Question on ISO and Shutter Speed.

[offtheback]

Not familiar with drone photography YET,but on land a CPL needs to be rotated to achieve any effect.Light coming from 90 degrees is affecred most.How do you use it on a drone?

 

[Mr. Salty]

The whole 'shutter speed should be double the frame rate' is a thing relating to motion picture production. It creates a sort of surreal hypnotic effect, and possibly has no place in recreational Mavic recording

Sorry to be disagreeable, but it’s not about creating a “surreal hypnotic effect.” Just the opposite actually. It’s about producing a more natural looking image.

It’s like the jerky looking images you’d see with the old stop-motion animation special effects. The reason stop-motion looks fake is because every frame that makes up the moving image is perfectly sharp. That just looks fake to the human eye.

As far as your comment that this has “no place in recreational Mavic recording” ... That just has no basis in fact.

 

[Pathogen]

Sorry to be disagreeable, but it’s not about creating a “surreal hypnotic effect.” Just the opposite actually. It’s about producing a more natural looking image.

We can agree to disagree. I would offer that if the intent was to create 'natural' look, then shutter would need to be set at the SAME rate at frame rate, creating an evenly blurred chain of images, just like the way we actually see, rather than a flashing series of half blurred images, which we only see if we are under flickering artificial lighting.

The combination of a low frate rate of 24fps and shutter of 48 does indeed have a gentle 'epileptic' type hypnotic effect. One need simply observe 30fps 60 shutter material to note the difference. I confess that few people actually use their display devices at a 24 Hz refresh rate, but rest assured it is what you get in a movie theatre.

It’s like the jerky looking images you’d see with the old stop-motion animation special effects. The reason stop-motion looks fake is because every frame that makes up the moving image is perfectly sharp. That just looks fake to the human eye.

I would argue that it is not so much the sharpness, but the low frame rate (which is ultimately bandwidth) that lets us down in the context of realism. Gamers will complain that even 60fps isn't enough. 120fps is probably the practical upper limit of our perception abilities. Ridley Scott, for example, used a high speed shutter in the Gladiator sword battle scenes, and effectively created a realistic feel, at 24fps.

 

[jackdaws]

Not familiar with drone photography YET,but on land a CPL needs to be rotated to achieve any effect.Light coming from 90 degrees is affecred most.How do you use it on a drone?

Switch the drone on and hold the filter in front of the lens while looking at your phone screen. Before placing the filter on rotate it to the desired point and place it on. Its a little annoying, but its obviously what you have to do! otherwise if its placed on incorrectly then you're simply looking through clear glass with no polarisation as you already know.

 

[offtheback]

Switch the drone on and hold the filter in front of the lens while looking at your phone screen. Before placing the filter on rotate it to the desired point and place it on. Its a little annoying, but its obviously what you have to do! otherwise if its placed on incorrectly then you're simply looking through clear glass with no polarisation as you already know.

Thanks.

 

[offtheback]

Thanks.

Makes it a little less definite than ground photography and the wide angle on the drone would have variable effect at the extremes if field if view.

 

[gnirtS]

For photos you WANT a high shutter speed. It'll get a crisp, sharp image so if its still photos, don't use an ND.
Also forget the decades dated information about a UV filter and haze. Its a throwback to the film era but digital sensors dont see it and aren't affected. All a UV filter does is put another layer of glass into the system increasing the chance of lens flare and reducing image quality.

 

[jackdaws]

For photos you WANT a high shutter speed. It'll get a crisp, sharp image so if its still photos, don't use an ND.
Also forget the decades dated information about a UV filter and haze. Its a throwback to the film era but digital sensors dont see it and aren't affected. All a UV filter does is put another layer of glass into the system increasing the chance of lens flare and reducing image quality.

You could not be more wrong. UV filters make a huge difference.

 

[Pathogen]

You could not be more wrong. UV filters make a huge difference.

but whatever you do don't say why!

Here is an interesting article on UV filters from Tom Axford of dpreview.com: Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens?

My evaluation of the evidence is that there is no really compelling evidence either to use a filter or not, except in a very few situations when it is better not to use a filter to avoid in-focus ghost images.

 

[gnirtS]

You could not be more wrong. UV filters make a huge difference.

OK so provide some probably validated evidence of that. Controlled, repeatable tests.

There's a reason absolutely nobody uses UV filters for any type of professional digital photography - that reason is quite simply because they do absolutely nothing.

So, lets see your properly controlled, validated evidence. For added bonus points, lets hear your theories as to how exactly it can make a difference to an image.

 

[Mako79]

24fps motion blur is to trick the mind to make everything feel fake and dream-like (surrealism). They do this in exotic ads to make it so that 'you can afford' this item. They do this in movies to remind the brain that it is fake. When they added more frames (50/60fps) into the cinema, they found many movie goers had increased heart rates and suffered nightmares, especially in horror movies. The higher frame rates made the movie feel too real - like a home video and high realism = less ticket sales. This is why movies still have not adopted 60fps even though they have capable hardware.

