DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Camera Bit Depth Specs Available Anywhere?

jclarkw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
139
Reactions
26
Age
23
Location
USA
I'd like to know the number of bits "per color channel" available for DNG images from the various Mavic Mini and Air models. In other words, are some better than others for digging into highlights and shadows with image-processing software like Adobe Lightroom Classic?

I'm comparing in particular the Mavic Mini 3 Pro, Mavic Air 2S, and Mavic Air 3 in comparison to my existing Mavic Air 2, but a table of bit depth for as many DJI drones as available would be of interest to me and perhaps to others here. -- jclarkw
 
  • Like
Reactions: WanderLost
I'd like to know the number of bits "per color channel" available for DNG images from the various Mavic Mini and Air models. In other words, are some better than others for digging into highlights and shadows with image-processing software like Adobe Lightroom Classic?

I'm comparing in particular the Mavic Mini 3 Pro, Mavic Air 2S, and Mavic Air 3 in comparison to my existing Mavic Air 2, but a table of bit depth for as many DJI drones as available would be of interest to me and perhaps to others here. -- jclarkw
It would be useful information to have - although so much post-processing goes into making decent videos, it's hard to know how much was the camera and how much was the processing program.
It's common to compare digital cameras this way since it's bragging rights and engineering prowess that keep competitors chasing ever improving DR.
I did find a dynamic range test for some DJI products:
Zenmuse X7 chart below. It's results may give some inkling about the capabilities of drone sensors among DJI products.
The Ronin 4D is spec'd at 14+ stops of DR.
Phantom 4 - 11.8
Phantom 4 Pro - 12.5
Zenmuse X5S - 12.7
Mavic 3 Cine - 12.8
Mavic 2 Pro - 14 (!) 10 bit D-log
Mavic 3 Pro - 12.8 (Main camera) 10 bit D-log
Mini 3 Pro - 10 bit D-log

ZenmuseDR.jpg
 
It would be useful information to have - although so much post-processing goes into making decent videos, it's hard to know how much was the camera and how much was the processing program...
Just a clarification: I was asking about still photographs, not video, in case that makes any difference. Best Regards -- jclarkw
 
Dynamic range - the number of stops, and bit depth are 2 separate issues.

Bit depth controls the number of brightness levels that can be represented between total black and pure white that can be represented no matter what the dynamic range is.

Most DJI Drones have 8 bit color. Some may go with 10 bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jclarkw
If you use Photoshop, it will tell you bit depth of the file at the end of the filename in the display. You can also go to Image menu and look under Mode and it will be displayed at the bottom with a checkmark on the bit depth of your file.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2023-09-17 at 8.45.04 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2023-09-17 at 8.45.04 AM.png
    26.1 KB · Views: 6
  • Like
Reactions: WanderLost
From my background of film SLR use and training, the above comments open a Pandora's box of questions. At the risk of boring everyone, here are the ones I've though of so far:

1) Bit Depth -- This, at least, is easily quantifiable and, if I understand correctly, tells the maximum possible dynamic range of a file (1 additional bit ideally equivalent to 1 F-stop). Right?
2) Dynamic Range (DR below for short) -- This depends on the sensor itself (and the electronics, processing, etc.) in some way that I don't fully understand. Clearly DR is what we really care about, but it's more difficult for the user to measure in the absence of a physical variable diaphragm. I hadn't thought about it, but I suppose the exposure can greatly affect DR, since overexposure kills the upper end of DR (sensor can't react to differences there). Similarly underexposure kills the lower end of DR. Right?
3) D-Log -- This is entirely new to me. Is it just using the electronics (or processing?) to pack more DR into the same number of bits with logarithmic scaling? If so, doesn't it dramatically vary the brightness resolution over from low to high brightness? How to you make the result look realistic in subsequent image processing?
4) ISO -- This is something I've never understood in digital cameras. (I know from experience that increasing ISO increases the noise level. In film this is because high-ISO films use larger grain size.) What's actually going on (in the electronics and processing?) that allows the same chip to appear more light-sensitive in the absence of an physical variable diaphragm?

