Robert Collins

When I took up doing a bit of video about 18 months ago, one of the first things I did was to watch a 10 hour video called something like 'The Phillip Bloom Master Class'.

One of the things that really struck me was how little video grading he did. Basically he applies 'Film Convert' plugin to his video and tweaks it a bit.I guess this gives him a consistent look across cameras because the camera and profile are inputs for the plugin. It also tends to add grain although I vaguely remember that he tended to dial it back.

On 12/24/2018 at 8:37 PM, Emanuel said:

Sold... : ) How much is the final resolution in those pano shots BTW?

For the 1 x 4 panos they typically end up at 20-24mp. The 3x3 panos will be a lot larger but they are pretty much unusable due to the lens distortion when the camera points up and down.

On 12/22/2018 at 1:49 AM, webrunner5 said:

Pretty good honest review of the Pocket, Warts and all.

 

This is a good review although I think (like a lot of the reviews) it sort of misses the point. Most of the 'reviewers' are serious photo and video enthusiasts and I would 100% agree that if you are looking at it from the perspective of a pro/enthusiast tool it is fiddly and frustrating. Half the more 'pro' features only sort of work and usually come with with some sort of gotcha. 4k 60 loses facial recognition and tracking and cant be downloaded to a smartphone, histograms and zebras arent much use if you cant do a lot with exposure, raw stills/panos only work with the smartphone attached (unless you dont switch modes) and cant be downloaded to your smartphone. Etc, etc....

But this product seems firmly aimed at smartphone users who want to take their photos/videos up a notch or two with the minimum of hassle or effort. And this it does really well and is a lot of 'fun' to use. My just turned 5 year old son absolutely loves it - so does my GF... And the quality is really impressive, as is the auto focus (following the update). As an example here is a jpeg (you can do raw) pano....

And here is a 1:1 zoom (1920 x 1080) of the red box area.

Generally speaking, lots of detail and not much noise. How does DJI do it? Well it takes advantage of the fact that the camera is on a gimbal to shoot at a very slow shutter speed - choosing 1/10th of a second (resulting in a relatively low iso of 400) - for the pano shots.

Apparently, there may not have been a drone at all, at Gatwick!!

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/749790/gatwick-drone-couple-released-arrest-flights-cancelled-airport

I do think it takes two to tango. There are a couple of aggravating factors. First most Sony users are recent ex-Canon or ex-Nikon users and some tend to have the irritating habit of going back to their old stomping grounds (Canikon forums) and telling people how ‘fab’ there new camera is.

Second, there has historically been the whole dslr v mirrorless debate which has tended to lead to dslr users being anti-Sony which is the perfect recipe to clash with Sony fan-boyism. I mean I once saw someone post that he/she would never ever be seen with a Sony A7 even if someone paid two grand...

On 12/10/2018 at 8:33 AM, webrunner5 said:

I really think they are going to have to come up with a bigger body going forward for both the the A7 series, and the A6500 series. Going 10bit is not going to make it in those small of bodies. Not counting they are just too small to hold with bigger lens fat or long or both fat and long!

The new EOS-R, Z7, Z6 bodies look to be a better solution.

There would be a lot of resistance from A7x 'still photographer' users (the bulk of the buyers), to a larger body. One of the major attractions of the A7x series is the relatively small body (not everyone is coming from bulky DSLRs) and not everyone is putting large bulky lenses on their A7x. Remember Fuji tried this with the X-H1 and it didnt sell well.

The A7siii is a different story though. Clearly it is for video shooters and they tend to prefer bigger bodies and would accept it for better video.

We seem to have reached something of a 'crossroads' in terms of FF 'hybrid' cameras. It seems the tech (processors/sensor) is there to give 'stills' photographers exactly what they want - say an A7riv with a 60mp sensor capable of shooting 14 bit  'raw' at 10 frames a second. But for 'better video' we need 'more efficient processors' and/or bigger bodies - both of which 'add cost' but bring no real benefits for still photographers.

13 hours ago, DBounce said:

Got my hands on one today. It had issues with my AData SDXC V90 cards. They are unusable in it. My less pricy V30 Samsung cards work fine. The quality seems better than my smartphones. The audio is serviceable. The tracking seems to frequently frame me either too high or too low. Admittedly, this might be user error. I’ve not had much time to play with it. I’ll know better after getting acquainted with the operation of it.

