It looks like, in Andy's picture, that the upper left is slightly darker too.
14mp not 20mp
- Thread starter ryanmanchester
- Start date
- Status
As I read through this, I see that the thread was started by someone who is not happy that DJI mis-represented the specs of the camera.
Meta4 and some others didn't read the initial post properly and don't seem to understand that this thread is about misleading advertising and they have (repeatedly) injected irrelevant opinions, useless advice and even some childish insults. They have said repeatedly that they are happy with the camera quality and that they don't care that DJI misrepresented it in their literature. We got it. We understand your position and accept it. So now move along to another thread and let those of us that care about false advertising or deceptive marketing finish the discussion.
Personally, whenever I see the word "effective" beside a megapixel number, I treat it like an asterisk that means it's not a true megapixel number - so if I cared as much as the OP about those details, I would have looked them up/enquired as soon as I saw the word "effective".
I haven't looked at the exact wording of the DJI literature, but if there is a 20MP sensor in the camera and their specs say "20 MP sensor", I'd say they're covered legally regardless of the lens and other factors - but if they say 20MP RAW images, then they've flat out lied.
In any case - I believe that DJI has misrepresented the camera quality (to their own advantage) and that they should have included an asterisk and a full description of the specifications that are important to people like the OP so that they can make an informed decision. Conversely - I think that if the OP cares so much about those particular specs - the word "effective" in the product literature, and the price of the entire rig should have been all the warnings he needed to see in order to prompt a deeper investigation into the specs before purchasing.
Nobody on this thread has said that the image quality is "bad" or overpriced. The only thing up for debate here is whether or not the camera quality and capabilities match what DJI advertised them to be. (Not what Meta4 arbitrarily declares to be 'good enough' and not 'the best that is possible due to design constraints and price point'.). It either matches what DJI advertised or it doesn't - and although it's too late for the OP - the discussion here could be useful to someone else who is contemplating a purchase in the future.
Meta4 and some others didn't read the initial post properly and don't seem to understand that this thread is about misleading advertising and they have (repeatedly) injected irrelevant opinions, useless advice and even some childish insults. They have said repeatedly that they are happy with the camera quality and that they don't care that DJI misrepresented it in their literature. We got it. We understand your position and accept it. So now move along to another thread and let those of us that care about false advertising or deceptive marketing finish the discussion.
Personally, whenever I see the word "effective" beside a megapixel number, I treat it like an asterisk that means it's not a true megapixel number - so if I cared as much as the OP about those details, I would have looked them up/enquired as soon as I saw the word "effective".
I haven't looked at the exact wording of the DJI literature, but if there is a 20MP sensor in the camera and their specs say "20 MP sensor", I'd say they're covered legally regardless of the lens and other factors - but if they say 20MP RAW images, then they've flat out lied.
In any case - I believe that DJI has misrepresented the camera quality (to their own advantage) and that they should have included an asterisk and a full description of the specifications that are important to people like the OP so that they can make an informed decision. Conversely - I think that if the OP cares so much about those particular specs - the word "effective" in the product literature, and the price of the entire rig should have been all the warnings he needed to see in order to prompt a deeper investigation into the specs before purchasing.
Nobody on this thread has said that the image quality is "bad" or overpriced. The only thing up for debate here is whether or not the camera quality and capabilities match what DJI advertised them to be. (Not what Meta4 arbitrarily declares to be 'good enough' and not 'the best that is possible due to design constraints and price point'.). It either matches what DJI advertised or it doesn't - and although it's too late for the OP - the discussion here could be useful to someone else who is contemplating a purchase in the future.
Thanks Tenly.
DJI state that the camera is "20mp Effective"..... there is an industry standard as to what this means and therefore it's not a "flag raiser" so to speak.
Many cameras will have a sensor slightly larger than the image it produces. So for example, a camera that has a 20.8mp sensor but only uses a 20mp area for the image, will be described as Sensor 20.8mp (20mp Effective). Some manufacturers may choose to simply list it as "20mp Effective" as that is the true image size created and one that a consumer should be able to take with confidence.
Similarly, there is an industry standard to describe interpolated image resolutions. If an image is a product of software enlargement, then the word "Interpolated" is always displayed after the resolution.
DJI fail on both these counts, as the camera in reality is only 14-15mp "effective" and the final 20mp image in indeed "interpolated".
Both of these misleading descriptions are most definitely to DJI's advantage.
DJI state that the camera is "20mp Effective"..... there is an industry standard as to what this means and therefore it's not a "flag raiser" so to speak.
Many cameras will have a sensor slightly larger than the image it produces. So for example, a camera that has a 20.8mp sensor but only uses a 20mp area for the image, will be described as Sensor 20.8mp (20mp Effective). Some manufacturers may choose to simply list it as "20mp Effective" as that is the true image size created and one that a consumer should be able to take with confidence.
Similarly, there is an industry standard to describe interpolated image resolutions. If an image is a product of software enlargement, then the word "Interpolated" is always displayed after the resolution.
DJI fail on both these counts, as the camera in reality is only 14-15mp "effective" and the final 20mp image in indeed "interpolated".
Both of these misleading descriptions are most definitely to DJI's advantage.
Last edited:
...and with regard to "bad image quality". I will poke my neck out and say that it is nowhere near as good as it could or should be, based on the specifications promoted. A lens with a larger image circle and a normal amount of image bleed, would result in a much better image. The physical property of covering the sensor with the image circle is kind of a norm, but to use a smaller (obviously cheaper lens) and counter it with a lens profile that is quite destructive in its process (a process that would other wise be unneeded if not for the inappropriate lens) and the results are far from expected.
