Made a 3 foot by 2 foot print with an M2Z super resolution image.

[jwt873]

Staples Office Supplies can make 3 foot X 2 foot prints. (Or approximately 915 x 610 mm). Depending on where you are it costs in the $20 - $30 dollar range. I've been planning on getting a print like this done of a 48 Megapixel super rez photo for a while. I finally got around to it yesterday.

I took a super rez shot of my property from the air. It came out the normal 8000 x 6000 pixels.

8000 x 6000 doesn't quite fit the 3:2 aspect ratio so I cropped a bit off the bottom to make sure the margins were equal on all sides. This turned out to be 8000 x 5333 pixels which is 42 Megapixels. Printing at this resolution results in an image with 222 pixels per inch both horizontally and vertically.

I was impressed with the quality. Normally, poster sized images created with 4 or 5 Megapixel images are meant to be viewed from a distance. But the 42 Megapixel image kept the resolution high. Not only can I view it from a foot away, but I can use a magnifying glass to pick up even more detail. In the photo below I put my M2 in the corner of the shot to show the scale...

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Staples Office Supplies can make 3 foot X 2 foot prints. (Or approximately 915 x 610 mm). Depending on where you are it costs in the $20 - $30 dollar range. I've been planning on getting a print like this done of a 48 Megapixel super rez photo for a while. I finally got around to it yesterday.

I took a super rez shot of my property from the air. It came out the normal 8000 x 6000 pixels.

8000 x 6000 doesn't quite fit the 3:2 aspect ratio so I cropped a bit off the bottom to make sure the margins were equal on all sides. This turned out to be 8000 x 5333 pixels which is 42 Megapixels. Printing at this resolution results in an image with 222 pixels per inch both horizontally and vertically.

I was impressed with the quality. Normally, poster sized images created with 4 or 5 Megapixel images are meant to be viewed from a distance. But the 42 Megapixel image kept the resolution high. Not only can I view it from a foot away, but I can use a magnifying glass to pick up even more detail. In the photo below I put my M2 in the corner of the shot to show the scale...

View attachment 81411

Fantastic, I have been wanting to do this. Power to Super Rez Picture as its my favorite feature on the Zoom. Very cool thanks for sharing.
Frame worthy. Enjoy

Phantomrain.org
Cutting edge gear for your Mavic
Coal

 

[RCdancer]

I haven't tried the SuperRes feature yet on my new Zoom. This is good incentive to do so.

 

[passedpawn]

Does the Pro have an equivalent mode?

 

[paulatkin73]

Does the Pro have an equivalent mode?

it sure does, it is just a panorama mode. one annoying difference is - zoom is doing super res pano using current tilt of the camera as a center. with pro - all pano modes jerk camera to the horizontal position first, then take series of pano shots.
quality of wide panoramas on pro is significantly better. the fine details, if panos are takes from same altitude are somewhat better from the zoom as it uses max optical magnification when you engage superres pano mode. but, shadows, noise, etc will be worse due to the sensor.

it is very sad that, probably for marketing reasons, dji did not copy same exact set of pano modes into pro selection like they have in the zoom. obviously, it would not do zooming in same way M2Z does, but, it would be simpler if all modes looked and worked same way on both models.

 

[ff22]

Staples Office Supplies can make 3 foot X 2 foot prints. (Or approximately 915 x 610 mm). Depending on where you are it costs in the $20 - $30 dollar range. I've been planning on getting a print like this done of a 48 Megapixel super rez photo for a while. I finally got around to it yesterday.

I took a super rez shot of my property from the air. It came out the normal 8000 x 6000 pixels.

8000 x 6000 doesn't quite fit the 3:2 aspect ratio so I cropped a bit off the bottom to make sure the margins were equal on all sides. This turned out to be 8000 x 5333 pixels which is 42 Megapixels. Printing at this resolution results in an image with 222 pixels per inch both horizontally and vertically.

I was impressed with the quality. Normally, poster sized images created with 4 or 5 Megapixel images are meant to be viewed from a distance. But the 42 Megapixel image kept the resolution high. Not only can I view it from a foot away, but I can use a magnifying glass to pick up even more detail. In the photo below I put my M2 in the corner of the shot to show the scale...

View attachment 81411

Nice job - thanks for sharing that info.

