DJI Inspire 1, What's the Verdict?

[econfly]

@econfy that is $159 for the 4500mAh lipos and $199 for the 5700mAh lipos. That is not that much in my opinion after paying over $400 for lipos for my S900 that can only get close to the Inspire lipo performance. It is all relative.

I agree about the prices being relatively affordable -- a nice feature of a much lighter craft is the savings in battery cost. By the way, I paid $169 at allerc.com and that is their list price now. Have you tried the 5700 mAh yet?

 

[Quinton]

Posted this at the other place, but too much info goes by very quickly over there, and a lot of waffle about nothing actually to do with the Inspire, so will post it here too for anyone who uses Adobe premiere..

Anyone using the 4K footage from the Inspire in Adobe Premiere Pro?
I was playing around a lot with it this week, and when importing the 4K footage into a 1080p sequence, it seems to be that the image produced in the 1080 video when zoomed @ 100% seemed to be actually exactly the same as a 4K export zoomed @ 200%, in other words not great quality.
I thought the whole point of shooting 4k was to be able to pan/zoom in closer and get better end results on a 1080 sequence?
Anyone got info on the best settings to use 4K on a 1080 timeline?

 

[SleepyC]

It depends on the bit rate of the 4K... and I think it's pretty low, much like the GoPro...

 

[sk8brd]

don't want to get in a gopro vs inspire debate.. but..bloom just said the same thing as some of us been saying all along that he prefers gopro/protune setup- ironic considering he did the promo for dji...inspire image is over sharpened and you cant do anything about it. protune is cleaner and more flexible when it comes to sharpening., inspire image is noiser and has all the issues that come along with a over sharpened image like moire, artifacts etc.. cant run anything under 0 sharpness or its mush and does not respond to sharpening in post like protune will.. protune is more flexible but then you got to deal with distortion no manual control etc.. in the end were talking gopro quality- if thats good enough for you then inspire may fit your needs. feature wise inspire is cool, hd downlink is nice , ios interface etc..for some thats all thats needed wrapped up in a nice package. depends on your needs. its a nice rig for sure with the micro 4/3 sensor partnership it can only get better


anyways quinton- right click on footage in 1080p timeline and hit scale to frame. your probably working off a zoomed image.it does it by default for some reason on macs with premiere. my buddy said on windows it doesn't i guess-- i don't know but for my 1080 stuff even when using 4k 2k etc...you need to hit scale to frame or your working off an already cropped in image so its like zooming in from 1080 on a 1080p image if that makes sense. just right click overfootage in timeline and click scale to frame-it should zoom out and look original but be in 1080p timeline.

 

[Quinton]

anyways quinton- right click on footage in 1080p timeline and hit scale to frame. your probably working off a zoomed image.it does it by default for some reason on macs with premiere. my buddy said on windows it doesn't i guess-- i don't know but for my 1080 stuff even when using 4k 2k etc...you need to hit scale to frame or your working off an already cropped in image so its like zooming in from 1080 on a 1080p image if that makes sense. just right click overfootage in timeline and click scale to frame-it should zoom out and look original but be in 1080p timeline.

Thats the one, now its working properly, thanks.
When I did not right click the footage and scale to frame I was really working from a motion> scale of 28 to fit the frame which was like zooming in 3 times when @100 so was basically zoomed in 200%
Now I start at 58 which gives me almost twice to work with (if that makes sense).
Should also start shooting in the 16:9 4K ratio.

 

[sk8brd]

cool glad it worked out for ya

 

[Quinton]

Ok got this scaling thing sorted, however I have came to the conclusion that zooming in at all on the 4k footage degrades it quite a bit, so don't see a lot of benefit shooting in 4K.
I know people will say oh well it gives you the option of framing etc, but if the footage starts to degrade so quickly if adding even a small amount of scaling then I do not see the point, unless I am not doing something right, which I believe I am.
Surely it should not degrade so quickly as in theory I should be able to scale in twice without degrading, but this does not seem to be the case.
If anyone can show me a video of the Inspire with 4k on a 1080 timeline zoomed in 2x with the same quality as 1080 footage on a 1080 timeline, I would love to see it.

 

[econfly]

It just won't work with the 4K out of the Inspire. I'm still playing around with this, but so far I think the Inspire 4K scaled down to 1080p is better than the 1080p straight from the Inspire (most likely because the per-frame bitrate is higher). Other than that, I don't see the point of 4K. We would be better off with higher bitrate 1080p.

