Currently visiting Greece, finding a lot of scenic locations to fly in the Ionian Islands, which are off the western coast of Greece.
I've chosen to visit and fly in locations with dramatic cliffs dropping down to the sea. So I would take off near the edge of the cliff and fly out and record videos and take a lot of panos, mostly free form panos which end up being 4 x 2.
At most I fly out 1 to 1.5 km. Often I'm getting weak signal warnings. Some of it because I'm piloting from uneven terrain so often the drone is on the other side from where I am and there are higher ground from where I am, as well as trees, though not sure if trees affect signal strength between the drone and the controller.
In any even, I've tried switching to 3X cameras both for videos and the panos. I know there's a tradeoff between a lesser quality camera and a greater magnification of distant terrain.
But I can't really fly out further from land than 1-1.5 kilometers and at that distance, the 3X camera requires more shots but not clear to me that it produces better results.
The Air3S, compared to the Mavic 2 Pro I used to have, does a much better job in making panos which don't get warped. I haven't stitched a lot of these photos yet but the ones stitched on the drone look fine when making panos of the cliffs. With my M2P, those panos would come out with warped perspectives at that distance when using the 180 panos.
It helps to have the free form panos so that you don't go too wide for the pano you're capturing. But even with the 180 pano on the Air 3S it came out well, without too much signs of the perspective being warped because it's too close to the pano subject.
So are people really seeing advantages for the 3X panos shot at relatively close distances, under 1 kilometer?
Because I'm having some difficulties thinking of situations in which I'd want to use the 3X, which means capturing more shots, but not clear what advantages you'd get. Maybe some distant textures come out more detailed at 3X despite the inferior camera?
I've chosen to visit and fly in locations with dramatic cliffs dropping down to the sea. So I would take off near the edge of the cliff and fly out and record videos and take a lot of panos, mostly free form panos which end up being 4 x 2.
At most I fly out 1 to 1.5 km. Often I'm getting weak signal warnings. Some of it because I'm piloting from uneven terrain so often the drone is on the other side from where I am and there are higher ground from where I am, as well as trees, though not sure if trees affect signal strength between the drone and the controller.
In any even, I've tried switching to 3X cameras both for videos and the panos. I know there's a tradeoff between a lesser quality camera and a greater magnification of distant terrain.
But I can't really fly out further from land than 1-1.5 kilometers and at that distance, the 3X camera requires more shots but not clear to me that it produces better results.
The Air3S, compared to the Mavic 2 Pro I used to have, does a much better job in making panos which don't get warped. I haven't stitched a lot of these photos yet but the ones stitched on the drone look fine when making panos of the cliffs. With my M2P, those panos would come out with warped perspectives at that distance when using the 180 panos.
It helps to have the free form panos so that you don't go too wide for the pano you're capturing. But even with the 180 pano on the Air 3S it came out well, without too much signs of the perspective being warped because it's too close to the pano subject.
So are people really seeing advantages for the 3X panos shot at relatively close distances, under 1 kilometer?
Because I'm having some difficulties thinking of situations in which I'd want to use the 3X, which means capturing more shots, but not clear what advantages you'd get. Maybe some distant textures come out more detailed at 3X despite the inferior camera?
