Adobe DNG P2V!

[brianweis]

Jengo - is this one photo or did you stitch photos together.

Russell's photo is awesome but I bet he stitched these together. He did a stitch with raw and posted on his Facebook,

Here is process

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-evangel ... ideo-file/

The issue I have is I do not have 2 hours to stitch and perfect. I guess good photos require great photoshop work.

 

[jengo]

Jengo - is this one photo or did you stitch photos together.

Single photo

 

[garygid]

Impressive pictures, and fish-eye correction, but once the image is jpg compressed,
there is just no getting the real image quality back.

Has anybody tried to examine the DJI RAW file data to discover the format?

Since the format is "undiscovered", it must be encrypted, or lossless compressed
in some nonstandard manner?

 

[Klaus]

Jengo - is this one photo or did you stitch photos together.

Single photo

Hi Jengo

I haven't got mine PV2 yet (hopefully tomorrow) but I have done a lot of reading in here just to be prepared

You have done a good job with the photo, but when I see it in 100% view there are a lot of JPG artifact's (to much compression) and it seem like there are now way we can choose or control that, so I'm really looking forward to see and work with the Raw photos. I'm normally a professional photographer but I am totally new to all this UAV stuff.

It was good you actually uploaded the original photo without editing because I was now sure if the camera actually passed on the Exif-Data. So I saved your photo to my hard drive to look and yes the Exif data are there, great
I can even see the GPS coordinates which I tried to type in here:
http://itouchmap.com/latlong.html
But it seems like it's not exactly right because there are now water at that point it tells me the photo should have been taken.
But not so far away there are water and a Bridge called Dumbarton Bridge.
Is that the place you took the photo?
Of course is none of my business but I'm just interested in how precise it is.

 

[jengo]

Hi Jengo

I haven't got mine PV2 yet (hopefully tomorrow) but I have done a lot of reading in here just to be prepared

You have done a good job with the photo, but when I see it in 100% view there are a lot of JPG artifact's (to much compression) and it seem like there are now way we can choose or control that, so I'm really looking forward to see and work with the Raw photos. I'm normally a professional photographer but I am totally new to all this UAV stuff.

It was good you actually uploaded the original photo without editing because I was now sure if the camera actually passed on the Exif-Data. So I saved your photo to my hard drive to look and yes the Exif data are there, great
I can even see the GPS coordinates which I tried to type in here:
http://itouchmap.com/latlong.html
But it seems like it's not exactly right because there are now water at that point it tells me the photo should have been taken.
But not so far away there are water and a Bridge called Dumbarton Bridge.
Is that the place you took the photo?
Of course is none of my business but I'm just interested in how precise it is.

Thanks! I haven't had mine long, so I am just starting a new set on flickr for my quad photos. http://www.flickr.com/photos/joped/sets ... 057809054/ Shameless plug

Well, of course there will be artifacts if you look at 100%. If I look at pictures taken with my Canon 7D and look at 100% I will find issues with it as well. As long as it looks good in a gallery of images that is all I personally care about. You really can't take these to print.

I always post my full EXIF. Except for privacy reasons with the GPS location on some photos, I don't understand why people strip it. IMO.

I used the website you mentioned and had no trouble finding the exact location. I searched for 37°47'29" N 122°23'22" W which is the location listed in the EXIF. The exact position I shot in was about 100' NNW from what the map shows.

 

[jengo]

Impressive pictures, and fish-eye correction, but once the image is jpg compressed,
there is just no getting the real image quality back.

Has anybody tried to examine the DJI RAW file data to discover the format?

Since the format is "undiscovered", it must be encrypted, or lossless compressed
in some nonstandard manner?

Well, no one has bothered reverse engineering it because DJI has announced they are going to release it. It takes a lot of time and effort to reverse engineer it. It isn't encrypted and without a doubt is non-standard. All RAW is non-standard which is why you need decoders for every single sensor out there. They have had next to no processing done to them, which is why you can do a lot of custom post on them after the fact.

 

[Klaus]

I used the website you mentioned and had no trouble finding the exact location. I searched for 37°47'29" N 122°23'22" W which is the location listed in the EXIF.

Hmmm so that Dumbarton Bridge was not right?
It actually tells me that the exact location should be Hawes Elementary School.

I had a look at your photos on Flickr and yes they look good and the quality are ok for online viewing.
I still hope that we will be able to get print quality out of the Raw photos.
Also hope that it won't take long before Adobe makes a Converter.
Thanks for sharing your photos.

 

[jengo]

I used the website you mentioned and had no trouble finding the exact location. I searched for 37°47'29" N 122°23'22" W which is the location listed in the EXIF.

Hmmm so that Dumbarton Bridge was not right?
It actually tells me that the exact location should be Hawes Elementary School.