The only setup I personally have tried that makes 4K truly useful for zoom/scan editing -- i.e., where you can zoom in to a 1080p section of the frame and like what you see -- is when I record with the GH4 straight to an Atomos Shogun. But that is giving me 880 Mbits/sec of 10 bit 4:2:2. The 4K out of the Inspire is 60 Mbits/sec of 4:2:0. Hell of a difference in the data and capture quality. Personally, I don't even like the GH4's 4K as it is internally recorded.

Broadly speaking, I think 4K is a gimmick as much as the megapixel wars were years ago in small cameras. Unless you have a large sensor and high bitrate recording there just isn't much point. Even 1080p (I say "even" -- 1080p is pretty amazing) is poorly recorded on most cameras.

My favorite camera to fly for high quality video is the blackmagic pocket cinema (BMPCC) and the reason is that it produces amazingly clean 1080p encoded in Apple ProRes HQ (220 Mbit/sec 4:2:2). Compare that to the Inspire 4K at 60 Mbits/sec. It's almost 4 times as much data over 1/4 the number of pixels -- nearly 16 times as much data at the pixel level (and from a much bigger sensor with much better glass).

I like the Inspire, but you just have to know its limitations. It's GoPro quality, less the protune, but without the fisheye. That's nice for a lot of stuff. The 4K is a bit of a gimmick, and I wish they had delivered 60 Mbits/sec of 1080p 30 instead. I wish they offered a protune-like output option as well (there is "log" output, which I use, but the sharpening is still there). Some of this can be done in firmware, and hopefully it will be done.

The Inspire is the best thing on the market right now if you want convenience and an amazing feature set for a reasonable price. I really like it for what it is.

 

[Quinton]

Hopefully they will come up with something better in the future, but I agree it is a pleasure so far using the Inspire, as its so easy and quick just to get up in the air.
It woud have been great if you could have plugged the likes of an Atomos Ninja Star into the camera (not connected on the gimbal) at only 130g (without battery) it would certainly be a possibility in future versions to have something like that integrated as long as the HDMI output from the sensor was good enough.
I have recorded some footage from the controller using an Atomos Ninja 2 but I think that is only around 2-4Mbps 720p isnt it for the live video feed.
Im still getting weird battery readings on all my HDMI outputs though that no one else seems to be getting, and the app says I'm completely up to date with FW etc

Im not really seeing the sense in the DJI Transcoding tool, you cant make better footage from it can you, how can you turn the H.264 4:2:0 footage into 4:2:2 10 bit as the data isn't there?

 

[econfly]

It will get better for sure. This is like the period of time when HD was first available. Video cams were recording 1080i at very low data rates, you couldn't watch it anyway unless you had a fancy new TV, and people were still talking about how amazing DVD video (480p) looked. I'm sure the future will be 4K (and then 8k...) with great data rates and awesome video. The first step will be much faster SD storage (e.g., CFAST is there now, as used in the ninja star). That's a limiting factor now with micro-SD storage hitting the speed limit.

And I agree -- the transcoding tool is not necessary if you use decent video editing software.

 

[Bartman]

I'm sure the future will be 4K (and then 8k...)

read somewhere recently that the k-wars will be limited at some upper value as the human eye doesn't discern quality improvements above a certain level. thought that was interesting

great discussion on the Inspire 1, very reasonable commentary, you guys make me so proud!!

 

[jfro]

Thanks for your post. I don't fly my gopro 3 much as I'm not a fan. Fly mostly gh3/gh4, and was going to sell my BMPC until I decided to build a smaller gimbal just for it that would goon my x8 or my larger quad. I've fought the quality vs convenience mode with that camera, as it's more effort to use it both shooting and post, but the imagery is a bit better, IMO.

I was suppose to receive my Inspire yesterday but it didn't come. Maybe today. Buying a closed system, v1, built by DJI is against everything I believe in. But the reports of ease of getting quickly into the air, decent, quality, and all the new features was to hard to resists. I'mm heading to some warm climates and will use this exclusively. I like hearing stories form others who have higher quality rigs, but have bought and inspire and are enjoying it.....

As to P Bloom, I quit reading his product reviews 12-18 months ago. He is not an independent testing lab. But he is knowledgeable and many newbies in the video/film world can learn from him.

