Emanuel

On 26/10/2016 at 1:09 AM, Emanuel said:

on the early reports about the release delay... it does seem to not be confirmed

Here's a curious Mavic Pro / GoPro Hero 5 / Phantom 4 / Phantom 3 camera comparative:

Sure. No one will build up a film narrative 100% based on a 400mm focal length, as for instance... ; )

Your concern is fair enough, though :-)

I stand everything previously said so far.

First off, the fact to prefer the smooth(er) outcome from/by Mavic doesn't mean I or anyone may actually infer anything else is inferior.

Difference doesn't necessarily require a hierarchy. This applies for both down and up.

Secondly, I guess to follow three full academic years to graduate myself in Editing/Post Production (amongst some other two film departments too) completed more than a decade ago can only put me very conveyed to see nothing against "cooked" pictures, as someone here has already pointed out before. So, does straight out of the box mean anything 'better'? Oh, poor Logs... LOL ; )

Whether be made by GoPro whether to come from a superior manual focus, almost 1-stop faster lensed by Mavic.

Either way, never said small sensor size is somehow worthwhile in terms of IQ. And this stands for each one of these toys as same as convenience does.

On the other hand, other than Mavic, those nasty artificial edges (see the power lines in that sample) still make to notice in some oversharpened inorganic forms tend to not be cinematic overall.

To me, much sharpness can result overrated if not well balanced.

Both will notoriously revert as advantage on Mavic Pro.

I'm sorry but I see nothing new from that example.

:-)

Yes, but about the Polar filters also available for the Mavic Pro, as the title hints and my previous post inferred. Hence my quote, if not it wouldn't be there : ) and the second post.

3 hours ago, Cinegain said:

You guys seen this one?

~ http://www.kodak.com/consumer/products/ektra/default.htm

On 18/10/2016 at 9:19 PM, Emanuel said:

Dedicated polarizer and ND filters : )

https://www.polarprofilters.com/products/dji-mavic-filter-3-pack?variant=25474597257

It does seem the early reports release had been delaying is not confirmed...

2 hours ago, Vladimir said:

is this information from official source? after some rough calculations i do believe more in imaging-resources which said it has 150 series for jpeg and 71 (3 secs, not exciting anymore) for raw. Im also thinkin about how fast raw cont. shooting will drain a battery)

Not official source, so far. It is spread all over the main reports on the release, though.

Lovely is the word indeed. This capture device rocks.

1 hour ago, Vladimir said:

but if so - i would know duration of that shooting. Which is waay more important for now.

Buffer handles 150 RAW + JPEG images, so it means 6 seconds @25fps, over 6 seconds @24fps.

´

11 hours ago, Emanuel said:

More review stuff from here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/goblinpicturesger/videos

Interesting ISO comparative and RS resistance, after all, from tripod versus normal rotation speed modes:

Let's recall the usual aerial shots to begin or end the typical Hollywood product and we won't be too far from the description too... ; ) As written, it is just a matter to balance the elements; and try to keep the originality as much as possible up ;-)

Time for Bloom's entry:

More review stuff from here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/goblinpicturesger/videos

50 minutes ago, Chris Oh said:

that was kinda scary...

As noted, the quad has no lateral sensors ;-)

And here's another experiment with and without additional grading, respectively:

Future pilots beware: not lateral sensors...

Indeed. This is the usual when the introduction of a new technology. À la DOF hype when the 35mm adapters or HDSLRs popped up. There are always consequences as far as aesthetics concerns. Media are a reproduction of their age and technology for sure. As same as happens with society. Reason why a good part of oldest viewers don't seem to much appreciate their contemporary younger fellows' work, actually. Some don't even recognize themselves in the society they live. Or language used, as fairly pointed out.

Here's another sample shot on Mavic:

More stuff related to the DJI Mavic Pro is available here in this YT channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/epicdigitalfilms/videos

Here's another example where we can see the strengths (e.g. almost 1-stop faster + manual focus towards to shallower DOF as handy narrative tool and previously written in this thread):

Dedicated polarizer and ND filters : )

https://www.polarprofilters.com/products/dji-mavic-filter-3-pack?variant=25474597257

Other than the focus and smoother UHD route avoiding such artificial edges for a much pleasant cinematic tool, I concur that's still soon to compare videos made by one and other options. There are only a few samples available out there yet on Mavic side against the older solutions for aerial acquisition with these small "toys". Even though and basically, as bird, we surely have a game changer :-)

And finally, here's an interesting review to also focus on the capture device:

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/10/18/dji-mavic-pro-review-is-it-the-perfect-drone-for-the-occasional-flyer/

Not completely sure if it is legit, even though, I'd dare to say we might find a Mavic touch there -- tap to focus will surely be pretty useful for a skyline:

On the discussion, it is plainly natural there are much more number of work pieces shot on Phantom or GoPro than Mavic to conclude anything on topic. Straight out of the box, Mavic footage is a way more cinematic because of manual focus and a softer outcome. I concur that some artificial edges are not welcome at all. My perspective too.

"sharpened and edited version":