- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 502
- Reaction score
- 182
X5 only 60mbps is this a big issue?
- Thread starter tdwragg
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 34
- Age
- 62
My friend at the Ocean Alliance (the SnotBot guy) has his hands on one of these, and is flying it tonight. Unfortunately, I can't go due to a PTO meeting. And unfortunately, he's taking it to Argentina on Friday to actually use it on actual whales. I guess that's the fortunate part, actually.
When they first announced the SnotBot project, DJI promised to give him two Inspires, but didn't follow through. Yuneec stepped up by giving him two of the lower-end drones, plus this high-end Tornado.
When he gets back, I will try to get a chance to fly it and report back here.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 41
- Age
- 65
I agree with you 100%. There has been no logic in the release of this lens with such a low bitrate.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 59
- Location
- Copenhagen - Denmark
- Website
- www.airflix.dk
X5 has same bitrate as a GoPro HERO4 Black. Gives you something to think about. Definitely should do better to stand out from the X3. Sure, it's a larger sensor, but we all not what it's like to grade 4K 60Mbps. I bet if it did 100Mbps many more would jump from X3 to X5.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2014
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 8
This would be a no brainer for me if it was 100mbs or more. But, I'll wait and see some actual files before I pass judgment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This site has an interesting comparison of CF and SD card write speeds on the Canon 5DS, which has a 50 megapixel sensor:
Canon 5Ds SD and CF Card Speed Comparison Fastest Write Speed Tests for EOS 5Ds 5Ds R Digital Cameras - Camera Memory Speed Comparison & Performance tests for SD and CF cards
The short take: the best CF cards get about 100MB/second, and the best SD cards get about 70MB/second.
Interesting to us: the "SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s microSDXC 64GB" card got 71.7 MB/second, and the 32GB version got 70.8MB.second. Note that these figures are in "megabytes per second", while the X5 encoding rate is 60 "megabits per second". In other words, the Sandisk MicroSD cards are capable of 560 megabits/second, or about 9 times the data rate of the X5 camera.
Even the lowly "Ultra" versions got 14.1MB/second and 13.7MB/second, or well over 100 megabits/second.
I am hoping that that X5 camera doesn't have a hardware limitation, either in the speed of the MicroSD card hardware, or in the CPU/processing power used to encode the video. Because, unlike I assumed early on, MicroSD is not fatal in this regard.
Canon 5Ds SD and CF Card Speed Comparison Fastest Write Speed Tests for EOS 5Ds 5Ds R Digital Cameras - Camera Memory Speed Comparison & Performance tests for SD and CF cards
The short take: the best CF cards get about 100MB/second, and the best SD cards get about 70MB/second.
Interesting to us: the "SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s microSDXC 64GB" card got 71.7 MB/second, and the 32GB version got 70.8MB.second. Note that these figures are in "megabytes per second", while the X5 encoding rate is 60 "megabits per second". In other words, the Sandisk MicroSD cards are capable of 560 megabits/second, or about 9 times the data rate of the X5 camera.
Even the lowly "Ultra" versions got 14.1MB/second and 13.7MB/second, or well over 100 megabits/second.
I am hoping that that X5 camera doesn't have a hardware limitation, either in the speed of the MicroSD card hardware, or in the CPU/processing power used to encode the video. Because, unlike I assumed early on, MicroSD is not fatal in this regard.
aujourd'hui, j'ai fait plusieurs test entre 60 et 100mbps avec ma camera Sony 4K AX100/ paysage et mire. . J'ai édité sur fcpx 10,2 et compressé en H264. il est presque impossible de voir la différence. J'ai regardé avec mon projecteur full HD sur un écran de 3 m! ...
je ne comprend pas bien les discussions..
J'ai commandé le X5 et je pourrai comparer sur le terrain, pas avec des suppositions. Mais pour moi, ce qui est important...c'est ce que je vois..
est ce que j'ai raison ?
traduction Google
Today, I made several test between 60 and 100mbps with my camera Sony 4K AX100 / landscape and sights. . I edited and compressed on FCPX 10.2 H264. it is almost impossible to see the difference. I watched with my full HD projector on a screen of 3 m! ...
I do not fully understand the discussions ..