It just won't work with the 4K out of the Inspire. I'm still playing around with this, but so far I think the Inspire 4K scaled down to 1080p is better than the 1080p straight from the Inspire (most likely because the per-frame bitrate is higher). Other than that, I don't see the point of 4K. We would be better off with higher bitrate 1080p.

The only setup I personally have tried that makes 4K truly useful for zoom/scan editing -- i.e., where you can zoom in to a 1080p section of the frame and like what you see -- is when I record with the GH4 straight to an Atomos Shogun. But that is giving me 880 Mbits/sec of 10 bit 4:2:2. The 4K out of the Inspire is 60 Mbits/sec of 4:2:0. Hell of a difference in the data and capture quality. Personally, I don't even like the GH4's 4K as it is internally recorded.

Broadly speaking, I think 4K is a gimmick as much as the megapixel wars were years ago in small cameras. Unless you have a large sensor and high bitrate recording there just isn't much point. Even 1080p (I say "even" -- 1080p is pretty amazing) is poorly recorded on most cameras.

My favorite camera to fly for high quality video is the blackmagic pocket cinema (BMPCC) and the reason is that it produces amazingly clean 1080p encoded in Apple ProRes HQ (220 Mbit/sec 4:2:2). Compare that to the Inspire 4K at 60 Mbits/sec. It's almost 4 times as much data over 1/4 the number of pixels -- nearly 16 times as much data at the pixel level (and from a much bigger sensor with much better glass).

I like the Inspire, but you just have to know its limitations. It's GoPro quality, less the protune, but without the fisheye. That's nice for a lot of stuff. The 4K is a bit of a gimmick, and I wish they had delivered 60 Mbits/sec of 1080p 30 instead. I wish they offered a protune-like output option as well (there is "log" output, which I use, but the sharpening is still there). Some of this can be done in firmware, and hopefully it will be done.

The Inspire is the best thing on the market right now if you want convenience and an amazing feature set for a reasonable price. I really like it for what it is.

 

[jfro]

I've been saying for a while, that we are getting beyond what our eyes see in everyday life. I see more detail in my large screen TV than when I look at the same distance at something in my room. Looking at items at the same distance I don't see much detail, just color.

I've also been saying since I started flying just 2 years ago, that my 18-22lb x8 would probably be the heaviest MR I ever own for filming. Cameras will continue to get better and smaller. Media storage get's faster and smaller and increases in size. The dynamic range keeps getting better every year.

It won't be long before we will be flying an inspire sized MR and getting Red Epic type quality..... It won't come all at once and it may take a few years, but it does get better and smaller every year. Technology will continue to just make it better and easier.

 

[econfly]

read somewhere recently that the k-wars will be limited at some upper value as the human eye doesn't discern quality improvements above a certain level. thought that was interesting.

Absolutely right. The main benefit of 4K (or more) is in the editing.

Cable / fiber / satellite TV is still catching up to 1080p, and just about everyone is receiving 1080i or 720p with bitrates in the 15-20 Mbit/sec range. We have a way to go before the home viewer even gets to experience 1080p. Same goes for youtube or vimeo where you can get 1080p, but with heavy compression.

Given all of that, 4K is just pointless for the end user right now. And, as you note, our eyes couldn't appreciate it anyway unless we all completely change how we view TV (i.e., sit much closer to a large screen). The only exception now is viewing on a 4K+ monitor on the computer. I'm using a 5K iMac and sitting the typical distance from the monitor I can absolutely see the improvement of 4K over 1080p.

 

[econfly]

This is more detail on compression and how the Inspire footage compares to what we already experience. Clearly capture quality, the type of encoding and quality of compression matter, so the following just provides some relative points of reference.

1080p at 30 frames per second and 24 bits per pixel with no compression at all contains over 1.4 Gbit/s of data. Obviously that is just a massive amount of data. But, you can compress the data a huge amount without affecting the quality in a perceivable way.

As a point of reference, jpeg compression of 10:1 is almost completely unnoticeable for most images. So, if we take that raw 1080p 30fps footage and compress each frame at 10:1 rate we end up with a data stream that is just about 140 Mbit/s.

Apple's ProRes format has a bitrate of 147 Mbit/s. This is about the same as the rough estimate I have above for unnoticeable compression. This is a level of compression suitable for general editing, color correcting, chroma keying, etc. For complex editing ProRes HQ has a 220 Mbit/s data rate and higher data rates exist for special effects work, etc.