I had a look at your photos on Flickr and yes they look good and the quality are ok for online viewing.
I still hope that we will be able to get print quality out of the Raw photos.
Also hope that it won't take long before Adobe makes a Converter.
Thanks for sharing your photos.

No, that is the Bay Bridge in San Francisco, CA. If you really need print quality photos you will need to spend a lot more money to get a much larger multi-copter that you cab put a DSLR on it.

Either way ya, I am hoping for much higher quality regardless. Taking RAW on the P2V is SLOW. It takes like 8 seconds to save a single photo and very frequently I will lose video for a second or two after. I do have a fast SanDisk so that isn't the issue, I think it is a class 11.

 

[Bunyarra]

Well, CES and DJI have come and gone ; kinda hoped they would release the updated firmware for DNG there. It was expected end of Dec / start of Jan.

Did I miss any little nugget?

 

[jimre]

Reading thru this thread - I think people should be clear that RAW (DNG) format will *not* miraculously make P2V images equal to DSLR images. It may have 14 million pixels, but they're jammed onto a tiny, tiny, sensor - just 1/2.3" according to the manual. On the diagram below (from Wikipedia), that's the smallest size shown. Compare with crop-sensor DSLRs (APS-C) or full-frame DSLRs (35mm full frame). Bigger pixels are better-quality pixels:

The RAW (DNG) format *will* help get rid of JPEG compression artifacts. You'll still have to turn your RAW image into a JPEG to share or post it - but at least you'll have control over the process. Currently the P2V camera uses very aggressive default JPEG compression settings, resulting in small files with too many artifacts.

RAW won't make the image any sharper - in fact, RAW images have ZERO sharpening. But that's the point - you then use software like Lightroom, Photoshop, or Gimp for fine control over the sharpening process.

Overall, having RAW/DNG will give photographers much more control to maximize the image quality - but the ultimate quality limit will still be the sensor and lens.

 

[JustJames]

Reading thru this thread - I think people should be clear that RAW (DNG) format will *not* miraculously make P2V images equal to DSLR images. It may have 14 million pixels, but they're jammed onto a tiny, tiny, sensor - just 1/2.3" according to the manual. On the diagram below (from Wikipedia), that's the smallest size shown. Compare with crop-sensor DSLRs (APS-C) or full-frame DSLRs (35mm full frame). Bigger pixels are better-quality pixels:

The RAW (DNG) format *will* help get rid of JPEG compression artifacts. You'll still have to turn your RAW image into a JPEG to share or post it - but at least you'll have control over the process. Currently the P2V camera uses very aggressive default JPEG compression settings, resulting in small files with too many artifacts.

RAW won't make the image any sharper - in fact, RAW images have ZERO sharpening. But that's the point - you then use software like Lightroom, Photoshop, or Gimp for fine control over the sharpening process.

Overall, having RAW/DNG will give photographers much more control to maximize the image quality - but the ultimate quality limit will still be the sensor and lens.

Good info thanks for posting.

 

[Mactab]

Jimre wrote

Overall, having RAW/DNG will give photographers much more control to maximize the image quality - but the ultimate quality limit will still be the sensor and lens.

Absolutely. but until we get the capability of using the raw images we cannot see the true quality of this camera 14mp or not. Its something a client said to me recently (people are always hung up on mp's) ' look my phone has 48mp it must be better then your 36mp' I pointed him in the direction of just that chart.
Give me a big chip and smaller MP's any time. Im still waiting for my replacement camera btw due to soft left side issue.

 

[iResq]

Give me a big chip and smaller MP's any time.

Ayup, particularly for low light photography. Too much marketing hype over pixel count.

 

[adart1105]

Guys, developing something like this takes time. Russell and Adobe are working extra hard to make sure that once it is released it will not have any problems. They rather delay something than release something that is full of bugs. I have been able to beta test the DNG on my drone and is really spectacular. Everything you have seen Russell post really checks out. Low light capabilities improved, you can bring out shadows and tone down highlights as with most raw formats on the market today. Basically the overall quality of the files are fantastic even when you convert it to JPEG. I don't know when it will be available to the general public but I would guess soon, because I saw no bugs in the software from my testing.

 

[Mactab]

Guys, developing something like this takes time. Russell and Adobe are working extra hard to make sure that once it is released it will not have any problems. They rather delay something than release something that is full of bugs. I have been able to beta test the DNG on my drone and is really spectacular. Everything you have seen Russell post really checks out. Low light capabilities improved, you can bring out shadows and tone down highlights as with most raw formats on the market today. Basically the overall quality of the files are fantastic even when you convert it to JPEG. I don't know when it will be available to the general public but I would guess soon, because I saw no bugs in the software from my testing.

