Photos not very sharp

[cameraz]

I was hoping that with the ability to take 48MP RAW images, the pictures taken with my Mini 3 would have better quality than those taken with my Mavic Mini. But that doesn't seem to be the case. In this crop of the full photo, the brickwork on the building and bridge has very little definition. The camera was in default settings; I haven't changed a thing. Although maybe I should ...

 

[cameraz]

I was hoping that with the ability to take 48MP RAW images, the pictures taken with my Mini 3 would have better quality than those taken with my Mavic Mini. But that doesn't seem to be the case. In this crop of the full photo, the brickwork on the building and bridge has very little definition. The camera was in default settings; I haven't changed a thing. Although maybe I should ...

For comparison, here is a shot taken with my Mavic Mini.

 

[cameraz]

BTW, while I'm talking about my Mini 3, I was flying about 800-1,000 feet away under sunny, clear skies, with no obstructions in between me and the drone. However, when I moved the controller sticks to turn or do other functions, there often was a big lag (I mean several seconds) before the drone would respond. Sometimes the response was so long that I was wondering if I was pressing on the stick hard enough. And then the drone would suddenly jerk into position. If I had been taking a video, it would have been impossible to make a smooth transition in directions. I never had this problem with my Mavic Mini, no matter how far away from me it was. And yes, I was pointing the controller's antennas directly at the Mini 3. I am very disappointed with this drone.

 

[Meta4]

I was hoping that with the ability to take 48MP RAW images, the pictures taken with my Mini 3 would have better quality than those taken with my Mavic Mini. But that doesn't seem to be the case. In this crop of the full photo, the brickwork on the building and bridge has very little definition. The camera was in default settings; I haven't changed a thing. Although maybe I should ...

Can you upload the original image file to Google Drive, Dropbox or similar and post a link so we can check tha actual image rather than a cropped and shrunken version here?

 

[cameraz]

Can you upload the original image file to Google Drive, Dropbox or similar and post a link so we can check tha actual image rather than a cropped and shrunken version here?

I'll try. Here is the full photo in a Dropbox folder:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[Meta4]

I was hoping that with the ability to take 48MP RAW images, the pictures taken with my Mini 3 would have better quality than those taken with my Mavic Mini. But that doesn't seem to be the case. In this crop of the full photo, the brickwork on the building and bridge has very little definition. The camera was in default settings; I haven't changed a thing. Although maybe I should ...

The image isn't as bad as you suggested.
The section of the image you cropped is overexposed, so it looks a little hazy.
But after adjusting the exposure, it shows plenty of detail considering that you are looking at <2% of the image.

After correcting the exposure it looks like this: click twice on the image to see it at full size.

 

[PHZ]

Nice analysis Meta4.

 

[cameraz]

The image isn't as bad as you suggested.
The section of the image you cropped is overexposed, so it looks a little hazy.
But after adjusting the exposure, it shows plenty of detail considering that you are looking at <2% of the image.

After correcting the exposure it looks like this: click twice on the image to see it at full size.

You're right. Thank you. But I'm also going to try some JPEG shots to see what kind of results I get.

 

[Meta4]

You're right. Thank you. But I'm also going to try some JPEG shots to see what kind of results I get.

jpg or dng should make no difference to focus or sharpness

 

[cameraz]

What about this similar shot? Here is the original file. Blow it up and there's hardly any detail anywhere.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[waynorth]

What about this similar shot? Here is the original file. Blow it up and there's hardly any detail anywhere.

Plenty of detail in that photo, this is a 100% crop. Unfortunately the 48MP Quad Bayer sensor has also intorduced some ugly colour artefacts in the photo. This will most likely not happen in 12MP mode.




Here is the full size image:

 

[Capt KO]

About the lag you're getting, appears that FLY is fighting for power used by other apps running on your device. Should improve by shutting down other power intensive apps running in background during your fights.

 

[cameraz]

About the lag you're getting, appears that FLY is fighting for power used by other apps running on your device. Should improve by shutting down other power intensive apps running in background during your fights.

