minimum shutter speed = wind-gust speed x ????

Joined
Jan 7, 2017
Messages
504
Reaction score
108
is there formula to (almost) guarantee sharp image?
(other than always shooting at fastest shutter speed possible)
in hand-held photography there's old rule that
(1 /focal length) = minimum shutter speed,
e.g., 300mm lens, no slower than 1/300th sec.
(P4P+)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waylander
For video, the formula most pilots use is to adjust shutter speed to double the FPS. So if you're shooting 60 FPS, use a shutter speed of 120, or close to that. Using the fastest shutter speed will create "jitters" when panning. If you don't have a P4P, the shutter speed can be adjusted with ND filters. Usually ND16 is good in daytime sunlight, no clouds. ND32 may be needed in snow or ocean area bright sun. You should also try to pan as slow as possible to keep the video smooth.

For photos, generally speaking the slower the shutter the better for better quality. However if you're moving you may have to get up to 400 speed to freeze the shot. Shoot as slow as possible that your movement will allow. I've shot 2 second shutter speed photos at night that are amazing, however there was no wind and I had to take about 5 shots to get a really good one. Make sure you focus the camera, which seems obvious, but the iPad sometimes will not show when something is slightly out of focus. Focus every shot, don't assume it's in focus because the display looks in focus.
 
Last edited:
is there formula to (almost) guarantee sharp image?
(other than always shooting at fastest shutter speed possible)
in hand-held photography there's old rule that (1 /focal length) = minimum shutter speed,
That rule is for hand holding and the Phantom can hold he camera better than you can.
In calm conditions you can get good sharp exposures at 2 seconds and sometimes even slower than that.
Of course it wall also depend on any movement of your subject too.
Wind blowing trees or grass will get a blurry look at slow shutter speeds.
This is taken at about 0.5 sec
949-67B-X3.jpg
 
For photos, generally speaking the slower the shutter the better for better quality.
There's no relationship between slower shutter speeds and better image quality.
You can have superb image quality with fast or slow shutter speed.
Use a shutter speed that's appropriate for your lighting conditions and subject matter.
 
There's no relationship between slower shutter speeds and better image quality.
You can have superb image quality with fast or slow shutter speed.
Use a shutter speed that's appropriate for your lighting conditions and subject matter.
I disagree. You'll have more grainy results with higher shutter speeds, especially low light.
 
I disagree. You'll have more grainy results with higher shutter speeds, especially low light.
High shutter speeds don't give you grainy images either.
Perhaps you mean higher ISO values?
Using a higher ISO sensitivity would allow you to use higher shutter speed but any graininess is due to the ISO setting and not the shutter speed.
You can get perfectly good images at 1/1000th of a second if the light is appropriate.
Making an effort to use slower shutter speeds isn't going to improve image quality.
 
High shutter speeds don't give you grainy images either.
Perhaps you mean higher ISO values?
You can get perfectly good images at 1/1000th of a second if the light is appropriate.
Making an effort to use slower shutter speeds isn't going to improve image quality.
Yes, for instance, if I use ISO800, that will give you a faster shutter speed (on auto), versus using ISO100 which will result in a slower shutter speed, for the same shot. The quality will be better with the slower shutter speed (if camera shake isn't an issue), not to mention you would have a better depth of field with the longer shutter speed and lower ISO. Reducing the aperture and extending the shutter speed is my goal, if the motion allows it. Yes, you use your ISO setting, the lower the better IMO, and the lower the ISO, the longer the shutter will be open (for the same shot). Of course you need to consider the motion of the situation can accommodate your shutter speed goals, but with no wind the Phantom does amazing things holding the camera still.
 
Yes, for instance, if I use ISO800, that will give you a faster shutter speed (on auto), versus using ISO100 which will result in a slower shutter speed, for the same shot. The quality will be better with the slower shutter speed (if camera shake isn't an issue), not to mention you would have a better depth of field with the longer shutter speed and lower ISO. Reducing the aperture and extending the shutter speed is my goal, if the motion allows it. Yes, you use your ISO setting, the lower the better IMO, and the lower the ISO, the longer the shutter will be open (for the same shot). Of course you need to consider the motion of the situation can accommodate your shutter speed goals, but with no wind the Phantom does amazing things holding the camera still.
When you consider the apparent depth of acceptable sharpness you inherently get with an 8.8mm lens on the P4P 1” sensor you have the opportunity to favour lower Aperture settings in favour of reduce diffraction loss. Think about the earlier phantoms with fixed focus and aperture lenses and it’s apparent that DOF is a minor concern unless flying very close to your subject. Agreed lower ISO’s produce cleaner more detailed images when motion induced blur isn’t a problem. Higher shutter speeds (assuming correct EV) do not impact image quality,
 