Now the frame and glass with set you back a pretty penny. (g)

 

[webvan]

Like the little Spark that keeps the current tilt as the center of the panorama, unlike any other DJI Drone except the SuperRes M2Z for some reason. The Spark produces 25/30 Megapixel pictures when the 9 pictures are assembled in third party software like ICE. Must try to print one someday !

 

[globetrotterdrone]

Great thing!
And thank you for the metric values!

 

[ZX14-R]

Nice

 

[Elude]

Nice. I guess it’s time to finally print out a good picture.

 

[CanadaDrone]

Does the Pro have an equivalent mode?

Every drone technically does, it is literally just a panorama, but the zoom feature is used to keep a consistent FOV so the pilot has less work to do. There is nothing magical about the way it's done, it's very simple actually but DJI has clever marketing around it. You can do the exact same thing on the M2P very easily and the result would be quite a bit better yet, however you would need to manually do some of it. Or you can just take a normal panorama if the scene allows for it.

 

[ff22]

Every drone technically does, it is literally just a panorama, but the zoom feature is used to keep a consistent FOV so the pilot has less work to do. There is nothing magical about the way it's done, it's very simple actually but DJI has clever marketing around it. You can do the exact same thing on the M2P very easily and the result would be quite a bit better yet, however you would need to manually do some of it. Or you can just take a normal panorama if the scene allows for it.

It is a bit more than just clever marketing. The drone takes the appropriate number of pictures and stitches them together with no effort on the part of the pilot/photographer. It provides similar magic making a 360 Spherical Pan - the drone is hovering up there and taking a slew of pictures and then assembles them into a sphere.

 

[GadgetGuy]

It is a bit more than just clever marketing. The drone takes the appropriate number of pictures and stitches them together with no effort on the part of the pilot/photographer. It provides similar magic making a 360 Spherical Pan - the drone is hovering up there and taking a slew of pictures and then assembles them into a sphere.

While also saving the original images in either jpg or DNG, if you select that option, so you have a usable 13MB spherical pano immediately, but can create a much higher quality one later, on your own, with better software, up to 75MB in size! Very cool, and the entire automated shot sequence from start to finish, including pano creation on the microSD card, is less than a minute!

 

[CanadaDrone]

It is a bit more than just clever marketing. The drone takes the appropriate number of pictures and stitches them together with no effort on the part of the pilot/photographer. It provides similar magic making a 360 Spherical Pan - the drone is hovering up there and taking a slew of pictures and then assembles them into a sphere.

I would respectfully disagree - it is, objectively speaking, a simple panorama done at a longer focal length that once completed, maintains a 24mm FOV. DJI isn't doing anything else with it. It is really not a difficult thing to do either with a drone that can't zoom or a traditional camera, and it's something that it commonly done in traditional photography - using telephoto lenses to create a wider FOV pano. Calling it "super resolution" is somewhat misleading in my opinion, especially after seeing how most people seem to interpret the feature. I fully acknowledge it's a convenient way to get that particular type of panorama, but the drone isn't doing anything out of the ordinary - you aren't getting any more resolution per frame than the sensor can capture. I'm not trying to be negative or downplay the convenience of the feature, but at the end of the day it is just a simple panorama that is commonly done in all types of photography.

While also saving the original images in either jpg or DNG, if you select that option, so you have a usable 13MB spherical pano immediately, but can create a much higher quality one later, on your own, with better software, up to 75MB in size! Very cool, and the entire automated shot sequence from start to finish, including pano creation on the microSD card, is less than a minute!

There is a menu option in all of DJI's drones (that I have used, anyway) to save all individual panorama/sphere pano images as DNG, so you always have the option of using better software to do the panorama stitching after the fact. This method will almost always yield a better result anyway as DJI's stitching is actually not that great, and the final image is an 8bit JPEG which you can't really edit because it has such little processing leeway. Bringing the RAW files to a PC for proper stitching and editing will always be better, but obviously that takes significantly more time and effort than some people are willing to invest (which is reasonable). It's a cool feature to have if you just want a quick image for sharing or something, no doubt.

