Phantom 4 Pro Grainy Images?

[Hali_Photography]

Hi Guys!
Upgraded to P4 Pro recently and I have to say, I'm very disappointed with the IQ.
Even at 100 ISO, I am noticing a lot of grainy images.
Most were shot between F2.8-4.5, shutter speed was 1/100-1/800 and were shot RAW.
Ill attach some samples via dropbox because the images are big, what do you guys think?
Dropbox - Phatom Pilots

 

[KevMo Photog]

These don't look that bad to me at all for your subject matter tbo. Tiny tiny bit of noise reduction and your gold. In darker areas you will see a little bit of noise for sure. This camera is good but it's not your Canon or Nikon DSLR. I've been amazed at how good it is though for 1500 bucks. Maybe shoot some stuff in closer to your subject and look and see what you got.

 

[Hali_Photography]

Maybe I was expecting a little too much. It's still pretty good for what it is. Just the noise and grain kinda caught me off guard, wanted to make sure if it just wasn't my system.

 

[KevMo Photog]

Maybe I was expecting a little too much. It's still pretty good for what it is. Just the noise and grain kinda caught me off guard, wanted to make sure if it just wasn't my system.

I don't think you have any problems with your gear. Btw, are you using any ND filters yet? That might help your color quality a tad. Def will help flare a little bit too. I think you'll find that your results with diff subjects and diff times of day will impress! Try to keep that aperture between 4.5 and 5.6 1/2 and you should be good.

 

[Hali_Photography]

I don't think you have any problems with your gear. Btw, are you using any ND filters yet? That might help your color quality a tad. Def will help flare a little bit too. I think you'll find that your results with diff subjects and diff times of day will impress! Try to keep that aperture between 4.5 and 5.6 1/2 and you should be good.

I haven't tried ND yet because I figured there was no need with aperture control, I barely shoot videos. I just have to experiment more. What's your experience with AEB? I have been using it since p3 standard but it's been a hit and miss with p4pro so far.

 

[With The Birds]

I don't think you have any problems with your gear. Btw, are you using any ND filters yet? That might help your color quality a tad. Def will help flare a little bit too. I think you'll find that your results with diff subjects and diff times of day will impress! Try to keep that aperture between 4.5 and 5.6 1/2 and you should be good.

I'm curious- How might an ND improve colour quality? I can appreciate it may change the colour but that would defeat the intended purpose. I have never found a filter that reduces flare either although I have had success with hoods.

 

[Hali_Photography]

I'm curious- How might an ND improve colour quality? I can appreciate it may change the colour but that would defeat the intended purpose. I have never found a filter that reduces flare either although I have had success with hoods.

Maybe he was referring the ND filters with polarizer. Not sure about flare without hood

 

[KevMo Photog]

I'm basically talking about the filters helping with flare and the coatings of the glass used is quality it can help with cutting out some unwanted color problems. Especially if your not tweaking your footage in post much! They will def make your flare look better imo. So no, I'm not talking about polarizers at all. I don't shoot much water so I don't really need a polarizer.

 

[With The Birds]

I'm basically talking about the filters helping with flare and the coatings of the glass used is quality it can help with cutting out some unwanted color problems. Especially if your not tweaking your footage in post much! They will def make your flare look better imo. So no, I'm not talking about polarizers at all. I don't shoot much water so I don't really need a polarizer.

Even not over water everyone seems to like deep blue skies and nice detailed fluffy white clouds and rich foliage.... the extra element in the light oath might give you an extra component in the flare, i can't see how it might reduce it.

 

[Hali_Photography]

Most of my shots are over water, polarizer might help I'm certain situations. Can't find any polarizers by themselves though, I've seen only nd+pl.

 

[KevMo Photog]

Most of my shots are over water, polarizer might help I'm certain situations. Can't find any polarizers by themselves though, I've seen only nd+pl.

A polarizer really is basically a ND filter too Hali. They are usually listed as how many stops they take exposure down. So that's why a lot of companies just call it both together I'm sure. If you want a polarizer for water then I would prob go with the Polar Pro Cinema Collection.

 

[Hali_Photography]

A polarizer really is basically a ND filter too Hali. They are usually listed as how many stops they take exposure down. So that's why a lot of companies just call it both together I'm sure. If you want a polarizer for water then I would prob go with the Polar Pro Cinema Collection.

They are quite different, the purpose of a polarizer is not the same as a nd filter. Polarizer cuts the reflection of the light while nd blocks the light

 

[KevMo Photog]

They are quite different, the purpose of a polarizer is not the same as a nd filter. Polarizer cuts the reflection of the light while nd blocks the light

May be true Hali! But most polarizers are dark and are cutting light by a lot just like an ND does. But I realize that coatings affect the light and how it travels through the polarizer cutting down the flare on reflective objects.

 

[Charly Alpha]

Hi Guys!
Upgraded to P4 Pro recently and I have to say, I'm very disappointed with the IQ.
Even at 100 ISO, I am noticing a lot of grainy images.
Most were shot between F2.8-4.5, shutter speed was 1/100-1/800 and were shot RAW.
Ill attach some samples via dropbox because the images are big, what do you guys think?
Dropbox - Phatom Pilots

Nothing wrong with these images, no grain/noise visible on my UHD 4K 32" Monitor in Photoshop. I zoomed in 800% and images are all good. I'm a wildlife photographer and very fussy about image quality

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I'm curious- How might an ND improve colour quality? I can appreciate it may change the colour but that would defeat the intended purpose. I have never found a filter that reduces flare either although I have had success with hoods.

