Typhoon H CGO3+ camera has a focus problem. Period.

[FlushVision]

After viewing these I'm of the same mind as @Rubik. These look decent for 1080p video.

I'm also with @RiverRunner . Keep the H stable to really judge sharpness and get good lighting.

IMHO if that were what I was getting at 1080 I wouldn't be satisfied. Those videos look soft to me. I consistently get sharper videos than that at 1080. Just my take on it, though, Ron.

If that was what I was getting, then I'd look to sharpen the images using the method outlined a few posts ago.

 

[rdonson]

IMHO if that were what I was getting at 1080 I wouldn't be satisfied. Those videos look soft to me. I consistently get sharper videos than that at 1080. Just my take on it, though, Ron.

If that was what I was getting, then I'd look to sharpen the images using the method outlined a few posts ago.

FV, I rarely shoot 1080p. I shoot just about everything at 4K.

Like you, I do think that applying the sharpening fix provided will improve things for the OP.

Video 1 and 2 are simply shot in soft light but I can see reasonable detail under those conditions such at blades of grass and leaves.

I have 2 TH 480 and one is as sharp as I'd care for it to be and the other not so great. I've got both CGO3+ cameras set to 7 for sharpness. The not so great one is NOT improved by applying the sharpening method previously discussed. It is simply not well focused. I don't see any real focus issues in these 3 videos.

 

[Prosecutor]

Actually, for 1080p video, I think they look pretty good. Were these videos shot in 1080p or 4k and down-converted? If you are intent on 1080p video, I've found that the higher bit rate of 4k makes a better 1080p video than shooting directly in 1080p.

You should share some 3000x4000 still images (Camera mode) and 4k video to make a make better judgement.

Must be some kind of google compression thing that it plays the quick preview in 1080p quality or lower. The file itself is 4k straight from the drone.

The sharpness was at default "6" and I set it for "8" for a test. It's really cloudy so need to wait for some sun to do some tests. Hopefully it keeps the sharpness settings between A / E camera firmware updates. Using the standard (A) cam firmware and had to switch back to E to be able to connect my PC to CGO wifi to do the said change. Switching back and forth from A / E firmware to make sure it showed "8" sharpness without a change but can't connect to the camera on A firmware to see how it's there.

Will do some video and still photos once there will be better light to see if there will be any diffrence. Forgot to mention the first two videos were filmed in Gorgeus mode while the last in Natural.

 

[rdonson]

Must be some kind of google compression thing that it plays the quick preview in 1080p quality or lower. The file itself is 4k straight from the drone.

I downloaded the files. I did not play them on Google Drive. They were 1080 files AFAIK.

Update and apology: I checked again and they are 3840x2160

 

[Rubik]

Must be some kind of google compression thing that it plays the quick preview in 1080p quality or lower. The file itself is 4k straight from the drone.

The sharpness was at default "6" and I set it for "8" for a test. It's really cloudy so need to wait for some sun to do some tests. Hopefully it keeps the sharpness settings between A / E camera firmware updates. Using the standard (A) cam firmware and had to switch back to E to be able to connect my PC to CGO wifi to do the said change. Switching back and forth from A / E firmware to make sure it showed "8" sharpness without a change but can't connect to the camera on A firmware to see how it's there.

Will do some video and still photos once there will be better light to see if there will be any diffrence. Forgot to mention the first two videos were filmed in Gorgeus mode while the last in Natural.

Viewing them directly from Google Drive gives 1080p. You have to actually download the file onto your computer to see the 4k version. I'm doing that now. Report in a few minutes.

 

[Rubik]

I just looked at the downloaded files from Prosecutor in 4k on a 4k monitor. Considering the flat lighting, I think you should be pretty happy with the results. In fact, the sharpness at 8 seems a bit over done to me. The video is blurry when you are panning but quite nice when the camera isn't moving. Also, notice the nice straight horizon, even when it's near the top of the image. Here's unedited 4k screen shots from your Test1 and Test3 when there was little or no movement of the camera:

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

This custom lens sharpness target will give you the tools to check both left and right edge sharpness as well as center sharpness, in a static test. It will cost about $8.00 to print out at the native size of 2x4 feet through your local Fedex Office or UPS Store. Instruct print staff to print directly from Acrobat - Greyscale, at maximum print quality settings.

