Does Mavic Shoot Video or Watercolor Paintings? Don’t settle. Get Involved!

[peros550]

If Mavic#1 isn't fixed, it would be like we paid to become their beta testers.

 

[Strafe1]

If Mavic#1 isn't fixed, it would be like we paid to become their beta testers.

Actually, this can be said for any newly designed product on the market. Early adopters is what we are called and there will always be risk with these type of purchases. I would say that this is a highly successful "beta" program considering the overall success of the Mavic and it's ability to perform as it was designed. The product can always be improved, and it should with each future upgrade, like most products do. Easier for me to say because my Mavic doesn't have the level of issues this thread describes. Regardless, I accepted the risk of being an early adopter with this purchase, as should we all. And it's great how people are finding work arounds for their specific issues, I've learned a lot from this thread should a similar issue arise with me. I hope your issues get resolved so you don't feel like you paid to be a guinea pig, because I think we all paid for a terrific piece of technology!

 

[JPMavic]

Actually, this can be said for any newly designed product on the market. Early adopters is what we are called and there will always be risk with these type of purchases. I would say that this is a highly successful "beta" program considering the overall success of the Mavic and it's ability to perform as it was designed. The product can always be improved, and it should with each future upgrade, like most products do. Easier for me to say because my Mavic doesn't have the level of issues this thread describes. Regardless, I accepted the risk of being an early adopter with this purchase, as should we all. And it's great how people are finding work arounds for their specific issues, I've learned a lot from this thread should a similar issue arise with me. I hope your issues get resolved so you don't feel like you paid to be a guinea pig, because I think we all paid for a terrific piece of technology!

I agree with you that it's an amazing piece of technology but not that we should accept it's flaws because we're early adopters. If they'd given me the thing to test for them that would be fine but I paid a shedload of cash for it & I would expect it to be tested & fit for purpose. I certainly wouldn't expect any tech, TVs, cars, to be released with the type of issues that this thing has.

 

[Strafe1]

I agree with you that it's an amazing piece of technology but not that we should accept it's flaws because we're early adopters. If they'd given me the thing to test for them that would be fine but I paid a shedload of cash for it & I would expect it to be tested & fit for purpose. I certainly wouldn't expect any tech, TVs, cars, to be released with the type of issues that this thing has.

I don't think we need to accept its flaws either. I said we accept the risk. With risk, comes the potential of problems and unmet expectations. As early adopters, we are, by definition, first time users. Maybe even testers to a degree. But I digress. If my Mavic had these major flaws I would not accept it and send it back for repair or replacement. We know DJI is doing this service, so I think I would go that route. A PITA to be sure!

 

[JPMavic]

Can't agree with you I'm afraid. I didn't accept any risk when I bought the Mavic. There was no small print that I'm aware of that stated I would be accepting any risk when I paid out for the thing. Plus I also didn't have any performance expectations other than those that the Mavic was advertised as being capable of. As for sending it in, I've read too many stories of getting back second hand, damaged, reconditioned Mavics or units with identical firmware issues. Some guys are on their 2nd, 3rd Mavic. If there's no firm statement from the manufacturer that this is a accepted problem with a bad batch of cameras or botched processors & instigate a recall, then I see very little point in sending it back.

 

[Japie.G]

Got this issue also. Do they have it all or not?

 

[Strafe1]

Got this issue also. Do they have it all or not?

They don't all have it, but it seems that many do. If you post video for others to help you determine, be sure to note the settings you used.

 

[sostengo]

I had the same issue:


This is a 100% crop. It doesnt look out of focus, it looks like a cheap Photoshop filter.

So I just calibrated/reset everything and had a test shot in my garden (not flying) and it looks much sharper (but the object is also very close to the object). Not sure if I can test it flying today.

