Video from the C23 and H Plus

[YuKay]

I'm disappointed if interpolation is the norm. I would much prefer to receive an unprocessed smaller image than a processed larger one. And if I really need more pixels then I can interpolate upwards myself.

But be wary of judging sensor efficiency by the number of pixels it creates because different subjects, colours, textures and exposures will result in different pixel counts and file sizes. Which is why a Photoshop A4 halftone image will be much larger than an A4 with a single colour fill.

This chap reports a 4MB/15% image size variation between different exposures of the same subject.

 

[YuKay]

Scenic footage of St Michael's Mount (UK), with a very blue sea:

 

[YuKay]

A couple of German videos with brief-but-good C23 clips plus a bit of technical data:

 

[rdonson]

Gotta say that the video and stills from the C23 still look very good to me.

I’m thinking that all the C23 needs is a good set of ND filters and a lens shade.

 

[Rubik]

A couple of German videos with brief-but-good C23 clips plus a bit of technical data:

Did anyone notice in the second video that the TH+ did NOT have RealSense? Perhaps a non-RS version will be available soon also.

 

[rdonson]

@Rubik good catch!!!!

 

[Rubik]

@Rubik good catch!!!!

Actually, there was no RS on the first German video also.
I'm still very interested in seeing a direct comparison between the CGO3+ and C23 (by someone who knows how to properly set up the cameras).

 

[YuKay]

AFAIK the RS model has only been available in the US. I have only been able to find the non-RS model on sale in Europe.

 

[PatR]

That answers questions I had about future availability of units without RS, and if RS was going to be necessary for the system to function.

Now for the return of cruise control...

 

[Mickeyboo]

That answers questions I had about future availability of units without RS, and if RS was going to be necessary for the system to function.

Now for the return of cruise control...

Yes Pat I agree. Having no touch pad flying capability at this time has limited severely what I can produce since I unfortunately was not born with three hands. That and the wonderful 360 pan separate this bird from all others in terms of video production vis a vis drone cost.

 

[YuKay]

3m+ urban footage from Poland:

 

[PatR]

Yes Pat I agree. Having no touch pad flying capability at this time has limited severely what I can produce since I unfortunately was not born with three hands. That and the wonderful 360 pan separate this bird from all others in terms of video production vis a vis drone cost.

I don’t do panoramas so missing that function has little affect on me but for others it’s quite a loss.

Lack of touch pad control is a very big deal for pretty much everyone. There’s just no way to smoothly control the camera when both hands are devoted to aircraft control. I find the touch pad essential for both the H-480 and the 920+. It’s about the only way to effectively use the camera without having a second person for a camera operator, something that can be done at additional expense with the 480, but not the 920+. Yuneec must absolutely incorporate touch pad control to the H Plus if they want it to be competitive.

 

[Mickeyboo]

I don’t do panoramas so missing that function has little affect on me but for others it’s quite a loss.

Lack of touch pad control is a very big deal for pretty much everyone. There’s just no way to smoothly control the camera when both hands are devoted to aircraft control. I find the touch pad essential for both the H-480 and the 920+. It’s about the only way to effectively use the camera without having a second person for a camera operator, something that can be done at additional expense with the 480, but not the 920+. Yuneec must absolutely incorporate touch pad control to the H Plus if they want it to be competitive.

I have never done a Panorama either until the other day so those that have more experience please excuse my ignorance as I may have been doing something wrong. There was a perfect scene for a panorama so I thought I would try one. I did both types and neither was useable. The horizon panorama adjusted the camera so high that at least 50% was sky and I only wanted a small amount of sky and primarily just the glacial calves running parallel to the camera. I could not adjust how much of the horizon was present in any way that I could see. (I did not look very long). I tried having the camera begin pointed in a much lower manner but once the panorama activity began it aimed for my taste much to high and all it was a bunch of clouds with the subject matter I desired just a small (1/3/ or less) portion of the photo. So is this just the way it works or can someone tell me what I was doing wrong. I also shot a sphere and it seemed to do the same thing adding elements which were much too low. Is there a way to adjust horizon level? If not I don't think I will ever use that photo option again. I also could not adjust where the panorama began...whoa is me.

 

[Tuna]

At least on the H, the sphere option is the one you want. Stick the images in Microsoft ICE (Image composition editor?) and it will sort out the stitching. You can then adjust the effective 'camera angle' in the final panorama (and decide which projection you want to use). At full resolution you have plenty of 'space' to decide where to crop for sky or ground.

 

[Mickeyboo]

Thanks for the info, I use Lightroom and Photoshop to construct my Panoramas and sometime a panorama specific app. Yes the files are nice and large however I hate the idea of having to crop large portions of that data away to get a worthwhile Panorama. The ones I've made were with my Sony and Canon still cameras so I know about physically making them but I know virtually nothing about the interface which Yuneec is using...I will try and take a few of them to the final output and see ow much I need to crop from examining the images it looked to me about 2/3 was trash....

 

[PatR]

That’s why I don’t do panos...

 

[YuKay]

Thanks, YuKay. That’s how I was viewing as well. I’ll look again to see how I missed the shimmering. Perhaps it’s time to pull out my X-Rite i1Display Pro and calibrate the monitor again.

I just wanted to amplify this for other iMac 5k/27in users. At the default screen resolution (which for practical reasons is not 5k, nor 4k but 2560x1440), Quicktime misleads with its "View at actual size" option as a 4k video will then display in a window at 1920x1080. By switching the view to "Full screen", the 4k video now displays at 2560x1440, which is still way below its native resolution.

Because the full 5k resolution virtually renders the GUI illegible, Apple ships these iMacs with a more functional default resolution, which is sensible since at full res, you need binoculars to read the menu commands or anything else.

Users who want a higher resolution have to go into the Displays preferences and switch from the default setting to the scaled option. At this point, Apple had a brain fade and chose not to list all the screen options numerically. Instead, the highest resolution offered is called "More space" - and even then, the screen resolution is not 5k but 3200x1800. Steve Jobs must be turning in his grave.

To reveal the full resolution list you have to switch back to the default setting and then hold down the Option key while clicking on the scaled option. Then, finally, you can choose the elusive full 5120x2880 resolution. And only now will Quicktime Player show a 4k video at true actual size, ie 3840x2160 - although you won't find it easy to read what the movie inspector window is telling you.

And for the record, I see the moiré effect in the Spanish shale at all resolutions. But I did see a reduction in the aliasing when I exported the H.264 video to H.265 (HEVC) - which I guess will generally supersede H.264 when more devices are able to handle it.

 

[rdonson]

Excellent explanation @YuKay !!!

BTW I think the resolution is 5120x2880.

Anyway, this is another reason to have a 2 monitor set up on the Mac.

 

[YuKay]

Excellent explanation @YuKay !!!

BTW I think the resolution is 5120x2880.

Anyway, this is another reason to have a 2 monitor set up on the Mac.

Thanks Ron: typo corrected. For sure, if working at max res, 2 monitors are essential in order to see what you're doing - even for keyboard shortcut wizards.

 

[rdonson]

YuKay I went to 2 monitors over 6 years ago. I can no longer imagine using Photoshop without 2 monitors. Its even quite handy in Lightroom and life in general.