Update 1.3 - 1 March 2018

[javier Olalla González]

¿Le ha pedido a su vendedor que cambie la cámara por una nueva?

 

[javier Olalla González]

 

[javier Olalla González]

This is a 3:2 photo.

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Other people are experiencing it. ALL of us in the UK are having this issue. I see it in the Facebook groups too. Yet. Some are happy to live with it.

It's a joke. For a £1249 camera I expect better.

RG,

I truly believe several are observing some level of distortion. The real question is: "How many E90s are experiencing the SEVERE level of distortion as that of RGilmore's E90?"

The following is what my own action plan would be if I were dealing with this issue, and is not meant as a directive for anyone else to follow:

From what I have read here, and observed in posted images, if I were experiencing this exact issue, I would be working closely with either Yuneec or a reputable dealer/service entity. At the very least, I would order another E90 to test, with assurances it could be returned at no cost if sent back within an agreed time period.

Some serious investigation needs to take place in order to ascertain whether this individual copy is indicative of a "batch" of cameras or if it is a single failure, given the extreme of distortion.
​

This may not be a quick fix, let alone a quick identification of the actual problem. But it is not going to be solved via forum exchanges discussing whether or not the distortion exists for everyone. There needs to be some serious troubleshooting and defect analysis performed.

​

As to the images themselves, what is extremely puzzling to my eye is this: Why does the ground appear to be relatively "normal" while the wind turbine, and the other vertical structures, appear to have been stuck in the ground like candles in a birthday cake? They don't look natural at all, from the tips to the base (specifically the turbine as that is the most prominent element).

Jeff

P.S. I forgot to mention - I am following my own recommendations with respect to an E50 issue I was experiencing. I will be posting the follow-up details in the coming days, giving to time and some more testing.

 

[arruntus]

Because on the ground you can't tell if the grass is crooked. Because the wind turbine is much larger and covers more"bad" area.

I believe that here the mistake has been that since Yuneec it is said that the distortion is within the normal range but it does refer to the cameras that are not giving such serious problems as those exposed. These cameras should certainly go under warranty and be fixed or even better replaced by new ones as the problem exists from the moment of purchase.

The million dollar question is: Why does Yuneec refuse to accept the fact that there are cameras that do not pass the minimum quality standards? How many? A batch? many lots? Just 10 cameras? It's the same thing, it has to be fixed. It's very sad that you have to resort to Facebook groups, which by the way are throwing people out who are protesting, or to forums to solve a manufacturing problem.

This reminds me of a problem with the Typhoon H, which falls out of the sky and they claim that the start button has been pressed and therefore the engines are stopped but in the logs it is clear that it is a failure of the aircraft itself. The problem is still not well identified by Yuneec and the warranty is denied. These things are inexplicable.

 

[OnTheRopes]

Because on the ground you can't tell if the grass is crooked. Because the wind turbine is much larger and covers more"bad" area.

I believe that here the mistake has been that since Yuneec it is said that the distortion is within the normal range but it does refer to the cameras that are not giving such serious problems as those exposed. These cameras should certainly go under warranty and be fixed or even better replaced by new ones as the problem exists from the moment of purchase.

The million dollar question is: Why does Yuneec refuse to accept the fact that there are cameras that do not pass the minimum quality standards? How many? A batch? many lots? Just 10 cameras? It's the same thing, it has to be fixed. It's very sad that you have to resort to Facebook groups, which by the way are throwing people out who are protesting, or to forums to solve a manufacturing problem.

I have said it before, but this is developing exactly like the early Typhoon H and the CGO3+ camera. It is all documented on these forums somewhere but Yunnec simply did not comment on it. If I remember correctly the complaints were of poor image quality, some people were not having issues and a few who made the most noise (quite naturally) were. In the end it turned out to be the lens being focused incorrectly so distant objects were blurry. I don't think Yuneec ever accepted this (I could be wrong) but the issue seems to have gone away as presumably they sorted the QC issues.
I really have an interest in buying the H520 for mapping and inspection but at the moment I don't have the confidence.

If I was to buy right now I think I would have to go direct to Yuneec UK and collect from them in person and have them demonstrate no/or minimal distortion.
If I were in the same shoes as those with the issues are concerned I would be speaking direct to Yuneec UK and sending sample images and getting their opinion on the matter, they may agree to a swap.