 

[ff22]

Well, I guess, first of all, it was not a marketing feature since I knew very little about the Zoom other than seeing some mavic that was along on a reunion and loved its size and foldup-ability. Mulled for about three weeks and jumped. And obviously, I'm less photo-centric than years ago since I opted for the Zoom and not the Pro. My dad, may he rest in peace, would have opted for the Pro since he was a professional photographer. Shocked my mom when he got me a double lens reflex for my 6th birthday (g) I do go back a ways...

But I have to further disagree. It is more than marketing. For the lazy, less skilled and old guys who do little post processing these days - it is MAGIC. It is obviously a convenience. But it is included at no extra cost (g) and may not produce perfect results but certainly for some of us, satisfactory results.

Clearly, a difference of opinion but not your opinion that doing it yourself will result in better images - no doubt about that.

 

[jwt873]

You can't do the super rez trick with a fixed lens camera. You need a variable focal length lens..

When you compose a shot on your device and press the shutter release on the Zoom, the lens goes from 24mm to 48mm. Of course now your field of view is much smaller. The super rez programming in the drone has the camera capture zoomed shots of everything that was on your device screen when you pulled the trigger. It stitches them together to give you a 48 megapixel image of exactly what you saw on your device.

One might think that with a fixed lens you simply need to fly closer to get the equivalent of the longer focal length, take some shots and then stitch them together as a panorama. But in most cases, this won't work.

To illustrate, lets suppose we want to take a shot of the moon rising over the horizon. When you increase the focal length, the moon gets larger. How far do you have to fly towards the moon with a fixed lens camera to get the moon appear larger? The simple answer is you can't do it by flying closer.

Last winter I was messing around doing a 1080/30 video. From the video, I took frame grabs of the moon rising over the horizon at different focal lengths. (See the attached images).

Out of these 1080 screen grabs, I cropped -approximately- the same content out of both.

The crop at 24mm yields an image that's 256x322 pixels. The moon is 16 pixels wide.
The crop at 48mm yields an image that's 502x652 pixels. The moon is 28 pixels wide.

Note that everything the zoom shoots at 48mm is made up of more pixels than you get when shooting at 24mm. Stitching these higher resolution images together is what gives you the 48 megapixel image. Also note that this is optical zoom and not digital zoom.

Consider that with a fixed lens, you'd have to fly at least 1/2 a mile or more to get the horizon to appear closer. When doing so, objects that were close, in the foreground of the frame might now be behind you. Also, there is no way to get the moon to appear larger. So.. you can't do a super resolution by simply flying closer.

I suppose in a case like this you could fly a long way to get closer, then re-sample the images to get more pixels and then cobble the higher pixel images together to get something reasonably close to what you saw on your device screen...

But this sounds a lot more complicated than having a 48 megapixel image created in the air 15 seconds after you press the shutter button. It's a neat 'gimmick'

 

[GadgetGuy]

There is a menu option in all of DJI's drones (that I have used, anyway) to save all individual panorama/sphere pano images as DNG, so you always have the option of using better software to do the panorama stitching after the fact. This method will almost always yield a better result anyway as DJI's stitching is actually not that great, and the final image is an 8bit JPEG which you can't really edit because it has such little processing leeway. Bringing the RAW files to a PC for proper stitching and editing will always be better, but obviously that takes significantly more time and effort than some people are willing to invest (which is reasonable). It's a cool feature to have if you just want a quick image for sharing or something, no doubt.

You don't need to save the giant DNG files for better results (although they will give the very best results). The 26 saved 20MB JPEG images of the M2P retain all the EXIF data that 3rd party stitching software cannot read from the DNG's, for exactly mapping the resulting stitch, along with altitude and field of view, as you zoom in and out, and move around, within the resulting 75MB stitch, which far exceeds the 8 bit 13MB camera created resolution and stitch quality. If the stitching itself is the problem, there should be no benefit to using the 26 DNG's instead of the 26 JPEG's. The stitching software can also make automatic exposure adjustments to the 26 JPEG's during the stitch rendering to even out the exposure across the final image. I use the $79 PanoramaStudio 3.3 Pro.

PanoramaStudio 4 Pro | PanoramaStudio Panorama Software

www.tshsoft.de

Lastly, I have found that it is best to shoot spherical panoramas in flat lighting on overcast days, and if not possible, to start the pano with the camera facing the direction with the best average lighting, as that sets the exposure for all 26 images. If the first image shot is too dark or too light because of autoexposure, it will adversely affect the rest of the 26 images, leading to underexposure or overexposure.

