Quality Raw Photo Image Help Needed

[railimages]

Hello,

I upgraded from a Vision Plus last Christmas to a P3P and so far its spent more time with FedEx and DJI. (I will have to say that DJI got it in and out of the shop in less then five days.) I'm going to be sending it back for a third camera next week unless something changes by then. In the short time that I've been able to fly it I have been trying different camera settings that folks have recommended on the forum trying to avoid sending it back again with no luck. Before anyone saids have you removed the plastic from the lens, yes I did. I've also made sure the props were balanced.

I can currently can get a nice sharp picture (I do 90% stills) if I'm within 10 to 15 feet and after that the farther away the more soft focus the photo gets until its real blurry. My Vision+ blows the door off the photo quality of the P3P. Photoshop can't fix the issue enough as far as I'm concerned.

What I would like is a copy of a raw file from someone who HAS a good working P3P camera and gets sharp photos from it. I would like to compare my raw files to see how far off my images are so I can explain it better to the guys at DJI. I do a lot of railroad photography and I really don't need every train to look like a bullet train!

If someone could send me a raw file that would be great. If its to big to email to me at [email protected] then maybe you could send me a link to it on dropbox.

Thanks for everyones time.

You can see some of my Vision+ photos on Facebook at:
"Sky Rails" Photo Album | Facebook

or on Flickr at : "Sky Rails"

 

[railimages]

Gee, I thought for sure someone out there would have a P3P that took good sharp stills but based on the lack of any responses I guess all of them have cameras that take blurry or soft focus pictures.

 

[Meta4]

Gee, I thought for sure someone out there would have a P3P that took good sharp stills but based on the lack of any responses I guess all of them have cameras that take blurry or soft focus pictures.

The camera is small and not in the same league as a full frame SLR but you should be able to get decent results.
I have the Advanced but the cameras are identical for stills.
I shoot jpg and you can see examples of the quality here:
Shipping - Above & Beyond Photography

 

[railimages]

You have some amazing shots of ships! My P3P doesn't even come close to the clarity that you have even after putting my photos thru Photoshop. If I could get that kind of results I'd be a happy camper!

 

[Meta4]

You have some amazing shots of ships! My P3P doesn't even come close to the clarity that you have even after putting my photos thru Photoshop. If I could get that kind of results I'd be a happy camper!

Thanks : )
That's the quality that you should be able to get with a well lit subject.
There are quite a few reports of soft images suggesting DJI might have had some quality control issues with the cameras.

 

[WetDog]

Have you tried taking pictures with the drone not flying, motors off, mounted on a sturdy platform at several distances (10 feet, 50 feet, distant)? Bonus points if it's a brick wall - real photographers love brick walls because it brings out the worst in a lens. That obviously rules out vibration issues and looks just at the camera.

The P3 should be OK at 10 feet. The hyperfocal distance for that lens (20 mm / f2.8 / 1/2 inch sensor) should be like 6 feet. It should really be sharp at 50-100 feet and continue to infinity.

You can see that some people are getting OK shots - look at Meta4's stuff or the gallery. These look fine at web resolution but really fall down if you try to print them at any size or if you pixel peep. You really need to look at what's out there to see if you are getting similar results. Post processing will help a bit - not an enormous amount. What you can gain from post processing is controlled sharpening and a modest lens correction using Adobe Camera Raw. The problem with this approach, I think, is ACR uses a generic lens correction file. That will work if all the P3 lenses are pretty much the same optically and remain the same over time. I am not sure that either assumption is true. It seems like DJI has significant quality control issues with the camera and, even worse, the camera quality appears to be rather temperature dependant - it likes warmer climes.

I've considered doing a custom profile on my P3's but I haven't done one of those in a while and the last time I did them they were a pain in the *** to complete. I imagine that would help somewhat but the bottom line is these are cheap cameras with 5 year old technology. It's clearly the weak point in a P3. The P4 is supposed to have a better lens but the pics I've seen don't obviously support that contention.

 

[railimages]

I have done some test shots with the P3P sitting still and they are no better then when it's flying. If I'm less then 10 feet from something and take a photo it comes out pretty sharp before doing any Photoshopping. My Phantom 2 Vision Plus takes real good photos similar to the ones that Metal4 has taken. I've already had DJI replace the whole camera and gimbal once now I'm going to be sending it back again. This time I am going to send a couple of 8x10 photos to show them just how out of focus the image gets beyond 10feet and just maybe they will check the focus before they send it back. (Hopefully) Ken

 

[With The Birds]

Have you tried taking pictures with the drone not flying, motors off, mounted on a sturdy platform at several distances (10 feet, 50 feet, distant)? Bonus points if it's a brick wall - real photographers love brick walls because it brings out the worst in a lens. That obviously rules out vibration issues and looks just at the camera.

The P3 should be OK at 10 feet. The hyperfocal distance for that lens (20 mm / f2.8 / 1/2 inch sensor) should be like 6 feet. It should really be sharp at 50-100 feet and continue to infinity.

You can see that some people are getting OK shots - look at Meta4's stuff or the gallery. These look fine at web resolution but really fall down if you try to print them at any size or if you pixel peep. You really need to look at what's out there to see if you are getting similar results. Post processing will help a bit - not an enormous amount. What you can gain from post processing is controlled sharpening and a modest lens correction using Adobe Camera Raw. The problem with this approach, I think, is ACR uses a generic lens correction file. That will work if all the P3 lenses are pretty much the same optically and remain the same over time. I am not sure that either assumption is true. It seems like DJI has significant quality control issues with the camera and, even worse, the camera quality appears to be rather temperature dependant - it likes warmer climes.

I've considered doing a custom profile on my P3's but I haven't done one of those in a while and the last time I did them they were a pain in the *** to complete. I imagine that would help somewhat but the bottom line is these are cheap cameras with 5 year old technology. It's clearly the weak point in a P3. The P4 is supposed to have a better lens but the pics I've seen don't obviously support that contention.

Wetdog with respect, have you viewed any of META's images printed? You can get very respectable prints, particularily when you shoot PANOs. 40% overlap with careful attention to exposure settings and sizing to output size in post with sensible sharoening i have printed at A3 and even A2 with no apparent issues, even when viewed at closer than usual distance.

It is well accepted that somewhere between 6 and 7mp gets us to the resolution of 100ASA negative film stock. Thats where I started with the first canon dslr. My 1 series bodies now pull the pants down on the earlier models but even at sub 7mp i could produce more than acceptable prints.

The photo is ultimately more about composition, lighting and your imagination in finding and framing a subject.

Pixel peeping is an art in itself. Tack sharp is almost never at the top of the requirement list for a great artwork.

Yes there are some bad p3 caneras. No doubt. The ones that are good are good enough to produce excellent images with some care in use.

 

[railimages]

I've making 8x10s and 8x12' enlargements since I bought my Vision+ several years ago and I've had photos published in magazines and have done a couple of calendars also. I can't complain about my Vision+, now if I can ever get my P3P fixed correctly to get the same kind of results it will be a miracle

 

[railimages]

As follow up I just got my P3P back from DJI for the 2nd time. This time they sent me a new P3P and new controller. I tried it out this weekend and the photos are sharp even before I put them through Photoshop. It only took DJI 4 months to finally get me a working camera!
Ken