"Bad" camera or?

[Happyflyer]

A search found several answers on correcting "fisheye" on videos from the original camera that comes with the Phantom 2 Vision. But these were corrections done while editing the video after you are done recording it.
Question would be why does this camera cause "fisheye?" What can be done with the camera to fix this problem without spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on a different camera. Any less costly lens adapter or???
Any ideas on why DJI put such a "fishy" camera on this great quad?

 

[jimre]

Question would be why does this camera cause "fisheye?"

Um, maybe because it has a fisheye lens?

Same as GoPro and most other lightweight "action" cams - ultra-wide fisheye lenses are pretty standard. The idea is to capture a very large field of view, with a small and relatively inexpensive lens. Some people don't like the fisheye look, so they use software to straighten out the image.

 

[jimre]

Non-fisheye (rectilinear) lenses with this kind of wide-angle field of view are ridiculously heavy and expensive. The alternatives are to sacrifice view angle or use fisheye. DJI, GoPro, and others have chosen the latter.

 

[Happyflyer]

Question would be why does this camera cause "fisheye?"

Um, maybe because it has a fisheye lens?

Well, OK. That adds up. Not being a professional photo person, I had no idea there was such a lens. If a non fisheye lens cost a little more it would have been worth it to have one on the original setup. I can't believe a better lens could weigh so much it would keep the P2V from flying.

 

[jerrymac12000]

Sometimes, if you use the "zoom in" feature of the camera will help, but not always. Give it a try,

 

[Happyflyer]

Sometimes, if you use the "zoom in" feature of the camera will help, but not always. Give it a try,

Zoom? Manual does not list zoom and I can't find a zoom in the camera app. Where is it?

 

[4wd]

You can select a narrower field of view, which is effectively a zoom in that it makes objects fill the frame more.

The fish-eye is less problematic if any obvious horizon is kept closer to the middle of the frame.
It is more a of a feature than a fault

It's quite easy to reduce in video software but there will inevitably be significant cropping.

 

[jimre]

Well, OK. That adds up. Not being a professional photo person, I had no idea there was such a lens. If a non fisheye lens cost a little more it would have been worth it to have one on the original setup. I can't believe a better lens could weigh so much it would keep the P2V from flying.

No, not just a little more cost & weight - probably a lot, if you really want a rectilinear lens that wide. Accurately representing a nearly half-sphere curved image as flat takes a lot of glass. As an extreme example look at the Canon 14mm ultra-wide-angle rectilinear lens. 14 separate glass elements, 1.5 pounds, $2300.

If you don't care about such a wide-angle view - for video, the Phantom Vision camera settings lets you select the "Field of View" to record: 140°, 120°, OR 90°. The narrow the field of view, the less noticeable the fisheye effect. See p. 45 in the User Manual.

 

[Happyflyer]

OK. I was aware of the FOV. Have it set for the widest setting for the six videos I have done since the copter arrived last Wednesday. Will try the 90 setting and see what happens. Can not now due to the next thunder storm is not far away.
1-1/2 pounds and $2300.00! That is not a lens, that is a gold rock!
.
Thanks all for the lens info.
.
.
Well that storm came and went fast. Got a chance to try the camera with the 90 setting. It made a big difference. My flag pole is not curved over like a pretzel when I fly past now. Shots from the air 100 to 200 feet look much better.