Better stills from the Mavic

[gnirtS]

I wasn't aware Color style had any effect on RAW images.

It shouldn't/doesn't.
HOWEVER, there was a bug with previous firmwares which meant the profile had no effect on the RAW at all (correct behaviour) EXCEPT when D-Log was selected. D-log selected effectively underexposed the RAW image by 1.3 stops or so resulting in lots of noise when you tried to pull it back.
This might have been fixed or might not as i haven't tested. I stopped using D-log in video for the reason that if i take a quick photo it'd be ruined by the above bug.

 

[Skippy905]

If you're just taking stills, why the filters? Seems to me you'd want as much light as possible on the sensor. Unless you're also shooting video, and it's just a matter of convenience.

If I'm just shooting stills I will rarely use filters to be honest. There is only a few situations where I would put a filter on, and usually an ND 4 or 8 only. Usually when I know I have parts of the photo that are just going to be too blown out if I try and get other parts of the photo to be correct. Perhaps something like white building in the sun or to give a nicer look to the sky.

 

[wxperson]

The Mavic camera isn't the best, as we all know, but it is a compromise I was willing to accept. The stills (from RAW) are usable for lots of purposes, but not for large prints. If you are handy with Photoshop, though, here's a recipe for improving resolution.

Exposure: low sensor speed (ISO), RAW, histogram maxed to the right just short of clipping. Shoot bursts of 5 or 7, perhaps multiple times. If subjects aren't moving, the Mavic is amazingly stable--enough to give images that can be aligned easily in PS. For more challenging situations, PhotoAcute may work better.

Pre-process 5 to 25 files in ACR or Lightroom, leaving sharpness low. In ACR, set resolution at least double the initial file size. If you use LR, you will have to uprez in PS. You may have to use lots of perspective control to get things looking straight, or even Transform the finished file later in PS.

Open all in PS (CC or CS6 Extended), then File-Scripts-Load open files-Create Smart Object-Attempt to Align. Then Layer-Smart Object-Stack Mode-Mean. A small bit of Smart Sharpening and perhaps some High Pass filtering and you should have a better file. It may be huge since the Smart Object contains all the open files, so flatten at some point or save as a .PSB if it's over 2GB.

If your PS version doesn't support stack statistics, try Affinity Photo--MUCH cheaper, and very capable. In some instances PhotoAcute will give better resolution and manages subject motion by using parts of the first file in the stack; it is no longer supported, though, and may not be available much longer.

Besides giving better resolution, stack averaging minimizes or even completely eliminates noise. You can pull more shadow detail as well. In a pinch you can then use higher ISO settings and still get noise levels down, but with a loss of dynamic range. You make the call.

Yeah, it's a PITA but worth it for the files you want to impress with.

I have Photoshop. What is the function to merge photos?

 

[Brojon]

Files > Scripts > Load Files into Stack

 

[Roamer105]

Shooting RAW, using ISO 100, Auto White Balance, Colour is D-Log, Style is where I am not sure at the moment (Don't have drone with me to connect), but I believe it is +1, -1,-1 but I will check on that.

When you shoot RAW, color filter and style have no impact. RAW is exactly what is read of the sensor.

 

[Skippy905]

When you shoot RAW, color filter and style have no impact. RAW is exactly what is read of the sensor.

Yes. You are correct. I was reading that off my video settings

 

[ConnyO]

Here's a screen shot comparing a stack done in PhotoAcute with a single image uprezzed to 47 Mp. Contrast and color are a bit different because the single shot was minimally processed. This is the far upper left of the frame where the Mavic camera quality is worst.


View attachment 21327

What camera and lens settings do you use in PhotoAcute?

 

[Blacksmith]

What camera and lens settings do you use in PhotoAcute?

You will get best results with a matching profile (which we don't have) but it doesn't matter too much if you can find a camera and focal length close to the Mavic's. I don't recall what I used but it was a low-megapixel compact. Try a few and see what works best. When the profile is way off you will find more pronounced very fine artificial details, but you have to really zoom in to find them objectionable. I find that 8 to 12 shots works well; PA accepts up to 32, but more than 15 just increases processing time with no discernible benefit. Averaging in Photoshop gives cleaner files on a microscale, but PhotoAcute is better at aligning.

