Great demo of X5 bitrate
- Thread starter howard rockliffe
- Start date
0:52 rolling shutter or compression jump, middle of the field.
1:03 compression jump, water edge.
1:20 compression jump, cliff edge.
1:48 compression jump, waves.
All X5. You can say all the bad stuff you want about Youtube but it doesn't do that.
And even more odd: if this were a blind taste test, I'd chose the X3 over the X5.
1:03 compression jump, water edge.
1:20 compression jump, cliff edge.
1:48 compression jump, waves.
All X5. You can say all the bad stuff you want about Youtube but it doesn't do that.
And even more odd: if this were a blind taste test, I'd chose the X3 over the X5.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 37
- Age
- 66
Well Ian, I'm not trying to contradict your findings, but I haven't seen anything you describe, nothing, and I've played the sections over and over again. As for all the talk on this thread about the X3 being better... I'm a little at a loss. These two samples have been taken straight from the camera. The settings on the X3 have always been criticised for being oversharpened and processed. The X5 clearly has none of that processing to that degree, which of course is good. So to suggest that one camera's pictures is preferable to another, when neither have had any grading on them is unfair. What clearly can be seen in my eyes, which can be compared from camera to camera is the compressed artifacts. These can clearly be seen in the sand with the X3 and not so with the X5.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 19
- Age
- 37
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
- Website
- www.skylab-imaging.com
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2015
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 22
- Age
- 41
Thanks for the grade! Though it did make the compression flickering of the ponds really noticeable.
I am surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the X3 has an unsharp mask (sharpening filter) processing on all of the footage. The X5 does not. People assume the X3 is better because it looks sharper and has greater contrast out of the box, but you don't want that baked into your footage. That being said I love my X3, but I am taking my new X5 out today and will shoot some resolution charts so we can compare apples to apples. Fact is the X3 is fantastic, especially when you reduce the 4k to 1080p, a lot of that sharpening dithers down nicely, but if you try and use that 4k to enlarge the image inside of 1080p the sharpening becomes too pronounced. Also the X5 because of the sensor has a narrower focal plane so you need to watch your focus, not an option for the X3. I really think for serious grading when you have a extremely discerning eye, the X5r's extra bit depth, will make a huge difference in retrieving detail in the color grading process.
It's a little tough to look at a YouTube video and judge compression artifacts from a 60 Mbps camera. I'd expect the video was compressed down ttwice since being recorded and is likely being viewed at less than 3 Mbps on YT (if 1080). I think aerial video may just be one area where a smaller sensor makes sense, especially if you work as a single op. Keeping an m43 sensor in focus and sharp requires a lot more thought about aperture derived image softness as well as correct focal distance so choosing the correct aperture / shutter speed settings cam make or break a shot. The little X3 is very forgiving in that regard.
Some of these X5 tests have been done at f2.8 for direct comparison to the X3. You won't find many landscape guys shooting at that end of the aperture range because the images will likely be soft as can be seen in most of the X5 demos shared so far.
Some of these X5 tests have been done at f2.8 for direct comparison to the X3. You won't find many landscape guys shooting at that end of the aperture range because the images will likely be soft as can be seen in most of the X5 demos shared so far.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2015
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 22
- Age
- 41
The X5 is a small improvement over the X3 but for $2300 it still looks "videoish".
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- South West UK
- Website
- www.icebox-media.co.uk
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 37
- Age
- 66
Hi Dave, hope you're well. Yup, I've done the dirty deed. It should be with me on Tuesday from Heliguy. I've spent far too many weeks doing nothing other than pixel peep! In the end I looked at some of the better footage and was completely objective and honest about things and decided there is a significant improvement in may areas for me to justify the purchase. I have to look at not just the video quality but also many other areas too. The stills capture is a big factor for me. The MFT sensor and higher pixel count will be a big bonus for architectural work: something I've been holding back on because I couldn't justify offering stills to clients with the current X3. Sure, I'll agree there are better cameras, but I think it's important to look at the whole package and not just one aspect. The ease of use with the app works brilliantly, the video downlink has been, 99% of the time, interference free over long distances. Many other things I love about the Inspire too. A major deciding factor has been the need for redundancy. Running a commercial business, only having one platform is not a good idea, so having two Inspires will offer us that extra bit of insurance that we have been missing.
On a different topic, do you offer post production? If so, how are your editing skills? I'm working on something big at the moment, not a production. Maybe you'd like to call for a chat sometime? Or I'll give you a shout in the week. BTW, do you now Alan Britten?
Would somebody who has an X5 please post up at least some PNG or TIFF screen grabs of the original footage to a sharing site so we don't have to be relying on sites like YouTube to try and judge compression issues? Or maybe upload a couple of seconds of original footage, preferably transcoded to something like ProRes so that it hasn't had to be recompressed into MP4 or equivalent?
