Would Mavic be suitable for photogrammetric purposes?

[PeteM]

All the tests that are on YouTube take into account only the recreational use.

People going to the park, by the river, on a mountain, takes out the drone of the pocket and begin taking random pictures/videos... just for fun... and its perfect for that... its amazing...

No one has tried this drone planning a flight mission at home and flying instrumentally (using waypoints) for ground mapping... on the other hand its full of videos that show how you can do it (well) with a phantom...

So there are no comparisons... there is just an optics that seems designed to optimize selfies... sure... "you can fly higher"... you can even go into orbit... the real FOV is smaller than 78°...

 

[DarkEnergy]

People going to the park, by the river, on a mountain, takes out the drone of the pocket and begin taking random pictures/videos... just for fun... and its perfect for that... its amazing...

No one has tried this drone planning a flight mission at home and flying instrumentally (using waypoints) for ground mapping... on the other hand its full of videos that show how you can do it (well) with a phantom...

Exactly. Then why are you strongly concluding that Mavic is not suitable for photogrammetric purposes based in questionable simulations?

So there are no comparisons... there is just an optics that seems designed to optimize selfies... sure... "you can fly higher"... you can even go into orbit... the real FOV is smaller than 78°...

Seems to me a desperate point from somebody that cannot accept being wrong.

 

[Kiwi flyer]

I simulated (through a professional software) various photogrammetric flights with Mavic.

I feel I can say that this drone is ABSOLUTELY not suitable for this type of application.

Setting a flying height compatible with the accuracy required to the ground, setting just a discrete overlapping and speed parameters, due to the reduced FOV, the complexity of the flights (number of strips and photos) increases in an unacceptable way.
The issue ends here for me... the optics of this drone is not suitable for making topography...
I hope that many will throw away their P4 for Mavic so I'll be able to buy my first Phantom at a low price...

So, If you need a drone for professional application, you should get a professional-grade drone. The Mavic really is more a consumer focused drone that's marketed toward convenience and portability. Did you not see the type of people they had on stage for the launch? Some VLogger chick and a Ski Pro...

 

[With The Birds]

What if you are already at 400 feet?

A simple trig calc gives you the answer. With the Mavic lens FOV at 400ft altitude the coverage across the longest dimension of the frame exceeds 1000 ft on the ground. You almost certainly would want to fly below 400ft to get reasonable resolution in your final processed image/model.

 

[With The Birds]

All the tests that are on YouTube take into account only the recreational use.

People going to the park, by the river, on a mountain, takes out the drone of the pocket and begin taking random pictures/videos... just for fun... and its perfect for that... its amazing...

No one has tried this drone planning a flight mission at home and flying instrumentally (using waypoints) for ground mapping... on the other hand its full of videos that show how you can do it (well) with a phantom...

So there are no comparisons... there is just an optics that seems designed to optimize selfies... sure... "you can fly higher"... you can even go into orbit... the real FOV is smaller than 78°...

Why do you say the real FOV on the Mavic is less than 78deg?

 

[With The Birds]

From DJI official FAQ:

The two cameras have the same features, but the Mavic’s camera has a smaller FOV, is able to focus as closely as 0.5m and can be rotated 90° for portrait shots and selfies. The Phantom 4’s larger FOV makes it better suited for landscape imaging.

I don't know how much landscape photography you may have done. I find typically im shooting closer to 16mm on full frame DSLR's than at longer focal lengths. The claim that the wider FOV of the phantom imaging system makes it more suitable than the Mavic has some merit as a generalization, particularity with respect to traditional terrestrial landscape imaging. It is of greatly reduced relavence when discussing aerial imaging systems however. While you may often be faced with circumstances on the ground where it is difficult or impossible to move your camera position to get more of the scene in your frame flying to a position further back is a trivial exersize.

It might be that the claim the P4 is more suited to landscape photography is DJI marketing spin. No doubt DJI had the Mavic well advanced in developement however there is a high likliehood the release date was brought forward to combat GoPro's launch. If you have two products in the market and a desire to maximize sales volumes for both you need clear points of difference articulated in your marketing.

 

[Top Quark]

I had fun reading this thread.

If FOV is the only reason, I suggest OP to get the GoPro Karma with it's ~119° FOV.

 

[justin1230]

I had fun reading this thread.

If FOV is the only reason, I suggest OP to get the GoPro Karma with it's ~119° FOV.

And OP will never get a good result as the FOV is too high

 

[With The Birds]

And OP will never get a good result as the FOV is too high

But he would be able to fly at 25 metres altitude without exponential processing of extra images and well under the magic 40m threshold where control is lost.

 

[AlexSP]

The P3 and P4 were never meant to be topography/aerophotogrametry drones in the first place. It's the advance of capturing apps and stitching programs that allowed Phantoms to be used for mapping and 3D modeling - and mostly for small/medium area coverage due to reach and battery autonomy.

The Mavic Pro will fill right in there, maybe not better, certainly not worse than a P4 for mapping. There's a whole lot of "topography drones" out there with longer flight times, better cameras, more precise GPS systems (RTK), higher payload for IR cameras and all the goods. They do cost quite a bit more though.

PS.: DJI has some good "pro" drones in their line, they sure don't mean nor want the Mavic to bite at those. The way I see it, it's a consumer, sport-and-lifestyle oriented aerial camera that can be used for certain mapping applications.