 

[Realist123456]

I've had a bit more of a play around with this watercolour issue today. I was hoping the new firmware might have sorted it out. No luck there.
As I've mentioned before, it seems to be a function of level of detail in a scene and also light level.
Here's an example of the effect being a function of light level.
The sunlit grass under the tree looks ok but the grass in shadow has turned to mush.
I shot this on d-log -1,0,0.
I could have shot it at 000. That may have corrected the shadow detail but would have made the sunlit detail horribly digitally sharpened. I've been down that route before...
And in the shot of the sunlit trees, notice that there's a distinct level of detail above which there's definition and below which it's mush.
Once again, correcting to raise that level and get formerly mushy detail to be ok means everything that formerly was ok now becomes over sharpened.

 

[sostengo]

Got it up in the air and had everything on standard. Was using the auto focus on the white building back/center. It looks better than this morning, but still seems like its not focusing correctly? As the front parts seem to be rather in focus. Or am I expecting too much from the small sensor?

 

[Japie.G]

I've had a bit more of a play around with this watercolour issue today. I was hoping the new firmware might have sorted it out. No luck there.
As I've mentioned before, it seems to be a function of level of detail in a scene and also light level.
Here's an example of the effect being a function of light level.
The sunlit grass under the tree looks ok but the grass in shadow has turned to mush.
I shot this on d-log -1,0,0.
I could have shot it at 000. That may have corrected the shadow detail but would have made the sunlit detail horribly digitally sharpened. I've been down that route before...
And in the shot of the sunlit trees, notice that there's a distinct level of detail above which there's definition and below which it's mush.
Once again, correcting to raise that level and get formerly mushy detail to be ok means everything that formerly was ok now becomes over sharpened.

This is a great example. So it is a fact that not all mavics do this? In that case i'll send mine in for replacement, and stop testing with settings. Also examples of this happening without d-log profile?

 

[Japie.G]

100pct crops

Mavic from a friend:

My magic under same circumstances

Only difference here I was shooting in D-log, he was shooting in ART

 

[Japie.G]

100pct crops

Mavic from a friend:

My magic under same circumstances

Only difference here I was shooting in D-log, he was shooting in ART. Something wrong here. Replace?

 

[JPMavic]

Got it up in the air and had everything on standard. Was using the auto focus on the white building back/center. It looks better than this morning, but still seems like its not focusing correctly? As the front parts seem to be rather in focus. Or am I expecting too much from the small sensor?

View attachment 8313

With focus, the last few flights I've adopted what others here have suggested. It's a bit of hassle but when you get used to it it gets easier to remember. Start in auto focus. First thing after take off, get up to 40ft. Flick the camera straight down. Touch to focus, then toggle to manual focus & leave it there. Unless you're getting very close to objects during the flight everything, for my Mavic anyway, stays focussed.

 

[JPMavic]

100pct crops

Mavic from a friend:

My magic under same circumstances

Only difference here I was shooting in D-log, he was shooting in ART. Something wrong here. Replace?

That looks a bit more than just the difference between DLog and Art. However my advice would be try Art -1,-1,0. D-log, even in it's latest
form always looks just to muddy to me. Just too flat to get the image up in post. Personally unless you've never had one good image, I'd avoid sending the thing back to DJI.

 

[sostengo]

With focus, the last few flights I've adopted what others here have suggested. It's a bit of hassle but when you get used to it it gets easier to remember. Start in auto focus. First thing after take off, get up to 40ft. Flick the camera straight down. Touch to focus, then toggle to manual focus & leave it there. Unless you're getting very close to objects during the flight everything, for my Mavic anyway, stays focussed.

Thanks, will try that out.

 

[dangerm0us]

I've been getting reports of people (who are 'suffering' the watercolour issue) that are setting sharpness to -3 with good results.

It's night here, so can't test.... Has anyone tried sharpness on -3?

 

[Strafe1]

That looks a bit more than just the difference between DLog and Art. However my advice would be try Art -1,-1,0. D-log, even in it's latest
form always looks just to muddy to me. Just too flat to get the image up in post. Personally unless you've never had one good image, I'd avoid sending the thing back to DJI.

