Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,652 visits to this link)
17,305 topics in this forum
-
- 706 replies
- 320k views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 488k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.7m views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 781.2k views
-
- 10 replies
- 389 views
-
Internal 32-bit float stereo paired with lossless 120mm reach from a 20mm lens — all inside a genuinely pocket-sized 10-bit 1-inch sensor gimbal camera? 1 2 3
- 56 replies
- 4.6k views
-
- 61 replies
- 7.8k views
-
- 8 replies
- 417 views
-
- 567 replies
- 268.6k views
-
- 5 replies
- 539 views
-
- 30 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 472 replies
- 157.9k views
-
- 4 replies
- 563 views
-
- 7 replies
- 777 views
-
- 108 replies
- 80.1k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 24 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 42 replies
- 11.4k views
-
- 31 replies
- 7.3k views
-
- 61 replies
- 21.6k views
-
- 4 replies
- 884 views
-
- 129 replies
- 66.7k views
-
- 83 replies
- 11.3k views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 6 replies
- 3.8k views
-
- 19 replies
- 13.6k views
-
- 24 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.1k views
-
- 14 replies
- 9.4k views
-
- 49 replies
- 5.2k views
-
- 14 replies
- 8.5k views
-
- 2 replies
- 866 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.8k views
-
- 20 replies
- 2.6k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts352.1k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
No, I have only viewed DJI's and various youtubers' material of the Pocket 4P. I assume everyone will use settings that will make the footage look its best as they would for their normal work, what would be the point of using settings that produce subideal results? Some of the youtubers did mention tweaking the settings to their preferences. A lot of cameras don't have any settings that would reduce noise reduction of their video files to zero, I would not be surprised if this is the case here as well. -
Have you actually shot with it? Sharpening, noise reduction and the other image-processing settings can obviously be set to the minimum ;- ) -
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
I noticed when watching various videos made with the Pocket 4P using my TV that the images had a processed appearance, especially faces seemed overly plasticky in appearance, like they were not of real people. This could be due to image processing (noise reduction & sharpening) and partly due to the characteristics of the lens. However, the dynamic range did seem spectacular and it is only this processed appearance of the main subject that bothered me. Is the processing something the manufacturer applies due to smaller area of the photodiode vs. conventional BSI sensor, the small overall sensor area or due to the expected requirements of the user base (which may be social media mainly viewed using small mobile device screens, and used to processed outputs from mobile device cameras)? The Pocket 4P image appearance wasn't that bad compared to typical mobile phone output, I would say it was very good in that category, but the overly smooth and dolled-up appearance of faces did bother me and it would make me question whether I would be willing to work with such a compromise, especially if there is no option to turn the NR down or off. I believe DJI has used dual gain paths before and combined the two ISOs in their cameras before (e.g. my Mini 5 Pro when in Auto ISO mode) and while my initial reaction was that this looks processed, I don't notice that so much any more, it seemed to help things when I set the camera into Pro mode rather than the default (Auto). I'm talking about still images in the case of the drone though. Is this kind of combination of dual gain signals prone to artifacts (I can see why it might be, but it depends on how well they can get the technology to work). I've happily used two different 32-bit float audio recorder products and not noticed any artifacts in the results despite at least one of the two using dual ADCs and combining the outputs into one signal. Canon use DGO in the C70 and C300III Super 35 mm cinema cameras but not in their recent full-frame C80 and C400 models, is this because they can't make it work or produce economically in 35 mm full frame size, or are there problems with the technology which lead them to use a different design in their newer products? Although this hand-held gimbal camera might not be my cup of tea (due to the processed appearance of the image, and lack of support for bluetooth timecode and requiring an adapter to take a 3.5mm audio signal), I am interested in seeing if DJI will be bringing out drones with this new 1" sensor, such as in Air 4 or Mini 6 Pro, and if the technology is applicable to still photography. I find that in my Mini 5 Pro, the image quality on flat days is quite good, but in high-contrast environments such as streets between tall buildings, I find the images quite noisy, and not sure what could be done about it while staying within C0 or C1 classes that can be flown over or near people. I have noticed the drone camera in Auto ISO mode (still photography) seems to select excessively high shutter speeds in order to be able to use both base ISOs (100 and 400, if I recall correctly) for a combined image with larger dynamic range. I might not quite make the same choices myself, as I usually am more concerned with the signal-to-noise ratio in the main subject areas of the image. Anyway, more transparent and manually controllable logic in these devices would be useful. I am not keen on purchasing a Mavic 4 Pro (with the larger sensor camera, presumably with less noise) because it cannot be flown over people even accidentally (lawfully), and in the type of