I ordered the X5 and I can compare the field, not with suppositions. But for me, what is important ... that's what I see ..
Am I Right ?
Mr. Jeep is correct. I own Red Dragon cameras. I have been shooting high resolution motion pictures for quite some time, from 35mm film through the various HD formats to 6k anamorphic.
If it looks good it's good. Pixel nerds (industry term) can squawk all they want, but if it looks good, it's good. The footage I have seen from the x5 has been fantastic. Codec aside, the fact that you have f1.7 lens, with actual focus and a mechanical iris are enough to pay the price of admission.
Also, many of the woes of the x3 (and they mostly were pretty forgivable given what you could do with it) came from stuffing a jillion tiny pixels onto a postage stamp. The fact that the new chip is 8x bigger or whatever it is, means that everything is different. Fixating on one aspect of the camera (bit rate) and ignoring every thing else is silly.
I bought one right away. I'm sure I will be happy with it based on what I've seen and what I know about optics and cameras. If your shots are ruined by a low bit rate, your shots suck. Did anyone walk out of the theater in Fury Road because of the shots on 5D? Anyone? No? Because the shots were excellent. Make a shot worth shooting and no one is going to give a **** if there is a little compression artifact somewhere.
Just my opinion,
Nick
If it looks good it's good. Pixel nerds (industry term) can squawk all they want, but if it looks good, it's good. The footage I have seen from the x5 has been fantastic. Codec aside, the fact that you have f1.7 lens, with actual focus and a mechanical iris are enough to pay the price of admission.
Also, many of the woes of the x3 (and they mostly were pretty forgivable given what you could do with it) came from stuffing a jillion tiny pixels onto a postage stamp. The fact that the new chip is 8x bigger or whatever it is, means that everything is different. Fixating on one aspect of the camera (bit rate) and ignoring every thing else is silly.
I bought one right away. I'm sure I will be happy with it based on what I've seen and what I know about optics and cameras. If your shots are ruined by a low bit rate, your shots suck. Did anyone walk out of the theater in Fury Road because of the shots on 5D? Anyone? No? Because the shots were excellent. Make a shot worth shooting and no one is going to give a **** if there is a little compression artifact somewhere.
Just my opinion,
Nick
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Messages
- 273
- Reaction score
- 102
- Age
- 56
i think the big difference is when the camera is used on an aerial platform and all the pixels are moving at once. sure they look the same locked down, or on a slow pan, but start getting into 3 axis moves with detail, and i bet you would see a difference.
Definitely a valid point for sure. Pixel peeping/ spec speculating aside the real question is it going to be 4 times better than the X3 to justify the price? I guess we'll have to wait an see...
vous avez raison. Je serai heureux d'avoir une vraie caméra. On peux travailler vraiment en manuel.
Optique avec diaphragme mécanique..quel bonheur.
Un grand capteur... quel bonheur.
Juste cela, pour moi, justifie le prix.
peut être pas 8 fois mieux, mais mieux.. certainement..
traduction Google
you are right. I welcome avaoir a real camera. We really can work in manual.
Optical diaphragm mécanique..quel happiness.
A large sensor ... what happiness.
Just that, to me, justifies the price.
can not be 8 times better, but certainly better .. ..
Absolutely spot on!
Having been in the stills photography game for many years, there are so many people who turn their noses up at so called "toy" cameras and then feel smug when they shoot with their uber SLR and 30 lenses. In fact I had an argument with someone very recently about this very subject who was complaining that the wedding photog he had hired was shooting with a Canon 700D (a consumer SLR). I could see the the reason he was using that camera was weight and portability. The shots he got were excellent and of the quality I would expect from a pro.
The best analogy I've ever heard was one related to cooking.
When someone cooks you a lovely meal, you don't say to them "Wow, what a lovely meal, what oven did you use to cook it?" The oven - like the camera - does a job. It's the quality of the chef that matters. It's always the poor chefs who blame their ovens. The good chefs learn the limitations of their ovens and learn to work around them to cook the best meal possible. When the meal is eaten, no one gives a **** what oven it was cooked in because - like you say - if it's good, it's good.
I am not buying it. If you spend the time and effort to create a compelling scene, you want to capture all of it as perfectly as possible. You don't want to capture some of it sort of well.