Obviously I'm suffering from a lot of ignorance here! I come from a physics background (through college), so I ought to be teachable without too much effort. Can somebody address each of these four questions for me (albeit briefly), or at least point me to a good reference that explains them? -- jclarkw
 
From my background of film SLR use and training, the above comments open a Pandora's box of questions. At the risk of boring everyone, here are the ones I've though of so far:

1) Bit Depth -- This, at least, is easily quantifiable and, if I understand correctly, tells the maximum possible dynamic range of a file (1 additional bit ideally equivalent to 1 F-stop). Right?
2) Dynamic Range (DR below for short) -- This depends on the sensor itself (and the electronics, processing, etc.) in some way that I don't fully understand. Clearly DR is what we really care about, but it's more difficult for the user to measure in the absence of a physical variable diaphragm. I hadn't thought about it, but I suppose the exposure can greatly affect DR, since overexposure kills the upper end of DR (sensor can't react to differences there). Similarly underexposure kills the lower end of DR. Right?
3) D-Log -- This is entirely new to me. Is it just using the electronics (or processing?) to pack more DR into the same number of bits with logarithmic scaling? If so, doesn't it dramatically vary the brightness resolution over from low to high brightness? How to you make the result look realistic in subsequent image processing?
4) ISO -- This is something I've never understood in digital cameras. (I know from experience that increasing ISO increases the noise level. In film this is because high-ISO films use larger grain size.) What's actually going on (in the electronics and processing?) that allows the same chip to appear more light-sensitive in the absence of an physical variable diaphragm?

Obviously I'm suffering from a lot of ignorance here! I come from a physics background (through college), so I ought to be teachable without too much effort. Can somebody address each of these four questions for me (albeit briefly), or at least point me to a good reference that explains them? -- jclarkw
Well, you might read these explanations from cambridgeincolour.com
They are well written and easy to understand:

1) Bit depth: Bit Depth
2) Dynamic range: Understanding Dynamic Range in Digital Photography
4) ISO and noise: Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types
 
  • Like
Reactions: jclarkw and SethB
From my background of film SLR use and training, the above comments open a Pandora's box of questions. At the risk of boring everyone, here are the ones I've though of so far:

1) Bit Depth -- This, at least, is easily quantifiable and, if I understand correctly, tells the maximum possible dynamic range of a file (1 additional bit ideally equivalent to 1 F-stop). Right?
2) Dynamic Range (DR below for short) -- This depends on the sensor itself (and the electronics, processing, etc.) in some way that I don't fully understand. Clearly DR is what we really care about, but it's more difficult for the user to measure in the absence of a physical variable diaphragm. I hadn't thought about it, but I suppose the exposure can greatly affect DR, since overexposure kills the upper end of DR (sensor can't react to differences there). Similarly underexposure kills the lower end of DR. Right?
3) D-Log -- This is entirely new to me. Is it just using the electronics (or processing?) to pack more DR into the same number of bits with logarithmic scaling? If so, doesn't it dramatically vary the brightness resolution over from low to high brightness? How to you make the result look realistic in subsequent image processing?
4) ISO -- This is something I've never understood in digital cameras. (I know from experience that increasing ISO increases the noise level. In film this is because high-ISO films use larger grain size.) What's actually going on (in the electronics and processing?) that allows the same chip to appear more light-sensitive in the absence of an physical variable diaphragm?

Obviously I'm suffering from a lot of ignorance here! I come from a physics background (through college), so I ought to be teachable without too much effort. Can somebody address each of these four questions for me (albeit briefly), or at least point me to a good reference that explains them? -- jclarkw
I apologize if I have completely failed at your "briefly" request. I tried to make it understandable from a photographers point of view - which is where I have the most experience and how I came to drones.

