Video Settings vs. Photo Settings

[Eagle's Eye Video]

I have seen several threads on the dissatisfaction with the sharpness of photos with the CGO3
camera and the benefits of upgrading the lens, post-warranty. I too, will be doing that myself
within the next couple of months, simply based on my long experience in photography and
the knowledge that the sharpest lens available is a must. In the 35mm world there are valid
reasons that Nikon and Canon are the leaders, with their lenses being the some of the sharpest
out there.

But there are other factors that contribute to photo sharpness, that I have not seen discussed,
and I thought I would throw an idea out there.

How many pilots do their shooting in the following manner... shoot video needed, with however
many batteries needed to get the shots desired and then land, change to a new battery and re-launch
to get the photos needed (if required for the shoot).

The reason I ask is the following: I have seen several posts and YouTube videos specifying that
you should use ND filters to slow the shutter speed down to get smoother cinematic video.
While this is true for video, it is not the best practice for photos.

If you land to change batteries for your photos, you will have the opportunity to switch out the
ND filter for the standard UV filter on your camera. You want the highest available shutter
speed to minimize any vibration induced softness. If you have a effective shutter speed of
1/60 to get smooth video, I'm sure that will degrade your image quality, as opposed to removing
the ND filter, and perhaps pushing the effective shutter speed to 1/250 or even 1/500.

 

[Wingshooter]

So have you tested this theory out? Your comments make sense tho.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

If you have a smart phone you can connect up to the cameras WiFi.
Once connected type this into your web browser:
http://192.168.42.1/cgi-bin/cgi?CMD=GET_SHARPNESS
It will or should return a value of what you sharpness is set at for your camera.
To change it you can type this into your web browser to change the value just by changing the end value of the command line.
http://192.168.42.1/cgi-bin/cgi?CMD=SET_SHARPNESS&value=8

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

So have you tested this theory out? Your comments make sense tho.

Was going to fly this weekend, but local weather conditions will push that to next week.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

If you have a smart phone you can connect up to the cameras WiFi.
Once connected type this into your web browser:
http://192.168.42.1/cgi-bin/cgi?CMD=GET_SHARPNESS
It will or should return a value of what you sharpness is set at for your camera.
To change it you can type this into your web browser to change the value just by changing the end value of the command line.
http://192.168.42.1/cgi-bin/cgi?CMD=SET_SHARPNESS&value=8

I prefer to do any further sharpening in Photoshop, as I have more control of the final image... I shoot
in Natural mode. This way I can fine tune the degree of sharpening vs. additional image noise, as well
as specific control of levels and saturation. The most valuable tool available in Photoshop is the
"Fade" function.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

To each his own. Professional photo\video journalist mickaboo the guy who does all the Iceland videos for global warming loves that feature so I thought I would throw it out to you.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

I appreciate it and I may use that adjustment as well, since it would tweek sharpness in both video and photos.

 

[PatR]

It works pretty well for both modes.

 

[gwhuntoon]

If you have a smart phone you can connect up to the cameras WiFi.
Once connected type this into your web browser:
http://192.168.42.1/cgi-bin/cgi?CMD=GET_SHARPNESS
It will or should return a value of what you sharpness is set at for your camera.
To change it you can type this into your web browser to change the value just by changing the end value of the command line.
http://192.168.42.1/cgi-bin/cgi?CMD=SET_SHARPNESS&value=8

Just curious if anyone else has heard this - I read from another IP camera manufacturer that setting the default sharpness value in the camera can increase the bandwidth usage. If this is true I would think you would want it lower, then do sharping in post. I have yet to test this so I'm just passing along the info.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

Just curious if anyone else has heard this - I read from another IP camera manufacturer that setting the default sharpness value in the camera can increase the bandwidth usage. If this is true I would think you would want it lower, then do sharping in post. I have yet to test this so I'm just passing along the info.

Anytime you have more sharpness/detail in an image (or more colors present in the scene),
will result in an increased file size. More detail/colors = more digital information = larger file size.

 

[Tuna]

It makes sense to take video, then change batteries and take photos, just from a practical point of view.

The thing about ND filters for video I'm not convinced by - perhaps someone has done a side by side test on YouTube? It's true that high frame rates give a more 'digital' feel to the video when there's a lot of action, which was a big deal ten years ago when digital cameras began to be used for more mainstream TV and people noticed the different quality of the footage they were watching. These days we're much more used to it and a lot of drone footage is not exactly action packed, so it's not clear to me if the ND filters thing is just a bit of a hangover from people more used to film footage. Certainly I really don't get the preference for 24fps which makes for painfully jerky pans.

