Video from the C23 and H Plus

[Merhlin]

Something we should note about the railroad video is the Plus does not appear to share the same aversion to flying between and along the path of the tracks the H does. In the longer runs between the tracks I would expect the H-480 to divert its path off to one side or the other where the Plus did not. Very encouraging seeing this improvement.

We still see some lens distortion with both the vertical and horizontal. The horizon shift is now very minor, with the most curvature occurring when the horizon in the upper 1/3 of the image. The vertical distortion is apparent at all times a straight line is presented that runs top to bottom in an image, even when the lines are center frame. Both the road and the tracks depict a bend where there is none above middle frame, again roughy 1/3 the distance from the top of the frame. The best way to correct this would be for Yuneec to change lenses as it is not related in any way to the sensor. The camera price point should cause buyers to demand a better lens to justify the purchase.

Over all, I think the artist did a pretty good job for someone just starting out with their Plus. He obviously likes trains and shot some good stuff he’ll be able to use as “stock” footage for incorporation with other train videos he shoots as time goes on. It will be interesting to see how the subject angles and separation from trains evolve as his experience and comfort level evolves.

As we can at times be a critical bunch when reviewing imagery I thought he demonstrated a lot of bravery in posting an early video for public critique. Clearly he wants to learn more to increase his knowledge and ability. Keep up the good work

Thank you kindly. Actually I'm not a "train spotter" per se but simply looking for subjects or environments to film in a Yuneec way, so -to-speak. My previous drone experience was for a year (on and off because of issues) with at Parrot Bebop2, which gets decent video in good light but isn't 4K quality. So, compared to what I was used to (photo/video) even the poor 4k seems an improvement. I love the photo quality so far. I'm nowhere near the expert on the technical details that you are. I agree that for that amount of money, the camera should be superb.

I am wondering if the fact that I had it set on the "gorgeous" setting might have created some of the issues so my next vids are going to be in the "normal" setting. Some preliminary examination of that setting indicates it may have reduced some of the issues in the railroad video. I can always edit the video for detail, saturation, exposure, etc. in my Adobe Lightroom before editing it in PD.

Thanks again.

 

[PatR]

The Gorgeous setting does tend to over saturate colors but the results can be quite good for those that want to accentuate those areas. It's an art form, not something with a common set of performance standards. Shoot what makes you happy, tells your story, or leaves you with the sense of being there every time you look at the product.

 

[Merhlin]

Zip, nada. Only editing for the sequences I wanted and the transitions. I could use my Lightroom software to process clips but I have not done so yet. So yeah, had I done that, then that would explain a lot and shame on me.

 

[Merhlin]

The Gorgeous setting does tend to over saturate colors but the results can be quite good for those that want to accentuate those areas. It's an art form, not something with a common set of performance standards. Shoot what makes you happy, tells your story, or leaves you with the sense of being there every time you look at the product.

Yeah, I get that and I'll eventually settle on what I like. Sometimes presets or templates are a bit too over-the-top for my taste. I've got to try everything out and see what works for me and what doesn't.

 

[YuKay]

Short footage comparison CGO3+ vs E90 vs C23:

 

[Rich Z]

Short footage comparison CGO3+ vs E90 vs C23:

Maybe it is just me, but the C23 video is showing a lot of distracting artifacts in the plants (grass?) at the bottom of the view. Doesn't look at all natural. I've noticed this on at least one other video I have watched as well. Anyone else seeing this, or is it just my screen? I am viewing this via a 4K screen on my PC, btw.

 

[PatR]

Of all the people, Fan The Mass should know better. Why compare three different cameras shooting the same scene with three different scene settings? That voids any comparison.

 

[Windluv]

Maybe it is just me, but the C23 video is showing a lot of distracting artifacts in the plants (grass?) at the bottom of the view. Doesn't look at all natural. I've noticed this on at least one other video I have watched as well. Anyone else seeing this, or is it just my screen? I am viewing this via a 4K screen on my PC, btw.

I have the same artifacts, using Original (raw). I thought it was me over processing the footage in Davinci Resolve. You see it a bit in my video above, but I edited out the worst. I have barely increased sharpness and essentially only using color boost on the original footage. This was a 60fps shot. It may be intrinsic to the capture software.

 

[Rubik]

Maybe it is just me, but the C23 video is showing a lot of distracting artifacts in the plants (grass?) at the bottom of the view. Doesn't look at all natural. I've noticed this on at least one other video I have watched as well. Anyone else seeing this, or is it just my screen? I am viewing this via a 4K screen on my PC, btw.

It's not just your screen. I see it also. I think the "artifacts" are a result of the sharpening applied somewhere along the way. Since the C23 is set to "Original", it's probably a result of the post processing applied as noted at 0:41 "all files, sharpness, brightness + contrast, color".

What impressed me was how good the CGO3+ looked by comparison. Pat is right, the settings should have been as identical as possible and ZERO post processing. I give credit, though, for what it is.

 

[Rubik]

I have the same artifacts, using Original (raw). I thought it was me over processing the footage in Davinci Resolve. You see it a bit in my video above, but I edited out the worst. I have barely increased sharpness and essentially only using color boost on the original footage. This was a 60fps shot. It may be intrinsic to the capture software.

