100% centre DNG crops for comparison?

[Peter Evans]

There have been several discussions, split across several threads, about the quality (or lack of same) in the images produced by the P2V's camera. I have to say that I'm completely dissatisfied with mine and I'm currently communicating that fact to StudioSport.fr from whom I bought my P2V here in France.

So, I thought it might help various members with similar feelings if we had a thread where we could post images to compare what different cameras were producing. That way we could see if some us just had bad examples, or whether the problem affected the majority of owners. It would certainly help me in my discussions with StudioSport!

Obviously we'd need some standardisation to be fair to the camera and to make the comparison worthwhile, so this is what I suggest:

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to produce an image that should be :

1. Shot in RAW
2. Of a subject in which one would expect to see a lot of detail
3. Shot in sunlight at 100 ISO (i.e. no AUTO ISO)
3. Be a 100% square(ish) crop from the centre of the image
4. Be 800 pixels wide
5. Have NO processing whatosever applied to it, other than to convert it to a high quality jpeg (e.g. 10 in Photoshop)

Here's my example

This message will self-destruct in......

 

[Sledge]

Hello Peter, I will try and post one once the weather get nicer here....it's sub-zero here in Chicagoland....yikes!

This will be a good comparison and most likely, conclusive evidence that the FC200 camera is very low end. Here's hoping they offer an upgrade sometime soon!

 

[Old Gazer]

Here' one for you with a link to the fully processed image saved as a JPEG. I really cannot complain too much. Raw converted to JPEG gives a better overall image than the JPEG straight from my camera. If you need a professional quality image , you will need to invest a whole lot more money for professional equipment.

https://app.box.com/s/m28bs14dckimv0vc5z4f


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Old Gazer]

Here's another. This one is a little better. I suppose all photos are not created equal.
https://app.box.com/s/au1sxz2ro2of62ciisp1 again fully processed and saved as JPEG

 

[Shrimpfarmer]

Blimey it looks more like a pencil sketch than a photo.

 

[Bigvern]

Another one for you!

 

[Pull_Up]

Get that roof de-mossed, you. You're letting the street down.

But on a serious note, that's from a dng originally??

 

[Bigvern]

I just won't let the wife see it or it could be another job on that long list she has!

Yes from dng saved as jpg
Bottom pic is the whole thing top pic is middle section ish at 100%
Glen

 

[pault]

Here is mine - not full sun
100 ISO -3.ev 1/151 sec
Saved in PS at 12





My camera is very soft on the right hand side so is going back for replacement as soon as the dealer has new stock (I trust this will not be at his cost as he has been very helpful to me).

 

[MikeON]

I'm glad I found this thread, because I'm now convinced my camera is a dud and will return it. These are 800x800 crops from the center. It is even worse on the right side.
This was advertised as a "high end" 14MP camera with aspherical lens. It doesn't compare to my 8MP iPhone.

 

[jimre]

Really? Looking at RAW images with NO PROCESSING - and then complaining that the images are soft and not sharp? That's like complaining about a RAW EGG because it's so runny! Wow.

RAW images have NO SHARPENING applied. They are *intended* to be soft - all the sharpening is left up to the photographer, in post-processing. I thought people understood this.

Here's an example:
First is a 1:1 small crop from DNG/RAW with NO SHARPENING. Big surprise - it's soft!
Second is the same image with my normal capture sharpening applied in Lightroom. Not DSLR-quality, but looks reasonable for a highly-zoomed in crop.

This was the first DNG image I shot the other day after doing the camera update. ISO100, 1/1400 sec @ f/2.8, Daylight WB.

 

[jimre]

And for a sense of scale, here's the full image - you can see the small portion in the upper center used for the previous crops.

 

[Peter Evans]

Thanks very much guys!

This is starting to get interesting, don't you think? However, I'm not going to make any comment until we get a few more samples.

Incidentally, following my complaint to the seller, in the response I received from them today, they said, "Well of course DJI are going to say its a 'High End Camera' - they're not going to say it's "nulle"

For those not familiar with the language, "Nulle" is French for useless or hopeless - as in, "Je suis nul dans la cuisine" (which is very true)

Oh and they also pretty much said that the situation I find myself in is my fault because I should have looked at images on the web before I ordered from them. They seem to have missed the fact that DNG capability didn't appear until three days after it was delivered to me.

 

[Peter Evans]

@ jimre

RAW has no sharpening applied? OMG I didn't realise!!

Jeez! The point of the exercise is not to see whether or not the RAW images are 'sharp' but to see the base point of resolution from which we start.

Can you see the difference between Bigvern's crop and mine, or PaulT's? Or don't you want to?

OK you made me comment :twisted:

 

[pault]

jimre, how long have you had your PV2 as your image certainly seems better than mine ? I realise you have some lovely light there but even so. I am clinging to straws by hoping that the new cameras are an improvement.

 

[jimre]

@ jimre

RAW has no sharpening applied? OMG I didn't realise!!

Jeez! The point of the exercise is not to see whether or not the RAW images are 'sharp' but to see the base point of resolution from which we start.

Can you see the difference between Bigvern's crop and mine, or PaulT's? Or don't you want to?

You and I may know this - but 90% of the people on this forum likely don't. They're going to read this thread and think "OMG, THIS IS THE WORST CAMERA EVER!!! EVEN THE RAW PICTURES ARE NOT SHARP!!!"

As for comparisons, hard to do with such completely different images. If I had to pick, I'd say Bigvern's looks decent and yours doesn't.

 

[MikeON]

I tried one of the images I posted in Photoshop with 3 types of sharpening, all to different degrees:
- Unsharp Mask
- Smart Sharpen
- High Pass filter.
All made very little improvement. Further convinces me my camera has an unfocused lens. Some of the other pictures posted in this thread make me believe a replacement camera might be better than what I have.

 

[Old Gazer]

I think it was unclear what MikeOn is comparing to his phone pics. Raw or processed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[jimre]

jimre, how long have you had your PV2 as your image certainly seems better than mine ? I realise you have some lovely light there but even so. I am clinging to straws by hoping that the new cameras are an improvement.

I believe mine is one of the earlier P2Vs. Received it on Nov. 13.

 

[Peter Evans]

As for comparisons, hard to do with such completely different images. If I had to pick, I'd say Bigvern's looks decent and yours doesn't.

Exactly! And especially as my belfry was relatively close.

Yours looks a lot better than mine too!

We'd better watch it as this could stray into "Ooh Matron!" territory


EDIT
And it's not just how well the image is resolved by the lens that I'm looking at, it's noise too. See how there is less noise in Bigvern's image? I wish I had his