 

[CanadaDrone]

You don't need to save the giant DNG files for better results (although they will give the very best results). The 26 saved 20MB JPEG images of the M2P retain all the EXIF data that 3rd party stitching software cannot read from the DNG's, for exactly mapping the resulting stitch, along with altitude and field of view, as you zoom in and out, and move around, within the resulting 75MB stitch, which far exceeds the 8 bit 13MB camera created resolution and stitch quality. If the stitching itself is the problem, there should be no benefit to using the 26 DNG's instead of the 26 JPEG's. The stitching software can also make automatic exposure adjustments to the 26 JPEG's during the stitch rendering to even out the exposure across the final image. I use the $79 PanoramaStudio 3.3 Pro.

PanoramaStudio 4 Pro | PanoramaStudio Panorama Software

www.tshsoft.de

Lastly, I have found that it is best to shoot spherical panoramas in flat lighting on overcast days, and if not possible, to start the pano with the camera facing the direction with the best average lighting, as that sets the exposure for all 26 images. If the first image shot is too dark or too light because of autoexposure, it will adversely affect the rest of the 26 images, leading to underexposure or overexposure.

Third party software has no problem reading EXIF info - but I am not sure if I am understanding what you're trying to say correctly. EXIF info isn't necessary for a stitch, the software looks for overlap in the images. DJI's in-drone stitching isn't very good, I regularly see misaligned horizons and such. The problem with using JPEGs is your processing leeway is almost zero before the image degrades significantly because an 8bit JPEG has so little data in it compared to the 12bits of data in the DNG.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Third party software has no problem reading EXIF info - but I am not sure if I am understanding what you're trying to say correctly. EXIF info isn't necessary for a stitch, the software looks for overlap in the images. DJI's in-drone stitching isn't very good, I regularly see misaligned horizons and such. The problem with using JPEGs is your processing leeway is almost zero before the image degrades significantly because an 8bit JPEG has so little data in it compared to the 12bits of data in the DNG.

It does. DNG's are proprietary. JPEG's are not. The EXIF info is necessary to plot the pano on an interactive Google Map in third party software, and with PanoramaStudio Pro 3.30 in particular.

I wholeheartedly agree that the in camera stitching is poor on difficult subjects, but it does also create a usable ceiling, which you have to manually clone in otherwise for a full 360x180 pano. However, the original 20MP JPEG's are more than good enough to create a wonderful 75MB stitch that vastly exceeds the 13MB one created by the camera, and can be plotted automatically on a Google Map, with a field of view at every level of zoom and direction of view. The twenty-six 20MP JPG's avoid the manual copying all of the EXIF from the camera created JPG stitch into the DNG output. If you shoot your pano in flat light on an overcast day, you will not need any more processing leeway from a DNG. I create up to 8 panos every flight. DNG workflow is overkill, for the minor improvement in a stitched image that is most likely only going to be consumed on a smartphone. The bigger the resulting file, the slower it loads, and the more data is consumed viewing it. The twenty-six JPEG's are the best compromise. If the original is that bad that you need to resort to DNG's to recover it, reshoot it at a different time of day, under better lighting conditions for a spherical panorama. Get it on the take, so you don't have to fix it in post!

 

[WithTheBirds]

Every drone technically does, it is literally just a panorama, but the zoom feature is used to keep a consistent FOV so the pilot has less work to do. There is nothing magical about the way it's done, it's very simple actually but DJI has clever marketing around it. You can do the exact same thing on the M2P very easily and the result would be quite a bit better yet, however you would need to manually do some of it. Or you can just take a normal panorama if the scene allows for it.

Yes- we can stitch images from the M2P, obviously. What isn’t so obvious to many people is that if the intent is to create a pano to get the same FOV from the M2P (compared to the zoom) we need to fly forward to take the shots in which case the perspective will be altered considerably. Perceived relationship of the size of objects will be not be maintained.

The resultant stitched image from the zoom will have the same perspective as a single frame (it must given there is no change in camera to subject distance) while maintaining the crop and giving 4 times the pixels. The pro can’t do this regardless of what you might do in post.

Edit- had I read @jwt873 post before I responded I needn’t have, this is reality.