5.4mm at medium FOV no post stabilization

Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
934
Reaction score
271
Age
59
Location
Naples, FL
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
.

No post work with this. Just a raw video using a 16 filter. probably could have used a 32. I was much further away from what was being filmed then you think. With some post stabilization I think the left and right jitter from the wind can be removed. Most impressive, to me any way, was how the filter handled the sudden pitching up and down. Again this is with a 5.4mm lens at medium FOV which gives a very good zoom factor. It was 2.7k 60fps and scaled down to 1080.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RichWest
Cool, thanks for the share. I have to get a non distortion lens, been eyeballing the 5.4mm for a year, so this was great to see.

Is this done from a stock gimbal setup, any mods to reduce vibes?
 
Stock gimbal with no mods. The filter most certainly made the rapid gimbal pitch up and down smooth. I personally think the 3.97 is a better all purpose rectilinear lens. My laptop with Adobe Premier to stabilize the video has been acting up lately. Waiting till after Christmas sales to get a I7 16GB RAM computer with a 4K screen. I was a little embarrassed to put up a non stabilized video like I did. However, I think it showed what filters can do to slow down the shutter speed and smooth out yawing and sudden pitch movements on the gimbal. a 5.4mm lens set on medium FOV is very telephoto lens like. I have Peau 3.37, 3.97 and 5.4 equipped H4B's. All these lens are a little soft around the edges. Not so noticeable in video but in still photos you need to crop a little to remove the not so sharp stuff. Thanks.
 
I was a little embarrassed to put up a non stabilized video like I did.
Why, I do it all the time....;)

I've been researching the lens options, 5.4mm is rare around Solo, so it was great you posted up a vid. It does appear the 3.97mm is the default choice. It really depends on what is the application. Just can't pull the trigger unless I can test drive myself.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
.

Rich, here is the whole test with the 5.4. Starts out with wide FOV for first 2 minutes then medium FOV for the next 2 and back to wide till the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RichWest
Thanks for detailing. It's cool we can change the FOV on the fly to provide such an example. Almost like having a selectable zoom lens.
 
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>.

Revisting the 5.4 at wide FOV. 1/120 shutter, ISO 400. Under exposed by a stop for sure. Ran it through Gopro Studio and saved it as an AVI. Then ran it through Adobe Premier 18 with very minimal anti flicker and stabilization. I was using a ND16PL filter and knew on the ground, because of the video appeared darker than normal, that I should have reduced the filter. So this is an ISO of 400 for sure. Raised the exposure up in post but you still loose a lot of details in the darker areas or shadows. Altitude was 150 feet although it appears closer with the 5.4 lens. Came out pretty smooth. A filter of 8 or 4 should have been used due to the high clouds filtering the sun.
 
Last edited:
Really nice David.

I got a chance to fly yesterday (kitchen pass) to bleed off some batteries after a calibration charging. Fairly bright day with a few thin clouds. I decided to set the camera WB to native and PT to flat. Used Wooskie and Erik's recommendation of adjusting down EV to -1.0 and then -0.5. The post editing results were interesting, -1.0EV was too much in my comparison at this point, even with no filter. Like you said, in FPV you could tell everything was much darker. Even so, brightening the image is way better than reducing over exposure in post.

Anyway, just sharing my thoughts. I had believed that by using these settings I would spend hours upon hours editing. It was no more than normal and the results were closer to what I had hoped from the camera. I'll continue to play with the settings and post editing efforts, but thought it was worth mentioning since we both fly in ultra-bright conditions.
 
Brightening a little is better, but way under exposed you can't get definition in the darker areas of any thing. With the locked shutter and a ISO of 400 max I should have used a 8 or 4 filter and then the ISO would fluctuate for a proper exposure. At least I think that's how it works. I did feel the video was very smooth but, as usual with all the Peau lens I have, very soft around the edges. It was shot in 2.7 so a little cropping would not effect anything much . I love using the Peau filters because they are also polarizing filters.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,096
Messages
147,751
Members
16,066
Latest member
apicasso