loves this Art/hobby.
That said, this continues to be a very frustrating subject as without actual samples (not pretty samples off youtube) but actual tests done by careful study, these opinions are just that. And at the end of this lengthy entry I will shut up and leave this thread to you good folks, but if anyone could possibly muster the interest or kindness to the the rest of us to do more than simply bark out numbers it would be much appreciated. I mean imagine how helpful it would be if just a handful of users would say "heres 2 identical scenes. 1 shot in 2k and one shot at 4k”. Or heres +1, heres -1” or heres D-Cine and heres true color". That way we could all either say definitively either nope, my 4k looks better than there 4k or everyones 2k really does look better! Now we all know the settings that seem to work best. Or wow no one is getting consistent results, or wow my Mavic isn’t acting anything like everyone else’s. As I said before it is quite possible that quality control at DJI and sensor placement is so varied that we are all needing to do different things to get the same results and thats why otherwise bright people can’t agree.
Also I said this before so excuse the redundancy, but since no one chimed in I will repeat it in hope to get some input.
I understand the common sense associated with shooting a smaller image should give you better quality based on the data rate and compression, 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 I have experienced and virtually every post I read says that 1920 x 1080 is generally an unusable setting, Why? Wouldn’t that suggest that there is more at play here than data rate and compression. In this forum alone I saw this expressed by Wacker2611 who said “ To be honest if the 1080p was useable I'd use that”
I actually had one person answer me and say. “The reason for the discrepancies is personal taste”
NO! There is a Native operating setting to every camera that will give the brightest, clearest, sharpest, best contrast and truest color reproduction period. Yes from that point if you what to desaturate, soften, add noise, a LUT, etc, cool. That’s personal taste, but everyone needs to start with the best image that that camera sensor can produce. And every professional photography and camera forum whether its REDs and ARRIs, GH4s and Sony a7s, and even the Inspire guys can generally agree on a few settings and best practices (there will of course be tweaking based on lighting conditions and subject matter, etc). But not the Mavic users. (and I am not bashing here). I love this community and the miracle that is this little bird. I am also aware that you can ask just so much from a camera, lens, sensor and a gimbal that you can fit in a golfball. Again I'm sorry I am just frustrated. In closing, if a picture is worth a 1000 words, then there are literally millions of words that are not being spoken here. And I believe in my heart that unless we can all start putting our samples where our settings are for group evaluation and comment, I fear that we will never advance this product to excellence.
Now go ahead and bash me. I am obviously not with the program.
That said, this continues to be a very frustrating subject as without actual samples (not pretty samples off youtube) but actual tests done by careful study, these opinions are just that. And at the end of this lengthy entry I will shut up and leave this thread to you good folks, but if anyone could possibly muster the interest or kindness to the the rest of us to do more than simply bark out numbers it would be much appreciated. I mean imagine how helpful it would be if just a handful of users would say "heres 2 identical scenes. 1 shot in 2k and one shot at 4k”. Or heres +1, heres -1” or heres D-Cine and heres true color". That way we could all either say definitively either nope, my 4k looks better than there 4k or everyones 2k really does look better! Now we all know the settings that seem to work best. Or wow no one is getting consistent results, or wow my Mavic isn’t acting anything like everyone else’s. As I said before it is quite possible that quality control at DJI and sensor placement is so varied that we are all needing to do different things to get the same results and thats why otherwise bright people can’t agree.
Also I said this before so excuse the redundancy, but since no one chimed in I will repeat it in hope to get some input.
