4 k video comparison
- Thread starter BillyTexas
- Start date
Hi Pat, that was very perceptive in your post just above me thank you for sharing it with the rest of us.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 991
- Reaction score
- 247
- Age
- 57
I'm very happy with the images I'm getting from the Typhoon H. I shoot in natural almost all the time. Would like to have a narrower lens, but I've been very pleased with the end results.
DJI has amazing marketing, amazing re-sellers who do comparisons for the purpose of trashing the Typhoon H. I am VERY happy with my Typhoon H and I'm glad I didn't give the naysayers much credence.
I know you have tremendous experience with 'drones' across the spectrum from our 'toys' to the real thing. But I'm not sure your photo/video expertise is similar. I've been fairly active with photo and video, first film, then digital spanning land, underwater, astro, and most recently multi rotor-based. In all the years and all the reviews, I've never seen a comparative reference citing 'sharper depth of field'. The phrase simply makes no sense. Depth of field is based on the range of distance from the camera that *is* sharp in the image. So there's simply no such thing as a sharper depth of field. I can imagine a few things that you might be thinking of in making this reference, but it's impossible to know exactly what you're referring to.
And I'm not clear why you think that 'most' will not be impacted by the lower bit rate of the CGO-3+. Anyone who is looking for highest resolution at 4K needs all the bit rate they can get. And the YTH system is not up to the P4 in that department. I have both systems, btw. I have taken apart my YTH camera to fix the focus. Have bought an aftermarket lens, though I haven't installed that yet. There's simply nothing I can do about the bit rate though. Except hope the rumors are true that a replacement camera for the YTH is coming that will provide the quality (both specs and Quality Control in assembly and release testing) that was sadly lacking in the current camera. The craft and the gimbal are cool in their way, but tying them to an inferior camera was a bonehead move.
Sure, many are perfectly happy with the current cam. perhaps even if it's not focused properly. But I expect more from Yuneec. Let's hope more is coming...at a discount for early adopters.
Not sure why everyone thinks Yuneec will release a updated CGO3+ camera and offer a discount for early adopters. everyone thought when they bought the q500 with Cgo2 they would have an upgrade plan... ya everyone remember that. If anyone thinks Yuneec is going to upgrade the Cgo3+ yes there will be replacing it but with the Cgo5 next year maybe
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2016
- Messages
- 874
- Reaction score
- 357
- Age
- 75
One thing is for sure. With the Typhoon H, there is an opportunity for new and different cameras to be mounted. With DJI, the only way to upgrade is to buy the next model, P5 or whatever.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 991
- Reaction score
- 247
- Age
- 57
I agree...as the original poster of this thread i want to say that i was just looking for opinions. I look forward to seeing the H grow into a very versatile platform.
Bill W.
Bill, Looks like there's a beautiful Harvest Moon hanging over Houston right now. Is this right? Make a great pic.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 991
- Reaction score
- 247
- Age
- 57
Yikes! (been cooking out back)
Still good here in Nacogdoches, about 140 ? miles North of you.. It's due East of me, maybe at 30 degrees above horizon, Bill..
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 991
- Reaction score
- 247
- Age
- 57
PatR
Premium Pilot
Deluge,
I agree my terminology was incorrect with "sharper depth of field", the intent was to relate the DJI image provided better focus at distance. Up close, not so much. We don't have much control over depth of field with a fixed aperture lens. I will also agree that my photography jargon is not up to what some of you have.
What's interesting is that you are in a manufacturer specific forum, one referencing a product you do not like or use, appearing to seek what you can to denigrate a manufacturer's product or someone that uses it. It seems DJI zealots/shills/employees/sponsored users, like yourself, are looking high and low for any area they can to use against the H in particular, and Yuneec in general in order to generate doubt and hinder sales of products that compete with DJI.
I agree my terminology was incorrect with "sharper depth of field", the intent was to relate the DJI image provided better focus at distance. Up close, not so much. We don't have much control over depth of field with a fixed aperture lens. I will also agree that my photography jargon is not up to what some of you have.
