Could someone please post screenshots of E50 and E90 image properties showing ALL EXIF data?

[Brahma]

Hi-

I am wanting to compare any random E90 and E50 image property data, SPECIFICALLY EXIF DATA, to the properties my H480 CGO3+ captures. Any differences across all EXIF properties?

Attached are the "visual" CGO3+ file properties, and below, EXIFTool output of just a random file taken at altitude with my CGO3+. I've altered the GPS info to protect the innocent.

*** PLEASE NOTE THAT IN ATTACHED IMAGES 2 & 3, Camera and lens information- including comparable 35mm lens size, is missing ***

I think this would be awesome for comparison if someone could please do the same with an E50 and E90.

Thank you very much in advance....

D.

-------------------------------------

C:\A1Data\A1Test>exiftool -a -u -g1 yun00148.jpg
---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number : 10.82
Warning : Non-standard header for APP1 XMP segment
---- System ----
File Name : yun00148.jpg
Directory : .
File Size : 7.7 MB
File Modification Date/Time : 2018:03:04 02:04:40-05:00
File Access Date/Time : 2018:04:08 09:51:12-04:00
File Creation Date/Time : 2018:04:08 09:51:12-04:00
File Permissions : rw-rw-rw-
---- File ----
File Type : JPEG
File Type Extension : jpg
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Image Width : 4000
Image Height : 3000
Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)
---- JFIF ----
JFIF Version : 1.01
Resolution Unit : None
X Resolution : 1
Y Resolution : 1
---- IFD0 ----
Image Width : 4000
Image Height : 3000
Image Description : \DCIM\100MEDIA\YUN00148.jpg
Make : YUNEEC
Camera Model Name : CGO3+ 3.2.34(A)
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : 3.2.34(A)
Modify Date : 2018:03:04 07:04:40
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Centered
---- ExifIFD ----
Exposure Time : 1/60
F Number : 2.8
Exposure Program : Program AE
ISO : 200
ISO Speed : 200
Exif Version : 0230
Date/Time Original : 2018:03:04 07:04:40
Create Date : 2018:03:04 07:04:40
Brightness Value : 0
Exposure Compensation : 0
Metering Mode : Average
Flashpix Version : 0100
Color Space : sRGB
File Source : Digital Camera
Scene Type : Directly photographed
Custom Rendered : Normal
Exposure Mode : Auto
White Balance : Auto
Scene Capture Type : Standard
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
---- GPS ----
GPS Version ID : 2.3.0.0
GPS Latitude Ref : North
GPS Latitude : 28 ***ALTERED***
GPS Longitude Ref : West
GPS Longitude : 82 ***ALTERED***
GPS Altitude Ref : Below Sea Level
GPS Altitude : 80 m
GPS Satellites : 17
GPS Measure Mode : 3-Dimensional Measurement
GPS Dilution Of Precision : 0.65
---- XMP-xmp ----
GPS Altitude : 80
Camera Yaw : 27.636299
Camera Pitch : -70.580032
Camera Roll : 0.014363
---- Composite ----
Aperture : 2.8
GPS Altitude : 80 m Below Sea Level
GPS Latitude : 28 ***ALTERED***
GPS Longitude : 82 ***ALTERED***
GPS Position : ***ALTERED***
Image Size : 4000x3000
Megapixels : 12.0
Shutter Speed : 1/60
Light Value : 7.9
C:\A1Data\A1Test>

 

[Brahma]

Please? Anyone?

 

[10-8]

Here is an image from each you can DL and view the data..
Brahma - Google Drive

 

[Brahma]

That works! Thank you very much!

 

[Brahma]

Ok, my results are in. As long as 10-8 can confirm he did no file alterations, it appears the E50 is almost junk for the purpose, and in NO WAY worth the price. Yuneec- you need to address the EXIF quality of the E50 PRONTO, or cut the ATROCIOUS price by AT LEAST 60%. PERIOD. The E90 however, is an improvement in EXIF data from the CGO3+, and we can thank Yuneec for that improvement.

But NO GPS DATA on the E50 files? REALLY? For over ONE-THOUSAND DOLLARS? What a crock....

See Yuneec Camera EXIF Data Comparison Excel spreadsheet attachment...

 

[10-8]

I'll have to check the file. Yes, it has full GPS data and I have used it for mapping. You probably should have asked before the rant. But I will check for a current image without missing GPS data..

here you go.. E50.jpg

 

[Brahma]

The whole purpose of this thread was that it had to do with comparing EXIF data... If you would please supply images that are unaltered, I would appreciate it.

 

[10-8]

The whole purpose of this thread was that it had to do with comparing EXIF data... If you would please supply images that are unaltered, I would appreciate it.

I just did. But I never altered the images to begin with. And I have mapped with all 3 cameras and all have GPS data embedded. Sometimes EXIF data is stripped when using certain programs/services. The E50 image I just posted had EXIF when uploaded. E50.jpg

 

[Brahma]

Ok, this is better.... Not a lot better than the CGO3+, but better.

Thanks for the file 10-8.

 

[PatR]

Just as an FYI, photos published at Google and Facebook “lose” geo reference data when they are published.

Funny thing in that as Facebook will tag your location when you post if the feature was not turned off in settings but strip the location from a published photo.

 

[SeeHigher]

Note, currently the E90 DNG files do not report GPS coordinates correctly

 

[Brahma]

Noted. Thanks.