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Arruntus,

My point and questions are simply this:

With regards to RGilmore's examples:

1. Is everyone who is experiencing distortion seeing the same SEVERE level of distortion as RGilmore?
2. Is there a less severe, "more common" level of image quality (or lack thereof) whereby a tweak or software fix might be the remedy?
3. If there are two levels, has Yuneec been made aware of the two levels, with examples, as to the extreme to which RGilmore is showing?

Without knowing the explicit answers above, and undoubtedly even more pointed and specific questions, we really cannot assume "the man - Yuneec" is shirking any responsibilities.

As I have stated earlier, this appears to be a very complex issue. It is going to take patience and teamwork to identify true causes and workable solutions, not continuing bashing.

Respectfully continuing to hope there are ways to work together as a team to figure out all of this.

Jeff

 

[PatR]

The million dollar question is: Why does Yuneec refuse to accept the fact that there are cameras that do not pass the minimum quality standards?

How many? A batch? many lots? Just 10 cameras? It's the same thing, it has to be fixed. It's very sad that you have to resort to Facebook groups, which by the way are throwing people out who are protesting, or to forums to solve a.

Arruntus,

I think you know the answer. It’s called $$. If, and I’ll say again IF, there have been different lenses used that would be for the same reason.

People in the UK and EU have a longer warranty and rules that govern fitness for use. The longer you guys mess around with trying to fix a defect you can’t fix and are not responsible for the closer you get to the end of your allowable period to return the product for refund or exchange. You all have the ability to force satisfactory closure of the situation, which may well be the only course that will resolve it. File claims of defects in materials and workmanship. You have their advertising and imagery that validates your claims. If you are dealing with a corporate strategy of delay, delay, delay the only winner is the corporation if you play their game. They would not be the first multirotor outfit to use that strategy to avoid the cost of correcting defective product.

 

[arruntus]

Arruntus,

My point and questions are simply this:

With regards to RGilmore's examples:

1. Is everyone experiencing distortion seeing the same SEVERE level of distortion as RGilmore?
2. Is there a less severe, "more common" level of image quality (or lack thereof) whereby a tweak or software fix might be the remedy?
3. If there are two levels, is Yuneec been made aware of, with examples, as to the extreme to which RGilmore is showing?

Without knowing the explicit answers above, and undoubtedly even more pointed and specific questions, we really cannot assume "the man - Yuneec" is shirking any responsibilities.

As I have stated earlier, this appears to be a very complex issue. It is going to take patience and teamwork to identify true causes and workable solutions, not continuing bashing.

Respectfully continuing to hope there are ways to work together as a team to figure out all of this.

Jeff

Richard can answer better than I can.

Not everyone has the same problem. I think we all suffer from distortion, but not as severe, far removed from what happens to Richard and a group of other people. We do not count people who are not on Facebook groups or forums. It's a problem that arose from the first moment, since the launch of H520.

I personally have not done any specific tests, I have had other problems with the camera, I have discussed them here. But nothing to do with that kind of distortion.

These and other examples from other affected people have been taught in facebook groups, as has Richard. Yuneec officials have said that all the cameras suffer from distortion because they are wide-angle. They said that updates would fix the issue. To solve it physically implied putting another lens behind the current one and that has repercussions on the weight of the camera. Much has been said and Yuneec is aware of the problem first hand.

As PatR rightly says, if it gets longer in the end, the legal coverage is lost and if the colleagues who have this problem have not gone down this road, it is because it has been said that it will be solved through an update.

There has been a lot of talk about this issue and it has reached the point that people who have this problem are being banned from facebook groups because they say that the cameras are wrong. Meanwhile, Yuneec is still doing nothing. I do not think I am one of those affected by this problem, I am not sure, but what I am sure of is that under no circumstances would I like to be treated this way.