An ND should not change the colour. The intent is to sweet spot the video by setting a better match of shutter speed, frame rate, aperture and low ISO.

Can someone verify that this is the likely "sweet spot" for the P4P camera for video?

• Shutter speed = 2x frame rate
• Aperture (per @KevMo Photog) f/4.5 and 6.7
• ISO as low as possible - I suspect 200 is better than 100 however

In that order - in bright light you're not likely to get all of those no matter what ND you use.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Hi Guys!
Upgraded to P4 Pro recently and I have to say, I'm very disappointed with the IQ.
Even at 100 ISO, I am noticing a lot of grainy images.
Most were shot between F2.8-4.5, shutter speed was 1/100-1/800 and were shot RAW.
Ill attach some samples via dropbox because the images are big, what do you guys think?
Dropbox - Phatom Pilots

First go I thought you were talking about video. For stills the use of an ND doesn't matter. A polarizer if needed - not much here.

Usually a digital camera sensor is best at ISO 160 - so 200 if there no 1/3 stops of ISO.

DL'd and open'd CS5. On raw I boosted the fill light a tad. In CS5 I adjusted the exposure in levels (spread it out on levels) which helped the saturation. The beach one with the buildings should print quite nicely - you won't see the noise much except maybe in that one slab of blue-lit white in the upper third (near the horizon). The other two images were a bit noisier in the water - again printed, I doubt it will show.

 

[With The Birds]

An ND should not change the colour. The intent is to sweet spot the video by setting a better match of shutter speed, frame rate, aperture and low ISO.

Can someone verify that this is the likely "sweet spot" for the P4P camera for video?

• Shutter speed = 2x frame rate
• Aperture (per @KevMo Photog) f/4.5 and 6.7
• ISO as low as possible - I suspect 200 is better than 100 however

In that order - in bright light you're not likely to get all of those no matter what ND you use.

Yes, it would seem an ND won't, and in fact can't, provide for improved "colour quality". That is the point I was seeking clarification on- the benefit of using ND's in providing for reduced shutter speed in video is well understood and demonstrated.

I don't agree that aren't likely to get to your said (and largely undisputed) ideals for video by using ND"s in bright conditions. In fact it is bright conditions that will allow the said values to be arrived at while providing for correct exposure. This remains true up to the point where the available light might reduce to the point that ND's are not required at all and will continue to where widest available aperture is reached and any further reduction in light requires ISO to be appreciably increased to maintain shutter speed at or close to twice desired frame rate.

200 ISO may indeed provide for higher dynamic range however this is image sensor specific and I have not seen any reliable test to demonstrate this is correct for the P4P.

As to ideal apertures you may be correct here, I haven't calculated at what point diffraction loss is significant however you likely have more latitude in video work given the pixel interpolation applied and the ultimate quality of the display system and relavent viewing distances. It will be harder to see any diffraction issues on a video display than in a print.

 

[With The Birds]

First go I thought you were talking about video. For stills the use of an ND doesn't matter. A polarizer if needed - not much here.

Usually a digital camera sensor is best at ISO 160 - so 200 if there no 1/3 stops of ISO.

DL'd and open'd CS5. On raw I boosted the fill light a tad. In CS5 I adjusted the exposure in levels (spread it out on levels) which helped the saturation. The beach one with the buildings should print quite nicely - you won't see the noise much except maybe in that one slab of blue-lit white in the upper third (near the horizon). The other two images were a bit noisier in the water - again printed, I doubt it will show.

We can't say a digital sensor is usually better at 160 ISO. It is manufacturer dependent and can be influenced by the associated electronics and image processing electronics. You might say that most cameras are best at the lowest native ISO with respect to noise and dynamic range (by native I mean absent of extended range being employed). You also need to consider that in many cases raising ISO in preference to reducing shutter speed to arrive at a correct exposure will produce cleaner images.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

We can't say a digital sensor is usually better at 160 ISO. It is manufacturer dependent and can be influenced by the associated electronics and image processing electronics. You might say that most cameras are best at the lowest native ISO with respect to noise and dynamic range (by native I mean absent of extended range being employed). You also need to consider that in many cases raising ISO in preference to reducing shutter speed to arrive at a correct exposure will produce cleaner images.

From my experience in DSLR's the 160 ISO point stands out. Many Canon's never even had 100 before a few years ago and stopped at 200. Perhaps that data point is out of date, but it used to stand quite well.

 

[With The Birds]

From my experience in DSLR's the 160 ISO point stands out. Many Canon's never even had 100 before a few years ago and stopped at 200. Perhaps that data point is out of date, but it used to stand quite well.

Using canon as an example my now best part of 10 year old 1Ds Mk III has a native lowest ISO of 100 with 50 being available in extended settings by custom function. It was best at ISO 100. The 5D is similar. In fact my observation remains, the lowest native ISO of the sensor is the magic point, extended ISO ranges through associated image processing yield reduced quality (less dynamic range at lower ISO and increased noise at the high end). Things are improving no doubt. The 1Dx is awesome at just about every ISO setting.