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

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

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.

It's not technically a sharpness/blur issue, but it is absolutely a sharpness related issue, which is why people shooting at 0 or +1 sharpness don't have it. The blur from the lack of sharpness is exactly what leads to the weird over-compression.

Log profiles preserve information in highlights and shadows by losing details in the main exposure and adding noise. It's intended for high contrast shots, but I see people here using it 24/7, which is why I say that I think most people here have no idea what they're doing or why they're using it. So you have a profile that ADDS noise, flatens the color profile so you lose detail in the exposure, and then you dial down the sensor sharpness - all on an already noisy, low-quality sensor... what do you think you're going to end up with? This thread could easily be retitled to "examples of scenes that should not be shot in log profile".

Here's some good info...


Note: Log gamma does not actually increase compression, in fact it allocates exactly the sane amount of data to every stop of exposure. However it must be remembered that for every stop you go up in exposure the brightness of the scene becomes 2 times brighter. So to record the scene accurately you should use twice as much data for every stop you add. But Log does not do this, it just adds a small amount of extra data. Thus in effect RELATIVE TO THE BRIGHTNESS RANGE OF THE SCENE the amount of data is halved for each stop you go up in exposure.

So, if you have followed this article so far you should understand that we can capture a greater dynamic range than most monitors can display, but when doing so the image looks un-interesting and flat.

So, if the images look bad, why do it? The benefits of capturing a big dynamic range are that highlights are less likely to look over exposed and your final image contrast can be adjusted in post production. These are the reasons why it is seen as desirable to shoot flat.

But there are several catches. One is that the amount of image noise that the camera produces will limit how far you can manipulate your image in post production. The codec that you use to record your pictures may also limit how much you can manipulate your image due to compression artefacts such as banding or blocking. Another is that it is quite easy to create a camera profile or setup that produces a flat looking image, for example by artificially raising the shadows, that superficially looks like a flat, high dynamic range image, but doesn’t actually provide a greater dynamic range, all that’s happened is that shadows have been made brighter but no extra dynamic range has actually been gained.

Of course there are different degrees of flat. There is super flat log style shooting as well as intermediate flat-ish cinegamma or hypergamma shooting. But it if you are going to shoot flat it is vital that the recorded image coming from the camera will stand up to the kind of post production manipulation you wish to apply to it. This is especially important when using highly compressed codecs.

When you use a high compression codec it adds noise to the image, this is in addition to any sensor noise etc. If you create a look in camera, the additional compression noise is added after the look has been created. As the look has been set, the compression noise is not really going to change as you won’t be making big changes to the image. But if you shoot flat, when you start manipulating the image the compression noise gets pushed, shoved and stretched, this can lead to degradation of the image compared to creating the look in camera. In addition you need more data to record a bigger dynamic range, so a very flat (wide dynamic range) image may be pushing the codec very hard resulting in even more compression noise and artefacts.

So if you do want to shoot flat you need a camera with very low noise. You also need a robust codec, preferably 10 bit (10 bit has more data levels than 8 bit so contains more tonal information) and you need to ensure that the camera setup or gamma is truly capturing a greater dynamic range, otherwise your really wasting your time.

Shooting flat is a great tool in the cinematographers tool box and with the right equipment can bring great benefits in post production flexibility. Most of the modern large sensor cameras with their low noise sensors and ability to record to high end 10 bit codecs either internally or externally are excellent tools for shooting flat. But small sensor cameras with their higher noise levels do not make the best candidates for shooting flat. In many cases a better result will be obtained by creating your desired look in camera. Or at least getting close to the desired look in camera and then just tweaking and fine tuning the look in post.
 
Last edited:
It's not technically a sharpness/blur issue, but it is absolutely a sharpness related issue, which is why people shooting at 0 or +1 sharpness don't have it. The blur from the lack of sharpness is exactly what leads to the weird over-compression.

Log profiles preserve information in highlights and shadows by losing details in the main exposure and adding noise. It's intended for high contrast shots, but I see people here using it 24/7, which is why I say that I think most people here have no idea what they're doing or why they're using it. So you have a profile that ADDS noise, flatens the color profile so you lose detail in the exposure, and then you dial down the sensor sharpness - all on an already noisy, low-quality sensor... what do you think you're going to end up with? This thread could easily be retitled to "examples of scenes that should not be shot in log profile".

