4 k video comparison

[deluge2]

Deluge,

You are correct, I only personally own the H. Where 3DR products are concerned I use their flight controllers and earlier aircraft, quad and X8 specifically, for personal activities. Note I use the word "personal". I keep activities in other areas off the web. With 3DR, it's not the aircraft or the camera that makes great things happen, it's the FC. Anything the Solo can do can be reproduced, and greatly expanded, with DIY aircraft. Another tangible benefit of 3DR FC's is they are not limited to single branded accessory components. One can use anything they want, made by pretty much any after market supplier, be that a camera or other payload. It's a **** shame the company committed consumer level suicide.

As for DJI, for me they are a "used to" item. I've always built my own aircraft and had employed Wookong on a Cinestar quite effectively for it's time. Tried an early A2 and got burned. After losing the cost of the A2 once it was established as a defective, never to be corrected or replaced unit, I've never found a good reason to permit them to screw me again. In effect I donated $1,200.00 to DJI along with many hours of trouble shooting labor and got nothing in return. If DJI corporate ever elected to made amends perhaps my attitude would change. So there ya go.

Thanks for reviewing your sad experience with the A2. Again. For the hundredth time.

My issue is that this grudge holding, which you imply could be solved by DJI just 'making amends' i.e. paying you for your lost time and trouble, colors your views on all subsequent DJI products. You don't own them. You don't fly them. You haven't had occasion to deal with their CS in the last couple of years. Yet you have this relentless drumbeat of negativity. And because of you broad experience and knowledge otherwise, your anti-DJI bias I fear misleads others looking for objective assessments. Say what you will, my assessments of YTH, P4, and Solo *are* objective. I have no axe to grind. I call them as I see them. I don't like smear campaigns, no matter who there are against. Yet you seem to see no distinction from fake posters spouting worthless criticisms. Valid criticisms on the other hand are the price of producing a product.

Imagine if everyone who had a bad experience with a manufacturer not only made a personal decision not to buy from that manufacturer again (certainly their right), but also launched into a permanent crusade to trash talk that manufacturer at every turn. I mean look at the posters here who are having terrible problems with the YTH and Yuneec customer service. And in Europe of all places. Would you be pleased to see them recouting their 2016 experiences in 2019, assuring people that Yuneec is a terrible company and that their products suck? Regardless of how Yuneec might have changed in the interim?

And worst of all is the way you and others so casually lump folks who happen to have had generally positive experiences with a company you despise into a category consisting of zealots, shills, employees, and sponsored users. You do me a great disservice when you lump me so casually in with DJI zealots. I am no such thing.

 

[deluge2]

We've gone round and round with this, and it gets boring having to repeat it, but bitrate is not everything, and you *cannot* compare bitrates between YTH & P4.

To be clear, the CGO3 has had some problems:
* early cameras had some very variable quality control that led to out of focus images. That was not a bitrate issue, but a manufacturing problem that appears to have been addressed.
* The auto modes in early firmware were pretty rough, with some nasty jumps in colour balance and exposure, and a the weakest colour profile chosen by default. It's still a problem that the camera defaults to a weak auto mode, but the recent firmware fixes have dramatically improved the response.
* 120fps mode in the initial firmware had a catastrophic encoding bug that 'pixelised' the output video. That was also fixed in the recent firmware updates

None of these problems were anything to do with bitrate. There was confusion about the lens issues that led some people to blame the blurry video on a low bitrate. That was not true. Then the 120 fps issues were also blamed on low bitrate - again, not true.

The simple fact is that the CGO3+ uses a variable rate codec with a much sparser key frame setting than the P4. The consequence is that when there isn't much going on in the video, the YTH bitrate drops much lower (if nothing is happening, you don't need a high bitrate to encode it). In comparison, the P4 eats away at data regardless of whether the frame is completely still or changing dramatically. The lower bitrate for the YTH doesn't make the slightest difference to the output - and I'd challenge you to point to a single video that shows loss of quality due to lower bitrate. We've had this discussion a number of times and it's still the case that no-one can show any evidence that bitrate is a problem.

I'd be happy to talk about sensor issues, the auto modes, focus point and hyperfocal distance, and the general quality of the lens, but bitrate is a complete red herring. Take a look at some of the top quality videos that people are producing and you can see that the codec/bitrate can't be magically producing top-rate results for some people and not for others. Codecs doesn't work like that.