I'm not sure what you mean. What other apps? I'm using the RC controller, not my cell phone.

 

[cameraz]

Plenty of detail in that photo, this is a 100% crop. Unfortunately the 48MP Quad Bayer sensor has also intorduced some ugly colour artefacts in the photo. This will most likely not happen in 12MP mode.

View attachment 184288


Well, obviously I don't know what I'm doing, because I do not get the same results as you when I try to crop the photo. Your's is a 100% crop? When I crop to that size it's more like 1,000% What program did you crop the photo in?

 

[waynorth]

Well, obviously I don't know what I'm doing, because I do not get the same results as you when I try to crop the photo. Your's is a 100% crop? When I crop to that size it's more like 1,000% What program did you crop the photo in?

I downloaded the DNG file, and opened it in Adobe Camera Raw, then transferred it to Photoshop and took a 100% crop there.
What program did you use to get such a result? I seems to me you have opened the low-res preview file that is embedded in the DNG-file.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I downloaded the DNG file, and opened it in Adobe Camera Raw, then transferred it to Photoshop and took a 100% crop there.
What program did you use to get such a result? I seems to me you have opened the low-res preview file that is embedded in the DNG-file.

Concur. Worked it through my usual RAW developer (not Adobe) and the fine detail is very good even at 200%. The only problem I spotted was some horrible moiré on the pumping tower roof tiles.

Definitely not a camera I'd kick out of bed, but I would try capturing the same shot in both 12 and 48mp to see if there is a difference with banding and other chromatic aberrations.

 

[Meta4]

I was hoping that with the ability to take 48MP RAW images, the pictures taken with my Mini 3 would have better quality than those taken with my Mavic Mini. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

When I crop it to that size it's more like 1000%.

OK ... reading these comments together explains the issue you are having.
You haven't used raw images before and hoped they would give you better image quality than jpg images.
dng files require psecialised software to open and edit.
Without the specialised software, you are only going to see a small preview jpg file that's inside each dng file.
It's tiny - only 960 x 720 pixels, so you'll never get any detail working with those.
The dng files are 8064 x 6048 so they have lots of detail.
But here's the thing .... your jpg files are also 8064 x 6048 and contain exactly the same amount of detail.
You won't see any more detail shooting raw images than shooting jpg.

Shooting raw images will give you some more options for editing your image files, but in truth, it's going to require specialised software, more work in editing and not going to really do that much to improve your results.
It's easy to get the impression from some forum posters, that shooting raw is the key to spectacular images and everyone should be doing it.
But for most folks, shooting jpg will give you very good results and it's all you need.
I would think that really, less than 10% of users need to be shooting raw.

The camera sensor in your Mini 3 is 2.3 times larger than the one in the Mini.
Shooting jpg, you should still be getting significantly better image quality and better detail than you did with the original Mini.

 

[cameraz]

OK ... reading these comments together explains the issue you are having.
You haven't used raw images before and hoped they would give you better image quality than jpg images.
dng files require psecialised software to open and edit.
Without the specialised software, you are only going to see a small preview jpg file that's inside each dng file.
It's tiny - only 960 x 720 pixels, so you'll never get any detail working with those.
The dng files are 8064 x 6048 so they have lots of detail.
But here's the thing .... your jpg files are also 8064 x 6048 and contain exactly the same amount of detail.
You won't see any more detail shooting raw images than shooting jpg.

Shooting raw images will give you some more options for editing your image files, but in truth, it's going to require specialised software, more work in editing and not going to really do that much to improve your results.
It's easy to get the impression from some forum posters, that shooting raw is the key to spectacular images and everyone should be doing it.
But for most folks, shooting jpg will give you very good results and it's all you need.
I would think that really, less than 10% of users need to be shooting raw.

The camera sensor in your Mini 3 is 2.3 times larger than the one in the Mini.
Shooting jpg, you should still be getting significantly better image quality and better detail than you did with the original Mini.

Thank you for this. I learned something today.