I understand the common sense associated with shooting a smaller image should give you better quality based on the data rate and compression, 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 I have experienced and virtually every post I read says that 1920 x 1080 is generally an unusable setting, Why? Wouldn’t that suggest that there is more at play here than data rate and compression. In this forum alone I saw this expressed by Wacker2611 who said “ To be honest if the 1080p was useable I'd use that”
I actually had one person answer me and say. “The reason for the discrepancies is personal taste”
NO! There is a Native operating setting to every camera that will give the brightest, clearest, sharpest, best contrast and truest color reproduction period. Yes from that point if you what to desaturate, soften, add noise, a LUT, etc, cool. That’s personal taste, but everyone needs to start with the best image that that camera sensor can produce. And every professional photography and camera forum whether its REDs and ARRIs, GH4s and Sony a7s, and even the Inspire guys can generally agree on a few settings and best practices (there will of course be tweaking based on lighting conditions and subject matter, etc). But not the Mavic users. (and I am not bashing here). I love this community and the miracle that is this little bird. I am also aware that you can ask just so much from a camera, lens, sensor and a gimbal that you can fit in a golfball. Again I'm sorry I am just frustrated. In closing, if a picture is worth a 1000 words, then there are literally millions of words that are not being spoken here. And I believe in my heart that unless we can all start putting our samples where our settings are for group evaluation and comment, I fear that we will never advance this product to excellence.
Now go ahead and bash me. I am obviously not with the program.
But if you zoom, you lose all your quality because it uses a digital zoom as opposed to an optical one.
Not recommended at all.
Lesser quality? Hardly! 4K is 4 times the Rez of 1080P and about 2.5 times the rez of 2.7K.
And 720P is not HD it is "Medium Def" Lol!
And don't forget the digital 2X zoom is strictly digital, you lose all the quality as the pixels are just enlarged. You will not get a good picture.
The maximum bit rate of the MAVIC is 60 mbps. It decreases for the lower rez settings so again, I recommend 4K to maximize the rather poor bit rate it has to begin with.
Last edited:
MrMavic
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 660
- Reactions
- 302
- Age
- 72
Don't blame the Mavic, it produces a much better quality image at 4K. But you have to have a sufficient computer to take advantage of it.
The reason there are so many complaints with 4K is because many of us do not have the processing power (Video Card on our computer) to process 4K video. My Mac is a 2010 and it only has about half the processing power I need for 4K. I shoot 2.7 for that reason. Believe me, if you could efficiently playback the 4K, it would be better than the 2.7K
Think of it as being in a Nascar race with a 200 Horsepower engine while the rest are running 800 horse. Good luck keeping up.
I was just wondering, what do you guys use to view these movie clips. Honestly, I can't tell the difference when watching from my pc, but when I plug in the memory card into our 65" 4k Samsung TV, the 4k files are just amazing.
Kestrel
Well-Known Member
I am using a 5k iMac Retina and Da Vinci Resolve. Trust me, I look at pixels very carefully. And personally I have yet to shoot or see a piece of 2.7k that I thought was any better in any way than the 4k settings and I have done a lot of comparison testing.
My 2 cents,
rb
Kestrel
Well-Known Member
Shot with both but tend to prefer 2.7k for the majority of my stuff. Others have given all the main reasons why already, smaller file size, shorter rendering time etc. Personally, I think unless you are a professional who is trying to squeeze every bit of detail out of the footage you might as well go 2.7. 4k isn't quite the standard yet on everyone's TV's etc and there really isn't a huge amount of difference between the two, especially if you set your Mavic up properly.
I read your long comment which is kind of the same things I have been saying on other forum
On same subject.
I think you are right until I see a lab test ......
I remember the best comparation 4 years ago
Somebody took two phantom 1's
And tied them on s800 rig to lift them together and compare 2 gimbal
That's a test !!!!
Same light condition same everything.
It is hard to do, so lab test is needed
Studio condition no flying involved.
I might take the challenge. ..
One must understand about sensor native pixel
If MAVC Have A 4K Sensor then 2.7k would be croped or manipulated
This is why I don't buy the 2.7k ruommer.
Why dji can't just tell there client, "listen that the best thing you can do"
And finish this @$@@*!&&
Love the video, just amazing...... New to this myself so a big learning curve. What settings would be best to start with in your opinion. I just want to try an ensure I can grab the best shots I can.
thanks
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
I think the FAA is missing it with the 107 requirements
- Started by edmartin123
- Replies: 3
Forum statistics
