Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Update 1.3 - 1 March 2018

Richard, if you're using ICE to stitch images like that (regular, geometric surfaces), it's really common to get weird distortions, even with a 'perfect' shot. Here's one taken with a rectilinear lens, 50% overlap (not an E90). Note that the barn roofs have weird swirls on them - optically, stitching software has real problems with this kind of pattern and the smallest changes in lighting and contrast can produce very weird results. Note it's the 'grid like' roof that has problems - the grass and field nearby is largely distortion free. With buildings, the direction of the grid that you fly can also have quite an influence.

distortion.jpg

I would never use ICE, PTGUI or any purely optical image stitching software to produce map like images. They introduce completely unpredictable distortions - even when it looks 'right', the image can be completely misleading and dimensionally inaccurate.

I'd also add that in the stitch you posted, you seem to have far too few images - ICE needs more reference edges, so plenty of overlap and going beyond the boundaries of the thing you want an image of improves the reference for stitching.

You specifically mention 3 x 2 ratio images - do those produce worse results than the other options? Is this why other pilots are happier with their shots?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10-8
Here is a building done with e90. 77 images flown at 70% overlap at 125'. Stitched with no post to the jpg files. Parking lot lines look pretty good.. Stitched with Agisoft Photoscan
uc
 
Last edited:
Here is the same image stitched with ICE. You can see the difference and the distortions. You can only expect so much from a Free program...
uc
 
Richard, if you're using ICE to stitch images like that (regular, geometric surfaces), it's really common to get weird distortions, even with a 'perfect' shot. Here's one taken with a rectilinear lens, 50% overlap. Note that the barn roofs have weird swirls on them - optically, stitching software has real problems with this kind of pattern and the smallest changes in lighting and contrast can produce very weird results. Note it's the 'grid like' roof that has problems - the grass and field nearby is largely distortion free. With buildings, the direction of the grid that you fly can also have quite an influence.

View attachment 8936

I would never use ICE, PTGUI or any purely optical image stitching software to produce map like images. They introduce completely unpredictable distortions - even when it looks 'right', the image can be completely misleading and dimensionally inaccurate.

I'd also add that in the stitch you posted, you seem to have far too few images - ICE needs more reference edges, so plenty of overlap and going beyond the boundaries of the thing you want an image of improves the reference for stitching.

You specifically mention 3 x 2 ratio images - do those produce worse results than the other options? Is this why other pilots are happier with their shots?


I normally fly 85% overlap now to help compensate for distortion, the other programs I spoke of where to merge a 360 single row pano.

I mention 3 x 2 because that is the largest ratio available to use as much of the sensor as possible, the other ratios are cropped sensor. Look. This could go around in circles all day. There just is no way anyone can justify that the images from the E90 have no distortion. It's as plain as day to see it.

It's not just about mapping, the images have a high level of distortion that leads to creating more work in post to fix. That's it! This is the biggest complaint, for professional or non professional use, at the end of the day its a sham.
 
I normally fly 85% overlap now to help compensate for distortion, the other programs I spoke of where to merge a 360 single row pano.

I mention 3 x 2 because that is the largest ratio available to use as much of the sensor as possible, the other ratios are cropped sensor. Look. This could go around in circles all day. There just is no way anyone can justify that the images from the E90 have no distortion. It's as plain as day to see it.

It's not just about mapping, the images have a high level of distortion that leads to creating more work in post to fix. That's it! This is the biggest complaint, for professional or non professional use, at the end of the day its a sham.
OK. But what post do you see needed on the Pscan School stitch above? The contractor was thrilled with it. And I'm assuming, like others here, that my camera may not be as bad as yours.
 
Look. This could go around in circles all day. There just is no way anyone can justify that the images from the E90 have no distortion. It's as plain as day to see it.

For sure. But whilst you're treating the H520 like an expensive paperweight, people like @10-8 are producing really nice results. Either their cameras are different from yours, or you are doing something different to them.

The point I'm trying to make is that in your position I'd be looking for ways to get the tool I've paid for working for me, and figuring out workarounds for the limitations. It's a pain to be in that situation, but better than just writing off a big investment.
 
For sure. But whilst you're treating the H520 like an expensive paperweight, people like @10-8 are producing really nice results. Either their cameras are different from yours, or you are doing something different to them.

The point I'm trying to make is that in your position I'd be looking for ways to get the tool I've paid for working for me, and figuring out workarounds for the limitations. It's a pain to be in that situation, but better than just writing off a big investment.
With a £1100 camera you shouldn't have to work around limitations that are that large. If you centre the horizon on the camera in video, unless you are barely moving you will have props in shot. My CGO3+ camera doesn't have hardly any distortion compared to the E90. Someone at Yuneec screwed up with the lens on the E90, they should be sorting it out and offering some sort of exchange, if they cannot fix in software.
 
For sure. But whilst you're treating the H520 like an expensive paperweight, people like @10-8 are producing really nice results. Either their cameras are different from yours, or you are doing something different to them.

The point I'm trying to make is that in your position I'd be looking for ways to get the tool I've paid for working for me, and figuring out workarounds for the limitations. It's a pain to be in that situation, but better than just writing off a big investment.


