Update 1.3 - 1 March 2018

[arruntus]

Yeah, Haydn did, and that question came up.

H520 and E90 parts and teardown

 

[RGilmore]

Is it possible that the lens on my E90 is just not as bad as others? Could this be one of the reasons behind some of the misunderstandings here? Every picture of the horizon I have is as flat as a pancake. I've drawn lines across every single one. Towers in the distance do not lean. What I am suggesting is that perhaps this is QA/QC issue with the lens. Some are good, some are not, others are in between. I'm not saying that is better by any means but it might explain some of this. It's like when Samsung had a certain number of batteries explode in their phones, they canned the whole lot. Something to ponder at least.

Have you any pictures directly from the E90 to share and confirm this?

 

[RGilmore]

The focal length of E-90 is 8.3 mm

23mm when applied as a 35mm full frame equivalent

 

[Peggy]

Yeah, Haydn did, and that question came up.

H520 and E90 parts and teardown

I spoke to Haydn on this matter and its virtually impossible to change the lens due to the focal point being able to readjust for the new lens and how the ST16s datapilot works. Also in the future if Yuneec sort out the lens in software updates it will throw the new lens out.

 

[Kev Waite]

The alternative is that someone produces an aftermarket rectilinear lens. Has anyone taken the E90 apart to see how easy a lens swap would be?

As Arruntus said Hayden did a strip down of the camera. He also approached Peau Productions on the subject and they didn't have any lens that would work, adding that a custom lens mount would have to be made to use an off the shelf lens.

 

[RGilmore]

That really doesn't mean anything without more information. You can fly the same mission twice and get one set of images that won't stitch for no apparent reason, and another that stitch just fine. Equally, stitching very much depends on which software you're using - some of the tools are optimised for DJI cameras, and some are just 'dumb stitchers' that don't know anything about the specifics of drone surveys. If I blamed the camera every time a stitch didn't come together, I'd have thrown all my kit in the bin by now.

It's right that fixing the distortion in the camera would lower the resolution of the output - if the lens is fisheye rather than rectilinear, then correcting the distortion involves cropping off the edges - and suddenly they'd have to advertise the 20Mp camera as being only 18Mp for stills. As resolution is everything for Orthomosaics, that would be a poor compromise. Most decent photo editing software has lens correction built in, so it should be possible for someone to produce an E90 profile to use in Photoshop etc. That would allow people who use the E90 for videography to have rectilinear output when needed.

The alternative is that someone produces an aftermarket rectilinear lens. Has anyone taken the E90 apart to see how easy a lens swap would be?

It was me who did the recent tower inspection, it was a Single row 360° pano I shot in Manual configuration and manually shot and turned the camera shooting with at least a 50% image overlap. The images directly from the Camera 3 x 2 Ultra in the New "Vivid" would not stitch or align correctly using MSICE, PANO STUDIO 3, PT GUI, or even the Pano feature in my Photo director photo editing software. I ran a set the Mavic had taken. 14 shots using litchi, and they stitched seamlessly first time in Pano STUDIO 3, I did later "Fix" all the E90 images and created a pano, and it worked. The biggest problem with the E90 is. While we can get decent images from it. We have to fix every single picture, and rather than speed up the whole process of time and workflow, it actually adds to the workflow now. And time is Money. Really. This day and age and how far cameras have come on the latest UAVs, we shouldn't have to sit and fix each picture, for sure. Yes. Sit and edit some for that lovely looking final edit for a nice picture. But when it come to other parts of the job like 360 panos, Really we shouldn't have to correct each picture.

 

[javier Olalla González]

23mm when applied as a 35mm full frame equivalent

So, sony 20 mm len is a 30mm and sony 16 mm is a 24 mm

 

[RGilmore]

So, sony 20 mm len is a 30mm and sony 16 mm is a 24 mm

Yes. Correct. Sony 16mm is 24mm (35mm equivalent) on APS-C size sensor.

 

[claudius62]

You have cast a doubt in my mind with this E90 camera. I shot videos (in 3840x2160) images to compare the words.
I put four images, I did not find any flagrant distortions that would cause to throw the E90. From the Horizon point of view, I have a bigger distortion on my X3 camera from the Inspire.
On the fourth imange, there are cranes and I did not find that they played at the tower of Pisa.
Did I have a good camera? What do you think ?

 

[NorWiscPilot]

You have cast a doubt in my mind with this E90 camera. I shot videos (in 3840x2160) images to compare the words.
I put four images, I did not find any flagrant distortions that would cause to throw the E90. From the Horizon point of view, I have a bigger distortion on my X3 camera from the Inspire.
On the fourth imange, there are cranes and I did not find that they played at the tower of Pisa.
Did I have a good camera? What do you think ?

Nice Claudius!

Do you have any of the towers where the E90 is a little closer, with a tower in the right or left 1/3 if the frame, or even more extreme?

I think your examples are a confidence builder with respect to the “not all cameras exhibit poor capture”. Having an example as I describe above would go even further. I mention this only because of the example posted much earlier (post 134), pointing out this specific shot.

Thanks!

Jeff

 

[PatR]

The CGO4 camera should be better, it has a bigger micro 4/3 sensor not 1". It also uses quality lenses. Apart from the case it's actually not a Yuneec camera it's a rebadged Panasonic GH4.