We cannot tell a thing from YouTube footage.
We cannot tell a thing from YouTube footage.
OK, a quick screen grab from X5 footage (Shot on DJI 15mm lens in MF at f/8 1/120 sec with 0.9 ND B+W filter in D-Log and Custom Style at -1, -1, -1. PNG taken off MBP.
Note: the PNG is 8.4 MB. Image is very soft, but that's because of D-Log and style settings. Notice that shadows are fairly open and DR is much better than X3 could handle. Also pretty windy conditions.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- South West UK
- Website
- www.icebox-media.co.uk
Hi Howard
I will be interest to know how you get on with the X5, it's certainly a ground breaker in this industry and saves having to consider the S900 and all the paperwork that will be required to operate it, I'm considering getting one ready for when I get my PFAW.
Would love to see a X5/X5R comparison.
Regarding editing yes I am interested.
Alan Britton yes I do know him, my brother used to gig with him, the last I heard that life was not too good.
I'll give you call soon.
Regards David
- Joined
- May 26, 2015
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 4
- Age
- 71
- Location
- Longview, TX
- Website
- www.encoremultimedia.com
Mani, your video is a good comparison. I agree, the X5 footage looks out of focus. But even if it was in focus, to my eye, the video of the cliffs from the X3 looks as good or better than the footage from the X5. On the sunset shot, where the sun is still above the horizon, the X5 looks much better than the X3 but on the last sunset shot, the X3 looks fine. It would have been nice to know what settings they used and if there was any post grading done.
Howard, sorry, I'm just not seeing that much better look from the X5 on the car racing video and I looked at it in 1440. I've done a shot several times where I fly fast, just a couple of feet above a large, grassy field then quickly lifted skyward and the footage from my X3 looks fine. Here in Texas where the days are often very bright sunlight, I must set the shutter speed higher than I'd like just to get a useable shot so maybe that has something to do with it but I have not had bad problems with compression artifacts. Most of the time I'm moving pretty slowly with the Inspire so the video looks great out of the X3.
Here's what it comes down to for our company. If our competition gets an Inspire 1 with an X3 camera and starts bragging about how they can do what we do with aerial footage, cheaper, my boss may want to jump right to the Inspire Pro with the X5r, just so we can say we have better gear than they do, along with our extensive experience. That way we can justify charging more for our video and help pay for the more expensive aircraft/camera/gimbal. But until that happens, I've recommended to my boss that we stay with the X3 and he loves NOT spending money so, he's happy with me right now!
Howard, sorry, I'm just not seeing that much better look from the X5 on the car racing video and I looked at it in 1440. I've done a shot several times where I fly fast, just a couple of feet above a large, grassy field then quickly lifted skyward and the footage from my X3 looks fine. Here in Texas where the days are often very bright sunlight, I must set the shutter speed higher than I'd like just to get a useable shot so maybe that has something to do with it but I have not had bad problems with compression artifacts. Most of the time I'm moving pretty slowly with the Inspire so the video looks great out of the X3.
Here's what it comes down to for our company. If our competition gets an Inspire 1 with an X3 camera and starts bragging about how they can do what we do with aerial footage, cheaper, my boss may want to jump right to the Inspire Pro with the X5r, just so we can say we have better gear than they do, along with our extensive experience. That way we can justify charging more for our video and help pay for the more expensive aircraft/camera/gimbal. But until that happens, I've recommended to my boss that we stay with the X3 and he loves NOT spending money so, he's happy with me right now!
To my eyes it looks as if DJI has crippled the camera, perhaps to let the raw version shine more.
A 16mp mft in 2015 camera in this pricerange should be able to preform better than this.
Shame on you DJI if you did this on purpose.
Perhaps it could be fixed if they fitted the camera with a better codec.
A 16mp mft in 2015 camera in this pricerange should be able to preform better than this.
Shame on you DJI if you did this on purpose.
Perhaps it could be fixed if they fitted the camera with a better codec.
Last edited:
Bit rates from short files.. static image .. PAL..
(ignore UHD label.. as following DJI manual which is wrong way round)
(ignore UHD label.. as following DJI manual which is wrong way round)
Compared to what? Are you running a Red on a Skyjib? The Pro/X5 isn't a Bugatti Veyron, but it's not a VW Golf either (no offense to VW
). So how about some perspective? What is the end market you are aiming for? Unless it's feature films the X5 can stand up to and compete with many other rigs in its weight class.It's not just about pixel peeping, but whether the footage is imaginative, creative, interesting, and attention grabbing. I think Schumacher's work is excellent and the above videos would satisfy a great many clients. Just my humble opinion, and I'm happy with my Pro/X5