Exactly. Its a Big investment, and for less I could have bought something else that can do the job better with less workflow, yes. We can all get good results from it. But the E90 should at least be able to produce a better much less distorted image. Something that we were told was going to be in the latest firmware. Apparently the new firmware was going to fix it, it was even in the V1.3 release notes. Yet. It remains untouched.
 
P.S. If.....IF, Yuneec have changed the lens design on the E90, they should come clean and offer a straight Exchange program to resolve the issues. Though I doubt very much this is the case. But this in my opinion would be the best work around, they should sort the lens to create less distortion while maintaining the best resolution possible, then offer an Exchange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorWiscPilot
I did two quick tests, on the kitchen tile and on a rack.
Of course, there are distortions but (for me), I find them very small and well below that can offer the Gopro.
Not annoying for the video, the vertical lines are good, there is a bit of distortion on the bottom and top lines and very little in the center.
We must not forget that they are not professional lenses and that they are made in molding. If you have glasses with glasses that come from Asia, you have to know something about it. In addition, a lens slightly off-center of its axis will necessarily induce a deformation. These are lenses of great series and few major photographers do not equip its devices. We are a little bit in the lottery system.
As I said, The Inspire's X3 curves over the horizon, but the E90 has a better stitch and rendering. We can not have everything.
If you really have a big deformation of the lens, which is very embarrassing in the field photography, you have to turn the camera over, it's not acceptable as a job.
YUN_0000.JPG YUN_0001.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGilmore and 10-8
I did two quick tests, on the kitchen tile and on a rack.
Of course, there are distortions but (for me), I find them very small and well below that can offer the Gopro.
Not annoying for the video, the vertical lines are good, there is a bit of distortion on the bottom and top lines and very little in the center.
We must not forget that they are not professional lenses and that they are made in molding. If you have glasses with glasses that come from Asia, you have to know something about it. In addition, a lens slightly off-center of its axis will necessarily induce a deformation. These are lenses of great series and few major photographers do not equip its devices. We are a little bit in the lottery system.
As I said, The Inspire's X3 curves over the horizon, but the E90 has a better stitch and rendering. We can not have everything.
If you really have a big deformation of the lens, which is very embarrassing in the field photography, you have to turn the camera over, it's not acceptable as a job.
View attachment 8938 View attachment 8939


Thanks, well. At least you can see it. While not to bad there, up closed. Start multiplying it as it takes an image in the distance. All that is required is some on board correction and it will be perfect. Ok. It will crop the image some,but for the end user, when it makes life easier and takes up less time, even if there was a lens correction profile for it. Even if it was switchable in the E90 camera settings, "lens correction On/off" to give end users better choice, similar to a go pro, or even crappy SJ cam. A little more fine tuning and Yuneec could hit this nail on the head. That being said, if the images were cropped a little, this would mean Data pilot would need adjusted too, to give the correct overlap, so, yes, while it may be minimal compared to a fish eye lens, we.. you. Can now see it there, if you get a chance, do that test with a dng image, It's worse.
 
I did two quick tests, on the kitchen tile and on a rack.
Of course, there are distortions but (for me), I find them very small and well below that can offer the Gopro.
Not annoying for the video, the vertical lines are good, there is a bit of distortion on the bottom and top lines and very little in the center.
We must not forget that they are not professional lenses and that they are made in molding. If you have glasses with glasses that come from Asia, you have to know something about it. In addition, a lens slightly off-center of its axis will necessarily induce a deformation. These are lenses of great series and few major photographers do not equip its devices. We are a little bit in the lottery system.
As I said, The Inspire's X3 curves over the horizon, but the E90 has a better stitch and rendering. We can not have everything.
If you really have a big deformation of the lens, which is very embarrassing in the field photography, you have to turn the camera over, it's not acceptable as a job.
View attachment 8938 View attachment 8939

Well excuse me Claud but you say ‘not a professional lens’
Forgive if I have misunderstood but do Yuneec not market this aircraft as a professional drone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CEWC and RGilmore
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.

If Yuneec is not going to change the lenses and we have no other option to change them ourselves, I don't care, they will have to implement a software option that will disable all software fixes and fix the problem when it is enabled.
 
In all images where the distortion is clear even for the most novice it is at the outer ends of the images. In the end it's like a fish eye that's sometimes extreme. Do not take the interior of the image as a reference, the part near the edges should be looked at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGilmore
Exact and I find more deformation on the horizontal lines high and low and very little on the vertical lines.


Yeah, if it was a square sensor you would see the same distortion on vertical and horizontal. Only because the vertical is shorter it's not as prevalent.
 
If you need to crop a “20Mpxl” image to them right you don’t have what most would consider a 20Mpxl camera. What you have is less than you were sold.
 
  • From e90 overview page:
"The E90's 23 mm lens equivalent provides wide angle view via an all glass lens system with low distortion and minimal lens dispersion."

  • From V1.0.17_E e90 firmware description:
E90: Improved image quality
E90: Distortion free horizon

Does anyone know what exactly was addressed by this upgrade in terms of image quality and horizon?

Upgrade notes say "E90: Distortion free horizon", folks say "mapping software can stitch distorted images", I'm like WTF is going on here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGilmore

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,599
Members
27,286
Latest member
lahorelaptop