14mp not 20mp

[Meta4]

Would I have purchased this drone if DJI had made full and honest disclosure of their specifications? No. I would have either waited for a new product that honestly met my criteria for purchase, or I would have considered a second hand hex and qualifications to fly it.

You might be waiting a long, long time for a better camera at a comparable price.
I'd recommend you sell your disappointing P4 pro and buy something that gives you what you think you need.

 

[RustyCardores]

You might be waiting a long, long time for a better camera at a comparable price.

and that is my prerogative

I'd recommend you sell your disappointing P4 pro and buy something that gives you what you think you need.

and I might do just that. But a better option would have been able to make a true informed decision in the first place.

 

[andy_k]

meta4 seems very quick to throw insults around but very slow to answer questions - it all sounds a bit desperate and like he doesn't really have a grip on what's annoying some people but he's OK so we can all take a walk..

So, let's try again (no big words this time eh?).

The sensor is as near to 20mp as can be expected - forget the straw man arguments - this is not under dispute

The lens just about utilises the whole sensor - again, not under dispute

Now, here's where it gets tricky for some people

The pre-applied profile which is forced upon us that like to use raw files in Adobe products is just plain awful.

• it performs destructive edits in what us claimed to be a raw file
• it scales/distorts and crops the 20mp image down to approximately 15mp (25% reduction)
• it then applies several 'pre-sets' which includes colour correction, exposure boost and some degree of correction to chromatic aberration
• finally it enlarges the image to larger than the actual sensor and calls this a 'raw' file.

To any rational thinking (no fan boy) photographer this is a ridiculous state of affairs and the fact that it is done to cover up the inadequacies of the lens is a little dishonest.

 

[andy_k]

I'd recommend you sell your disappointing P4 pro and buy something that gives you what you think you need.

are you 14?

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

A 16mp camera body for astrophotography, by a good maker, would be $12-15k, just for comparison.
BQ

 

[Dronefriend]

meta4 seems very quick to throw insults around but very slow to answer questions - it all sounds a bit desperate and like he doesn't really have a grip on what's annoying some people but he's OK so we can all take a walk..

So, let's try again (no big words this time eh?).

The sensor is as near to 20mp as can be expected - forget the straw man arguments - this is not under dispute

The lens just about utilises the whole sensor - again, not under dispute

Now, here's where it gets tricky for some people

The pre-applied profile which is forced upon us that like to use raw files in Adobe products is just plain awful.

• it performs destructive edits in what us claimed to be a raw file
• it scales/distorts and crops the 20mp image down to approximately 15mp (25% reduction)
• it then applies several 'pre-sets' which includes colour correction, exposure boost and some degree of correction to chromatic aberration
• finally it enlarges the image to larger than the actual sensor and calls this a 'raw' file.

To any rational thinking (no fan boy) photographer this is a ridiculous state of affairs and the fact that it is done to cover up the inadequacies of the lens is a little dishonest.

I thank you for the clarifications!

So it is not that the whole sensor is not used, it is that the lens is so fisheye/wide, that in the corners it produces severe vignetting and fisheye distortions, so bad that to make up for it, the pre-applied profile crops it away, apply some other 'corrections' for other qualities, then upscale it to the size it was before the crop?

If this is the case and not what I believed, it is not as bad as I thought. Is this the case or not?

See what comes from good discussion and not pie tossing...

Even still, I think that the amount of effective pixels should be advertised for what they are. This might not apply much at all to videographers as myself since I film in 16:9 and the corners are cut away anyways, but to photographers. Photographers who have gotten a lot already, for a good price, but still not what was paid for.

Seems to me it cannot be a true 24mm equivalent lens if it produces this much fisheye effect?

 

[RustyCardores]

I thank you for the clarifications!

So it is not that the whole sensor is not used, it is that the lens is so fisheye/wide, that in the corners it produces severe vignetting and fisheye distortions, so bad that to make up for it, the pre-applied profile crops it away, apply some other 'corrections' for other qualities, then upscale it to the size it was before the crop?

