E50 / E90

[CraigCam]

Yes but if the 520 is marketed as an inspection craft, then maybe this has been deemed an acceptable issue because it’s not for film. I doubt that but why would you put music to it and publish that? You either have a gimbal issue or lack of experience and they seem pretty sure of themselves as proper Germans should. Hence my trepidation and concern as I don’t get why you wouldn’t adjust camera tilt to stop that especially in a video to promote the camera?

 

[arruntus]

Yes but if the 520 is marketed as an inspection craft, then maybe this has been deemed an acceptable issue because it’s not for film. I doubt that but why would you put music to it and publish that? You either have a gimbal issue or lack of experience and they seem pretty sure of themselves as proper Germans should. Hence my trepidation and concern as I don’t get why you wouldn’t adjust camera tilt to stop that especially in a video to promote the camera?

We must bear in mind that until now 99.9% of the videos we have seen do not come directly from Yuneec. They come from distributors or sellers who advertise the products they sell. The few videos that I think Yuneec has released directly have no such problem.

You're right the H520 is advertised as an aerial inspection drone but with the E50 camera and not the E90 which is currently in use. In short, I imagine, we will have images of the E50 which is focused on inspections.

I have to say that i don't work for Yuneec or anything like that. I'm just blending in because I want to be positive. That we see something wrong? We commented on it and I am sure that from Yuneec they will read it and probably if it is in their hand they will correct it. The H480 also had bugs, or still has some, but they are getting updates that correct them. Correcting bugs and implementing new improvements is how you get to move from a good product to a very good one.

Making constructive criticism is always good, it allows the brand to improve

 

[AH-1G]

It's to bad that Yuneec doesn't take a professional stand on promoting this product, instead it seems like they are leaving it up to amateurs. Not Smart! This tends to degrade the quality they want to impose, thus folks like me aren't sure if to purchase one. When amateurs uploading 520H pics and vids and it looks the same as my co3+ camera why then would I want to buy the 520.

 

[JCFlippen]

It's to bad that Yuneec doesn't take a professional stand on promoting this product, instead it seems like they are leaving it up to amateurs. Not Smart! This tends to degrade the quality they want to impose, thus folks like me aren't sure if to purchase one. When amateurs uploading 520H pics and vids and it looks the same as my co3+ camera why then would I want to buy the 520.

As a product video producer of over 30 years standing I cringe at what is turned out. Polished videos made by professionals to highlight what can be achieved with new kit should be the norm for Yuneec. The snag is in the new world of everyone being a video producer no one judges by decent standards. Thinking about it I suppose if no one recognises rubbish then why bother to make anything decent.

 

[arruntus]

As a product video producer of over 30 years standing I cringe at what is turned out. Polished videos made by professionals to highlight what can be achieved with new kit should be the norm for Yuneec. The snag is in the new world of everyone being a video producer no one judges by decent standards. Thinking about it I suppose if no one recognises rubbish then why bother to make anything decent.

I ask. Isn't it true that doing a good post-production job greatly improves the quality of the images? Hence the recommendations to record in raw?

In the world of drones you can carry a Red recording (it's an exaggerated example) that gives you a lot of quality and therefore you can get much more easily good cinematographic results. But for TV productions the E90 images wouldn't be enough or acceptable?

The example of the Red camera should be taken with caution because it is important to think about the cost of a drone that is capable of lifting this weight and that at the most you will have 10 minutes of autonomy is something to take into account.

 

[PatR]

Unles you are planning to do sigint work you'll be carrying some kind of camera. For the vast majority, the only reason for the aircraft is to provide means to carry the camera. How the aircraft flies is of course highly important but if the aircraft is being sold as a package with manufacturer intended cameras the primary focus shifts from the aircraft to the cameras. The ability to get from here to there, and program a waypoint mission is a very good thing but your camera better be able to record imagery of high enough quality to make use of the product after the mission. You can have a good camera or a crap camera, a good gimbal or a crap gimbal. Those two items, camera and gimbal, are what ultimately puts the meat on the table.

