E90 (Beta) 4K 60fps 100mbs Video Footage

[Magic]

it seems to me (IMHO) that for such a camera at such a large price, not enough quality.
For comparison, please take a look at my camera H with another lens-

4K did not post - went to a commercial project

 

[PatR]

There's a lot more involved in producing that video than just a different lens. Nice music score.

 

[samsflite]

Footage looks very good, good dynamic range, corner to corner sharpness, can't see any artifacting either!
But at $2000 I still think it's overpriced, will probably wait a while before upgrading from my present H with CGO3+ which is bearable. Raw photos will be interesting when they start to appear to see what can be done with them

A raw photo is now available to download here! E90 Gimbal Camera - Overview - Yuneec

 

[Rubik]

YUN_0002.mp4

Link to native file, don't know how long the link will be live

Thanks for posting this. I downloaded and viewed on my 4k monitor. Very nice, especially considering it's after sunset. Good color, sharpness and dynamic range. 60 fps makes movements very smooth. I see the slight horizon distortion on the right side of the video. But I don't see a quality difference from the YouTube video that some complain about. What am I missing?

 

[PatR]

If they put that 1" sensor into the E-50 as well the 520 would be direct competition for the Inspire.

 

[Rob Hadfield]

Thanks for posting this. I downloaded and viewed on my 4k monitor. Very nice, especially considering it's after sunset. Good color, sharpness and dynamic range. 60 fps makes movements very smooth. I see the slight horizon distortion on the right side of the video. But I don't see a quality difference from the YouTube video that some complain about. What am I missing?

Just had a look at it again and see what you mean about the distortion on the top right as he tilts down at the higher altitude. Mind you it's supposed to be a Beta test model so it might not be there in the final delivered product.

With YouTube comes compression artifacts, mostly noticeable in the water at the beginning, it's usually where there is a lot of movement in the video. And the overall quality of the original file is better as it's not been compressed.

I do a lot of Real Estate videos shot in the Canon C100MKII, the original footage looks awesome but the compressed YouTube version I see pixilation and artifacts that were not in the original footage I uploaded Just have to live with it lol

 

[Rubik]

With YouTube comes compression artifacts, mostly noticeable in the water at the beginning, it's usually where there is a lot of movement in the video. And the overall quality of the original file is better as it's not been compressed.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the compression artifacts in the YT version compared to the .mp4 download. I looked very critically at both and froze frames in several places in the water views. Both seem equally excellent! The point in the video where he rotates the camera rapidly had the same amount of motion blur in both. I even looked at the YT video on a big 4K TV (with built-in YT app) and I could not find pixelation.
Could the YT quality issues some people see be a result computer video processing speed or network streaming speed or bandwidth?

 

[Tuna]

It's worth remembering that YouTube re-encodes any video that is uploaded, and only sends the quality of video it thinks your PC and network connection can cope with. Often that means quality can dip well below optimal during a video - even on a perfect connection, it may send a lower quality stream. You simply cannot judge a video quality by watching it on YouTube.

I took some 4K footage with the E90 a couple of days ago. Stills from the video show it's sharp, clean and free from artefacts. Dynamic range looks good and the colour balance is excellent. I need to spend more time with it to figure out optimal settings (and get some footage that's worth sharing), but it's a really nice camera to work with.

 

[PatR]

When viewing videos we need to keep in mind the different factors involved that impact the quality of the video we see. Often a very good video will become degraded by our computers, the video service, and our internet connections. Only unedited, uncompressed video can be used to grade quality accurately.

Both YouTube and Vimeo stream video at several levels of resolution. When we click the tool icon at the bottom of the YouTube window we will see a selection to choose from. Vimeo does similar. Choosing the "Auto" setting for either service lets our computers select the resolution that works best for the computer and internet connection present. We don't all have the same internet data rates to work with and differences in graphics cards can cause even the fastest connection speeds turn a very high quality video into something much less than it started. The best video renderings will always be found at Vimeo though.

Many don't like Vimeo because they structure their service at different levels, with each level capping the amount of data one can upload on a weekly basis. There's a free level that has a very low data cap of 500MB/week, Vimeo Plus at 5GB/week, Vimeo Pro at 20GB/week, and Vimeo Business with unlimited uploads. Each above free level costs more money. which is a problem for some. YouTube is always a free upload because of all the advertising they stuff into the site but YouTube video quality is always well below that of Vimeo. If you want to present the best looking video you can, and perhaps be noticed by advertising or video production companies, post it at Vimeo which is much more focused on cinema quality presentation. If you are looking for hit counts and perhaps a few pennies earned from advertising revenue, post it at YouTube.

 

[oliver]

I haven't tried but the information is fine. I have the same microprocessor, with more memory and a more powerful graphic. It's going to work well, another thing is the amount of effects and fixes that we put in the videos that usually load a lot of the process. Very useful information, thank you mate

I would like to add an info,
when I read on Edius 7.5 the original E90 file (4K 60fps 100 mbs), I have a slight sack at the moment, it is not 100% fluid.
While I perfectly read the original files of the Panasonic GH5 (4K 60fps 158 MB). After research, the codec of the E90 is an AVC1 and that of the GH5 is an MP42 (same for the GH4). It would be worse that it is the processing of the codec by the video editor that would slow the processing live on the time line and not the performance of the PC. No worries also with Sony codecs (XAVC 4K).
It seems that DJI uses in-house codecs, which can also cause problems.

 

[PatR]

The GH5 is one of the cameras being considered for a custom build in mind. At only $2,000.00 for the body, before adding a prime lens, it has an economic and weight benefit over a Sony a7.

 

[Tuna]

I would like to add an info,
when I read on Edius 7.5 the original E90 file (4K 60fps 100 mbs), I have a slight sack at the moment, it is not 100% fluid.
While I perfectly read the original files of the Panasonic GH5 (4K 60fps 158 MB). After research, the codec of the E90 is an AVC1 and that of the GH5 is an MP42 (same for the GH4). It would be worse that it is the processing of the codec by the video editor that would slow the processing live on the time line and not the performance of the PC. No worries also with Sony codecs (XAVC 4K).
It seems that DJI uses in-house codecs, which can also cause problems.

At anything other than 4K@60 the E90 gives you a choice of codecs - so you can encode 4K/1080P using HVEC (H.265) which is a better encoding.

 

[oliver]

At anything other than 4K@60 the E90 gives you a choice of codecs - so you can encode 4K/1080P using HVEC (H.265) which is a better encoding.

Ok, but I would like to work in 4K 50P (EU) for slow motion