I put together a couple of worst case clips to show the flickering on the scopes. On the X3, the noise is more uniform and can be somewhat tamed with noise reduction software. On the X5, there is no way that I know of to get rid of the changing exposure other than to crush the bottom 10 to 15% of the image.
Pulled the trigger on X5R
- Thread starter damoncooper
- Start date
I have noticed flickering as well with the X3 but have also found the anti flickering in effects in premier pro cc 2014 does a pretty decent job of eliminating the flickering effect
Awesome man! I love my Osmo i just pulled the trigger on the X5 i wish i could order the X5R $$$ lol so will do for now 
Last edited:
Basic video production, no film sets. Hopefully when it gets working with the OSMO will be a great ground/air setup.
if its compatible with the Osmo i will take out the Visa card lol
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2015
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 22
- Age
- 41
Both look pretty bad. I find that turning sharpness down to -3 helps get rid of the flickering. A simple solution would be if DJI increased the super low data rate of 60mbs at 4K. Excited to see the large quality jump when the X5R comes out.
Its not going to help much if they dont take care of the variable clocking occurring causing the iso hunting. There are some questionable design issues on the x5 and possible inadequate heat sinking of components. I hope DJI changes things up on the x5r cause I got one on the way. The x5 is just not going to cut it for me.
You appear to have more information about the problem than I do. Please share. This is the first I've heard of "variable clocking" and "iso hunting". I've seen DJI say something about a dynamic adjustment or similar that struck fear into my heart. I am close to reaching my limit on design and software issues. Anybody with a base level understanding of video wouldn't make the mistakes that haven't yet been fixed on the X5.
I am tearing one apart..... All the onboard IC chipsets have a clocking mechanism to them. If by chance DJI did not check that the mhz or khz rates where not compatible than what we are seeing is an error that cannot be fixed. They also failed to heat sink another key component.
For some reason I cant post pics up but you can find it on the other forum.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2015
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 22
- Age
- 41
Well that sucks.
Yeah I hope the X5R is a big change. It will be exciting when the first RAW sequences start coming in.
Dji should just team up with Sony. The a6300 is so incredible. If they could shrink wrap that into a small camera it would be incredible in the air.
The CinemaDNG recording on the R should bypass all this Tom-foolery. No Amberella, encoding or compression algorithms to get in the way. Just sensor->disk with some modest "if they scew this up it won't work at all" software to format CinemaDNG directory creation, handle meta data writes, etc.
You either get 30fps or you don't. Not much else they can screw up in that workflow.
But hey....[emoji6]
Last edited:
There is definitely something wrong with the clocking on the X3. I haven't tested the X5, yet. The audio and the video do sync up and the audio appears to be losing samples during the encoding which is causing sample mismatches and clicks. Also, the video drifts from a standard audio or video sync source. If the next firmware doesn't fix most of these issues, I'm unloadng my DJI equipment. I'm beginning to suspect that there is an issue with the hardware components as stated by burlbark. Maybe they will fix it with the X5R. If not, the X5R will have all of the same issues.
I'm OK if the proxy writes to SD card have exactly the same issues on the X5R as the X3 and X5 have actually.
The RAW write workflow bypasses all that crap, so there is almost no chance of it being affected by what ails the X3 and X5.
Last edited:
The 5D3 Magic lantern raw hack users reported having dropped frames, fluttering exposures, flicker among other issues in the beginning.
Obviously a horribly erroneous comparison, but the only one I can think of that would suggest that Raw video is not a fail proof form of capture.
Obviously a horribly erroneous comparison, but the only one I can think of that would suggest that Raw video is not a fail proof form of capture.