One thing that I do not like is you need the phone to switch between photo and stills mode. If you do it without the phone app it will exit the “Pro Mode”. I contacted DJI and informed them of this.

The size is... tiny... smaller than I honestly expected. It’s so small you can really use it anywhere.

The 28mm FF equivalent lens feels too narrow. To get around this you need to extend your arm quite a bit. I think 20mm would have been a better balance for the intended use if vlogging.

 

I have had one for a few days but I am still trying to get to grips with it. Overall, it seems remarkably accomplished for a 1st gen product. They have got a lot right.

As examples...

1) The startup time is incredibly fast - max 5 seconds.

2) The screen is both very clear and bright.

3) The touch interface is really fast and responsive

4) ..same with the software interface

There are a whole load of gotchas admittedly. No face or active tracking in 4k 60p. If you really need to take advantage of 'pro' mode you need to attach a phone (although there is quite a lot of scope to switch between stills and video without a phone.) Battery life is pretty feeble (and seems less than the reviews I have seen). Audio quality issues might be partially down to two separate mics - one of which is right next to the control buttons that some reviewers might have accidentally covered up.

Some of the advertised features 'story mode' and 'D-Cinelike' I dont think are in the app/camera yet. Difficult not to be impressed though. Biggest complaint from me is the lack of integrated wifi/bluetooth.

Here are a couple of tests comparing Mac Pro, Imac Pro and a PC workstation for Davinci Resolve....

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/DaVinci-Resolve-14-iMac-Pro-Mac-Pro-vs-PC-Workstation-1154/

And Premiere Pro....

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2018-iMac-Pro-Mac-Pro-vs-PC-Workstation-1142/

While they might be fair tests for iMac V. Mac Pro, it is worth bearing in mind that the company doing the tests sells PC workstations.

I went to the Thailand Photo Expo yesterday and by far the most crowded stand was DJI with people playing with the Osmo Pocket (mostly in selfie mode). I think DJI will have a big hit on its hands here if it works as well as advertised...

This absolutely kills smartphone gimbals if you ask me....

A typical smartphone weighs 180g. The Osmo pocket weighs 120g in total and the camera module that you are stabilizing, probably around 30g.

16 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

I have 4 teenage nieces, they all prefer their phones since the Osmo can’t make calls, text, Instagram, FaceTime and so on. And they don’t edit anything or even use a computer, with the Osmo you have to offload through  another device.

Travel and vloggers seem to be the target, but beyond stabilization it doesn’t really deliver for either since you need accessories.

Kudos for bringing something different, but the Hero7 with a simple handle still looks better to me, and it’ll likely be a lot more rugged  

Chris

I think the DJI pocket addresses all 3 of these issues. First it is so small (half the weight of a smartphone) that anyone can take it with them - no trouble - even if they dont use it. Second it has 'story mode' see 6.30 to 7.50 of this video....

...this creates a video and does the editing for you - it even does all the camera motions!! Thirdly, it instantly edits and records the video on your mobile phone for instant sharing. Overall it seems a lot, lot easier to produce an interesting social media post than a smartphone.

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

350 is too much for teenagers, while they have pretty capable cameras in their similarly priced - or cheaper, phones.

It is easier and more convenient to spend an extra 50-80€ to buy a dedicated gimbal, that can use with every phone, and for the limited times that would be needed.

The market is the grown ups.

82% of teenagers in the US use an iphone - so their phones certainly cost a lot more than US$350

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-use-teens-2018/

GoPro 'primary' market is 14-25 year olds (investor.com), so there seems plenty of disposable income with teenagers (although they may well prefer a GoPro to a DJI Pocket.)

5 hours ago, Snowbro said:

Can you turn the sharpness down? It is extremely over sharpened, like the original mavic pro. I noticed in 2 peoples videos that the face tracking was working for the gimbal head, but not focus sometimes. I wonder if it doesn't have enough processing power to do it perfectly? With a tiny xy mic and an nd filter, it could be pretty cool for quick shots when you don't want to draw attention or setup a big rig. Too bad they didn't make one with the rx100 sensor, maybe in the future. 