environment where I would be mostly interested using the drone, there are usually uninvolved people. I would be keen to try out a new C0 or C1 class drone with this LOFIC sensor, to see what kind of images it would produce in my applications. I think the 20 mm equivalent focal length of the main camera makes sense in the Pocket 4P as it is probably intended to be used frequently to record video of the operator using it at arm's length and to see at least some environment, the wide angle is needed. Also, one can take the 4K video and crop a bit to get a more normal angle of view (40 mm equiv) while still preserving 1080p quality. The sensor area used for this crop would be quite small though, and the image quality can be a concern. Even in full sensor size (no crop) the images don't show that much real detail based on the videos I saw. I think for social media and news usage this is probably fine for special situations such as videos of action (racing cars or bikes, with the camera mounted on a moving platform, or when the operator walks around the subject to capture it from different sides, while the device automatically keeps the subject in the frame). For quick clips of such subjects I am sure it is a great device, and very tempting. But if the purpose is to make video that looks really beautiful, and where the automatic subject tracking is not a priority, I would still assume larger cameras are preferred. The Pocket 4P doesn't have an adjustable diaphragm, and the ND filters have to be clipped onto the lenses, and the Auto ISO doesn't work in the high DR log2 mode (if I got this correctly), which means the operator may often be relying on the dynamic range to get acceptable results rather than controlling exposure. A lot of users will probably let the shutter speed vary, leading to not so smooth motion, but this might not be obvious or completely objectionable when viewed on tiny screens at reading distance away. I am surprised that the integrated gimbal cameras have the options of these tiny devices (230 g) and then the next step up is the Ronin 4D at 4.67 kg. The other options in between include using a generic gimbal and mirrorless camera which can lead to quite heavy setups as well. I would assume there would be space in the market for some intermediate options, such as micro four thirds sensor size with dual lens(cameras) but no interchangeable lenses, that could weight around 500 g or so. Is there something in the market with those parameters? -
Big portion of that 16 stops is unrecoverable due to heavy baked in raw processing and NR. LOFIC low light performance is intrinsically poor, so they have to use two or even three readouts with conventional approach and combine them all (which is not very linear) then add some sharpness tricks to reconstruct the degraded quality. At this sensor size and consumer level, nobody cares and the only thing matters is that it makes truly HDR image. To implement this tech in bigger sensor for pro bodies, that process should be way more refined. -
I think “completely and utterly” may be doing a little too much work there @kye : P There is also a slightly amusing irony in relying on CineD here, given that Andrew’s forum rules have historically discouraged linking to the site whenever possible, although, of course, he also made clear that such links would not be censored. That aside, the DJI result is undeniably impressive. The 20mm LOFIC camera in D-Log2 seems to be in a different league when it comes to measured dynamic range and exposure latitude. I’m just not sure that this particular test supports such a definitive verdict on the two complete camera systems. Those spectacular figures apply specifically to the 20mm camera in D-Log2. The 60mm camera does not offer D-Log2 and produces considerably more conventional results. On the Luna side, the CineD test seems mainly to reveal that its current I-Log processing is seriously problematic, particularly because of the aggressive internal noise reduction. They did not test the standard profiles, which they themselves suggest may currently be the better option. So, to me, the fair conclusion is that DJI’s best sensor and profile comprehensively outperform Luna’s present I-Log implementation in these specific laboratory tests. That is still a major win for DJI. Just not necessarily a complete and utter defeat of the Luna in every respect. In these comparative tests [A | B] though ; ) the result is rather less one-sided : ) Now compare the Luna’s 8K with the Pocket’s 4K [1 | 2] and judge for yourself ; ) Lab tests are extremely useful because they isolate specific variables and give us repeatable measurements, but they are not the same thing as real-world shooting. They cannot fully account for colour, detail rendering, motion, sharpening, texture, highlight roll-off, subject separation or simply which image looks more convincing in an actual scene. As these comparisons and the footage itself demonstrate, a camera that appears decisively superior on a chart does not necessarily produce the preferable image once we step outside the lab bubble and look at the actual footage. LU I | LU II | LU III | 4P I | 4P II | 4P III Part of it has already been posted, among others, for instance right there. Both are irresistible to me. Whichever one comes out ahead in any particular test, I think both cameras are genuinely worthy of the OOAK label. The Pocket 4P is unique in what it achieves with its 20mm LOFIC sensor and D-Log2 in such a small body, while the Luna Ultra is equally singular in its modular design, detachable remote screen, internal 32-bit float stereo audio and overall shooting concept, particularly with its innovative POV Head Tracker. They are not merely two versions of the same product competing on a laboratory chart; each offers something that currently exists nowhere else.
-