Here's some good info...
That's really useful information .. Thanks for posting. So with all this expertise you obviously have, what settings would you suggest us that guys who have no idea what we're doing use? If you're so convinced that, as you stated, every single example on this thread is the product of either our user errors or our misguided expectations, enlighten us. What settings will guarantee that that none of us will ever get the watercolour effect again.
 
That's really useful information .. Thanks for posting. So with all this expertise you obviously have, what settings would you suggest us that guys who have no idea what we're doing use? If you're so convinced that, as you stated, every single example on this thread is the product of either our user errors or our misguided expectations, enlighten us. What settings will guarantee that that none of us will ever get the watercolour effect again.

Why don't you give a baseline of None 0,0,0 a try?

You can be passive aggressive and sarcastic all you want, but all the complaints in this thread have those two listed items in common: 24/7 d-log and/or negative sharpness. Shooting in d-log has become the new compass calibration. No one knows why they're calibrating their compass before every flight, they just heard it on the internet.
 
Why don't you give a baseline of None 0,0,0 a try?

You can be passive aggressive and sarcastic all you want, but all the complaints in this thread have those two listed items in common: 24/7 d-log and/or negative sharpness. Shooting in d-log has become the new compass calibration. No one knows why they're calibrating their compass before every flight, they just heard it on the internet.

I have also noticed that this camera is more vulnerable than some to the effect of under exposure. So, a lot of guys are throwing the bird up with a neutral density 2-stop filter and dialing in one 60th of a second for shutter speed. If this happens to result in a one half stop or full stop of underexposure, you're going to see some seriously crushed details in the shadows and even in the mid tones to some extent. In these cases I would probably fly without the neutral density filter and just use a slightly higher shutter speed or leave the neutral density filter on switch to ISO 200 and knock the shutter speed up just a bit. The point is, you have to expose to the right with this little camera or you're going to lose all of your data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AyeYo
Why don't you give a baseline of None 0,0,0 a try?

You can be passive aggressive and sarcastic all you want, but all the complaints in this thread have those two listed items in common: 24/7 d-log and/or negative sharpness. Shooting in d-log has become the new compass calibration. No one knows why they're calibrating their compass before every flight, they just heard it on the internet.
That's great .. thanks "None ... 0,0,0" & that'll fix the watercolour issue for everyone. Who'd have thought there was such a simple fix. Wish I'd known that a few weeks ago. And all those guys who sent their Mavic's back after being told to by DJI! All they had to do was dial in "None .. 0,0,0". Astonishing.
 
As I understand from the posts in this thread its the noise reduction that kicks in terribly. With the D-LOG or other "flat" profiles you have naturally more noise and even if you shoot with "none 0,0,0" you have noise in your image with the Mavic.

You are correct, when you say you should adjust your settings every time you get other light/scenes, that is normal and that is something you need experience for.

The problem for me is, that there seems to be either a too sharp picture or a muddy picture, there is nothing between, and not all Mavic user seem to have this kind of problem. I also didn't had this problem with my P3 4K,
 
The problem for me is, that there seems to be either a too sharp picture or a muddy picture, there is nothing between, and not all Mavic user seem to have this kind of problem. I also didn't had this problem with my P3 4K,

Are you comparing apples to apples though? Not one time in this thread has someone posted a watercolor effect image taken on a well-lit day with a non-monochromatic scene. What I do see is people saying "well that guy's Mavic is fine" (pointing to a well-lit shot of close proximity, colorful objects), but my Mavic sucks (pointing to dimly lit shot of cropped trees at 600 yards away). I'd LOVE to see side-by-side shots of a "good" and a "bad" Mavic taken using identical settings, at the exact same time.

You also can't compare to the P3 4K - not the same camera and processor.