The only movie i recall that was filmed in 60fps was Blair witch project.

 

[Mr. Salty]

There's a reason absolutely nobody uses UV filters for any type of professional digital photography - that reason is quite simply because they do absolutely nothing.

I’ve been a photojournalist for 30 years and count two Pulitzer Prize winners among my friends and co-workers, and absolutely all of us do use UV filters on our lenses. Not because they’ve ever done anything to improve image quality - with film or digital - but because they are effective protection for our lenses.

I don’t use a UV filter on my Mavic because I’m not worried about damaging the lens. But I absolutely do use high quality UV filters on my DSLR Glass.

 

[Mr. Salty]

24fps motion blur is to trick the mind to make everything feel fake and dream-like (surrealism). They do this in exotic ads to make it so that 'you can afford' this item. They do this in movies to remind the brain that it is fake. When they added more frames (50/60fps) into the cinema, they found many movie goers had increased heart rates and suffered nightmares, especially in horror movies. The higher frame rates made the movie feel too real - like a home video and high realism = less ticket sales. This is why movies still have not adopted 60fps even though they have capable hardware.

The only movie i recall that was filmed in 60fps was Blair witch project.

You’re going to need to cite some sources, because it sounds like you pulled most of that out of thin air.

Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit movies at 48 fps and people hated how it looked. The human eye simply doesn’t see the world in that kind of sharpness.

 

[Mako79]

You’re going to need to cite some sources, because it sounds like you pulled most of that out of thin air.

Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit movies at 48 fps and people hated how it looked. The human eye simply doesn’t see the world in that kind of sharpness.

I read it years ago because i got blasted for using 720@60fps on my phantom 2 vision plus... Everything ironically looked robotic with 60fps because it was too crisp and sharp.

Here is a similar link to support it..
"Also, there is the hypothesis that as 24fps is less information for the brain to process, watching content at 24fps will put your brain in a more relaxed state, similar to hypnosis."
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-movies-shown-in-24fps-while-60fps-looks-more-real

So, If you want to achieve documentary-home-video feel or capture sports action then higher fps the better.
If you want to achieve "professional cinematic footage", use 24fps and create motion blur by slowing down the shutter speeds to 1/50th.

 

[jackdaws]

OK so provide some probably validated evidence of that. Controlled, repeatable tests.

There's a reason absolutely nobody uses UV filters for any type of professional digital photography - that reason is quite simply because they do absolutely nothing.

So, lets see your properly controlled, validated evidence. For added bonus points, lets hear your theories as to how exactly it can make a difference to an image.

Ok, first try to stop crying and calm down. If a stone hits your lens without a UV filter, you break your lens... with a UV filter fitted you dramatically reduce the risk of breaking your lens.
I can provide a photo of a broken lens and a broken UV filter if i must.

 

[Kilrah]

With an UV filter you also get extra unwanted reflections/loss of contrast.
Each to his own to decide whether the extra protection outweighs the hit on picture quality, but to decide you need to know about all sides of the coin.

I never scratched a lens in now about 10 years of photography in environments that aren't always friendly, so my choice is made.

 

[gnirtS]

Ok, first try to stop crying and calm down. If a stone hits your lens without a UV filter, you break your lens... with a UV filter fitted you dramatically reduce the risk of breaking your lens.
I can provide a photo of a broken lens and a broken UV filter if i must.

Are there loads of rocks at 400ft then?
Putting a ****** bit of glass in front of another already ****** bit of glass isn't exactly a good recipe for quality images.

 

[jackdaws]

Are there loads of rocks at 400ft then?
Putting a ****** bit of glass in front of another already ****** bit of glass isn't exactly a good recipe for quality images.

Try to calm down and take deep breaths...... the world won't implode if people choose to use UV filters... try not to worry.

 

[Pathogen]

Behold fearsome gods of the drones,The Harpyiai, decree thou shalt refrain from UV filters, from this day henceforth! Disobey and you shall be cast down amongst the unwashed heathen swine of Osmo users, and your offspring forever more shall play Pokémon! Heed this warning, repent of your unholy crimes!

 

[Mr. Salty]

With an UV filter you also get extra unwanted reflections/loss of contrast.

If you use ****** quality filters, maybe. If you use a quality filter like B+W, Nikon or Canon, I defy you to tell the difference between a photo taken with a filter or without.

Are there loads of rocks at 400ft then?

There are plenty of insects, and my Mavic and Phantom have both been pasted by them. And there can be plenty of dust and sand kicked up on takeoff and landing.

Putting a ****** bit of glass in front of another already ****** bit of glass isn't exactly a good recipe for quality images.

If you think the Mavic's lens is so ****** then it pretty much doesn't matter what you do with shutter speeds, filters or anything else, does it? You probably should sell your Mavic and buy something better to meet your tight engineering requirements.