Upgrading the Vision 2 camera?

[texami]

I tried sharping/unsharpening etc. but the image never became clear.
I also tried sharping/unsharpening etc with the jpd which is made at the same time as the RAW image. Nothing is adding detail to match the canon.

Do you think noise reduction is the problem?

I am open to any suggestions but to me the camera can't focus?

 

[iResq]

You can't fix focus.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[jimre]

I tried sharping/unsharpening etc. but the image never became clear.

Do you think noise reduction is the problem?

I am open to any suggestions but to me the camera can't focus?

Maybe you should compare JPEG to JPEG.

And you're comparing this to a camera with 20x optical zoom. What does the *entire* picture look like from both cameras? Are they comparable field of view? Or is the Canon zoomed in to show more details?

 

[68gtconv]

There is no reason DJI could not have produced a better camera on the P2V. It's is not difficult to produce a lens sensor combo in this day and age especially on such a simple system. It doesn't zoom, has no image stabilization, no lcd, no f-stops, it doesn't have autofocus, or any internal buffer as evidenced by the incredibly slow write times. All they had to do was use a decent sensor lens combination and put the lens on straight. How many of you have cell phones with blurry images down one side. The fact that they produced such an amazing device and went to the trouble of incorporating live view and remote camera controls along with telemetry info into the camera and then used the cheapest lens/sensor arrangements they could buy and then had bad quality control on top of it is astounding to me.

 

[texami]

Here are the originals. I used the P2V jpg image which was produced at the same time as the RAW.

 

[LeoS]

texami, see those blinding purple fringes on the branches?

http://laurashoe.com/2013/10/18/what-is ... lightroom/

 

[jimre]

Here are the originals. I used the P2V jpg image which was produced at the same time as the RAW.

Well, these aren't the originals, they're only 800px wide. Not sure originals are feasible, as this forum doesn't seem to accept files >600KB - but these at least show a sense of relative size.

The Canon lens is zoomed in 30% more than the Phantom. Both images are 800 pixels wide - the Canon pool is 760 pixels wide, but the Phantom pool is only 540 pixels wide. So there's at least 30% more detail in the Canon image to begin with.

The Canon image is also better-exposed, especially in the shadows. EV is a full stop brighter for the Canon image. I'd guess the Phantom chose to under-expose the image a bit because a lot more of the bright sky is in the picture vs. almost none in the Canon image.

How far away from the camera is the metal plant sculpture (that you highlighted in your 100% crops)?

 

[texami]

Thanks for the help jimre.

The metal plant sculpture is about 10-12ft from the camera.

I saved the two images so that I could meet the 800k limit. I don't have the expertise to make them pixel for pixel equal.

If you could see the two images side by side, you would easily see the image is blurry. Any suggestions on where I could post them so you can get a real comparison?

This might just be a bad camera.

 

[rafin2000]

Be carefull of updating vision camera firmware. In many cases result in a camera error just following the DJI directions. In my case (that was today) after de updating, the camera presents an orange light in the back. No green light and there is not image at all, nor video nor pics. I hope this is a temporary problem.
Check for this videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRJgmTQ0PhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQNtE6kCnbM

Have anybody heard about a solution for this?

 

[Peter Evans]

There is no reason DJI could not have produced a better camera on the P2V. It's is not difficult to produce a lens sensor combo in this day and age especially on such a simple system. It doesn't zoom, has no image stabilization, no lcd, no f-stops, it doesn't have autofocus, or any internal buffer as evidenced by the incredibly slow write times. All they had to do was use a decent sensor lens combination and put the lens on straight. How many of you have cell phones with blurry images down one side. The fact that they produced such an amazing device and went to the trouble of incorporating live view and remote camera controls along with telemetry info into the camera and then used the cheapest lens/sensor arrangements they could buy and then had bad quality control on top of it is astounding to me.

AMEN!

 

[dkatz42]

I think it's about hitting a price point, and not cannibalizing sales of current/future higher-end products. If they put a better camera in for another $100, people would complain (even more) about the cheap mount, which would cost some three digits more. I was willing to pay $1200 on a lark for a turnkey entry to this world, but at $1500+ I probably wouldn't have. This also gives them an opportunity for a higher-end follow-on product that aims for a different niche.

If folks want a nicer camera and a nicer mount, they can do to today, but not for $1200 and not turnkey.

 

[jimre]

...and then used the cheapest lens/sensor arrangements they could buy...

Actually, that would be their FC40 camera. The FC200 is "high end" compared to that.

 

[jimre]

Thanks for the help jimre.