That is why I believe it is important that the problems should come to light and be resolved, that they should not be delayed in time, that they should not become silent. If the best way to eliminate this"problem","bad publicity" or whatever you want to call it, is to solve it. I say this because there are clearly commercial interests behind it. The same as the updates, in which someone in charge of Yuneec has commented on the features that the drone has right now are enough........................... I like the bad jokes but not so much

 

[RitchM]

After update gimbal E90 firmware to 1.37.7 from 1.33.0 I have problem with it. Gimbal starts to vibrating in yaw axis. That makes loud, buzz noise. Recalibration accelerometer, compass and gimbal not helps. I read that it's a possibility to downgrade firmware, but I dont have file gimbal.yuneec with old firmware. Also it is impossible to download that from official site. Maybe anyone can help with that file? Please response because I need to fly soon.

I just updated the gimbal and I'm experiencing the same vibration problem. It was very noticeable when I conducted the compass and accelerometer calibration. The vibration/buzzing is very bad if the camera is pointing forward, straight on the horizon (when I move the vehicle around). Its not as bad if I point the camera at a 45 degree angle. I'm flying tomorrow, so I wonder how much this will show up in the video.

 

[javier Olalla González]

 

[javier Olalla González]

This is a comparison between three cameras:
1-sony a5000 with 20 mm
2-yuneec E-90 (3:2) auto.
3-gopro 4 silver (wide)

 

[arruntus]

I think Javier's image is completely correct. It may be just a batch or several of cameras from the beginning that are giving these problems.

The issue of gimbal vibrations is also a problem that happens to some people and not to others. I've already asked a couple of times, but nobody listens to me

Can someone please put the files to the previous versions so that we can download them?

 

[Peggy]

I think Javier's image is completely correct. It may be just a batch or several of cameras from the beginning that are giving these problems.

The issue of gimbal vibrations is also a problem that happens to some people and not to others. I've already asked a couple of times, but nobody listens to me

Can someone please put the files to the previous versions so that we can download them?

The problem is distributing the files may be a legal issue hence why no one has done this. Only my guess

 

[Tuna]

This is a comparison between three cameras:
1-sony a5000 with 20 mm
2-yuneec E-90 (3:2) auto.
3-gopro 4 silver (wide)

Thank you, that's very useful. The E90 picture looks pretty good to me... and the GoPro is pretty much what I'd expect from an undercorrected fisheye lens

 

[claudius62]

the image of the E90 is doing very well and is largely more than acceptable.
So what are the distortions of other cameras. There, there is a blemish.
If all E90s were like Javier's, it would be Paradise!
There are two possibilities, a poorly formed lens (which would not lead oblique all in the same direction), a defective Cmos sensor or the union of the two, and also how they are assembled there and by which hands. And what quality control is there after assembly. Questions to ask yourself!

I hope our H520 are not joined like this.

 

[arruntus]

The problem is distributing the files may be a legal issue hence why no one has done this. Only my guess

What a problem there may be, these are files publicly posted by Yuneec

 

[Panomapic]

View media item 727
I did a little color editing to this but no distortion correction whatsoever. E90, I think I was just shooting Auto, if I remember correctly.

*Another Edit* Does anyone know how to change the time and date for the EXIF Data? Also, anyone know why it would read CGOPRO for the Model?

 

[Peggy]

Do you know what? I’m sick to the teeth of all this. Full stop. It’s actually depressing that I’ve spent £6k on this platform. 520 and all 3 cameras plus a heap of extras like batteries, A10 charger, balance leads that I had to make myself, ND filters the list is endless. Do any of them do what they are supposed to do. Do they heck as like. You may have noticed I have stopped whinging over the last few weeks. Why? Coz I’ve actually had enough. The system is dog shite. End of and that is my personal summary.
90 we know all about
50 well I’d like an explanation to that. Youve seen the unusable jello effect video.
ET well what good is that seeing as it loses signal at 200m and without radio metric it’s useless.
Ok so it can tell if you are on fire. Yup great.
It can tell you your cup of tea is hotter than the class of water. Excellent
And it can tell you you are losing heat through your windows. Knew that already though.
All I can say is good luck guys on getting what you want out of this system.
May as well sell it on eBay and hope to get enough money to buy a spark.
I wish you all well on getting a result.

 

[Kev Waite]

View media item 727
I did a little color editing to this but no distortion correction whatsoever. E90, I think I was just shooting Auto, if I remember correctly.

*Another Edit* Does anyone know how to change the time and date for the EXIF Data? Also, anyone know why it would read CGOPRO for the Model?

Any way we can see the DNG file for this image, please?