Please note that I did not say that bit rate was "everything". Or the only thing. But it is an important thing. It's not just about average bit rate, it's about max bit rate too. There may be 4K scenes for which you think less than 60 Mbps is more than adequate. We all have our standards. 'Real' 4K cameras, that cost far more than our entire RTF drone systems, operate at much higher bit rates. *Much* higher. Are you saying they do that without gaining any IQ advantage? I'd be interested to read a defense of that position.

Do you think the current bandwidth for the CGO-3+ is capable of recording the maximum quality that the lens and sensor can deliver? If that's true, then the camera system really is a disappointment. I for one will be very disappointed if the next gen camera systems for RTF drones in this price range don't feature higher bit rate 4K capture. GoPro H5, P5, next CGO-X, we'll see who can raise the bar on recorded image quality. At present it's about the cost to the manufacturers of the integrated component sets.

Obviously focus issues are distinct from the issue of reduced bandwidth. And I do wish you would speak to Yuneec about quality control and the proper application of hyper focal distance setting. They seem to have done a pretty bad job on that one. I had to partially disassemble my cam to fix the focus. At least the optical axis alignment seemed to be OK...

 

[PatR]

Deluge,

I don't see it as a grudge. I view it more like grand theft. One where consumer trust was violated along with the money taken. There's a lot more than that but those experiences were out of the pockets of other people that I'm acquainted with.

Since you don't like the camera, lens, and still miffed about the misrepresented bit rate from back in the early advertising, why not simply go fly what you are happy with? Your not helping anyone with an H improve their flying or other operational skills, but you are certainly pointing them to a competitors product with every comparison.

If it makes you feel any better, I think your preferred brand does have better image resolution, However, the quality of the gimbal detracts from that product because more cutting is required, which makes scene editing considerably more extensive and critical for the end product. You need to shoot more to obtain what you need. Yes, I do know people that fly those gimbals and get to see their raw product.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Tuna]

Please note that I did not say that bit rate was "everything". Or the only thing. But it is an important thing. It's not just about average bit rate, it's about max bit rate too. There may be 4K scenes for which you think less than 60 Mbps is more than adequate. We all have our standards. 'Real' 4K cameras, that cost far more than our entire RTF drone systems, operate at much higher bit rates. *Much* higher. Are you saying they do that without gaining any IQ advantage? I'd be interested to read a defense of that position.

Why would I 'defend a position' I never took? If you have a camera that costs far more than the YTH or P4, I'd expect it to have a much larger sensor, better optics and along with that a much higher bit rate. Of course!

However, for all of these consumer drones, with small sensor cameras (the P4, Autel, YTH and probably the Karma), then increasing the bitrate gives you nothing. I'll say again - no-one has managed to give an example of video that has bitrate related artifacts - the limits of the system lie elsewhere. As it is, I took a look at a recent 1080p video from my YTH and it peaks at just short of 57mb/s, which I believe is higher than the P4's fixed bitrate? For a 'pro-sumer' drone, the YTH video codec is as good as any of the competition.

As for upcoming 4K video cameras, so long as GoPro and the others stick with small sensor devices and the current 4k/30fps frame rate, there really is no point (apart from marketing material) in having a higher bitrate, and for drones in particular, no point in imposing a fixed rate coder with an artificial bitrate that doesn't actually have any effect on the video quality.

The real battlefield here (and one I've always been clear Yuneec have had to play catch up) is in auto modes and dynamic range adjustment. Most people with this level of equipment are flying solo, and aren't necessarily very experienced photographers. The more the camera can do to help, the better - and it's one of the areas that GoPro in particular have always been champions. We've seen more than one thread here where someone has bought a YTH, thrown it up in the air and been disappointed that they haven't come back with a video that's as good as the seasoned operators on YouTube. It's easy to blame the camera, the bitrate and anything else, but the issue here is that it's very hard to take a great video without some great camera control, planning and usually editing afterwards.

 

[deluge2]

Why would I 'defend a position' I never took? If you have a camera that costs far more than the YTH or P4, I'd expect it to have a much larger sensor, better optics and along with that a much higher bit rate. Of course!

