Mavic video looks like **** !

mojo43 · May 14, 2017

Shawn3D said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

+1/-3/0
D-log
2.7k

Same person as mentioned before though correct? Looks great, but my Mavic hasn't been able to film like that yet.

Palliz said:
Did this a while ago 1080P 30fps - True color - +1 0 0

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

Not sure if Youtube compresses vid etc but original footage is really quite spectacular

There is tons of compression so it is hard to tell. If you look between the wires on the boat at 0:58 sec there is something nasty going on there. It's probably noise reduction, but it's hard to tell as it could just be YT compression. Nice boat!

Shawn3D · May 14, 2017

mojo43 said:
Same person as mentioned before though correct? Looks great, but my Mavic hasn't been able to film like that yet.

There is tons of compression so it is hard to tell. If you look between the wires on the boat at 0:58 sec there is something nasty going on there. It's probably noise reduction, but it's hard to tell as it could just be YT compression. Nice boat!

The 2 videos are all Mavic [emoji108][emoji41]

dsmpampis · May 14, 2017

Shawn3D said:
Watch this video and you will get excellent results if you follow the comments steps...

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

Which editing program are you used!
The vid is great! I'm using AE from adobe and I'm doing the color correction on my own.

dsmpampis · May 14, 2017

mojo43 said:
Look, I am not an expert, but I use my gear professionally every single day. I love the format/portability of the Mavic, but the image quality in video simply SUCKS!

I have tried tons of different settings/firmware/apps etc. The image quality either shows really bad sharpening halos with aliasing and artifacts and the image breaks up because the codec can't handle the detail. I really wish there was a solution to getting better image quality from it, but I just don't see how. All I keep reading is how everyone is so happy with this thing. How can that be?

(from the other side of the coin)

I have to be honest when I bought the Mavic I said : "time for some 4K UHD super quality aerial vids" but the truth is somewhere between....!
Ok it's not the best camera (after all is a mobile camera attached on a drone) but if you find the best settings (for you) then after you finish editing the video the results will be very good(not great!).
But if you searching for something with great camera and not so portable like the Mavic then better look for a Phantom 4 Pro or even the Inspire 2(tooooooo expensive!!!)

mojo43 · May 14, 2017

Shawn3D said:
The 2 videos are all Mavic

Is that your video? Are you filming with it?

All I keep getting is tons of aliasing like this:

SeanOzz · May 14, 2017

mojo43 said:
Thanks for the video. This by far the best footage that I have seen from the Mavic. I use the exact same settings though and I get really bad sharpening artifacts so I have to assume that this person is doing something in post or is not shooting with the Mavic.

Can someone else post similar type of footage from with the same settings?

I am under the impression every mavic camera is different. I get a similar look with +1 sharpness to what you describe. I get better results with -1 on sharpness (I also use true color or art )

Grey Wolf · May 14, 2017

Shawn3D said:
Bad day? It's all about compression spread over more frames per second man which ntsc has 5 more frames than pal to compress in the same compression ratio per second. Ok not saying ntsc is bad however to get the most out of the compressed Mavic footage and to prevent artifacts it's better to film in 24/25p.

24P is NTSC just so you know!

Grey Wolf · May 14, 2017

Ziggy01 said:
Sheesh. Enough with the demands already.

Many of us have come to the conclusion that Mavic 2.7k looks better than 4K.

Perhaps so but 2.7 K is not a recognized format in TV. You may or may not have issues when down converting.

Shawn3D · May 14, 2017

Grey Wolf said:
24P is NTSC just so you know!

Man you're kiddin right? [emoji23]
Either you're trolling or you have no idea

dewster · May 14, 2017

The solution will be in Mavic 2 or what ever DJI will call it. I'm not thoroughly impressed with the camera. It could be better. I still like my Mavic though. My video from Typhoon H was better. It just needed better white balance setting to adjust the brownish hue.

It would be great if DJI made the Phantom 4 series foldable and compact like the Mavic.

Grey Wolf · May 14, 2017

Shawn3D said:
Man you're kiddin right? [emoji23]
Either you're trolling or you have no idea

I don't think you understand the difference.
"A PAL television format shoots 25p or 50 frames interlaced per second. An NTSC television format shoots 24p, 30p or 60 interlaced frames per second. If you were shooting videos to be shown on broadcast TV then those frame rates would be expected. If you shot at a different frame rate then a frame rate conversion would be done first." Both formats can also shoot at 60P and 50P too!

"It's actually somewhat odd that a camera would let you pair 24 and PAL, or 25 and NTSC. It's hard to imagine anyone having a requirement for those combinations." As far as I know, there is no such thing as PAL 24p and NTSC 25P. Correct me if I'm wrong.

mojo43 · May 14, 2017

SeanOzz said:
I am under the impression every mavic camera is different. I get a similar look with +1 sharpness to what you describe. I get better results with -1 on sharpness (I also use true color or art )

This is because everyone is using different apps and different firmware. I assume that you are using DJI go and not DJI GO 4?

