Video quality comparison between 1.03.1000 and 1.04.0000

[CMartin00]

Here are two videos comparing the last firmware with washed out video to the new firmware. It appears that the video quality is back to where it was before the .1000 firmware broke it.

Old v1.03.1000

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

Accept third party cookies

New v1.04.0000

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

Accept third party cookies

 

[Dronion]

As I said in other posts, do these videos have been made at same time and exactly in the same light conditions? Light can change everything. Otherwise it is not possible to do a real comparison between the two videos.

 

[Kilrah]

Not the same conditions at all.

 

[CMartin00]

These were taken at nearly the same time of day under the exact same sunny conditions. It's as close to ideal as I could make it. There was about a 45 minute time difference in the time of day these were shot. It's not perfect but you can clearly see the overexposure has been changed.

 

[CMartin00]

Although they were 2 weeks apart.

 

[Kilrah]

You must not have watched your own videos... One has the sun pretty much directly overhead, and the other is at sunrise/sunset with low sun.

Even considering 45min difference + the change in daylight time across 2 weeks I don't see how it could be that far off...

One's completely out of focus too.

 

[CMartin00]

Focus has nothing to do with exposure, which was my issue with the last update. I didn't know we had to upload studio quality aerial shots to do simple comparisons. I apologize that i have offended your delicate sensibilities, you will not have to worry about me posting on the forum anymore. I was just trying to help.

 

[Kilrah]

2 shots with completely different lighting when you're trying to judge exposure are of no help at all. Focus is not a directly related problem, but kinda further illustrates the "care" put in the whole contribution...

 

[CMartin00]

I thought this was a hobbyist forum and people might want to contribute to a discussion on whether or not the new firmware was an improvement. I seem to have been mistaken. I'm anxiously awaiting your comparison videos, but I fear that the lighting under your troll bridge might be a bit too subpar.

 

[CMartin00]

I also checked the timestamps on the two videos and they were taken a little over 3 hours apart, first one was at 4:13 pm second one was at 1:00 pm (3 weeks apart). Not exactly the same, but realatively close in the amount of light coming down at this time of year. I really didn't expect anyone to be doing a csi level analysis on this, if anyone else has any other examples or test videos i'd love to see them.

 

[TheoMatthias]

@CMartin00 - Thanks for your efforts to contribute to the community. The spirit of your motivation was very well intended.

I have found this community to be a wonderful blend of hobbyists, technicians and aerial video professionals. I have also noticed that the more technically involved topics tend to be followed by those who appreciate presentations that adhere to some sort of evaluation protocol that strives to be scientifically valid. Of course, this isn't always possible.

My background is also technically-oriented. I have been writing computer code for the last 40 years and, like many folks here, find myself appreciating a compelling presentation which strives to be based on a scientifically valid protocol that includes a minimum of independent test variables.

So, while your protocol may not have yielded conclusive results, your willingness to contribute to the community should be recognized. Perhaps others can suggest improvements to your protocol and, when employed, you can report your results at a later date.

Thanks,

Theo

 

[Flying Ant]

Yea thanks bro for your effort......don't worry too much about the muppets on forums who do nothing but criticize everyone. No wonder the world is sooo ferked up. These people are probably not very happy with their own lives. Thankyou for your effort
Safe flying!

Btw there's a BIG difference between constructive criticism and criticism. If you want to critique another person (who btw was just trying to help) ....go to the effort of posting your own scientific, perfect analysis without any discrepancy. Nothing wrong with critical analysis......just do it nicely!!

 

[Kilrah]

I thought this was a hobbyist forum and people might want to contribute to a discussion on whether or not the new firmware was an improvement. I seem to have been mistaken.

Absolutely correct, but the point is precisely that in this case due to the flawed procedure what you posted doesn't give any valuable insight on the subject, and would actually be misleading for people who don't know to recognise it.

If you want to help then do it right, otherwiise don't bother cause half attempts like these are actually detrimental and worse than doing nothing.

 

[gnirtS]

Unfortunately those 2 tests are so far apart its pretty much impossible to judge any difference. There are simply too many variables. Its also lacking in the exact settings use (iso, shutter speed, EV readout, sharpness, contrast etc).
A few hours time difference combined with the season moving on can have a huge difference on sun strength. As can sun, haze, cloud, even humidity.

 

[Flying Ant]

@CMartin00 - Thanks for your efforts to contribute to the community. The spirit of your motivation was very well intended.

I have found this community to be a wonderful blend of hobbyists, technicians and aerial video professionals. I have also noticed that the more technically involved topics tend to be followed by those who appreciate presentations that adhere to some sort of evaluation protocol that strives to be scientifically valid. Of course, this isn't always possible.

My background is also technically-oriented. I have been writing computer code for the last 40 years and, like many folks here, find myself appreciating a compelling presentation which strives to be based on a scientifically valid protocol that includes a minimum of independent test variables.

So, while your protocol may not have yielded conclusive results, your willingness to contribute to the community should be recognized. Perhaps others can suggest improvements to your protocol and, when employed, you can report your results at a later date.

Thanks,

Theo

Well said Theo

 

[Robbyg]

Since I no longer update my firmware it's impossible for me to judge if it's fixed but I do know that almost every YouTube video I have watched that compared .1000 to .0900 the video from 1000 looked really washed out. Surprisingly some reviewers thought it looked better!
Maybe they are seeing something I am missing.

I am still waiting for one of those same vblogers who will no doubt show me a less washed out .4.000 and then claim once again tell me much better it is than 1000.

I will still stack the old .0400 against any of them because DJI is seemingly in an uncontrollable gyration trying to figure out a method to make a sub par camera system do miracles using software updates.

My hats off to all you guys willing to help DJI chase their tail.

Rob