Typhoon H Camera 100 mbps?
- Thread starter swags
- Start date
Beat me to it 
One of the things I noticed too from their site, from what I can find, the video streams are maxed at:
49182 kbps at 3840x2160-30,
31020 kbps at 2560x1440-30,
14980 kbps at 1920x1080-60
This was with the supplied 16GB SD card, I've tried a sandisk 'pro' (spec'd. at 95MB/s), it didn't improve the datarates..
Also, currently the fastest microSD cards are 95MB/s, so hopefully Yuneec is planning ahead for the nextgen mSD's and a F/W update
One of the things I noticed too from their site, from what I can find, the video streams are maxed at:
49182 kbps at 3840x2160-30,
31020 kbps at 2560x1440-30,
14980 kbps at 1920x1080-60
This was with the supplied 16GB SD card, I've tried a sandisk 'pro' (spec'd. at 95MB/s), it didn't improve the datarates..
Also, currently the fastest microSD cards are 95MB/s, so hopefully Yuneec is planning ahead for the nextgen mSD's and a F/W update
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 46
- Age
- 35
Hey Swags, I’m an independent filmmaker and I bought the Typhoon H as my first drone to get aerial footage for my short films. A big concern I had when deciding which drone to buy was how much data each video file would have, and I was excited to see that Yuneec’s website said the video would be at 100MB.
I’ve done a lot of testing with the CGO3+ camera (with a 95 MB/s micro SD card) and I’ve found that the highest bit rate the camera can produce is 50mbps, which is not far off from the Phantom 4 which does 60mbps. Still though this is half of what they advertised, which is unfortunate on Yuneec’s part. But the caveat to this is that the camera will produce footage at different bit rates (some as low as 14mbps) if the profile and resolution settings are changed during flight.
I’ve had the most luck getting that “cinematic” type look when shooting at a resolution of 3840 x 2160 at 24fps in the RAW profile. Also I use an ND filter to get the right exposure while still maintaining a shutter speed of 50. When using these settings the actual footage right out of the camera doesn’t look all that great, but if you were able to color correct and color grade the footage in post-production, you could definitely get images that look just as good, if not better, than the Phantom 4.
I’m currently working on a video to post on my YouTube channel that features CGO3+ camera footage (along with footage from my other camera), and even though I still have editing and further color grading to do, I went ahead and posted an unlisted short sample video from this project.
Here is the YouTube video: (watch in 4K for best results)
Also, here are two screenshots from this video that show what the footage looks like right out of the camera, and then what it looks like when color graded in post-production.
Original Screenshot:
![CGO3+ Screenshot [original].jpg](https://yuneecpilots.com/data/attachments/1/1473-00b52f9da13766106f6658b466103fb5.jpg?hash=ALUvnaE3Zh "CGO3+ Screenshot [original].jpg")
Color Graded Screenshot:
![CGO3+ Screenshot [color graded].jpg](https://yuneecpilots.com/data/attachments/1/1474-7c179ffa9650f568868e046fd88885e9.jpg?hash=fBef-pZQ9W "CGO3+ Screenshot [color graded].jpg")
I’ve done a lot of testing with the CGO3+ camera (with a 95 MB/s micro SD card) and I’ve found that the highest bit rate the camera can produce is 50mbps, which is not far off from the Phantom 4 which does 60mbps. Still though this is half of what they advertised, which is unfortunate on Yuneec’s part. But the caveat to this is that the camera will produce footage at different bit rates (some as low as 14mbps) if the profile and resolution settings are changed during flight.
I’ve had the most luck getting that “cinematic” type look when shooting at a resolution of 3840 x 2160 at 24fps in the RAW profile. Also I use an ND filter to get the right exposure while still maintaining a shutter speed of 50. When using these settings the actual footage right out of the camera doesn’t look all that great, but if you were able to color correct and color grade the footage in post-production, you could definitely get images that look just as good, if not better, than the Phantom 4.