However, for all of these consumer drones, with small sensor cameras (the P4, Autel, YTH and probably the Karma), then increasing the bitrate gives you nothing. I'll say again - no-one has managed to give an example of video that has bitrate related artifacts - the limits of the system lie elsewhere. As it is, I took a look at a recent 1080p video from my YTH and it peaks at just short of 57mb/s, which I believe is higher than the P4's fixed bitrate? For a 'pro-sumer' drone, the YTH video codec is as good as any of the competition.

As for upcoming 4K video cameras, so long as GoPro and the others stick with small sensor devices and the current 4k/30fps frame rate, there really is no point (apart from marketing material) in having a higher bitrate, and for drones in particular, no point in imposing a fixed rate coder with an artificial bitrate that doesn't actually have any effect on the video quality.

The real battlefield here (and one I've always been clear Yuneec have had to play catch up) is in auto modes and dynamic range adjustment. Most people with this level of equipment are flying solo, and aren't necessarily very experienced photographers. The more the camera can do to help, the better - and it's one of the areas that GoPro in particular have always been champions. We've seen more than one thread here where someone has bought a YTH, thrown it up in the air and been disappointed that they haven't come back with a video that's as good as the seasoned operators on YouTube. It's easy to blame the camera, the bitrate and anything else, but the issue here is that it's very hard to take a great video without some great camera control, planning and usually editing afterwards.

If 1080p is maxing out the bit rate on the CGO-3+, what happens when you shoot 4K? I haven't done head to head comparisons, but on other small sensor systems, 4K does provide increased detail compared to 1080. But if bit rate were already maxed out, or nearly so, no room at the inn.

Certainly agree that the larger issue on final result is not fine points of compression (who doesn't), but some critical users have been disappointed by the cam. Hope they improve what can be refined via FW.

 

[Tuna]

If 1080p is maxing out the bit rate on the CGO-3+, what happens when you shoot 4K? I haven't done head to head comparisons, but on other small sensor systems, 4K does provide increased detail compared to 1080. But if bit rate were already maxed out, or nearly so, no room at the inn.

Certainly agree that the larger issue on final result is not fine points of compression (who doesn't), but some critical users have been disappointed by the cam. Hope they improve what can be refined via FW.

Most of the criticism came from the early machines which had well known problems (and a couple of early users who really hadn't read the manual). A few people have been commenting on the better results they're getting with the latest firmware, and we're beginning to see videos coming through that show what can be achieved. It's a shame that Yuneec rushed things out, because it caused a poor early impression that's hard to shake.

1080p isn't maxing anything out - remember it can do 1080p at 120fps. Conveniently, that's four times the frame rate of 4K. So you can have a 1080p at 120fps, or four times the resolution at 30fps. Most of the current crop of 4K cameras are the same as they're bandwidth limited from the sensor. The codec sits on top of that and it seems to be limited to just under 60mb/s with the current firmware - but as it's a variable rate codec, you have to have a lot of motion to see the full rate used.

 

[Dragonflyerthom]

Tuna I like what you and Deluge2 have said but I'm a retired Account and really don't understand a thing you have said.Do you want to talk Taxes or GA accounting concepts.lol

 

[gwhuntoon]

All of these arguments around the competing cameras capabilities sort of make me laugh. I don't mean to offend the purists when some would say "I certainly won't use the CGO3+ for professional work." I say, why not? I remember the same arguments around NTSC vs PAL, VHS vs Beta, Super VHS vs Hi8 etc. I even remember people saying of the first HD TV's that the picture is so realistic you feel like you could fall into the screen. BTW - that was when HD was 720 not 1080. Now people look at 1080 HD and say meh. Come on all ready. Broadcast channels, i.e. the nightly news frequently rebroadcast YouTube videos which come from a streaming source. Seriously, who are you trying to impress? Most of the people watching TV will never know or see any issues with any of the video, those that due probably missed the entire point of the broadcast. My own wife frequently watches channels in low def because she knows the channels and doesn't really notice the difference between the low def and HD channels.

My first digital camera was a Casio which only shot 320x480 res. Do the math, that's .153 mega pixels which wasn't even a term then.

Personally I'm impressed with the CGO3+ and don't really want to buy a camera which costs more than my H Pro. No I'm not happy with the quality of a cell phone camera but then again I take some pretty nice photos with my Nikon D90. I also remember working with one of the first Nikon Digital cameras back in the late 80s early 90s which at the time was considered professional and cost $20,000, had a SCSI interface to an external hard drive and had a fraction of the resolution of my D90.