Now don't get me wrong, many people are happy with the IQ... more power to them. Maybe they don't read the specs in a way that us nit-picky pros do, but that doesn't change the fact that had the camera truely been what the spec claim, we would all be taking better quality photos than we can now.
Now don't get me wrong, many people are happy with the IQ... more power to them. Maybe they don't read the specs in a way that us nit-picky pros do, but that doesn't change the fact that had the camera truely been what the spec claim, we would all be taking better quality photos than we can now.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
So, what other drone-camera combination, with the abilities and functionality, can we buy for a comparable price, offering more than 15mp camera?
BQ
BQ
That's not the point and has never been part of the primary concern discussed here. But since you asked, there are "real camera" carrying second hand hex options available for not much more than a P4P+. Yes they are not the same "all in one unit" yada yada yada .... but they are in a position to be a viable option to the P4P+ for some people. Sadly though (and this takes us back to the primary point that is trying to be made here), is that those people don't get to make a truely informed decision on which way they go, because DJI has not provided truthful information in the specs and make the camera out to be something better than it really is.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
Ok, I grant you that; given your complaints, perhaps one should consider other DRONES. So, if I for instance, we're to return my new P4P while I can, what other drone-camera combination could I consider?
Also,I keep hearing this is not news, I would have thought a person like you would have researched this online. I did not look that deeply into this, the video quality and ease of use, we're more important at the time.
BQ
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
One of the reasons I'm more picky than others I guess, is that video is of no use to me.
I'm a stills guy and stills are so much more demanding than video. Video is lower res in comparison and all that moving hides an awful lot of things
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
I understand, I take a 100 long exposures to create one image of a galaxy or nebula, then hours of post processing.
floydblueastrophotography.com
Take a look if you wish.
BQ
floydblueastrophotography.com
Take a look if you wish.
BQ
Cool stuff!!
I have a mate who is into astro and I've been out with him, but I have only dabbled.
Last edited:
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
I'd be curious how many of the 20MP complainers have used other drones before buying a P4 pro.
Have they come from lesser aerial cameras first or are they going straight from their big SLRs on the ground.
I've flown camera equipped helis and fixed wing 'drones' since the 1990's - usually using Olympus OM10's as they were light and gave great results - I've flown several drones prior to buying a P4P based mainly on DJI's specifications - yes, I was an 'early adopter'.
Now, once again, you are taking your usual stance of sniping against people that dare to have a different opinion to you.
You still haven't answered any of the questions that I (and others) have asked you - yet you expect others to answer yours
Why keep trolling these threads when you have nothing sensible or constructive to offer? Your same old, same old replies really are tedious and suggest that you really haven't got a clue - we all get it, you are happy and you are happy to accept whatever DJI throw at you (the term we normally use is 'fanboy'so carry on but please accept that not everybody is the same as you and some of us believe that asking questions is a way of getting answers (obviously not from you) and working towards a better solution and not accepting the mediocre.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
No Andy ... I'm not sniping at all, I simply said I'm curious.
Read whatever you like into that and it's probably wrong ... I am just curious.
Once again (for the fanboys and hard of thinking) here are two images. The first is the Adobe Camera Raw output with no corrections (apart from the awful embedded lens profile).
Meta4 has asked several times to see a shot that has been ruined by this preset yet magically has managed to ignore any replies that illustrate this problem.
This is the Adobe Camera Raw output from the P4Pro (meta4, if you doubt me, I'm happy to make the dng available). The jpeg output looks almost identical.
So, let's take a look at what is 'wrong' with this image'
highlights are blown beyond recovery in Adobe Camera Raw
the top right of the image is distorted and soft/detail lost (look how wide the road at the edge of the frame is and how the houses have no detail)
the colours are not natural - this is taken in the early morning sun
the left hand side of the image is distorted and soft look at the slope on the low rise building!
all the shadow 'detail' on the cliffs is noisy and way too dark
To, all intents and purposes this is a crap, poorly exposed shot
until we look at this
The same shot (edited in Rawtherapee) with all the highlights preserved, edge distortion all but gone, edge to edge sharpness, additional detail on the cliffs and about 25% extra picture - in other words, exactly as it was taken.
Meta4, you asked for a shot that had been ruined by the pre applied profile - here's one. Now, you show me one where edge to edge detail has not been compromised!
Meta4 has asked several times to see a shot that has been ruined by this preset yet magically has managed to ignore any replies that illustrate this problem.
This is the Adobe Camera Raw output from the P4Pro (meta4, if you doubt me, I'm happy to make the dng available). The jpeg output looks almost identical.
So, let's take a look at what is 'wrong' with this image'
highlights are blown beyond recovery in Adobe Camera Raw
the top right of the image is distorted and soft/detail lost (look how wide the road at the edge of the frame is and how the houses have no detail)
the colours are not natural - this is taken in the early morning sun
the left hand side of the image is distorted and soft look at the slope on the low rise building!
all the shadow 'detail' on the cliffs is noisy and way too dark
To, all intents and purposes this is a crap, poorly exposed shot
until we look at this
Meta4, you asked for a shot that had been ruined by the pre applied profile - here's one. Now, you show me one where edge to edge detail has not been compromised!
Last edited:
curious would answer questions and get involved - sniping would just keep regurgitating the same old 'I'm alright Jack, so you must be wrong' arguments - I'm curious as to why you have ignored all the questions people have asked you
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
Like I said ...you'd probably be wrong.curious would answer questions and get involved - sniping would just keep regurgitating the same old 'I'm alright Jack, so you must be wrong' arguments - I'm curious as to why you have ignored all the questions people have asked you
So why ignore all of the questions?
Is it just that you really have no answers - if so, if it,s not just trolling, why continue to disagree and contradict people that seem to have a different opinion to you?
- Status