 

[Prosecutor]

Finally there was decent light to shoot some tests and I am really happy with the diffrence after setting sharpness to "8" value with method explained in previous posts.
Did not play with manual camera settings before (being just hobby drone enthusiast with limited photography knowledge) and started to doubt from footage i was getting from my CGO3+. After playing with manual camera settings I'm more and more satisfied from the results.

Would appreciate some thoughts if those results are okay (for people more familiar for photography) and should leave it at "8" or try tone sharpness down to "7" ?


Test shoot2: test2 TyphoonH - Google Drive

Test shoots were shot in below conditions:

19:00 time, rather bright sun with very minor clouds
ND8 Polar Pro filter and ISO100 for every shoot

Video 3840x2160 F30
vid test1 - gorgeous mode, 1/60 shutter

vid test2 - natural mode 1/60 shutter

vid test3 - natural mode 1/60 shutter

Photo
fot 1.1-6 - gorgeous mode, 1/60 shutter, 4000x3000

fot 2.1-3 - gorgeous mode, 1/40 shutter, 4000x3000

fot 3.1-6 - natural mode, 1/60 shutter, 3840x2160 (forgot to switch back to Photo mode after recording video)

Again the video previews are in 1080p max, file needs to be downloaded to view in 4K.

 

[Rubik]

Finally there was decent light to shoot some tests and I am really happy with the diffrence after setting sharpness to "8" value with method explained in previous posts.
Did not play with manual camera settings before (being just hobby drone enthusiast with limited photography knowledge) and started to doubt from footage i was getting from my CGO3+. After playing with manual camera settings I'm more and more satisfied from the results.

Would appreciate some thoughts if those results are okay (for people more familiar for photography) and should leave it at "8" or try tone sharpness down to "7" ?


Test shoot2: test2 TyphoonH - Google Drive

Test shoots were shot in below conditions:

19:00 time, rather bright sun with very minor clouds
ND8 Polar Pro filter and ISO100 for every shoot

Video 3840x2160 F30
vid test1 - gorgeous mode, 1/60 shutter

vid test2 - natural mode 1/60 shutter

vid test3 - natural mode 1/60 shutter

Photo
fot 1.1-6 - gorgeous mode, 1/60 shutter, 4000x3000

fot 2.1-3 - gorgeous mode, 1/40 shutter, 4000x3000

fot 3.1-6 - natural mode, 1/60 shutter, 3840x2160 (forgot to switch back to Photo mode after recording video)

Again the video previews are in 1080p max, file needs to be downloaded to view in 4K.

That's an interesting set of photos and videos. Thanks for sharing.
Gorgeous mode looks best to me, in terms of colors and exposure in the sky and trees. As far as sharpness goes, I would back off the sharpness setting a bit. As you can see from the closeup below, you are getting white halos around the tree tops as a result of in-camera sharpening. The lens sharpness is about as good as it gets when you see visible image details right down to the pixel level.

 

[rdonson]

@Prosecutor what is your goal for your photos and video? Are you going to do any post processing? Do you want a "look" that is pleasing and will not require post processing?

Caveat: I'm a nut about photos. I've been doing photography for a long time and I take it seriously. For many people I might be over the top so please take what I have to say with that in mind and perhaps with a LARGE grain of salt. . This is why I asked the questions above about your aspirations for the photos and videos.

I am looking at the photos in Adobe Lightroom Classic CC 7.4 . All the photos are exposed well. It appears to be late afternoon. Its hard to judge color as I have no standard to judge by. By this I mean that I have no idea what the actual color of your car looks like. Pleasing to the eye doesn't mean accurate color to a photo geek.

Sharpness looks good on the photos1.1-6 and 2.1-3 but at 3:1 I can see the halos that @Rubik mentions. Gorgeous mode adds saturation and sharpening in the camera.

When I look for color accuracy I will use a target like what is below or an 18% gray target by which to set the white balance in the camera. In the CGO3+ I use an 18% gray to set the WB like this https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HT9MA1W/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Its a bit harder to judge the "Natural Mode" photos since they aren't the same resolution as the "Gorgeous Mode" but.... when I process the "Natural" photos in Lightroom I get much better shadow details and the halos are much less noticeable at 3:1. The color of the car is similar after processing but a bit less saturated.