The CGO-4 is a Yuneec camera, or one developed by a vendor, that shares a few similarities with and some components from a GH-4. It is not a rebadged GH-4. Much of the GH-4 was discarded when Yuneec made the GH-4, rendering a camera that lacks many of the functions found in the GH-4. When you compare them side by side, compare functions, and review a GH-4 manual you quickly find anyone advertising it as a rebranded GH-4 is a stretch by quite a lot.

The point was, and still is, that Yuneec knows how to make a relatively good camera, understands the importance of a lens, and could do it again if they wanted to. They could also include it with a 520 without increasing the price of a camera included system. There’s no justification for turning out an expensive camera that fails to deliver the image quality advertised. For the money, they could have done better.

If they want to survive they better start thinking the long game, the one where customers have the faith in the products that will keep them coming back for more. Otherwise old customers will migrate to different brands and potential new ones will will buy brands with vastly better advertising and more positive customer reviews. As Yuneec currently only has about 2%-5% of the marketshare they don’t have room for errors in decision making or product quality.

 

[Peggy]

You have cast a doubt in my mind with this E90 camera. I shot videos (in 3840x2160) images to compare the words.
I put four images, I did not find any flagrant distortions that would cause to throw the E90. From the Horizon point of view, I have a bigger distortion on my X3 camera from the Inspire.
On the fourth imange, there are cranes and I did not find that they played at the tower of Pisa.
Did I have a good camera? What do you think ?
View attachment 8928 View attachment 8929 View attachment 8930 View attachment 8931

I think its fantastic that your E90 is giving you fabulous straight undistorted photos. I am truly envious and wish I was in the same boat as you.
I give you an example straight from the E90 with no correction whatsoever. See if you can spot the difference? Take a close look at each corner especially the top left and right. The clue is the turbine and also the houses/sheds on the right.
And then tell me where I can buy a non distorted E90, coz I desperately need one.

 

[RGilmore]

You have cast a doubt in my mind with this E90 camera. I shot videos (in 3840x2160) images to compare the words.
I put four images, I did not find any flagrant distortions that would cause to throw the E90. From the Horizon point of view, I have a bigger distortion on my X3 camera from the Inspire.
On the fourth imange, there are cranes and I did not find that they played at the tower of Pisa.
Did I have a good camera? What do you think ?
View attachment 8928 View attachment 8929 View attachment 8930 View attachment 8931

Go and take some 3 x 2 ratio pictures and put your horizon to the top by pointing camer down. Share direct uploads straight from SD card. Not some 1920 x 1080 screenshots.

 

[claudius62]

Yes, it's aberration, it looks like the picture was made with a fish-eye.
I had the cam at StudioSport in France and I do not have as much distortion.
Maybe I came across a good run.
Look at picture 3, all the trees look good straight ..
These are not captures, I brought the photos from 3840 to 1080 to put them in page.

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Go and take some 3 x 2 ratio pictures and put your horizon to the top by pointing camer down. Share direct uploads straight from SD card. Not some 1920 x 1080 screenshots.

RG,

What happens if you point YOUR camera level with the horizon (horizon in the center of the frame)? Do you still get the distortion?

Jeff

 

[RGilmore]

RG,

What happens if you point YOUR camera level with the horizon (horizon in the center of the frame)? Do you still get the distortion?

Jeff

Of course, just because its not just as apparent with clouds and sky hiding it, does not mean that it does not exist. It is still there. More so in the corners. Using a 16 x 9 ratio screenshot and dropped to HD with horizon almost along the centre will "hide" most of it. Have a look at these images. One is a Google map shot, the other a stitch which did not go well.

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Of course, just because its not just as apparent with clouds and sky hiding it, does not mean that it does not exist. It is still there. More so in the corners. Using a 16 x 9 ratio screenshot and dropped to HD with horizon almost along the centre will "hide" most of it. Have a look at these images. One is a Google map shot, the other a stitch which did not go well.

RG,

Not what I was asking.

You told Claudius to put the horizon at the top of the frame by tilting the camera down. By doing so (pointing the camera off plane) one would expect to create the exact distortion shown in your image.

I am trying to distinguish between basic photography principles and a bad camera/lens.

If you were able to retake that shot referenced in your earlier post (134, I believe) with the horizon centered (sensor plane parrallel to the subject), I am curious if the same distortion would be present.

Experimenting and contemplating is all. Not making a statement one way or another.

Thanks!

Jeff

 

[RGilmore]

RG,

Not what I was asking.

You told Claudius to put the horizon at the top of the frame by tilting the camera down. By doing so (pointing the camera off plane) one would expect to create the exact distortion shown in your image.

I am trying to distinguish between basic photography principles and a bad camera/lens.

If you were able to retake that shot referenced in your earlier post (134, I believe) with the horizon centered (sensor plane parrallel to the subject), I am curious if the same distortion would be present.

Experimenting and contemplating is all. Not making a statement one way or another.

Thanks!

Jeff

Jeff. I am not at home right now, here is one from the E90 straight down.

Have a look. You cannot deny this is not distortion. Nor is it the perspective. This building roof is straight as a dye in real life.

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Jeff. I am not at home right now, here is one from the E90 straight down.

Have a look. You cannot deny this is not distortion. Nor is it the perspective. This building roof is straight as a dye in real life.

Cannot dispute that example. That is NOT good!!!

Now we need Claudius to duplicate the same type of shot with his copy.

 

[claudius62]

I'll do it in April, I start the missions at that moment.