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

[AMann]

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.

Unlike the landscape (oblique aerials) mentioned above, with straight down aerials (nadir shots), pano mode with either Mavic2 Z or P will still not provide nearly as good resolution as using a free app like Microsoft ICE to tile a bunch of photos taken from straight above something with sufficient overlap. It takes more time to shoot and there are limitations if its windy or there are moving objects below, but the outcome can have super fine resolution compared to what the M2’s provide.

 

[GadgetGuy]

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.

Can you clarify which type of pano you are referring to, and whether you are shooting it manually or through an automated pano process? If it is an automated spherical pano, the difference in focal lengths is minimal: 24mm on the M2Z vs. 28mm on the M2P. You cannot use the 2x optical zoom on the M2Z for an automated Spherical Pano. To shoot a spherical pano on the M2Z at 2x optical zoom at 48mm, you have to do it completely manually.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Can you clarify which type of pano you are referring to, and whether you are shooting it manually or through an automated pano process? If it is an automated spherical pano, the difference in focal lengths is minimal: 24mm on the M2Z vs. 28mm on the M2P. You cannot use the 2x optical zoom on the M2Z for an automated Spherical Pano. To shoot a spherical pano on the M2Z at 2x optical zoom at 48mm, you have to do it completely manually.

I am referring specifically to the implementation of the zoom on the M2Z to create a high res image (resultant stitched image being the same FOV as the native wide setting). My point is you can’t replicate this feature without the ability to change focal length in flight regardless of how the images are processed.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I am referring specifically to the implementation of the zoom on the M2Z to create a high res image (resultant stitched image being the same FOV as the native wide setting). My point is you can’t replicate this feature without the ability to change focal length in flight regardless of how the images are processed.

Definitely true. Unfortunately, GO 4 doesn't allow that option when it creates the spherical panos. You'd have to shoot the hi res M2Z spherical pano completely manually, which isn't difficult, just cumbersome and time consuming. The auto spherical pano only takes 60 seconds, including the in camera stitching. That's why I use the M2P with the automated spherical pano stitch, composed of 20MP stills instead of only 12MP stills, saving the originals to create a 75MP stitch, instead of the 13MP one created automatically by both cameras. Real time saver, while flight time is at a premium. I can shoot 8 spherical panos, and still have 14 minutes of flight time and 4K video in between the 8 locations in a single flight.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Definitely true. Unfortunately, GO 4 doesn't allow that option when it creates the spherical panos. You'd have to shoot the hi res M2Z spherical pano completely manually, which isn't difficult, just cumbersome and time consuming. The auto spherical pano only takes 60 seconds, including the in camera stitching. That's why I use the M2P with the automated spherical pano stitch, composed of 20MP stills instead of only 12MP stills, saving the originals to create a 75MP stitch, instead of the 13MP one created automatically by both cameras. Real time saver, while flight time is at a premium. I can shoot 8 spherical panos, and still have 14 minutes of flight time and 4K video in between the 8 locations in a single flight.

To the extent that is great info (it seems it is) I am unsure why you are directing it my way. It wasn’t the subject of my response and it seems not to directly relate to the issue being discussed here.

 

[GadgetGuy]

To the extent that is great info (it seems it is) I am unsure why you are directing it my way. It wasn’t the subject of my response and it seems not to directly relate to the issue being discussed here.

It was in response to your post, but I forgot the Super Resolution is the OP's topic so it is a bit off topic. Super Res does use the 2x optical in the stitched result. Wish we could also use the 2x optical on on the M2Z as an option for the automated Spherical Pano.

 

[WithTheBirds]

It was in response to your post, but I forgot the Super Resolution is the OP's topic so it is a bit off topic. Super Res does use the 2x optical in the stitched result. Wish we could also use the 2x optical on on the M2Z as an option for the automated Spherical Pano.

I must be getting old- I never mentioned spherical pano as far as I’m aware.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I must be getting old- I never mentioned spherical pano as far as I’m aware.

You didn't but Post 12 did, and that is why I asked you which pano type you were talking about. Your answer still left open the possibility that you were discussing spherical panoramas. It's now clear you were not, but the discussion of Spherical Panos is still relevent as it pertains to the M2Z and the ability to shoot them manually using 2x, like the 48MP super resolution image.

 

[Elude]

Great discussion here. I’m gonna have to try Microsoft ice now

 

[AMann]

I am referring specifically to the implementation of the zoom on the M2Z to create a high res image (resultant stitched image being the same FOV as the native wide setting). My point is you can’t replicate this feature without the ability to change focal length in flight regardless of how the images are processed.

But this is only if one is shooting something very far away, i.e. the setting moon, far away landscapes, etc., much like one does when making a Gigapixel photo: GigaPan | High-Resolution Images | Panoramic Photography | GigaPixel Images.

If one is flying above the ground with a fixed lens and taking many closer images of it and stitching them to make a orthophoto, it can be much higher resolution.