I believe that every Mavic is different. I have done my own tests over the past several months and my results are as follows:
First of all, I use Davinci Resolve for post work. On occasion, I'll use iMovie for a quick production.
When the sun is behind the camera, I get best footage using D-Cinelike -1,0,0. Next best is D-Log -1,0,0. D-Log gives me more latitude to make adjustments, so I will use this if I really want to change the entire "look" of the video. Otherwise, D-Cinelike gets me to the best look easier and quicker.
When the sun is lateral or in front of the camera, I get best footage using the same shooting modes, but with the settings at 0,0,0. I have to increase sharpness to avoid losing resolution in the shadowy areas.
Art is more difficult on my Mavic (or in my editing hands) as I cannot control the contrast and shadow area resolution very well. I like the look of the RGB scopes, but I still have better luck manipulating D-Log or D-Cinelike.
I have the ability to shoot with sharpness at -2 without getting the watercolor effect when the sun is behind the camera, but since I boost sharpness in post anyway, it is just not beneficial to me. I really can't shoot with a sharpness higher than 0 because of the excessive harshness of the edges at +1 or higher.
This really makes me think that every Mavic has its own recording or encoding tendencies. I have tried shooting with recommended Art -3,0,0 and applying the appropriate LUT with no luck. Experimenting is the only way! But yes, I would start with C-Cinelike, or D-Log or Art as a shooting mode.

 

[AyeYo]

Having followed this thread from page 1 and this issue from the moment it popped up AND having dealt with it myself in still images, I've come a few highly scientific conclusions (not)...

This isn't a real issue. It's a combination of user error and excessive expectations. This "issue" is only affecting a predictable group of folks:

1. People who insist on shooting negative sharpness values while complaining about a lack of sharpness.

and

2. People shooting a flat, log profile on already flat, nearly monochromatic scenes in which there's absolutely no reason to be using a log profile. Do you even know what the log profile does?

I get the feeling that many of you have no idea why you're using the settings you're using, other than that it's what you heard on the internet.

For those that do know what they're doing... you're expecting far too much. This camera isn't even up to par with a two year old cell phone. It's not even on the same level as a $70 Runcam or Mobius. You're trying to manipulate profiles and style settings to bring out obscure areas of detail that are never going to be there - then complaining that you compromised the detail in the main exposure... well of course you did. You can't have it all with this chintzy camera. If you need to be able to count blades of grass in the shadows, you bought the wrong camera platform. Accept the fact that you'll never be able to count those blades of grass, adjust your camera settings accordingly, and join the rest of us in making videos that are more than adequate quality for social media - focus on content and edit quality rather than trying to replicate the detail levels of a multi-thousand dollar film camera.

 

[sostengo]

Having followed this thread from page 1 and this issue from the moment it popped up AND having dealt with it myself in still images, I've come a few highly scientific conclusions (not)...

This isn't a real issue. It's a combination of user error and excessive expectations. This "issue" is only affecting a predictable group of folks:

1. People who insist on shooting negative sharpness values while complaining about a lack of sharpness.

and

2. People shooting a flat, log profile on already flat, nearly monochromatic scenes in which there's absolutely no reason to be using a log profile. Do you even know what the log profile does?

Hey AyeYo,

you might be right with the "too much expectations" with this small sensor, but even if I shoot in D-LOG and set the sharpness to -1, its not complaining about the lack of sharpness, it looks like Photoshop with some cheap watercolor filter. I work daily with hundreds of images and this is not a sharpness issue, this is some compression issue and definitely an error.

I had a P3 4K before and the image quality was way better than what I get out of my Mavic. Even the DJI support says, after I sent them my pictures, that it should not be like this, they will open a case and let me send them the drone.

As I know, the D-LOG file does not "flatten the picture", it preserves information in the lights and shadows, which makes it look flat, so shooting even in a monochromatic scene in D-LOG should not let you lose information in the picture.