If this is the case and not what I believed, it is not as bad as I thought. Is this the case or not?

See what comes from good discussion and not pie tossing...

Even still, I think that the amount of effective pixels should be advertised for what they are. This might not apply much at all to videographers as myself, but to photographers. Photographers who have gotten a lot already, for a good price, but still not what was paid for.

Seems to me it cannot be a true 24mm equivalent lens if it produces this much fisheye effect?

No it is a combination of the fact the whole sensor is not used (the lens' image circle fails to reach the corners and is cut off to solid black) and that the resulting image of such an incompatible lens, also means that a large amount of distortion correction, sharpening & cropping is required to present a "full frame" image and the fact that DJI don't admit to this fact in their specs and represent the camera and the image it creates as something entirely different.

With regard to the "24mm equivalent FoV" claim, it is based on the corrected image. The lens itself produces a much wider FoV. So it's technical smoke & mirrors all round by DJI.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

You do realize that you can't take DJI to court, RIGHT? Read the user agreements. 3rd party arbitration only, no courts or judges.
So, either accept the issue or return it, sell it.
BQ

 

[RustyCardores]

You do realize that you can't take DJI to court, RIGHT? Read the user agreements. 3rd party arbitration only, no courts or judges.
So, either accept the issue or return it, sell it.
BQ

That's does not necessarily hold, as companies in Australia must adhere to Australian Consumer Law. There are no exceptions. If they choose to trade in Australia, then they must do so by accepting the laws as set out by the ACCC.

Now I can keep it or return it, or take issue with their misleading practices and report them to the ACCC... as a consumer I have that choice. The later I would consider doing, in an effort to make full disclosure of the true product specifications available to consumers, so they may make an informed decision about the product prior to purchase.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

That's does not necessarily hold, as companies in Australia must adhere to Australian Consumer Law. There are no exceptions. If they choose to trade in Australia, then they must do so by accepting the laws as set out by the ACCC.

Now I can keep it or return it, or take issue with their misleading practices and report them to the ACCC... as a consumer I have that choice. The later I would consider doing, in an effort to make full disclosure of the true product specifications available to consumers, so they may make an informed decision about the product prior to purchase.

I agree completely, complain to the ACCC, I think that's your choice, but seriously, send it back while you can, if you are that unhappy.
BQ

 

[Geoff G]

No it is a combination of the fact the whole sensor is not used (the lens' image circle fails to reach the corners and is cut off to solid black) and that the resulting image of such an incompatible lens,

[Sorry if my earlier post looked if if I was defending DJI - just playing Devil's Advocate.]

Are you saying that this is mechanical vignetting (solid black)? Looking at the excellent images provided by Andy_K earlier in this thread, of the full frame RAW file, there appears to be some detail to the corners of the frame, meaning possibly optical (lens) vignetting, or pixel (sensor) vignetting.
I don't have a P4P so my interest is not personal, and neither do I wish try to defend DJI!

The very name 1" sensor is extremely misleading (although not of DJI's making), but a good advertising tag for DJI. Then you realise it's an 8 x 13mm sensor, then you come down to an even smaller area being upsampled to get back to what they describe it as in the first place. Really.

I don't think that our customers would be happy if we quadrupled all the dots in our 4k material and told them it was 8k!! The whole thing seems like a big con.

 

[RustyCardores]

[Sorry if my earlier post looked if if I was defending DJI - just playing Devil's Advocate.]

Are you saying that this is mechanical vignetting (solid black)? Looking at the excellent images provided by Andy_K earlier in this thread, of the full frame RAW file, there appears to be some detail to the corners of the frame, meaning possibly optical (lens) vignetting, or pixel (sensor) vignetting.
I don't have a P4P so my interest is not personal, and neither do I wish try to defend DJI!