I'm finding it very difficult to understand why Yuneec has been so reluctant to promote their product, leaving promotion up to testers, dealers, and software developers.

 

[ithacapool]

Totally agree with the props in picture while in full forward. As I understand the upwards tilt being a great tool for inspections, for cinematography purpose,
Is the horizontal position set as default?
Is it adjustable at all?
Also hope that HISTOGRAM will be included in first update! .... A must have...
Thanks Yuneec

 

[PatR]

The ability to alter maximum gimbal tilt angle is also present in the H480. The left 3 position switch controls the angle with the upper position limiting the max up angle and lower position allowing for greater up angle. Middle position does nothing. Typically, the lower position providing more up gimbal angle is used when flying at higher speeds since the airframe has more forward tilt when moving fast. Since it allows more up angle it's also been useful for inspection work. At higher speeds the upper switch position that limits gimbal tilt inhibits camera ability to view the path directly forward of the aircraft at speed as the tilt angle does not elevate enough, leaving the operator with more of a forward ground view instead of the flight path. The more elevated, lower switch position gimbal tilt does permit props to be in view during high speeds or harsh maneuvering while the upper switch position providing less gimbal elevation minimizes getting the props in the image.

As with any camera mounted under the center of the airframe, the more upwards gimbal tilt that is available the greater the chance the props will be in view. There are only a couple ways to prevent this. One is to front mount the camera on the center of the airframe. Another is to use a lens with a more narrow field of view. One more would use an H or Y-6 shaped frame design that moves the motor booms further away (outwards) from the camera lens. Frames using an X or star configuration always encounter a probability of seeing props in the image unless limiting gimbal tilt.

 

[AH-1G]

I'm finding it very difficult to understand why Yuneec has been so reluctant to promote their product, leaving promotion up to testers, dealers, and software developers.

I agree with you Pat. It might be Yuneec doesn't have a qualified department to promote the 520 let alone anything! Yuneec is selling themselves short and loosing out to take a lager chunk of the market. CEO needs to get a handle of this and make corrections. I had a promotional idea working with Best Buy but haven't heard any thing back from the Ontario office, guess they trashed it.

 

[PatR]

Too many little things that come together, for me, that prevent making a "buy" decision right now.

 

[arruntus]

More images recorded with the E90 at 60fps (100 Mbps)

 

[oliver]

it's average as quality, we saw better, it is not clear, or then there is a concern with the postprod

 

[AH-1G]

Reminds me when I lived in Germany, ahhhhh, I miss the food and aroma of the meat markets. very clear here, haze or high dew point in the atmosphere.

 

[PatR]

I don't know how anyone can watch and try to grade a video on YouTube. I have a pretty fast internet connection and a 4k computer ad screen and no matter what I do I have yet to see a YouTube video come through with a resolution higher than 1440, and that's a rare day. Usually the max resolution is 1080, as was done with the previous video, down to 720. Then you have YouTube's compression effects. Click the tool icon at the bottom right of the video window and see what resolution you are being provided.

In the previous video the first thing I noticed was the level of moisture in the air, most will call it humidity, which told me there was no chance of a perfectly clear video. I could only view the video and enjoy the content with little to consider for the quality. This far the E-90 camera hasn't done a lot to excite me but I won't criticize anything based on what I see on YouTube. Vimeo provides a far better rendering while a direct download of the video from the maker is the way to go. I've said before, if you are engaged in video production and using YouTube as your primary delivery medium you'll never be able to present a high quality video to anyone that has less than a gigabyte internet connection speed. Even then your video will be sullied by their compression methods.

 

[oliver]

I watched in 2160P and I've been working in video since 1985, I know about YouTube compression and I use, among other things a 480.
I found on YouTube videos of the E90 of better quality, but that there is not blatant happiness. I have already downloaded originals from the E90, and do the calibrations.
Normally, it is in low light that we will really see the difference and in the 60p for the slow motion.

