If the P2 is like P3, you can change it to the 16:9 HD format, but that only crops the larger 4:3 view into 16:9, throwing away the pixels. You gain nothing by doing that, other than losing the abilty crop them out more selectively in post. Just crop to the frame you desire later from the full 4:3 capture. You will capture more of the scene initially, but you'll have more flexibility later.
The photo is clearly 4:3, so it can't be a screen grab from a 16:9 frame, nor a goPro Video+Photo, if those are 16:9. It's likely the P2V+ which is 1080p video in 16:9 and 4:3 on photos, just like the P3 on the photos.
The photo is clearly 4:3, so it can't be a screen grab from a 16:9 frame, nor a goPro Video+Photo, if those are 16:9. It's likely the P2V+ which is 1080p video in 16:9 and 4:3 on photos, just like the P3 on the photos.
Not square, but 4:3. If you change it to 16:9, you are cropping the top and bottom of the 4:3 image, not expanding it horizontally. The pixel count is from the 4:3 sensor. If you make it 16:9, you'll lose some 30% of the sensor recording.
Same here! It's like, how can I shoot this with the P3P? Even family portraits are being shot with the P3P on the dining room table or hood of the car, using the iPad FPV for framing! I still pull out the D7100 with a 210-600mm telephoto equivalent for birding. Still have a male hooded oriole visiting hummingbird feeders, long after he should have migrated with his two females! At least all the LR skills aren't going to waste. Getting pretty proficient at Premiere Pro, too, now.
Thanks Gadget! Great answer!If the P2 is like P3, you can change it to the 16:9 HD format, but that only crops the larger 4:3 view into 16:9, throwing away the pixels. You gain nothing by doing that, other than losing the abilty crop them out more selectively in post. Just crop to the frame you desire later from the full 4:3 capture. You will capture more of the scene initially, but you'll have more flexibility later.
In your example photograph, I would crop to 16:9 by removing entirely from the top of the frame, which includes the prop guard and the prop. If you shot this in 16:9 instead of 4:3, it would have cropped half off the top and the other half off the bottom, which contains useful pixels.
In my post I said it was a Phantom 2 v.2 which I believe only comes with a camera, so it's definitely not a GoPro.The photo is clearly 4:3, so it can't be a screen grab from a 16:9 frame, nor a goPro Video+Photo, if those are 16:9. It's likely the P2V+ which is 1080p video in 16:9 and 4:3 on photos, just like the P3 on the photos.
Except the supplied sample image couldn't be from a GoPro, according to your own analysis, because it clearly wasn't in a 16:9 format. It's 4:3. That's how I knew it wasn't a GoPro, based upon your post.
Hey, we are all here to help, and your contributed information was helpful to me, even though you could have answered your own question, so thank you for your post. Every little bit helps.
When we finally get 10x optical zoom on our drones, it will likely be 4/3 format because of the weight considerations. Even the new 4/3 camera and lens options for the more robust Inspire1 still only offer 2x because anything more would throw off the current neutral balance of the camera mount. In the mean time, the media still thinks that digital zoom (frame crops) are the same thing as optical zoom. Oh, well. They have to perpetuate the myth of privacy invasion with some kind of BS. A 20mm eqivalent focal length would have to be within 10 feet, sounding like a noisy lawnmower, to get the same view you can get with your cell phone silently! Or with a 300 f/2.8 from 100 feet. The 300 f/2.8 is the privacy invading paparazzi stalker lens, not a 20 mm wide angle!
Should it be made illegal to use a 300 f/2.8 in public now, too?