 

[Brojon]

You will get best results with a matching profile (which we don't have) but it doesn't matter too much if you can find a camera and focal length close to the Mavic's.

Just as an FYI the latest Corel Paintshop Pro has lens profiles for Dji cameras. You could import the RAW and export as TIFF which I assume the product can handle.

 

[Blacksmith]

Just as an FYI the latest Corel Paintshop Pro has lens profiles for Dji cameras. You could import the RAW and export as TIFF which I assume the product can handle.

Unfortunately, these aren't the profiles PhotoAcute uses. From files sent by users, presumably with camera profiles applied in whatever RAW converter was used, PA staff produce their own "profiles" which are designed to work best with PA. But as I mentioned, if you pick a lens/camera combination in PA close to the characteristics of the Mavic, results will be good. If you want to play, try other combinations.

 

[Brojon]

Ummm - This is how you apply a lens correction when your program doesn't support it. You use one that DOES and save it out in a format that doesn't degrade or compress the image. Then you use the corrected image in your app.
You import into Paintshop Pro using the supplied profile - when you save it out as an uncompressed TIFF then the profile has been applied to the new image. You can even do it as a batch process. Profile based corrections don't just go up in smoke when the image is saved.
In fact the proper way to handle images would be to use the XMP sidecar files that detail image corrections. Photoshop, Paintshop, Lightroom and others use this technique - some can even embed the sidecar file into the RAW.

 

[Blacksmith]

Ummm - This is how you apply a lens correction when your program doesn't support it. You use one that DOES and save it out in a format that doesn't degrade or compress the image. Then you use the corrected image in your app.
You import into Paintshop Pro using the supplied profile - when you save it out as an uncompressed TIFF then the profile has been applied to the new image. You can even do it as a batch process. Profile based corrections don't just go up in smoke when the image is saved.
In fact the proper way to handle images would be to use the XMP sidecar files that detail image corrections. Photoshop, Paintshop, Lightroom and others use this technique - some can even embed the sidecar file into the RAW.

First, you are correct, for lens/camera profiles. Second, these are not the corrections PA needs. I don't know what goes on under the hood, but I'm assuming PA derives a kind of profile from individual camera/lens combinations that is used in an estimated single image deconvolution. When PA was still supported, users were welcome to submit images to help develop those profiles. When adding files for processing in PA it is probably assumed that lens corrections have been applied in RAW conversion and then included in the image file when saved by the RAW converter.

The above may not be strictly correct (or even close, for that matter) but if one is motivated, the effects of including lens correction or not in LR (or whatever RAW converter one uses) could be checked easily to see if PA is double profiling. Still, the bottom line is that PA doesn't know anything about Mavic files except through whatever PA lens/camera combinations you have selected. One needs to play around to find a combo that gives cleanest output.

 

[Brojon]

First, you are correct, for lens/camera profiles. Second, these are not the corrections PA needs. I don't know what goes on under the hood, but I'm assuming PA derives a kind of profile from individual camera/lens combinations that is used in an estimated single image deconvolution. When PA was still supported, users were welcome to submit images to help develop those profiles. When adding files for processing in PA it is probably assumed that lens corrections have been applied in RAW conversion and then included in the image file when saved by the RAW converter.

The above may not be strictly correct (or even close, for that matter) but if one is motivated, the effects of including lens correction or not in LR (or whatever RAW converter one uses) could be checked easily to see if PA is double profiling. Still, the bottom line is that PA doesn't know anything about Mavic files except through whatever PA lens/camera combinations you have selected. One needs to play around to find a combo that gives cleanest output.

Given your disclaimers I'm not sure why you would discredit the standard understanding of lens/camera profiles.
A pixel is a pixel - the manner in which it is captured is subject to the lens, sensor and camera processing (such as Bayer demosaicing). That is exactly what camera profiles such as what Adobe, Corel, DxO and others use to correct the image since they are known and measurable qualities.
Now you mention deconvolution which is widely used to remove image blurring. It has at its root a point spread function that is usually derived by trial and error. Perhaps this is the "profile" they are assigning to each lens/camera combination.
That would make sense - especially since you're effectively guessing at it by selecting random "profiles" until you find one that works well enough.
It'd be interesting to see the code for this thing...