 

[BroVari]

I don't know how anyone can watch and try to grade a video on YouTube. I have a pretty fast internet connection and a 4k computer ad screen and no matter what I do I have yet to see a YouTube video come through with a resolution higher than 1440, and that's a rare day. Usually the max resolution is 1080, as was done with the previous video, down to 720. Then you have YouTube's compression effects. Click the tool icon at the bottom right of the video window and see what resolution you are being provided.

In the previous video the first thing I noticed was the level of moisture in the air, most will call it humidity, which told me there was no chance of a perfectly clear video. I could only view the video and enjoy the content with little to consider for the quality. This far the E-90 camera hasn't done a lot to excite me but I won't criticize anything based on what I see on YouTube. Vimeo provides a far better rendering while a direct download of the video from the maker is the way to go. I've said before, if you are engaged in video production and using YouTube as your primary delivery medium you'll never be able to present a high quality video to anyone that has less than a gigabyte internet connection speed. Even then your video will be sullied by their compression methods.

Everybody here, or at least most of us are aware of the fact the videos uploaded to YT are compressed and provide a lot worse image than the original file after post production, but we all have uploaded our videos from our Hs to youtube, so we already know what to look at in terms of quality of image after youtube's compression. Personally, I am simply looking if the examples of e90 footage that already are on youtube are in any way better than the ones from my CGO3+ that I uploaded on youtube. If the difference between these two camers will be significally better in favor of the e90 - then I will most probably order the H520.

But of course, the downloaded files without the youtube's or other site's compression are crucial, don't get me wrong. I just don't agree that footage from youtube tells us nothing, because it's not true.

 

[AH-1G]

I have clients that I have produced video and posted on YT, the compression on YT looks horrible The difference is when it comes to extremely high quality, they don't really see it as an issue (unless it's very poor quality, eye of the beholder, $$$$$ how much they want for quality) They just want to get their message out to the consumer. So this again leads me to why would I purchase the H if YT is going to substantially compress the results thus it looks the same as 03+? The 520 is a semi-professional tool. Don't get wrong, I love the H, just like to have seen better results.

 

[PatR]

Kind of where I'm at. Most people quickly become accustomed to the quality level of TV and video they watch. 720 looks great to them until they have an opportunity to see 720 playing beside 1080. Same applies to 1080. Most don't mentally process quality differences simply because what they have been watching has been accepted as "OK' in their minds. For me still photos have far more importance than video as my business is focused in areas where photos are more relevant to the customers.

You can't trick people into believing a bad photo is good when they can hold the photo up in the air and compare the view against the real thing. OTOH, it's easy to turn a good photo into a bad one through over processing and artistic expression. Unless Yuneec intends the 520 to be a unit dedicated to mapping and little else, they are not helping themselves by avoiding presenting image qualities of their cameras to those they hope will buy the 520. There's really not enough P.D.'s and SAR teams that aren't already locked up by DJI to generate 520 sales volume sufficient to carry the company. The internal disinterest in their own new product line is, sorry to say, appalling.

 

[Graham]

Had a few flights today and ran into issues with the E90 gimbal. On the first flight I noticed the gimbal wasn't level and was drifting, so landed to recalibrate. The horizon was better on the second flight, but not perfect. Recalibrated again for the third flight, but the gimbal again wasn't level. It was quite windy and I noticed the gimbal was vibrating with the wind while calibrating. In flight, the wind was sufficient to make the H520 lean considerably and it seemed that only when facing into or away from the wind the gimbal was most level, but not otherwise. Calibration was made on level ground, I believe.
The second issue was an unacceptable curvature of the horizon. See the second photo.
The detail in the images seems excellent and I like the enhanced colour setting as it seems more realistic than natural.
Video (HVEC setting) produced three files; .MP4, .LRS and .THM. I can view the MP4 on my Windows 10 player, but my Adobe Premiere Elements will not play it, saying there's a missing codec. (Update: It seems there is a codec available from Adobe, but it's part of their CC subscription at £19 per month.) The images below are from video. Any comments welcome!

 

[PatR]

Good color but you're right about the horizon and gimbal leveling. That won't cut it, especially at the price point. You can Google the codecs and prolly down load them at no charge.