 

[r62ewa]

The P3 and P4 were never meant to be topography/aerophotogrametry drones in the first place. It's the advance of capturing apps and stitching programs that allowed Phantoms to be used for mapping and 3D modeling - and mostly for small/medium area coverage due to reach and battery autonomy.

The Mavic Pro will fill right in there, maybe not better, certainly not worse than a P4 for mapping. There's a whole lot of "topography drones" out there with longer flight times, better cameras, more precise GPS systems (RTK), higher payload for IR cameras and all the goods. They do cost quite a bit more though.

PS.: DJI has some good "pro" drones in their line, they sure don't mean nor want the Mavic to bite at those. The way I see it, it's a consumer, sport-and-lifestyle oriented aerial camera that can be used for certain mapping applications.

What is your preferred drone for mapping and 3D modeling?

 

[AlexSP]

For small and medium missions I use a P3P. It's compact, which is good both on the way to the sites and to fly around. I take all I need inside a DJI hardcore backpack which is very convenient. Also, it has good autonomy, only few occasions demand a battery switch. Finally, it's easy to start up, fly and shoot, reliable and precise and the image quality is good. For 3D modeling it's my favorite drone right now.

In fact I prefer the P3P over the I1, which I'm seriously tempted to sell. Right now I'm putting together a S1000 with A3 and RTK for bigger payload and longer extensions. I'll be using it for mining, crop and road survey contracts which usually also demand more precision than can be achieved with a P3/P4 or the I1.

 

[r62ewa]

Thanks for the details. At present I am using my Phantom 4 as it's the only drone I have but after a few App trials it seems to be performing well. I am contemplating building a Matrice 100 for more versatility and payload options. My largest stumbling block at present is the RTK side and the expense of acquiring equipment to provide the accuracy.

 

[AlexSP]

Good, the P4 is perfectly suitable for mapping. Again that's my opinion and based on my experiences. If you do some search you'll find a lot of pro-level, high-profile mapping missions done on P3s and P4s. It's really "not about the drone" most of the time, or unless the job demands something specific of course. I use a combination of capturing apps (DD, Go, FPVcamera, etc.) to get exactly what I want in the capturing phase to make up for drone limitations and it works for most contracts. And indeed RTK is an expensive option right now, maybe it changes with time but I'm considering the investment because GCP can be a pain, both in time, cost and labor. Anyway...

The drone is just a tool, of course it has some limitations but very drone has. We have other bottlenecks at the moment so what we do and how we do is more important than equipment, even though the industry tries to show otherwise lol Some clients ask me about the Inspire and how the P3 is toy-like compared to it, but when they see it performing and the final results they get pretty confident and safe and that's what really matters. Sometimes less is more.

 

[PeteM]

I'm sure the Phantom (3 or 4) is perfect for my needs because in the past I have commissioned topographic surveys that have been performed with these drones (+ a photogrammetric and a topographic software) and the final results were perfect for me. So I'm sure I do not need more sophisticated and expensive drones.

If it were not released Mavic I'd already bought a Phantom 4 (I was going to buy and I stopped because I saw the Mavic)... what I'm trying to figure out is which one to choose between the two...

The Phantom is a milestone but the Mavic could be the future... could be... it seems to me like a gamble because no one has ever tried to make photogrammetry with it... there is still no Litchi support...

 

[r62ewa]

I have colleagues that have chosen the Phantom 4 over $50,000 UAVs for photogrammetric purposes. I feel confident in what it can do and the results it can provide, I just wish RTK GPS was more affordable!

 

[AlexSP]

I see your point Pete, but the specs aren't that far apart between the P3/P4 and the Mavic so the new drone could fill it quite alright even though it hasn't been tested yet. I for my part am looking for PORTABILITY because that's a real constraint at times, and the Mavic deliver in spades.

Anyway what I meant was, well... if industry has developed programs to turn Phantoms into capable surveying drones, then I can't see why it wouldn't happen again with the Mavic. It was like that because the Phantom turned out a reliable, decent and POPULAR drone and Mavic seems to be going the same way.

OK, that can be a flawed fallacy I admit but that's how I see things advancing right now. And since we're not talking about a huge investment with either P3/P4 or the Mavic... then I'm in for a try!

 

[AlexSP]

I have colleagues that have chosen the Phantom 4 over $50,000 UAVs for photogrammetric purposes. I feel confident in what it can do and the results it can provide, I just wish RTK GPS was more affordable!

Same here! 9 out the 10 times I opt for the P3P, my oldest one, over the I1 because I can do more with it. There are guys here who are investing fortunes in drones and equipment and can't do much because they have a hard time operating the thing in the first place, and then when it comes to mapping, data collecting is the real trick.

Oh and yes, I too wish RTK wasn't so expensive But then, if there's enough demand it might be worth the investment of course. From the business POV.

 

[r62ewa]

Like you and my colleague have said, it's not about the UAV when it comes to photogrammetry or data collection, it's about the sensor and quality of data you collect, the UAV is just the means to enable the collection.

 

[r62ewa]

Same here! 9 out the 10 times I opt for the P3P, my oldest one, over the I1 because I can do more with it. There are guys here who are investing fortunes in drones and equipment and can't do much because they have a hard time operating the thing in the first place, and then when it comes to mapping, data collecting is the real trick.

Oh and yes, I too wish RTK wasn't so expensive But then, if there's enough demand it might be worth the investment of course. From the business POV.

Have you heard of AeroPoints? I am in talks with them at present and this sort of new technology is what will make collecting accurate RTK data more affordable and convenient.