In camera sharpening is great if you want to use shots straight out off the SD-card. If you're going to put your footage through any sort of half-decent editor though, you'll get much better results from doing your sharpening later. The reason is that in camera sharpening uses a simpler algorithm (the camera doesn't have a super powerful chip like your PC or laptop), that applies a fixed amount of sharpening to everything. In an editor you can use unsharp mask, and tweak the settings to get the best results. That should result in nice sharp edges without adding loads of noise to smoother surfaces. That does take a little bit of experimentation with the shots you're working with before you get the settings right. If you've got time for that, great.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

Agreed, which is why it is preferable to post-process. Even the algorithms in Photoshop are usually too much,
which is why the fade tool is so valuable. However I can see wanting to maybe do some in-camera tweeking,
if at the end of the shoot, you are just turning over the files to the client as-is.

And just in case anyone thinks I'm a newb talking out of my butt, I am a newb in the area of
RC flying and multicopters. But with 40+ years of photographic experience and 20+ years
with Photoshop and video editing, this is my area of expertise.

I am just happy to be able to give back some info to all of you who have helped so much
in the last 6 weeks or so of exploring what will be my 3rd photographic specialization. I make
no claim to be one of the best out there, but I have managed to have one of the widest ranging
photography careers that you could possibly create.

So with the end of the year coming, a toast to all who manage to push the envelope... salut!

 

[Jagerbomb52]

To be honest unless you have a really good monitor all these little tweeks to me do not show up for these old eyes. I don't have a 4K monitor or TV so non of this 4K stuff means anything to me.

 

[PatR]

And therein lies the rub for using 4K. If your play back equipment is not 4K, or large enough, you can easily make some large errors in your post work. What looks good on a 720p laptop can look really bad on a 40" 4K screen. If you choose to shoot 4K you must also upgrade your play back equipment to 4K. You'll also probably need to upgrade your computer to effectively use post processing programs. That 4K aerial camera was just the beginning of the expense list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

Yep I figure that will be the next step for me in 2017... at least for my initial learning 1080p will be fine,
but I am accepting that I will need new computer and 4K monitor to be able to effectively edit at a 4K level.

(And archiving all decent original 4K files, so I can go back at a later time to edit at full resolution.)

 

[Wingshooter]

ND FILTER TEST FOR SHARPNESS

I have attached two photos that I took using my CGO3 and the Steady Grip. Both were taken in a sunny environment. White Balance was locked on Sunny. All other settings were automatic. One picture was taken with the ND8 Filter attached and the other had no filter at all. No Post Processing for these two pictures. Just brought the DNG files into Photoshop CC and saved them to JPG.

Does anyone see a big difference?

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

ND FILTER TEST FOR SHARPNESS

I have attached two photos that I took using my CGO3 and the Steady Grip. Both were taken in a sunny environment. White Balance was locked on Sunny. All other settings were automatic. One picture was taken with the ND8 Filter attached and the other had no filter at all. No Post Processing for these two pictures. Just brought the DNG files into Photoshop CC and saved them to JPG.

Does anyone see a big difference?

I don't see much of a difference, but I will be making two changes to the parameters of your test:

1) I'm not sure the steady grip is as valid a setup, since I was theorizing on the elimination of vibration induced
softness while flying the H... It is quite possible this could make less of a difference, using the Grip.

Also when I conduct this test it will be under manual settings, so I know what my effective shutter speed
is for each, with and without ND filters.

2) I really want to see the difference with a Peau 8.25 lens, since it:

a) Is claimed to be noticeably sharper than the stock lens.
b) because of it's longer focal length, it is more susceptible to sharpness
degradation due to vibration. The manufacturer themselves, notes this in
their description.

Believe me, after conducting some testing of my own, I will post those photos here. If I can confirm that there is
no perceptible difference, I'll be the first on the board to report that my concerns have been proven wrong.

In all of this, I am simply looking for the best tools to give the best results. Whatever people can come up with
to do that, I'm in!

 

[PatR]

Note that when in photo mode the image size is impacted by the selected video setting. 1080 will likely provide a 16/9 image while 4k will likely provide 4/3. I've noticed using a 4k video setting when taking photos provides almost DSLR image quality.

 

[BillyTexas]

Note that when in photo mode the image size is impacted by the selected video setting. 1080 will likely provide a 16/9 image while 4k will likely provide 4/3. I've noticed using a 4k video setting when taking photos provides almost DSLR image quality.

When im in photo mode it always produces a 4:3 image. Only 16:9 if i snap a pic while still in video mode.

Bill W.

 

[Wingshooter]

When im in photo mode it always produces a 4:3 image. Only 16:9 if i snap a pic while still in video mode.

Bill W.

I just noticed that this thread was started as a Typhoon H discussion. I am sorry but I don't have the H and have been speaking about the Typhoon 4k. I guess there are several differences in the two camera's. Like being able to take a photo while in Video Mode at resolutions higher than 1920 x 1080 60fps. You cannot do that with the 4k. Can you do that with the H?