The quality will be better with the slower shutter speed (if camera shake isn't an issue).
Any effect on image quality is 100% due to the lower ISO sensitivity.
The shutter speed does not afffect image quality.
you would have a better depth of field with the longer shutter speed and lower ISO.
At any aperture you set, the lens already has more depth of field than you can use.
Here are some numbers to show what the actual effect is:
At f2.8 and focused at 50 feet - everything from 12ft - infinity is in focus
At f5.6 and focused at 50 feet - everything from 6ft - infinity is in focus
At f11 and focused at 50 feet - everything from 3ft - infinity is in focus​
Reducing the aperture and extending the shutter speed is my goal, if the motion allows it.
In low-light situations, there is no point making any effort to use a smaller aperture and/or a longer shutter speed as neither will make the image any better unless you particularly want to catch motion blur.
 
Any effect on image quality is 100% due to the lower ISO sensitivity.
The shutter speed does not afffect image quality.
Correct. Have you noticed when you lower the ISO, the shutter length requirement is longer? That's what I'm talking about. And as mentioned, I specifically mentioned "especially in low light", which is to minimize grainy results. I think we're both saying the same thing, to different extremes. I tend to shoot a lot of low light photos, when exposure as well as motion is critical.
 
Also, the concept of ISO isn't really applicable to digital cameras, except as a convenient mental shortcut.
 
Also, the concept of ISO isn't really applicable to digital cameras, except as a convenient mental shortcut.
I don't understand your point. It is more than a mental shortcut for imaging system designers who go to great lengths to set the analog outputs of imaging sensors (prior to A/D conversions) to arrive at "exposure index" settings that align with analog film ISO numbers. If I take one of my film cameras and a digital SLR both will depict the same EV for a given light source. We also find that lower ISO settings produce higher image quality with less grain/noise and better saturation for both film stock and digital sensors.
 
Also, the concept of ISO isn't really applicable to digital cameras, except as a convenient mental shortcut.
I don't understand your point. It is more than a mental shortcut for imaging system designers who go to great lengths to set the analog outputs of imaging sensors (prior to A/D conversions) to arrive at "exposure index" settings that align with analog film ISO numbers. If I take one of my film cameras and a digital SLR both will depict the same EV for a given light source. We also find that lower ISO settings produce higher image quality with less grain/noise and better saturation for both film stock and digital sensors.
Sort of. In large part, you've described the concept for which it is useful to think of as ISO. Unlike film, digital sensors don't have adjustable sensitivity. But the processing engine can apply gain to the received signal. The downside is noise, which appears similar to grain in some cases.

How much noise is in part a product of the level of gain applied (ISO setting), but also depends on other factors, including sensor cell site size.
 
Also, the concept of ISO isn't really applicable to digital cameras, except as a convenient mental shortcut.

Sort of. In large part, you've described the concept for which it is useful to think of as ISO. Unlike film, digital sensors don't have adjustable sensitivity. But the processing engine can apply gain to the received signal. The downside is noise, which appears similar to grain in some cases.

How much noise is in part a product of the level of gain applied (ISO setting), but also depends on other factors, including sensor cell site size.
Actually it’s digital sensors that have adjustable sensitivity, unlike film. Modern digital systems outperform film stock by a large margin at higher sensitivities. We also don’t have to worry about reciprocity failure and weird colour shifts.
 
Actually it’s digital sensors that have adjustable sensitivity, unlike film. Modern digital systems outperform film stock by a large margin at higher sensitivities. We also don’t have to worry about reciprocity failure and weird colour shifts.
Unless you are referring to gain as adjusting the sensitivity, that's not how I understand it. But I am on the fringe of my competency on the subject, so I will defer.
 
All of this is interesting, but the OP’s question is about wind and its effects on slow shutter speed. Anyone . . . .?
 
It seems the consensus is that there isn't anything like the 1 over focal length rule for drone photography. Of course, even with cameras that rule is less accurate than it used to be due to IS advancements (though still a good starting point).

I will say that when image quality is paramount, tripod mode seems to help.
 
There is no formula that will work reliably. Only rules of thumb and every AC is different. Of my phantoms I know from experience that in still conditions and low light I can get 2 or three stills at 2s TV out of 10 frames that will look ok as largish prints. That’s means the gimble is good for 6 stops of stabilisation if you need to push it (using the 1/35mm focal length guide for TV). Higher TV is preferred, esp when moving.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,355
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.