Are these straight OOC JPEGs? If yes, that is pretty much the best you are going to get. If you want better overall quality and better sharpness and clarity you need to start shooting DNG and get a decent software i.e. Lightroom and/or Photoshop and start using all the tools available when "developing the raw files" in order to extract the most detail, to get the best tonal range and color this camera and lens is capable of. Given the original files are well focused, well exposed and then during processing all parameters optimally set in LR5, the IQ of the final photos should be better than your samples. Do not expect quality equal to FF DSLR though?. Here is a sample processed in LR to my liking. Shot with X5S and Oly 12mm lens, DNGfolks, I have 2 X5S cameras and I think they both take blurry pics. I have the 15mm lens on now. I have tried focusing in both manual and auto but they still don't seem that clear.
Any tips on focus calibration?
Thanks,
BrentView attachment 26437View attachment 26438View attachment 26439
Nice job on the post. Excellent. I really like the saturation.Are these straight OOC JPEGs? If yes, that is pretty much the best you are going to get. If you want better overall quality and better sharpness and clarity you need to start shooting DNG and get a decent software i.e. Lightroom and/or Photoshop and start using all the tools available when "developing the raw files" in order to extract the most detail, to get the best tonal range and color this camera and lens is capable of. Given the original files are well focused, well exposed and then during processing all parameters optimally set in LR5, the IQ of the final photos should be better than your samples. Do not expect quality equal to FF DSLR though?. Here is a sample shot as DNG and processed in LR to my liking. Shot with X5S and Oly 12mm lensView attachment 26441
Nice job on the post. Excellent. I really like the saturation.
Let us know how you go. If you have DNG version of any of the posted samples I'd be happy to process it to my liking and post it back.Thank you for the advice. I will try your suggestions tonight
Feel free to send me DNG via private message or better still a link to Dropbox so I can download themI will put three jpegs on here and I will send you the dng's
thank you and I am always willing to learn more about post. I have very limited experience.
Check out my youtube stuff under SkyEye Imagery llc
There is not much one can do with JPEGs. JPEG is a reasonably good final format for publishing or sharing not so much for editing. JPEGs deteriorate fairly quickly once you start applying adjustments.
Yes, they have arrived. A few quick observarions.did 9, 10, and 15 arrive?
Comparing mmarian's processed files which look sharp to the unprocessed jpegs of Brent's there is not much difference in clarity between them when I bring a section of any part of the frame to full screen using a Mac to enlarge the screen - looking for possible depth of field issues where maybe a part of the photo is sharp somewhere - but overall couldn't really see anything in true sharp definition. On the other hand, without blowing them up the processed files look much sharper with mmarian's additional LightRoom processing - naturally that's usually the case utilizing LR or shooting DNG, Raw etc and adding color grading including sharpness back in. However, shooting from a bouncing gimbal making over 2000 mathematical adjustments per second to combat I2's flight turbulence, at 1/30th of a second seems odd to me - it's too slow I would venture to say, seeing these results. Until the introduction of stabilization in camera lenses and bodies, currently like the mirrorless Panasonic GH5 and Leica Nocticron I tend to use where the shutter speed can really be brought down to slow speeds and still get rock-solid exposures, I would think you'd want to test shooting at 125th or higher to avoid motion blur between the gimbal, camera, sky, reflections and refractions of light from the heavenliness. Don't you love shooting from the sky though!!!!! I can't believe we get to shoot aerials!!!!! here's a screen shot from an 4K H.264 video with the X5s from the microsd card - from April 2019. don't remember the settings but usually shoot around 5.6 and double the frame rate so maybe 120th of a second shutter. I haven't taken many stills yet as you have to stop shooting video and then switch to camera etc. So this is just a screen grab off my computer playing back the I2 .mov. The second shot of the same house was a few weeks earlier, also from a video. Notice the difference in the depth of field - the foreground street is sharp and the house is beyond the depth of field so it's out totally. We have some control of this naturally by adjusting the aperture for more or less dof, or moving closer/further away to the subject, or switching to different focal lenses with different ranges of depths of field, etc. Remember, closing the lens down to a smaller aperture gives more dof, and more apparent sharpness up until you approach the end of the range. At f 11 you have more dof than wide open at 2.8, but f 16 or 22 on many lenses sometimes isn't the sweet spot of the lens - they tend to stay sharpest up until 1 or 2 f stops from the smallest f stop (which is the largest number like 16 or 22. f16 or f22 as opposed to 2.8 aka f2.8)Copy.
I can shoot more tomorrow at those settings
There is a thing called lens difraction. On MFT lenses it usually starts to negatively impact IQ at around f5.6 and resolution starts to noticeable deteriorate from f8. At f16 or f22 the images are visibly soft and blured due to difraction. The sweet spot for highest resolving power is usually when a lens is stopped down about 2 stops from fully opened.Comparing mmarian's processed files which look sharp to the unprocessed jpegs of Brent's there is not much difference in clarity between them when I bring a section of any part of the frame to full screen using a Mac to enlarge the screen - looking for possible depth of field issues where maybe a part of the photo is sharp somewhere - but overall couldn't really see anything in true sharp definition. On the other hand, without blowing them up the processed files look much sharper with mmarian's additional LightRoom processing - naturally that's usually the case utilizing LR or shooting DNG, Raw etc and adding color grading including sharpness back in. However, shooting from a bouncing gimbal making over 2000 mathematical adjustments per second to combat I2's flight turbulence, at 1/30th of a second seems odd to me - it's too slow I would venture to say, seeing these results. Until the introduction of stabilization in camera lenses and bodies, currently like the mirrorless Panasonic GH5 and Leica Nocticron I tend to use where the shutter speed can really be brought down to slow speeds and still get rock-solid exposures, I would think you'd want to test shooting at 125th or higher to avoid motion blur between the gimbal, camera, sky, reflections and refractions of light from the heavenliness. Don't you love shooting from the sky though!!!!! I can't believe we get to shoot aerials!!!!! here's a screen shot from an 4K H.264 video with the X5s from the microsd card - from April 2019. don't remember the settings but usually shoot around 5.6 and double the frame rate so maybe 120th of a second shutter. I haven't taken many stills yet as you have to stop shooting video and then switch to camera etc. So this is just a screen grab off my computer playing back the I2 .mov. The second shot of the same house was a few weeks earlier, also from a video. Notice the difference in the depth of field - the foreground street is sharp and the house is beyond the depth of field so it's out totally. We have some control of this naturally by adjusting the aperture for more or less dof, or moving closer/further away to the subject, or switching to different focal lenses with different ranges of depths of field, etc. Remember, closing the lens down to a smaller aperture gives more dof, and more apparent sharpness up until you approach the end of the range. At f 11 you have more dof than wide open at 2.8, but f 16 or 22 on many lenses sometimes isn't the sweet spot of the lens - they tend to stay sharpest up until 1 or 2 f stops from the smallest f stop (which is the largest number like 16 or 22. f16 or f22 as opposed to 2.8 aka f2.8)
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.