What's interesting is that you are in a manufacturer specific forum, one referencing a product you do not like or use, appearing to seek what you can to denigrate a manufacturer's product or someone that uses it. It seems DJI zealots/shills/employees/sponsored users, like yourself, are looking high and low for any area they can to use against the H in particular, and Yuneec in general in order to generate doubt and hinder sales of products that compete with DJI.
Don't know about everyone, but I don't 'think' they will offer a discount, but I do 'hope' they will. They certainly should.
I'm not familiar with the earlier models, the YTH is my first Yuneec product, and probably my last. The CGO-3+ has been a real disappointment to many, especially those who expected image quality comparable to the P4. Between bit rate misrepresentation (even though obviously wrong
How about we stick with facts, not innuendo and just plain incorrect statements.
Point 1, this is a manufacturer specific forum but when references and comparisons are made to this or other manufacturer's offerings I will sometimes choose to provide factual information that is relevant and/or to correct factual errors.
Point 2, unlike many posters here and elsewhere who opine on craft they don't own and have never flown, I am an owner and user. If you don't know that then you must not be reading my posts (certainly that's your right).
But where do you get off saying the YTH is a product I don't like or use?
As I have stated here and elsewhere, there are many cool features that the H offers that you can't get for the price anywhere else. It also has some significant flaws and limitations. As do competing RTF camera drones.
And on what basis do you conclude that I seek to hinder sales of the YTH? If I post factual information and my interpretations based on these, and they're not all positive, does that mean I'm seeking to hinder sales? Please, grow up.
Since I am not a shill, employee, or sponsored user, then it is your view that I am a DJI Zealot. Have I got that right? I'd be interested in the criteria one must satisfy to be labeled by you as such, though such a post would be wildly OT. I must say that by whatever criteria you use to justify that view, if applied analogously to yourself, you would certainly qualify as an anti-DJI Zealot. Mostly because of A2 experiences from years ago that you've written about countless times (just talking about the ones I've read). In fact, you probably also satisfy you own criteria to be labeled by you as a Pro-Solo Zealot and a Pro-YTH Zealot as well.
And as for posting based on actual user knowledge, you've posted extensively on YTH, Solo, and the P3 and P4. Tell us, which of those do you own? I believe only the H. Since the Solo went on double fire sale a couple months ago, I have all 4 OT these craft. So I feel quite comfortable commenting on their respective advantages and disadvantages.
If it soothes your ego in some strange way to tell yourself and others that my views are somehow inferior to yours because I'm a DJI Zealot, then by all means, please continue these inaccurate and unwarranted personal attacks. Meanwhile, I will continue to stick to the facts.
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.
Last edited:
I've noticed that since the last two recent firmware updates the Typhoon H camera is so much better. I no longer have to perform post-processing or color grading on any of my Typhoon camera videos. The image video quality is now even slightly better than the Phantom 4... which I believe it was supposed to be when the Typhoon H was originally released. Please note that I don't use the Typhoon H camera in "auto" mode (all my settings are manual & I don't use ND filters).
When I have time in the coming weeks, I'll post a quick video on my settings and resulting video images.
When I have time in the coming weeks, I'll post a quick video on my settings and resulting video images.
My experience too. Whenever I've been able to fly though, we've had shockingly bad weather, so I've not got any footage that really demonstrates the difference.
PatR
Premium Pilot
CD,
Anyone using "auto" settings should expect to get what they get and not complain. Even on much higher quality hand held cameras a user can take much better photos when using manual settings. It's just part of learning how to use a camera. Even the lowly Blade Chroma 4k, which uses essentially the same camera as that on the H, can provide good pictures and video when using manual settings and establishing WB as you so nicely illustrated in your "how to" video. Learning about and employing filters is another area users should become involved with.
Anyone using "auto" settings should expect to get what they get and not complain. Even on much higher quality hand held cameras a user can take much better photos when using manual settings. It's just part of learning how to use a camera. Even the lowly Blade Chroma 4k, which uses essentially the same camera as that on the H, can provide good pictures and video when using manual settings and establishing WB as you so nicely illustrated in your "how to" video. Learning about and employing filters is another area users should become involved with.
PatR
Premium Pilot
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.
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.