I’m currently working on a video to post on my YouTube channel that features CGO3+ camera footage (along with footage from my other camera), and even though I still have editing and further color grading to do, I went ahead and posted an unlisted short sample video from this project.
Here is the YouTube video: (watch in 4K for best results)
Also, here are two screenshots from this video that show what the footage looks like right out of the camera, and then what it looks like when color graded in post-production.
Original Screenshot:
Color Graded Screenshot:
I think people are mixing up MB and Mbps. DJI uses Mbps and states the Phantom 4 is 60 Mbps. Yuneec uses MB and states the Typhoon is 100 MB, which is actually more like 80 Mbps (if my math is correct). The noticeable difference should be in shots like panning. If you pan up too quickly with the Phantom 4, you may get small artifacts beginning to appear in the video. You should see less of these on the Typhoon H. Unfortunately to achieve a better picture or video than a Phantom 4 you also need a quality lens, processor and software. These are the three areas it appears the Typhoon is a bit weak on even though it has a high Mbps rate.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 46
- Age
- 35
The Raw data rate is at 50mbps if you start shooting in this profile from the start, but strangely the data rates go down if you switch settings without turning the camera on and off again. The same lower data rate would happen to the Natural profile video clip if you started filming in Raw, then switched to Natural. Also I found that the true 4K resolution (4096 x 2160) almost never gives you the 50mbps data rate, but the Ultra HD (3840 x 2160) does. I hope Yuneec can fix this problem in a future firmware update.
I see when you color graded the photo you added a touch of sharpening which looks nice. Which software are you using for this?
If you filmed an all White or Black background, do you think it would then produce 100 MBps? (less processing/compressing)
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 46
- Age
- 35
Thanks, I'm using Adobe Premiere Pro CC to edit my footage. I've found that sharpening is key when filming in the Raw profile since this setting is meant to give you the flattest look without adding in camera sharpening.
Eh, 50% slower than original and 16.7% slower than current claims. But, you'd need to increase actual performance by 100% and 20% to achieve the claims.
Sorry, it's like a nervous tic.
Sorry, it's like a nervous tic.
I'm not sure where you're looking -- I can't find a reference to a video bitrate anywhere.
It's very small but it's still there. Typhoon H with Intel® RealSense™ nearly half way down the page.
They have changed the figure to 60MB on the Advanced version but still have it for the 'Pro' which is sure to get people's backs up if they bought the Advanced based on misleading advertising but new customers get the advertised 100MB.
They have changed the figure to 60MB on the Advanced version but still have it for the 'Pro' which is sure to get people's backs up if they bought the Advanced based on misleading advertising but new customers get the advertised 100MB.
Attachments
I have recently started editing with Premiere Pro CC and just starting to get to grips with it. I agree that you will need to sharpen in RAW format, as you do with stills, out of interest which sharpen technique is your preferred. In Photoshop I tend to use High Pass. In Premiere I have been using Unsharp mask?
If you have good footage in raw it should look bad. A flat profile is what you want and that should look bleached and washed out. It is supposed to as it is capturing as much dynamic range as possible. This does not look good in its raw form so to speak.
Good footage always requires post processing. This is how you edit video.
If you get great footage out of the camera it is being artificially sharpened and color corrected in camera.
To me, this is not good. I want it to look bleached out.
Take that bleached out footage in Premiere, color correct it and it should be a big difference. That extra bleached out data gives you more room to work in post, especially in shadows etc...
Good footage always requires post processing. This is how you edit video.
If you get great footage out of the camera it is being artificially sharpened and color corrected in camera.
To me, this is not good. I want it to look bleached out.
Take that bleached out footage in Premiere, color correct it and it should be a big difference. That extra bleached out data gives you more room to work in post, especially in shadows etc...
Ah, I see it now -- it's in the graphic, and I glanced over it. I also couldn't find it using a text search. That information is definitely wrong, it is off by more than one order of magnitude.
Similar threads