1. Bit depth matters when the analog input is converted to digital. Higher numbers mean more steps. For example - 8 bit video can show 16.7 million colors while 10 bit can display 1.07 billion colors.
While this may sound like a lot, areas of solid color like forests, lakes and sky may have tiny differences in color and banding will show with the usual .jpg compression at lower bit depth. Which is another reason to shoot RAW as much as possible.

2. Dynamic range is the combination of sensor range and electronic post processing in a digital camera system. It ranges from where the darkest blacks merge with the noise and up to the whitest whites that saturated the sensor where no increases can be measured. Again, shooting in RAW will provide the greatest dynamic range.

3. D-log is a special curve that tries to carefully pack the exposure of your video into the broadest range so detail is not lost in the shadows and highlights aren’t overblown. The videos straight out of the camera look flat and this is on purpose so you can post process by adding saturation and contrast, etc., until you get the desired look. Also, if you are stitching videos, it’s much easier to process if you have room to increase the saturation and contrast without exceeding the limits of dynamic range in the photo/video and have the stitched parts match in color.
Some people are happy with the DJI processed video which uses a color profile that is already saturated and contrasty. If you wanted to further process that video, you may find that there’s no room to add without exceeding the dynamic range hence the reason why photographers/videographers want to shoot in the flatter color profiles.

4. Increasing the ISO doesn’t introduce any magic into the process. It merely takes the base ISO sensitivity of the sensor - which doesn’t change - and amplifies it. Just like turning up the volume on your stereo, you’re not making the source any louder, just increasing the gain.
As you increase the gain of the signal (video or audio) you also amplify the noise until the noise is as loud or louder than the signal. That’s why there are upper limits for noise free video/photos depending on the sensor and the chip processing.
Generally, larger sensors which have larger photosites can capture more photons per pixel making for a larger signal to noise ratio and thus make available higher noise free ISOs.
As sensor sizes are reduced, more in camera post processing occurs to fend off noise and loss of dynamic range and bit depth which can sometimes make pictures or videos look plasticky and fake.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: js47 and jclarkw
Great stuff, All! It will take me some time to digest...

WanderLost -- Especially good explanation of ISO in the digital realm. One question (so far): In your answer (1), might you be mixing the terms, "Bit Depth" and "Dynamic Range?" For example, in "the graph [you] posted above, the ordinate (vertical coordinate) is labeled "Dynamic Range," not bit depth.

Again, great stuff! -- jclarkw
 
Great stuff, All! It will take me some time to digest...

WanderLost -- Especially good explanation of ISO in the digital realm. One question (so far): In your answer (1), might you be mixing the terms, "Bit Depth" and "Dynamic Range?" For example, in "the graph [you] posted above, the ordinate (vertical coordinate) is labeled "Dynamic Range," not bit depth.

Again, great stuff! -- jclarkw
Ah - yes - good eye there! I fixed my post.
 
FYI, I found the following slide, reputed to be provided by DJI engineers, about how the Air 3 camera sensors works.
Slide3.jpg
It suggests that 12-bit "dynamic range" is available for internal image processing and might also be available directly for still photos in DNG format. Anybody know? -- jclarkw
 
If you use Photoshop, it will tell you bit depth of the file at the end of the filename in the display. You can also go to Image menu and look under Mode and it will be displayed at the bottom with a checkmark on the bit depth of your file.
Dear MavicAir2Marc -- This does not seem to be right, although I'm a newbie on Photoshop and may be doing something wrong. The filename heading does indeed report the bit depth of the file, but what if the two bytes are not fully used by a true bit depth of 10- or 12-bits/color channel?

I have some Tiff and DNG sources that are supposed to have such bit depths, but they don't seem to be reported as such. One thing I really need is a way to determine what the actual bit depths are in these images.

Photoshop Help Needed Here Please: Further, the Eyedropper tool reports pixel point values in the Info panel as either 8-bit (between 0 and 255) or 16-bit (between 0 and 32767?!), depending on which range(s) are chosen in the pull-down menu. See example from a Tiff file where the eyedropper points to a bright patch of snow:

Photoshop Question.png

Both cannot be correct, as a point that reads, for example B: 243 on the left side also reads B: 31290 on the right. This raises the question, "How does one get absolute binary pixel values with this tool?"