Robbyg · May 14, 2017

mojo43 said:
This is exactly the problem. The Mavid video is great for people who want to watch the video on their phones. It is not a true 2k image. Watch it on a tv or a laptop with 4k resolution.

I also do a lot of DSLR photography. If your expecting GH4 video quality out of the Mavic you will be disappointed no matter what settings you use.

With that said you can take good enough video with it if you work within the low dynamic range of the camera and do some proper post work on the footage. The video with the sail boat is a perfect example of pilot not pushing the dynamic range for any of the scenes. It requires planning the expected look of the shot so that the mavics camera can handle the lighting that will be involved. The camera is built to a price, you have to work within its limits or you will always be frustrated if you keep trying to make it work like a pro DSLR.

Rob

m0j0 · May 14, 2017

harleymhs said:
went from a P3P and I see that the mavic Pics and Vids are no where near the same as my P3P ... Which took amazing Videos and Photos! The Mavic is lacking in that area BUT you have to give up some to get the SMALL TRAVEL package.. Im kicking my self for selling the P3P now.. could of used the Mavic for travel and the P3P for road trips.. , but you are correct the Mavic is lacking compared to my P3P ..

Wow, that hasn't been my experience. My Mavic video is better than my P3p. I don't even charge the batteries on the P3p anymore because it does nothing better than my Mavic. I don't know about stills... because I rarely shoot them. But video, Mavic is better than P3p

dwallersv · May 14, 2017

hookalakupua said:
Sorry to hear that my friend as my video quality is absolutely stunning. I'm shorting in 4K at 30fps without any issues at all. I'm also running Polar Pro Cinema Series Filters with no issue as well.

^This.

I learned on my Phantom that you simply can not get good images without an ND filter (and the correct one for the conditions). Period.

And, the brighter the conditions, the more you need it. Put differently, the crappier your capture will look.

DJI should include an ND8 with every drone.

dwallersv · May 14, 2017

JacksonML said:
I really have to disagree with switching between PAL and NTSC. PAL is European standard framerate and NTSC is USA standard if I recall correctly. Thats why PAL is 25/50 FPS and NTSC is 30/60, the different countries have different standard framerates. Film in what your monitor displays and what your clients are expecting.

This was much more important when the transmission method was analog (including storage and playback via videotape).

For most situations today, it doesn't matter at all. Media format is almost always digital, as is the storage. Delivery to clients is via digital media (USB storage, DVD or BD with MKV or MP4 files on them, or simply downloadable via the internet from a server).

Any display device that can read these media and decode and display the video directly -- as pretty much EVERY television or monitor purchase in the last 3-5 years can -- and framerate is completely irrelevant.

dwallersv · May 14, 2017

Palliz said:
Did this a while ago 1080P 30fps - True color - +1 0 0

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

Not sure if Youtube compresses vid etc but original footage is really quite spectacular

Youtube does compress, but you can control this to some extent when uploading, and you can instruct viewers to make sure they have set their viewer to HD and are viewing via a high bandwidth connection.

You can post spectacular vid that gets trashed by Youtube on upload, and then further crapped up by someone watching it with their player set to 480p (or worse).

dwallersv · May 14, 2017

SeaComms said:
Just for the **** of it here is one of my first attempts for comparison, do you see any of the same negative affects you are mentioning?

This was shot with no filters at around mid day in D-Cinelog at 4k 24fps and +1 0 0 and PAL. Only thing done to it in post production was clip out sections and export at 1080 24fps. I am no photographer but I was pretty happy with the results playing on a large screen. Is there something in there not right I could work on?

Not sure if you meant D-log or D-Cinelike -- I'm assuming the latter.

In any case, you'll be much, much, MUCH happier if you color grade in post if you're using either of those LUT setting on the camera. D-log is designed specifically to give the sensor as much dynamic range as possible by compressing the dynamic range of each color channel, so is will look a bit washed out without post-processing to expand that data back to what the scene actually looked like.

D-Cinelike is similar, but some feel it's better in post than the Mavic's D-log.

Instead, if you want to shoot for near-immediate use out of the can, several of the other settings are much better, for example Truecolor, however you will need to be more careful with other camera settings to avoid oversaturation and other problems, and your flexibility in post will be much more limited. However, that's not the point: These other settings are for casual use similar to pulling your cellphone out to take a quick picture or video, that you plan to just share / archive as some fun outing to remember. For these purposes, those "stock" settings work pretty well.

Turbomon1 · May 14, 2017

You cannot compare a drone footage to a pro camera because the sensor in the drone camera is small like a cellphone. Although it still has good quality, if still not satisfied go on to a phantom 4 pro or higher because it has a 1" Sensor. The bigger the sensor the better the quality. Movie producer sometimes use drone in their action shots,but they use a more expensive drone to produce.