P3Pro soft still images
- Thread starter nickruss_wales
- Start date
Don't pay attention to my ugly mug. These were all shot in Raw, There is no sharpening added. They are shot from about 10 -15'. I stood about the same area & hovered it at about the same distance. I cropped to a 2x2 so you can see the face. To tell if a camera lens is sharp, one of the ways is to look at pupils of the eye. I just did a job yesterday with the P3 & I was pleased with the outcome.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hey Max, As far as 100x's, it is a expression. I do photography for a living. The Phantom is just something for a new perspective. To have a camera that has out of focus images is just something, I cant have. If the image starts off soft, the more you crop or enlarge, it is just going to look worse.
This thread does concern me, I do photography for a living as well and certainly would consider the sample footage to be unacceptably soft. RAW is a great option and almost anything can be fixed if the source format is RAW but to have to put that kind of work into every still is unacceptable. Is it possible to take the cover off of the camera and turn the lens to focus it by hand? I don't have a P3 but I know that's what I did with my GP4 to improve the sharpness.
Interesting thread. I've noticed that, as an amateur photographer, I have to put more editing time into stills from my P3P than other cameras to get a satisfactory end product. Since I'm not very photography "literate" though, I couldn't put my finger on it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The pictures look like they were shot at a high ISO setting, can the ISO setting be changed on the P 3. mine is on order so I haven't got to check out the camera setting yet.
A 14 mega pixel picture should be a around 4 or 5 meg file ,the pictures posted are 169 k so they appear to be over compressed
the sharpness is of course greater with high shutter speeds on a sunny day. Those lenses are fixed focus, so its always a compromise. Maybe some P3s have wrongly fixed focus, who knows. the gopro is set to 7m for example.
They are larger than that. I get a error saying that the image is larger than the server allows. I shot them in raw & cropped to a 2x2@250 dpi & then saved it as a jpeg.
The pv+ can only be set to 400iso. The P3 can be set to 1600. it was not that high, you will just get noise not out of focus. Since I got the new camera, the files look very good.
The pictures were really grainy, it could be compression during upload they looked like ISO 600 or higher
Yep, video was not the problem, stills were. I do not believe in trying to make a soft image look sharp. I normally make 16x20's or so sizes with my PV+ so I could not use the P3 with the camera that way.
Yes they do. You are looking at a image that is cropped just cropped in on the face. You are only seeing a very small part of the image.
Attachments
I have been following this post with great interest. I'm also a photographer, used to the quality provided by DSLRs. I did not expect the same quality with the P3P, but was nevertheless quite disappointed by the softness of the stills. After post-processing, the sharpness definitely improved, but like an earlier poster, I don't think it should be necessary to do this as a matter of course just to get a decent photo.
The question was - is this just way the P3P is built, or is there something wrong with my uni?. Larry L seems to have shown that not all P3Ps are the same. I tried to replicate his test shot with an enlargement of my face at 15 feet, and the result closely resembled his before shot. It would seem I need to look in getting my drone replaced. However, I would like to test it a bit more to get clear documentation of the problem.
The first difficulty I have with using Larry L's example is that, at 15 feet, it is no where near the focal point of the lens. It's going to be out of focus to some extent because of that. Also, I can't be sure I have the same distance (and enlargement) as Larry.
So my request to Larry, or someone else who feels he/she is getting really sharp images, if for a full size (not cropped) RAW image at ISO 100 of a subject with good contrast and sharp edges, and an accurate distance measurement (at say 100 which should be well within the depth of field of the lens)..
If Larry had this issue, and I have my concern, there must be others who would like a way to test their cameras.
Virtue, it seems to be hit or miss. When I sent the shots to the dealer I purchased from, they. called me & asked me to bring it in so they could send it back as they felt it should be better than that. The tech. Was not sure if it was a random problem or due to the new camera optics. My second camera is so much better compared to the first. I can live with this one, to get good images with this one, I really don't need to do a lot of post processing. Here is a image I did yesterday & the finished image is a 24x16 & it looks great.
Last edited:
There you go. Not proud of the composition, but i think that the house picture shows the full potential of the P3.. (edited in Camera Raw, no post-process sharpening like Unsharp Mask). Yes, the P3 stills are soft, which is very bad, but you can do something... it's just not amazing
Both shot at ISO 100 with a shutter speed above 1/1000
There you go. Not proud of the composition, but i think that the house picture shows the full potential of the P3.. (edited in Camera Raw, no post-process sharpening like Unsharp Mask). Yes, the P3 stills are soft, which is very bad, but you can do something... it's just not amazing
View attachment 22723 View attachment 22724
Both shot at ISO 100 with a shutter speed above 1/1000
Thanks. I agree the stills are dramatic, and with post-processing can be reasonably sharp, but on comparing your shots to mine, it seems clear to that mine are definitely softer. Larry L says his problem was hit or miss, which seems odds since there is not much that can change from shot to shot. Movement blur, yes, but that is certainly not the cause in the example he gave. Subject too close to the camera - could be a factor in his example, at 15 feet, but not for your example vs. mine.