 

[WithTheBirds]

But this is only if one is shooting something very far away, i.e. the setting moon, far away landscapes, etc., much like one does when making a Gigapixel photo: GigaPan | High-Resolution Images | Panoramic Photography | GigaPixel Images.

If one is flying above the ground with a fixed lens and taking many closer images of it and stitching them to make a orthophoto, it can be much higher resolution.

Why are we talking about ortho‘s now? The perspective will always be altered in EVERY case where the camera to subject distance is changed regardless of the focal length. It is that simple.

 

[AMann]

Why are we talking about ortho‘s now? The perspective will always be altered in EVERY case where the camera to subject distance is changed regardless of the focal length. It is that simple.

I only mentioned orthos as an example of photos stitched together to make a higher resolution one (yeah, they are also processed to correct for geographic distortion, but that was not the topic).

 

[CanadaDrone]

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.

I think what some are missing is that it won't maintain the exact same perspective because as soon as you zoom to 48mm without changing physical position, you change background compression, which may or may not be desirable to the shooter - it's not something that is automatically better (or worse).

 

[WithTheBirds]

I think what some are missing is that it won't maintain the exact same perspective because as soon as you zoom to 48mm without changing physical position, you change background compression, which may or may not be desirable to the shooter - it's not something that is automatically better (or worse).

What you seem to have missed is that the only way perspective can me maintained is when the camera to subject distance remains fixed. The only way that you might produce a higher resolution image with a given camera maintaining FOV and perspective is to use a longer focal length lens.

 

[jwt873]

Background compression doesn't enter in to the equation. This is borne out by the fact that the 48 Megapixel image that results from stitching the zoomed images together looks EXACTLY like the image seen on your phone/tablet when you squeezed the shutter button.

Actually there is no 'lens compression'.. The apparent depth compression is a result of the crop that occurs with longer focal lengths and, as a result of moving closer/further from the subject. Interesting read here --> https://fstoppers.com/originals/lens-compression-doesnt-exist-147615

 

[WithTheBirds]

Background compression doesn't enter in to the equation. This is borne out by the fact that the 48 Megapixel image that results from stitching the zoomed images together looks EXACTLY like the image seen on your phone/tablet when you squeezed the shutter button.

Actually there is no 'lens compression'.. The apparent depth compression is a result of the crop that occurs with longer focal lengths and, as a result of moving closer/further from the subject. Interesting read here --> Lens Compression Doesn't Exist

Correct. And it’s easy to prove. If you shoot two frames without moving the camera, one at the max zoom and one wide angle the zoom frame will appear identical to a crop from the 24mm image. It is the camera to subject distance that determines the apparent compression. It is not, as you have said, a focal length issue- it is purely camera to subject distance.

 

[CanadaDrone]

What you seem to have missed is that the only way perspective can me maintained is when the camera to subject distance remains fixed. The only way that you might produce a higher resolution image with a given camera maintaining FOV and perspective is to use a longer focal length lens.

I haven't missed anything, I think maybe I am not doing a good job explaining it though. It seems we all agree for the most part.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I think what some are missing is that it won't maintain the exact same perspective because as soon as you zoom to 48mm without changing physical position, you change background compression, which may or may not be desirable to the shooter - it's not something that is automatically better (or worse).

I haven't missed anything, I think maybe I am not doing a good job explaining it though. It seems we all agree for the most part.

To the extent you believe changing focal length, in this case zooming to 48mm (35mm equiv) from any lower setting might "change background compression" then yes- it seems you have failed in explaining. This is simply not true for any imaging system where the only altered variable is the focal length. You need to change the position of the camera relative to the subject to alter the apparent compression of various elements in the resultant image.

Have I missed anything?

 

[CanadaDrone]

To the extent you believe changing focal length, in this case zooming to 48mm (35mm equiv) from any lower setting might "change background compression" then yes- it seems you have failed in explaining. This is simply not true for any imaging system where the only altered variable is the focal length. You need to change the position of the camera relative to the subject to alter the apparent compression of various elements in the resultant image.

Have I missed anything?

I don't believe that to any extent - so I don't agree with your wording, but I acknowledge that I explained myself poorly which has lead us down this path of apparent confusion and I apologize if that is the case. I fully understand the concept as I am often in scenarios where I am explaining it to others, but I think I did a poor job explaining myself here by not including enough detail in my replies, so I can see how it may have been interpreted differently than intended.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I don't believe that to any extent - so I don't agree with your wording, but I acknowledge that I explained myself poorly which has lead us down this path of apparent confusion and I apologize if that is the case. I fully understand the concept as I am often in scenarios where I am explaining it to others, but I think I did a poor job explaining myself here by not including enough detail in my replies, so I can see how it may have been interpreted differently than intended.

To what extent do you disagree with my wording? My principal point was, and remains, if the camera and subject distances remain fixed a change in focal length won’t change the apparent size (depth perspective) of near and far objects depicted in the frame. The amount of times something is explained or to how many people and even how well or poorly the words are chosen tells us nothing about how true it might be. That is what evidence is for.