Hmm... Do you see that in any of the other settings?

 

[Windluv]

Hmm... Do you see that in any of the other settings?

Don't know yet. Really just one flight. Next week will try 30fps. Recommendations?

 

[Steve Carr]

Don't know yet. Really just one flight. Next week will try 30fps. Recommendations?

I have seen other posts where Davinci Resolve caused some strange behavior in the final render.
Also, the card becomes extremely important when shooting 60 fps. You really need something rated at 80-90 MB/s. Another source for artifacts is the card reader. I chased a problem for almost a month before trying a different card reader. It was the culprit.

 

[Windluv]

I have seen other posts where Davinci Resolve caused some strange behavior in the final render.
Also, the card becomes extremely important when shooting 60 fps. You really need something rated at 80-90 MB/s. Another source for artifacts is the card reader. I chased a problem for almost a month before trying a different card reader. It was the culprit.

Clarification : I am using the Scandisk extreme with 90mbs rating (as I believe you are and as posted in the cards to use in the help section). Not sure what you mean by the 'card reader' .

 

[Steve Carr]

Clarification : I am using the Scandisk extreme with 90mbs rating (as I believe you are and as posted in the cards to use in the help section). Not sure what you mean by the 'card reader' .

That should rule out the card. The reader is a USB card reader unless you have a micro sd slot on your pc.

 

[Windluv]

I have a crappy slow 'card reader' that I plug into the usb slot. Takes 20 minutes to transfer the data. Are you suggesting the reader can effect the data transferred?

 

[Steve Carr]

I have a crappy slow 'card reader' that I plug into the usb slot. Takes 20 minutes to transfer the data. Are you suggesting the reader can effect the data transferred?

It certainly can. I just recently changed to a USB 3 reader and the transfer rate is way better.

 

[Windluv]

It certainly can. I just recently changed to a USB reader and the transfer rate is way better.

Thanks Steve.

 

[Rubik]

I have a crappy slow 'card reader' that I plug into the usb slot. Takes 20 minutes to transfer the data. Are you suggesting the reader can effect the data transferred?

Look for a USB 3.0 or 3.1 card reader.

 

[Rubik]

Don't know yet. Really just one flight. Next week will try 30fps. Recommendations?

You might also try different shutter speeds. Typically you want to set shutter speed to twice the frame rate. At 60 fps, use 1/120 shutter speed. Do you have the ND filters yet? If not, you will have to change ISO for proper exposure. ISO of 100 is ideal but will require ND filters in bright daylight.

 

[Windluv]

You might also try different shutter speeds. Typically you want to set shutter speed to twice the frame rate. At 60 fps, use 1/120 shutter speed. Do you have the ND filters yet? If not, you will have to change ISO for proper exposure. ISO of 100 is ideal but will require ND filters in bright daylight.

Got it, I think. So I learned this week from this thread: ISO is applied to the captured image after the exposure is actually recorded by the C23 sensor and hardware. I did not know this or did not acknowledge this. It is like 'really, that is so obtuse'.

If this is correct then :

ISO is like a blanket calculation applied evenly across the captured 'raw' image : highlights, shadow, mid-tones.

This is a huge fundamental difference to film in that you expose film to a combination of time and lens aperture in respect to the ISO which the photographer calculates via a light meter (or the camera does for you) prior to exposure. In the C23 the 'exposure' is purely the time, 1/30, 1/60, 1/1000, as the lens is aperture is fixed. The relation to ISO is applied after the image is captured. Fundamentally the ISO manipulation post sensor capture can only degrade the 'raw' image by further manipulation if the image was properly exposed. Thus for the C23 taking an exposure at 1/60 second as the 'raw' image, then applying an 800 ISO manipulation over it produces the 'Original' image with an 8x highlight enhancement (100 ISO being lowest, to 200-400-800). If the exposure was perfect at 1/60th second, then the 800 ISO software enhancement will blow all the highlights and the shadows will be grey. If the 1/60th second was 8x underexposed relative to the applied ISO , then the manipulated raw captured image will produce the 'Original' image that will have contained the highlights to shadows, but detail will be missing. This seems to be apparent in my sunrise footage.

You can never get back captured detail that the ISO blanket has manipulated out of the raw image.

I believe this is the approach for the C23 and other fixed aperture cameras (thankyou @Rubik , @Ty Pilot and others) with my reasoning applied:

Capture the 'raw' image based on the time requirements : 1/30, 1/60, 1/500, what ever is required.
Set the system to the lowest ISO such as 100 for the C23. THIS WILL AVOID UNWANTED ISO MANIPULATION APPLIED POST IMAGE CAPTURE.
Use ND filters to actually adjust the light coming into the C23 sensor so it matches the 100 ISO your light meter grey card reading specifies for the selected exposure time of 1/30, 1/60, 1/500, etc.
This will eliminate the ISO software manipulation to the captured raw image.
The ND filters will provide the highlight to shadow ratio you desire for a proper exposure.
This will provide the least manipulated image the C23 can produce.

You still need to capture something worthwhile.