I get that some people only want what seems to be the best and money's no object, ok fine. Just remember, a good photographer can make photos from a a crap camera look good. Ok I'm done! Still face palming though...

Maybe you just had to live through holding the antenna while squinting through static to watch the original Batman on TV or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea to appreciate what we have. Ok, I'm really done now. But still face palming.

 

[Tuna]

I get that some people only want what seems to be the best and money's no object, ok fine. Just remember, a good photographer can make photos from a a crap camera look good. Ok I'm done! Still face palming though....

It's why I always get dragged into the bitrate discussions. People insist on trying to use a single magic number to measure the 'quality' of the image and that really frustrates me.

Remember when the only thing people cared about when a new camera came out was the number of megapixels?

 

[Rayray]

I see a lot of long and impassioned posts here from folks who are obviously intelligent and well-informed.
I'm certain most consider themselves to be objective and without bias, but someone with a different opinion does not see it that way.
I read one post and think...that's right. Then read the next post and decide this is the right one. YIKES!

Cameras have come a long way since the Kodak Brownie and wondering if you had enough rolls of film for the vacation. YouTube has made videos, great videos, available to the world free.

You pays your money and takes your choice. The King of today is tomorrow's Joker. The H with it.

 

[PatR]

If I had to choose between a Phantom, H, or Inspire as my primary camera my selection would always go to a Sony. All three of the MR cameras can and do shoot good imagery but the handheld fixed to a gimbal is far better.

 

[JCFlippen]

If I had to choose between a Phantom, H, or Inspire as my primary camera my selection would always go to a Sony. All three of the MR cameras can and do shoot good imagery but the handheld fixed to a gimbal is far better.

Camera quality is just not the priority of any of the manufactures. They waste time reinventing the wheel and making silly mistakes. Surely if they partnered with a real camera manufacturer they could have it all. I presume keeping the money in the company is paramount.

 

[gwhuntoon]

Camera quality is just not the priority of any of the manufactures. They waste time reinventing the wheel and making silly mistakes. Surely if they partnered with a real camera manufacturer they could have it all. I presume keeping the money in the company is paramount.

Unfortunately you can't please all of the people all of the time. I'm sure Yuneec, DJI and others have to make some compromises to hit a certain price point. If money is no object then go out and buy a really nice commercial drone or better yet build your own exactly the way you want. There are options out there.

 

[Dragonflyerthom]

that is the problem, we have become lazyy.
we want it all but don't want to build it, we want to buy it. If you really want the best decide what it is then build the platform the camera and build it. Otherwise you are at the mercy of the companies that mass produce these drones.

 

[Tuna]

that is the problem, we have become lazyy.
we want it all but don't want to build it, we want to buy it. If you really want the best decide what it is then build the platform the camera and build it. Otherwise you are at the mercy of the companies that mass produce these drones.

Or to look at it another way, if you want a drone with a large sensor camera, with interchangeable lenses, it's going to cost much more. It turns out that most people don't want to double the price of their drone, so we get what we pay for.

Otherwise, it's like complaining that your Ford isn't a Ferrari.

 

[deluge2]

It's why I always get dragged into the bitrate discussions. People insist on trying to use a single magic number to measure the 'quality' of the image and that really frustrates me.

Remember when the only thing people cared about when a new camera came out was the number of megapixels?

For the record I made no such assertion regarding bit rate. It is a factor. There are other factors. Period. I can't help what other people may have said...

 

[JCFlippen]

that is the problem, we have become lazyy.
we want it all but don't want to build it, we want to buy it. If you really want the best decide what it is then build the platform the camera and build it. Otherwise you are at the mercy of the companies that mass produce these drones.

You are absolutely righht. I have been seduced by the smooth looks and speedy set up of the H. My Pixhawk self builds do the business but there's so much more to sort out before take off.

 

[richard bottos]

Hmm....maybe if i climbed on the roof i could see it.

Bill W.

that's what you bought the "h" for!!

 

[Dragonflyerthom]

Works for me. I'm a hobbyist. And I didn't build it

 

[Dragonflyerthom]

Here is a comparison of a p4 and the H. What do think. I can tell in the last shot the H has a lot of sunlight and the p4 dosent have that much light. But what about the rest?

I only do this because there is concern about the camera quality. So im curious about your opinions.....lets keep it civil. Thanks.

Bill W.

Personally I think both cameras are very good considering the are only F2 .8 .