Any further help much appreciated! -- jclarkw
 
If you click on the menu icon on the palette on the upper right, it ill tell you what the info palette is displaying, it could be RGB, CMYK, hexadecimal, anything. The options for that palette will tell you what the numbers represent. Photoshop only does 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit . 10 bit and 12 bit are usually video color spaces, I have yet to see digital photography from a client that is not 8 or 16 bit color. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but as far as I know, I've never seen that. If it does, chances are it would be converted down to 8 bit when opened in Photoshop.
 
If you click on the menu icon on the palette on the upper right, it ill tell you what the info palette is displaying, it could be RGB, CMYK, hexadecimal, anything. The options for that palette will tell you what the numbers represent. Photoshop only does 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit . 10 bit and 12 bit are usually video color spaces, I have yet to see digital photography from a client that is not 8 or 16 bit color. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but as far as I know, I've never seen that. If it does, chances are it would be converted down to 8 bit when opened in Photoshop.
Here's the bit that bothers me most about the image I posted above: The Info palette shown there is the way it came up (with two eyedropper data sets) when I first installed Photoshop. All I changed was to change the "pull-down" menus for the two eyedropper icons there, setting both to RGB but the left one to 8-bit and the right one to 16-bit. (I haven't been able to learn much from the reference manual about what's really going on here.)

As you see, the two (R,G,B) point values displayed, apparently for the same point, are vastly different. It appears the values on the left were approximately multiplied by 128! And again there's the discrepancy mentioned in my previous post: Why 128 rather than 256? None of this make any sense to me...
 
UPDATE: FJY I was able to get the following out of DJI about the Mavic Air 3:

"Photo Color Depth:
The color depth of 12MP and 48MP JPEG photos is 8-bit
The color depth of 12MP RAW photos is 12-bit
The color depth of 48MP RAW photos 10-bit"

I don't understand why they don't put this stuff in the specs, as I would expect it to attract more serious photographers to this new drone.

I'm trying to get the same info on the Mavic Air 2 (which I still have), which also has a RAW (DNG) mode... -- jclarkw
 
  • Like
Reactions: WanderLost
UPDATE: FJY I was able to get the following out of DJI about the Mavic Air 3:

"Photo Color Depth:
The color depth of 12MP and 48MP JPEG photos is 8-bit
The color depth of 12MP RAW photos is 12-bit
The color depth of 48MP RAW photos 10-bit"

I don't understand why they don't put this stuff in the specs, as I would expect it to attract more serious photographers to this new drone.

I'm trying to get the same info on the Mavic Air 2 (which I still have), which also has a RAW (DNG) mode... -- jclarkw
Like this?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-09-29 6.58.59 PM.png
    Screenshot 2023-09-29 6.58.59 PM.png
    231.1 KB · Views: 10
UPDATE: FJY I was able to get the following out of DJI about the Mavic Air 3:

"Photo Color Depth:
The color depth of 12MP and 48MP JPEG photos is 8-bit
The color depth of 12MP RAW photos is 12-bit
The color depth of 48MP RAW photos 10-bit"

I don't understand why they don't put this stuff in the specs, as I would expect it to attract more serious photographers to this new drone.

I'm trying to get the same info on the Mavic Air 2 (which I still have), which also has a RAW (DNG) mode... -- jclarkw
FYI, I was finally able to obtain similar information on the Mavic Air 2:

"JPEG color depth sampling is 8-bit, and DNG color depth sampling is 10-bit while the Chroma sampling is 420."

Gratifying that they could get 10-bit DNGs from the old Air 2, though I don't know what the "Chroma sampling" means.

I have now verified that the DNG file from the Air 2 does indeed give more dynamic range for editing than the JPEG file. Great news! -- jclarkw
 
Last edited:
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,132
Messages
1,560,149
Members
160,105
Latest member
anton13