December 1 on the California Central Coast

BTw, how good are the 48MP images of your drone?

I'm guessing that perhaps they are not very sharp if viewed at
100%. How about the dynamic range - is that a limiting factor
and when?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Dec 6, 2020, Alfred Molon wrote
(in s.net):

BTw, how good are the 48MP images of your drone?

The MA2 has a ½ inch sensor with all the limitations that brings. So with that to consider, and understanding that it is not an M4/3, APS-C, or FF camera, with thoughtful ISO, and exposure setting selection the stills results are acceptable for most social media sharing purposes. However, the 12 MP images are not too bad.
These are 48 MP examples:
https://photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work/i-CKSbqP4/0/129f7df5/O/DJI_0098e.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work/i-XtJcPFD/0/8083e6b5/O/DJI_0083.jpg

....and this is a 12MP shot:
https://photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work/i-RD2tW5X/0/22b47e32/O/DJI_0041e.jpg


I'm guessing that perhaps they are not very sharp if viewed at
100%.

If you are going to pixel peep, they are not going to stand up to the scrutiny that you might subject an M4/3, APS-C, or FF image to.

How about the dynamic range - is that a limiting factor
and when?

In good light, with average contrast it is acceptable. Once the light is such that you have deep shadows the ½ inch sensor has a big drop off in performance when compared with the 1 inch sensor on the much more expensive Mavic 2 Pro. However, the enhanced image option produces surprisingly good dynamic range images. Then there is always the option of shooting an exposure bracket to use for HDR processing.

This is what the enhanced 48 MP image can look when a solution for questionable light is needed.
https://photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work/i-mDgKhpT/1/feabfdb5/O/DJI_0014E2.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article
.com,
says...

The MA2 has a ? inch sensor with all the limitations that brings. So with that to consider, and understanding that it is not an M4/3, APS-C, or FF camera, with thoughtful ISO, and exposure setting selection the stills results are acceptable for most social media sharing purposes. However, the 12 MP images are not too bad.
These are 48 MP examples:
https://photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work/i-CKSbqP4/0/129f7df5/O/DJI_0098e.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work/i-XtJcPFD/0/8083e6b5/O/DJI_0083.jpg

Thanks. Have you checked if the sharpness improves with RAW
processing?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Dec 6, 2020, Alfred Molon wrote
(in s.net):

In article
.com,
says...

The MA2 has a ? inch sensor with all the limitations that brings. So with that to consider, and understanding that it is not an M4/3, APS-C, or FF camera, with thoughtful ISO, and exposure setting selection the stills results are acceptable for most social media sharing purposes. However, the 12 MP images are not too bad.
These are 48 MP examples:
https://photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work/i-CKSbqP4/0/129f7df5/O/DJI_0098e.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work/i-XtJcPFD/0/8083e6b5/O/DJI_0083.jpg

Thanks. Have you checked if the sharpness improves with RAW
processing?

Both of those were processed from RAW (DNG) originals using Lightroom Classic, some sharpening, and noise reduction was applied to both.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Dec 8, 2020 at 5:21:02 AM PST, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Friday, 4 December 2020 at 14:29:43 UTC, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 4, 2020 at 5:50:49 AM PST, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 December 2020 at 14:16:35 UTC, Savageduck wrote:



As to the size, all I can say is I am sharing a full resolution link to a
3840x2160, 60 fps, 3.76 GB MP4, SmugMug file, intended for simple
viewing in
a browser, rather than a download.

well it opens up in firefox as a 640X360 image in a full broweser window,
but
chrome opens it us to full broswer window with reduced quality.
You may well be posting it at full quality but maybe viewers aren;t seeing
it in it's full uncompressed glory.
Then that is an issue local to the viewer which I am not experiencing, and
which I have no control over.

Of course, but the local viewer should be aware that it records in a higher
quality thatn what they might be seeing.
Otherwise it could put them off buying a decent drone and go for one of
lesser one image quality.

I'm still wondering whether it's smugmug not allowibng 'transmiting' higher
quality due to bandwidth or
our local ISP not 'recieving' it.