I think there's a lack of respect for the camera's significant limitations, settings used without understanding them, and even some hefty placebo effect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4wd and RomeoSquare
I have also noticed that this camera is more vulnerable than some to the effect of under exposure. So, a lot of guys are throwing the bird up with a neutral density 2-stop filter and dialing in one 60th of a second for shutter speed. If this happens to result in a one half stop or full stop of underexposure, you're going to see some seriously crushed details in the shadows and even in the mid tones to some extent. In these cases I would probably fly without the neutral density filter and just use a slightly higher shutter speed or leave the neutral density filter on switch to ISO 200 and knock the shutter speed up just a bit. The point is, you have to expose to the right with this little camera or you're going to lose all of your data.
I agree completely. I made the mistake initially of trying to hit 1/60th with 30fps because that was really pushed hard by the early reviewers. Things got a lot better when I gave that up. Now my standard setup is a UV filter just to protect the lens & never go higher than ND4. Also agree with exposing to the right. Again that contradicts DSLR setup. The important thing I've found with the histogram is to get it looking really busy.
 
That's great .. thanks "None ... 0,0,0" & that'll fix the watercolour issue for everyone. Who'd have thought there was such a simple fix. Wish I'd known that a few weeks ago. And all those guys who sent their Mavic's back after being told to by DJI! All they had to do was dial in "None .. 0,0,0". Astonishing.

You do you man. DJI will be happy to take it back and tell you it's not an issue, just like they've already done to people in this thread. I'm just telling you how to work with what turns out to be a really crappy camera. There's no warranty-able defect there - that's the point.
 
Well, after reading the above.. resetted the whole **** thing and just get it in the air and recorded some shots with exposure to the right... and... gone is the watercolor effect! I guess i watched to much youtube..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AyeYo
Well, after reading the above.. resetted the whole **** thing and just get it in the air and recorded some shots with exposure to the right... and... gone is the watercolor effect! I guess i watched to much youtube..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Looks good. What were your settings?
 
Well, after reading the above.. resetted the whole **** thing and just get it in the air and recorded some shots with exposure to the right... and... gone is the watercolor effect! I guess i watched to much youtube..

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

Awesome, man! It looks pretty crispy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafe1
This whatercolor effect is a bug in the sharp algoritm. You can solve it reseting this issue changing from NTSC to PAL or PAL to NTSC
 
You also can't compare to the P3 4K - not the same camera and processor.

Well, that might be it. After all the reviews I've seen, i expected something similar.

But still not happy how it is either 0 noise reduction or too much noise reduction.

So you are saying that every Mavic, with the wrong settings, will have this muddy images, right?

I will take it out this weekend to test a bit more.
 
Well, that might be it. After all the reviews I've seen, i expected something similar.

But still not happy how it is either 0 noise reduction or too much noise reduction.

So you are saying that every Mavic, with the wrong settings, will have this muddy images, right?

I will take it out this weekend to test a bit more.

I can replicate them on mine by using the wrong settings, so it's highly likely. I'm interested in seeing your results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sostengo
I can replicate them on mine by using the wrong settings, so it's highly likely. I'm interested in seeing your results.

My belief is that these images are simply under-exposed, and what you are seeing is the firmware's engine overcompensating on "auto-correction", which results in excessive noise in shadows and mid-tones, which it then applies heavy noise reduction to. This results in crushed details, mush, and "water color effect" as described here. You can emulate this with a DSLR and exposing to protect highlights. This camera has minimal dynamic range. When I shot stills with it, I saw this first-hand, so a lot of my shots were underexposed. I think the meter is too conservative as well, and it puts up "blinkies" when it shouldn't. A good example was a neighborhood shot I took. It showed blinkies for the sky and most of the white siding walls of the surrounding homes. However, in post, I was able to recover all of that highlight detail, and none of it was blown.

This is a common thing with less-expensive cameras and in-built meters. They go so insane trying to protect highlights that the shot gets underexposed. In post, this can sometimes be saved, but in the case of Mavic video, the device is going to render that frame. There is no 'raw' option for the video, as far as I know, so I would say "ETTIH", or "Expose To The Important Highlights" and let the others blow. What's happening is that shadow and mid-tone is being chronically under-exposed, and overcompensated. The mush is the natural result. (Also, before you say D-Log, I am of the understanding that DJI wrecked D-Log, so forget it).

As an aside, I'd like to see DJI allow us to set a threshold for blinkies, such as 110%, 115%, etc., so that we have more control over their appearance, and thus more control for our own tolerance for slight over-exposures.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JPMavic and 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.

I read your whole post and came to the scientific conclusion that I didn't like anything you had to say.
 

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
134,568
Messages
1,596,338
Members
163,068
Latest member
Liger210
Want to Remove this Ad? Simply login or create a free account