I'll take a look at the videos next.

 

[PatR]

You brought up a good point Ron. Often what pleases the eye does not accurately represent what was being photographed. For me the extreme color alterations we often see in photos and videos presents a false image, one than cannot be recreated naturally.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

Often what pleases the eye does not accurately represent what was being photographed.

And has been that way since the invention of the art... Ansel Adams would have died an unknown pauper, if he tried to sell raw imagery out of the camera. Much of his genius was the tonal control of his work... the basis for the "Zone System".

 

[rdonson]

And has been that way since the invention of the art... Ansel Adams would have died an unknown pauper, if the tried to sell raw imagery out of the camera. Much of his genius was the tonal control of his work... the basis for the "Zone System".

I’ve got all of Ansel’s books on the Zone System and most of his photo books as well as seen exhibitions of most of his famous photos. I even have a print of one of his photos. I was and probably still am a devotee to his attention to detail and creative expression.

Don’t lose sight of the fact that Ansel’s deep knowledge of film and paper processes enabled his creative expression. He was an exacting photographer.

He would likely be delighted by digital photography and what we can do with it. He’d also likely be exacting in the details.

 

[rdonson]

You brought up a good point Ron. Often what pleases the eye does not accurately represent what was being photographed. For me the extreme color alterations we often see in photos and videos presents a false image, one than cannot be recreated naturally.

For me there are technical and creative reasons to have a solid technical base from which to apply creative expression. If not, then I feel like a monkey splashing paint on a canvas hoping for a good outcome. .

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

For me there are technical and creative reasons to have a solid technical base from which to apply creative expression. If not, then I feel like a monkey splashing paint on a canvas hoping for a good outcome. .

MOMA has an open space...

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

I’ve got all of Ansel’s books on the Zone System and most of his photo books as well as seen exhibitions of most of his famous photos. I even have a print of one of his photos. I was and probably still am a devotee to his attention to detail and creative expression.

Don’t lose sight of the fact that Ansel’s deep knowledge of film and paper processes enabled his creative expression. He was an exacting photographer.

He would likely be delighted by digital photography and what we can do with it. He’d also likely be exacting in the details.

Oh I absolutely know that, my friend... The chairman of the school of photography at my college worked directly with Ansel Adams, and he loved informing the students that they had no idea how much #4 and #5 paper he went through... zone system and all. What kills me to this day, is because of that direct relationship, all of the students that could afford it, could purchase a signed original Adams 11x14 print in the last quarter of their senior year... for $750.00. At the time I couldn't come up with that, and had to pass... don't want to think of what that current value would be.

Ansel would have been a creative consultant on Photoshop, if it had existed 20 years earlier.

 

[rdonson]

My Ansel Adams print wasn’t made by him. I wish it was but I’m just delighted to have the print from his negative that was executed to his notes on dodging, burning, etc. by someone trusted. It does look good to me and is often a source of inspiration.

An original Ansel print these days would be worth a fortune.

I enjoyed the quip about MOMA. Nothing I’ve done will ever be there but I respect the institution. The photo curator has taught some courses that I’ve taken online and recently had a Q&A YouTube live session. I love learning and always striving to improve.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

OK, I'll ask... which one do you have? If I had been able to snag one at the time of graduation, it would have been Half Dome... no doubt.

 

[rdonson]

"White Branches" . My wife bought it for me as a present. FWIW my wife was 100 times the darkroom expert I could ever be. I would spend half a day on a print and she would walk in and in 15 min create a better print. These days she's also 100 times better than I am in Photoshop. I'm much better in Lightroom and some specialty software for things like panos and HDR. I'm better with the camera but to be honest we're not interested in taking photos of the same things. She's pretty much into abstract work.

 

[Rubik]

Clearly, Adams was an artist. I'm happy if I can just get the photo/video to look like how I remember the scene looking in real life. That means correcting for the limitations of lenses, sensors, firmware, etc. Nature as it is impresses me the most. Just getting to that goal is an ongoing learning process.