And if you create a fantastic 13 stop MFT front-end, why cripple the back-end? 60Mbps is ridiculous. It's not enough. You have this giant imager generating tons of data and you're throwing most of it out. Obviously we need source footage to make a proper evaluation but the footage is indicative of low bit rate, poor gamma and compression.
As for the card limitation, I don't buy that either. Look at UHS-II. 250MB/s (2,000Mbps) write speed. A 64Gb card costs $129.
And if you create a fantastic 13 stop MFT front-end, why cripple the back-end? 60Mbps is ridiculous. It's not enough. You have this giant imager generating tons of data and you're throwing most of it out. Obviously we need source footage to make a proper evaluation but the footage is indicative of low bit rate, poor gamma and compression.
As for the card limitation, I don't buy that either. Look at UHS-II. 250MB/s (2,000Mbps) write speed. A 64Gb card costs $129.
I like the footage I've seen. I make moving pictures for a living. I am really excited to have a real iris and a real lens, and control over my shutter speed on a tiny 4k camera in the sky. I have cut inspire footage with Dragon footage. Nobody ever threw down their soda pop and screamed "Compression! Unclean Unclean!". They just said, "Wow, thats a great shot." You also have to keep in mind, where are people going to see this footage? Cable TV? Compressed as hell, looks like death. On the interwebs? Well then you've got youtube and vimeo compression.....Maybe you are making a movie for theatrical release (if so it's unlikely you'd be using this particular rig), Ok, 99% of theaters are project in 2k. Most realistic high demand scenario is you shoot a reality show for a network or golf, or a PBS thing, and you can pull it out of the air in glorious uncompressed HD. It's still downsampled to 1080. So yeah, I think it's gonna be fine. At least it is for me. If you want to hate on a camera thats not out yet, be my guest.
Nick
Nick
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 41
- Age
- 65
What a brilliant analogy. True what Nick was saying though. I think there is a real danger of pixel peeping. One of the problems is the PC monitor, probably 99% of people viewing the footage from the X5 are doing so on a computer screen, no more than 20" or 24" distance. Plus the fact that we are all watching for the contentious compression artifacts. I watched several of the X5 released promo vids on our HD TV last night, and it's a cracker of a picture, one of the hi-end Philips screens and the images shot with the X5 were stunning. I really couldn't see any of the compression that I have been so diligently viewing over and over again for the past week! However, as I have mentioned on the DJI forums, I do believe that DJI have missed a massive opportunity here. They could release, and I say could, release a real game changer of a camera, I mean a stunning game changer, something we have all been waiting for. However, if the camera is released with the 60Mbps bitrate then they have missed this opportunity and I believe it will be great shame. Sure, we all know there is the X5R, but that is something different, that is a camera that can produce 4K RAW video, that is something special.
As professional cinematographers, many of us don't actually need or aspire to shoot 4K RAW material. Many of us make a good living shooting corporates and TV inserts. So an X5 with a pretty decent bitrate would really be the dog's bollocks! It would be the icing on the cake, potentially the crème de la crème of aerial cameras. It could be as good as, or better than, the GH4. I am preying that DJI will take on board all the feedback that is so prevalent around the forums at the moment, delay the release of the X5 and deliver the camera that really will take everyone's breath away, rather than everyone hearing the sound of a few enthusiastic sighs.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 502
- Reaction score
- 182
actually here in china its abit different. Being a Nikon sponsored I get quite abit of free equipment. And I shoot automotive commercial for a living. I ever had a client telling me that no matter how good DSLR is. It wont be as good as the big medium format cameras. And they always assign a 39MP h45 for the shoot. And being car commercials, and client requirements the actual image after cropping is around 15-20mp. Due to landscape. Vs d810, after cropping which is around 30mp. And clients all over china stil say the bigger the camera the better it is.
One final note, and I'll shut up, if you are shooting at a 1/48th shutter, as you should to cut with any other 24fps footage, all that superfine detail in the grass that you see in the inspire because there is no iris, so you are shooting at some stupid shutter speed, is now all gone due to motion blur. Shooting on a real lens with manageable shutter speed is going to solve a lot of problems.