The very name 1" sensor is extremely misleading (although not of DJI's making), but a good advertising tag for DJI. Then you realise it's an 8 x 13mm sensor, then you come down to an even smaller area being upsampled to get back to what they describe it as in the first place. Really.

I don't think that our customers would be happy if we quadrupled all the dots in our 4k material and told them it was 8k!! The whole thing seems like a big con.

While there is regular vignetting, it is nothing dramatic. The black in the corners of mine are indeed black, as it is the end of the lens' image circle (mechanical). Prior to the black there is a rather defined band of distorted image and I believe this too to be mechanical, as it is far from the gradual degradation that one would normally expect. Combine these and the crop/enlargement required (and what DJI uses) is rather significant.

And you are absolutely right.... 8K is 8K and not 4K interpolated. Just as 20mp effective is 20mp and not 15k interpolated.

 

[Geoff G]

The black in the corners of mine are indeed black, as it is the end of the lens' image circle (mechanical)

That's bad news.
Am I correct in thinking that the P4P has aperture adustment? If so, does a wider aperture soften the effect, as you'd expect?

 

[RustyCardores]

That's bad news.
Am I correct in thinking that the P4P has aperture adustment? If so, does a wider aperture soften the effect, as you'd expect?

You know what.... that's a good question, as I did an early test session to find the lens sweet spot (f7.1) and have been shooting around that ever since. I will go back through my early samples and have a look.

 

[andy_k]

You know what.... that's a good question, as I did an early test session to find the lens sweet spot (f7.1) and have been shooting around that ever since. I will go back through my early samples and have a look.

I'd disagree with 7.1 being the 'sweet spot' because as you say, it starts to go soft at the extreme edges - 5.6 works much better for me and although there is some vignetting nothing turns to black and with a little additional work everything can be recovered as long as you don't use Adobe Camera Raw

 

[Geoff G]

That's one good thing about fixed aperture lenses, at least you know which aperture the lens is optimised for!

 

[RustyCardores]

I'd disagree with 7.1 being the 'sweet spot' because as you say, it starts to go soft at the extreme edges - 5.6 works much better for me and although there is some vignetting nothing turns to black and with a little additional work everything can be recovered as long as you don't use Adobe Camera Raw

It prob varies a little from unit to unit and the workflow used. 5.6 was pretty good for me too, but I thought that 7.1 just had the visual edge.

Re the corners.... I have detail in the right corners that can be recovered, but it's fuzzy and of little value. The left corners (lower especially) goes to complete black however. You can pull it 5 stops and there is still nothing there. Again... it's not work recovering anyway.

So it seems mine is a little off centre too. That could explain the differing sweet spots.

 

[andy_k]

Are you saying that this is mechanical vignetting (solid black)? Looking at the excellent images provided by Andy_K earlier in this thread, of the full frame RAW file, there appears to be some detail to the corners of the frame, meaning possibly optical (lens) vignetting, or pixel (sensor) vignetting.

There is detail at the edges (certainly if you shoot at lower/wider apertures) and there is no drastic softening or distortion at the edges - you just have to get creative to remove the vignetting

 

[RustyCardores]

That's one good thing about fixed aperture lenses, at least you know which aperture the lens is optimised for!

True. We have a couple of Mavics here and they are fixed f2.8 Both have just come back from DJI after having new cameras installed. The original lenses where all over the shop and unusable. I've tested one and it's now bloody good with just the smallest of "natural" falloffs at the extreme corners. Interestingly, there is no profile applied to the Mavic images and I think they look so much better for it. One day I will put both the Mavic up with the P4P and grab a sample comparison. That should make for an interesting overlay that just might surprise a few people.

 

[RustyCardores]

There is detail at the edges (certainly if you shoot at lower/wider apertures) and there is no drastic softening or distortion at the edges - you just have to get creative to remove the vignetting

I would be surprised if 7.1 to 5.6 would regain for me what I see in your sample Andy, but I will give all apertures another go for sure. Cheers