To take SmugMug out of the equation here is a share of what should be a
3840x2160 4.13GB MP4 file via iCloud.

So if you care to try a 4.13GB download...
https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0_lO4mTPmwq1mtumPM-1HsWzw#MB_SailChase-e
--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 08/12/2020 16:10, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 8, 2020 at 5:21:02 AM PST, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Friday, 4 December 2020 at 14:29:43 UTC, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 4, 2020 at 5:50:49 AM PST, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 December 2020 at 14:16:35 UTC, Savageduck wrote:



As to the size, all I can say is I am sharing a full resolution link to a
3840x2160, 60 fps, 3.76 GB MP4, SmugMug file, intended for simple
viewing in
a browser, rather than a download.

well it opens up in firefox as a 640X360 image in a full broweser window,
but
chrome opens it us to full broswer window with reduced quality.
You may well be posting it at full quality but maybe viewers aren;t seeing
it in it's full uncompressed glory.
Then that is an issue local to the viewer which I am not experiencing, and
which I have no control over.

Of course, but the local viewer should be aware that it records in a higher
quality thatn what they might be seeing.
Otherwise it could put them off buying a decent drone and go for one of
lesser one image quality.

I'm still wondering whether it's smugmug not allowibng 'transmiting' higher
quality due to bandwidth or
our local ISP not 'recieving' it.

To take SmugMug out of the equation here is a share of what should be a
3840x2160 4.13GB MP4 file via iCloud.

So if you care to try a 4.13GB download...
https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0_lO4mTPmwq1mtumPM-1HsWzw#MB_SailChase-e

You may be justifiably proud of your achievement after just a few short
weeks of practice. You've already seen for yourself that you must take
your 360 degree turns much more slowly so that folk viewing can keep the
image in focus. Overall I'll score you 9/10! :-D

Thank you for letting me share.

--
David

On Dec 10, 2020, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Tuesday, 8 December 2020 at 16:10:47 UTC, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 8, 2020 at 5:21:02 AM PST, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Friday, 4 December 2020 at 14:29:43 UTC, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 4, 2020 at 5:50:49 AM PST, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:
On Thursday, 3 December 2020 at 14:16:35 UTC, Savageduck wrote:


As to the size, all I can say is I am sharing a full resolution link to a
3840x2160, 60 fps, 3.76 GB MP4, SmugMug file, intended for simple
viewing in
a browser, rather than a download.

well it opens up in firefox as a 640X360 image in a full broweser window,
but
chrome opens it us to full broswer window with reduced quality.
You may well be posting it at full quality but maybe viewers aren;t seeing
it in it's full uncompressed glory.
Then that is an issue local to the viewer which I am not experiencing, and
which I have no control over.

Of course, but the local viewer should be aware that it records in a higher
quality thatn what they might be seeing.
Otherwise it could put them off buying a decent drone and go for one of
lesser one image quality.

I'm still wondering whether it's smugmug not allowibng 'transmiting' higher
quality due to bandwidth or
our local ISP not 'recieving' it.
To take SmugMug out of the equation here is a share of what should be a
3840x2160 4.13GB MP4 file via iCloud.

So if you care to try a 4.13GB download...
https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0_lO4mTPmwq1mtumPM-1HsWzw#MB_SailChase-e
--
Regards,
Savageduck

Cheers, yes I've tried it at full screen and smaller sizes but the jitters / pauses quite a lot, this could be due to
it's age OS Sierra 10.12.6 iMac (27-inch, Mid 2011) 2.7GHz i5 with 24GB ram AMD Radeon HD 6770M 512 MB.
with a Hard disc. Using QT player.

That sounds more like a bandwidth issue rather than a problem with that particular iMac. Also, accessing that file from the iCloud link with an iMac will usually open wit QT player rather than via web browser. With QT player viewing at full screen is a simple option from the view menu.


The image quality is very good though , will try it out tonight on my home iMac with SSD.

The thing was to see that you got the file at native resolution rather than what SmugMug was delivering at your end. The important thing is, that you were able to access the iCloud version.

--
Regards,
Savageduck