The metal plant sculpture is about 10-12ft from the camera.

I saved the two images so that I could meet the 800k limit. I don't have the expertise to make them pixel for pixel equal.

If you could see the two images side by side, you would easily see the image is blurry. Any suggestions on where I could post them so you can get a real comparison?

This might just be a bad camera.

If you have some way to post the original, unmodified DNG file somewhere (dropbox, skydrive, gdrive, etc) and post a link - that would give us the best look at what your camera's issues might be.

Are objects further in the background (beyond the 10-12' metal plant sculpture) any sharper? I'm wondering if maybe your camera's focus got set further away than normal?

 

[jimre]

Just did some quick focus test shots with my P2V, and everything is reasonably in-focus from about 4 feet and beyond. Closer than that and things get blurry. That's about what I'd expect - hyperfocal point should be a bit over 5 feet with this sensor, lens, and aperture.

So yes - an object 10-12 feet away *should* be in focus on this camera. I wonder if some people's cameras are more front- or back-focused.

EDIT - I will add that the outer corners of my images are blurrier and have much more CA (chromatic aberration, aka "purple fringing") than the center portion. The CA is easily fixed in Lightroom or ACR, but not much I can do to fix the corner softness other than crop or live with it. I'd return a $1K Canon lens that did this, but I don't expect sharp corners on an inexpensive lens like this.

 

[AnselA]

Just did some quick focus test shots with my P2V, and everything is reasonably in-focus from about 4 feet and beyond. Closer than that and things get blurry. That's about what I'd expect - hyperfocal point should be a bit over 5 feet with this sensor, lens, and aperture.

So yes - an object 10-12 feet away *should* be in focus on this camera. I wonder if some people's cameras are more front- or back-focused.

I expected similar; hyperfocal distance at about 1.5 m (~5 ft). I took a (DNG) picture where next to a measuring tape there's a cell phone at 1.5 m and the wall at 2.5 m ( ~8 ft) from P2V camera front. Nothing in focus.

A crop from 100% image. Bad back focus?

 

[texami]

I was the guy who originally started this thread. After several frustrating flights in December and January, I did a comparison test with a point and shoot camera. You will see the comparison in some of my previous postings.

I sent the P2V back to the repair center in California in January. Now that I have it back, I am amazed at the photos. Nice, crisp, sharp photos. Even the tops of trees which are a mix of dead limbs turn out so beautiful. This picture has not been altered and was shot in a 15mph wind. Not bad and easily adjustable in Photoshop or lightroom.

A sincere thank you to the people of DJI for making my Arial photography fun again!!!!

 

[Pull_Up]

Good to know, thanks for updating us!

 

[gfredrone]

I was the guy who originally started this thread. After several frustrating flights in December and January, I did a comparison test with a point and shoot camera. You will see the comparison in some of my previous postings.

I sent the P2V back to the repair center in California in January. Now that I have it back, I am amazed at the photos. Nice, crisp, sharp photos. Even the tops of trees which are a mix of dead limbs turn out so beautiful. This picture has not been altered and was shot in a 15mph wind. Not bad and easily adjustable in Photoshop or lightroom.

A sincere thank you to the people of DJI for making my Arial photography fun again!!!!

Will you post a link to the original file? I want to compare your 100% to my 100%. I'm still on the fence about the image quality of my camera and am thinking about replacement. The picture you posted looks much better than what I'm getting. I've also been noticing some softness on my right edge. Thanks!

 

[Erroneous007]

Does anyone know which wire sends the shutter signal to the camera?. I have a couple of Canon IS1200 (10MP) point ans hoot cameras that I use for a home made 3D rig. I have a software hack in there than trips the shutter when I send a 4V signal through the USB port. I was thinking about attaching one camera (145 grams) to the bottom of the P2V camera so I could use the vision's camera to line up the shot and then use the signal sent to the vision to trip the shutter on the IS1200.

 

[Pull_Up]

Does anyone know which wire sends the shutter signal to the camera?. I have a couple of Canon IS1200 (10MP) point ans hoot cameras that I use for a home made 3D rig. I have a software hack in there than trips the shutter when I send a 4V signal through the USB port. I was thinking about attaching one camera (145 grams) to the bottom of the P2V camera so I could use the vision's camera to line up the shot and then use the signal sent to the vision to trip the shutter on the IS1200.

Everything for the camera goes through the white jack plug in the back, 2-way data and power. As the shutter control is sent via the app to the camera directly (that's where the wifi antennae are) I suspect the command's both digital and internal to the camera not via any signal down the cable...