If you go back a page you will see Tom's Tech Time's video. He suggests (doesnt make it a 100% clear) that there is no control over sharpening, noise reduction etc (even in pro mode) and as you point out the footage is oversharpened. 

I dont think this product is aimed at the majority of people on this forum but I think it looks really good for its target market - hobbyists who are allergic to normal gimbals and are looking for something unobtrusive and pocketable. I think it largely addresses a different market to the GoPro Hero 7.

The size (arguably too small) does seem something of a breakthrough. Imagine a slightly bigger 'pro' version with the Mavic 2 1 inch sensor or the X7 with removable lenses.

Don’t know about 8k myself - would definitely like to get away from 8 bit though.

I read somewhere that the November 28th launch event is scheduled to be 2 hours long so with a bit of luck it will be more than just the Osmo.

Big camera, small sensor. Didn’t work with 4/3 and Olympus. No reason to believe it will work for M43 and Olympus...

I enjoy travel photography most but I have no doubt that the only stuff I do that will stand some reasonable test of time - is the family stuff.

Just finished a book of photos of my son’s first 5 years....

26 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

At the end he ranks the colour voting and Sony comes out on top by a wide margin, going against everything I know from direct experience making EOSHD Pro Color and shooting with almost every camera on the market, over a period of over 8 years running this site. It also seems to be confirming not just the channel's strange Sony bias which has been commented on before but the bias Tony himself pointed out of Sony users earlier in the video, which made me chuckle a bit.

However, given that EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras is primarily designed to bring 'Canon colors' to 'Sony cameras' that in itself does show your inherent bias. It presumably means 'Canon colors are good' 'Sony colors are not so good' but we can make them better by adjusting them towards Canon colors.

I think the basic term 'color science' is ripe for argument. The fact is there is an awful lot about 'color' that is 'subjective'. Everyone 'sees' color differently, colors (and luminosity) look different to the same person when set next door to different color and luminosity. Even our mood effects how we see colors (as in the expression 'seeing red'). And then f people say there isnt a lot of 'science' in color others read that as color doesnt matter - when it clearly does - even if color is more 'art' than 'science'.

4 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Could be totally wrong but sounds like Edelkrone's SliderOne Pro + Motion Box would be all you need. The Flextilt Head 2 is a useful add as well. Either way with the slider/motion box you get continuous slides, ramp up/down parallax motion, timelapse, stop motion, etc all controlled via bluetooth/smartphone + the entire system's footprint is about the size of a 70-200mm lens. I've never had need for anything else.

 

Yup, I have this set up. I think it is important to have the motion box as well as the slider because I find the slider itself a bit short to add much 'effect'. The software works well and the app is pretty intuitive - but the price is pretty difficult to justify. I use it and like it mostly for timelapses....

Excellent stuff. Tony really knows how to do clickbait with style.

Typically the older the camera the 'closer' the iso is to the measured iso. As each generation goes by the manufacturers 'cheat' more so the 'improvement' in iso 'looks' better. Take the E-M1 measured iso at 6400 is 3870 - the EM1 ii measured iso at 6400 is 2797!!

And look at the big 'shift' in iso of the GH series between GH1 and GH5?

9 hours ago, thephoenix said:

around 1500€

i have ssds so no need for new ones

Quite a lot of good information here around your price point.

Going for an i7 8700k (or i7 9700k) has the advantage that motherboards are cheaper (relative to x299) and the high clock speed of the individual cores makes it ideal for Photoshop that doesnt benefit much from a high core count (over 4)

3 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Doesn't full frame gather more light the APSC or M43, meaning it should look brighter at the same shutter speed, fstop, and iso? 

FF gathers more light than a 'smaller sensor' because the 'sensor is bigger'. Theoretically, at the same shutter speed, f stop and iso - they gather the same amount of light 'per sqmm of sensor size' and 'exposure' should look the same.

If Sony was giving a false ISO, wouldn't it be darker then the others at the same setting?

What I said was that ALL manufacturers have a false iso. So while Sony's has a false iso, it isnt 'as false' as other manufacturers (which is why it tends to look brighter.) Fuji, for instance, is particularly well known for its 'false iso' which is why its 'exposure looks darker'.