This great news! However it doesn't hide the fact that from day one DJI have marketed the vision as having a 'high end camera' and released it as such. The box and advertising should have read 'will eventually be High End camera' I suspect there would have been few sales if they had of course.
Everyone has been waiting patiently (more or less) for this DNG capability. I really want this to work and if RP Brown says he is happy with it that will be good enough for me. BUT (always the case) if the camera is producing left, right softness or pink hang gliders in the sky the DNG will not solve this. DJI need to get their act together to address this issue, admit that there are more then just a few cameras affected and at least issue an official statement/apology regarding this with a solution and also an explanation for the delay in DNG and not rely on a beta tester to make a post saying its great etc. not getting at you here Adart1105 but suddenly you pop up as someone with inside knowledge with information. Are you a phantom vision owner, adobe employee, DJI employee or what? You say the overall quality of the files is fantastic even when you convert them to JPEG - well of course they will be if the raw file is good. Plus you say ' available to the general public' why not say available to vision owners?
I'm suspicious though happy to eat my hat if it's available pretty soon and it was just the way you wrote your post and you are genuinely trying to be helpful I apologise, though to me, it looks like a sweet tossed in to the playpen to appease the grumbling children.

 

[Klaus]

Guys, developing something like this takes time. Russell and Adobe are working extra hard to make sure that once it is released it will not have any problems. They rather delay something than release something that is full of bugs. I have been able to beta test the DNG on my drone and is really spectacular. Everything you have seen Russell post really checks out. Low light capabilities improved, you can bring out shadows and tone down highlights as with most raw formats on the market today. Basically the overall quality of the files are fantastic even when you convert it to JPEG. I don't know when it will be available to the general public but I would guess soon, because I saw no bugs in the software from my testing.

So you must be able to show us the result, please show us some photos taken in Raw format, and please in full resoultion and best JPG quality. Im sure I'm not the only one who want to see them.

Thanks

 

[Klaus]

Guys, developing something like this takes time. Russell and Adobe are working extra hard to make sure that once it is released it will not have any problems. They rather delay something than release something that is full of bugs. I have been able to beta test the DNG on my drone and is really spectacular. Everything you have seen Russell post really checks out. Low light capabilities improved, you can bring out shadows and tone down highlights as with most raw formats on the market today. Basically the overall quality of the files are fantastic even when you convert it to JPEG. I don't know when it will be available to the general public but I would guess soon, because I saw no bugs in the software from my testing.

This great news! However it doesn't hide the fact that from day one DJI have marketed the vision as having a 'high end camera' and released it as such. The box and advertising should have read 'will eventually be High End camera' I suspect there would have been few sales if they had of course.
Everyone has been waiting patiently (more or less) for this DNG capability. I really want this to work and if RP Brown says he is happy with it that will be good enough for me. BUT (always the case) if the camera is producing left, right softness or pink hang gliders in the sky the DNG will not solve this. DJI need to get their act together to address this issue, admit that there are more then just a few cameras affected and at least issue an official statement/apology regarding this with a solution and also an explanation for the delay in DNG and not rely on a beta tester to make a post saying its great etc. not getting at you here Adart1105 but suddenly you pop up as someone with inside knowledge with information. Are you a phantom vision owner, adobe employee, DJI employee or what? You say the overall quality of the files is fantastic even when you convert them to JPEG - well of course they will be if the raw file is good. Plus you say ' available to the general public' why not say available to vision owners?
I'm suspicious though happy to eat my hat if it's available pretty soon and it was just the way you wrote your post and you are genuinely trying to be helpful I apologise, though to me, it looks like a sweet tossed in to the playpen to appease the grumbling children.

Mactab could you please take a look here and (hopefully) come with your comments about the idea and about DJI need to get their act together.
Thanks
Klaus

 

[gpauk]

If they had just answered any of the emails asking for the raw format, there are plenty raw decode programs that just need the exact format info...

 

[kloader]

Guys, developing something like this takes time. Russell and Adobe are working extra hard to make sure that once it is released it will not have any problems. They rather delay something than release something that is full of bugs. I have been able to beta test the DNG on my drone and is really spectacular. Everything you have seen Russell post really checks out. Low light capabilities improved, you can bring out shadows and tone down highlights as with most raw formats on the market today. Basically the overall quality of the files are fantastic even when you convert it to JPEG. I don't know when it will be available to the general public but I would guess soon, because I saw no bugs in the software from my testing.

Thanks very much for posting. It's encouraging to hear Adobe is still tracking to release the RAW conversion tools we are looking forward to. I've seen some of the dialog, and I expect your posts, on Facebook. Thanks for joining us here. I look forward to you participating in future RAW/DNG discussions.

 

[AnselA]

I have been able to beta test the DNG on my drone and is really spectacular.

How many bits per channel DNG has? 12?