So, roughly speaking, 140 Mbit/s can deliver near-perfect 1080p video visually and will allow most general editing without issue.

Here is a quick rundown of video bitrates for popular and well regarded compact cameras:

• The BlackMagic pocket cinema camera records 1080p at 220 Mbit/s.
• Panasonic's GH4 can record 1080p 30 at 200 Mbit/s and 4K at 100 Mbit/s.
• Panasonic's LX100 records 1080p at 28 Mbit/s and 4K at 100 Mbit/s.
• Sony's RX100 II records 1080p at 28 Mbit/s.
• The GoPro 4 records at a maximum bitrate of 60 Mbit/s.
• The Inspire records 1080p 30 at 30 Mbit/s and 4K at 60 Mbit/s.

For comparison purposes, here are bitrates for video delivery:

• Cable TV "HD" is delivered at 10-15 Mbit/s and as 1080i or 720p.
• Upload to Youtube and Vimeo is recommended to be around 15 Mbit/s prior to conversion.
• Netflix delivers 1080p at about 5.8 Mbit/s. Youtube and Vimeo deliver 1080p at roughly 4.5 Mbit/s.

Clearly the available delivery of "HD" video is highly compressed -- to a level that can significantly degrade the perceived video quality. Forget 4K. We can't get 1080p at all from most cable/TV providers and the "HD" signal we do get is very compressed. Online video is generally even worse.

As noted earlier, the bitrate is only part of the story, and the Inspire's recorded rate is comparable to compact cameras and the GoPro 4, is more than enough for upload to youtube or vimeo, and is higher than you get from most all cable/satellite TV providers.

If we consider the other factors (capture quality in particular), the Inspire is working with less than a high end compact camera (smaller chip, hence more noise) and is more comparable to the GoPro in this regard.

Technically the GoPro is providing a better file than the Inspire, in my view. But, for aerial work I really don't like the look of the GoPro fisheye lens. If I edit to correct that I have to throw away a lot of data. As a result, the Inspire's near-rectlinear lens is providing better effective results than a GoPro in my view.

However, the Inspire's results are not up to the quality of high-end compacts (RX100 II and LX100 in particular) and not even close to the GH4 or BlackMagic pocket cinema. Yet, given the convenience and ease of use that the Inspire offers I think the resulting video file is more than acceptable and likely more than needed for many purposes. It beats a GoPro setup for aerial work and offers a lot more convenience than a larger rig required to fly a materially better camera.

 

[Bartman]

Rob,

That might be one of the most informative and helpful posts ever!

When the GoPro is reduced to a narrower field of view to remove the fisheye, do you get less bitrate or does it still give the same bitrate but for a reduced field (and wouldn't that result in more dense data and a better picture?)?

 

[econfly]

Rob,

That might be one of the most informative and helpful posts ever!

When the GoPro is reduced to a narrower field of view to remove the fisheye, do you get less bitrate or does it still give the same bitrate but for a reduced field (and wouldn't that result in more dense data and a better picture?)?

Thanks -- it's interesting to me how a lot of the details can be obscured by the marketing, both good and bad.

I only have my GoPro 4 silver handy right now, and it has a 45 Mbit/sec maximum bitrate using the protune option. So I just shot 3 quick clips of 1080p 30 in wide, medium and narrow. Looking at the files on the computer I see that all were encoded at 45 Mbit/sec. Almost surely the GoPro 4 black is doing the same thing (using the same bitrate for all fields of view, but just at the black's higher 60 Mbit/sec). Narrowing the field of view is cropping the already small GoPro sensor so you will get more noise in the resulting file (and fisheye, but less noticeable), but it does seem the encoding bitrate is not affected.

Bottom line is that the noise issue from cropping is reducing overall quality even thought the encoding bitrate is not changing.

 

[SamaraMedia]

However, the Inspire's results are not up to the quality of high-end compacts (RX100 II and LX100 in particular) and not even close to the GH4 or BlackMagic pocket cinema. Yet, given the convenience and ease of use that the Inspire offers I think the resulting video file is more than acceptable and likely more than needed for many purposes. It beats a GoPro setup for aerial work and offers a lot more convenience than a larger rig required to fly a materially better camera.

Great explanation econfly, thanks! Since you mentioned the above cameras (RX100 and LX 100) do you know of video output during record is possible for either?

John

 

[econfly]

Great explanation econfly, thanks! Since you mentioned the above cameras (RX100 and LX 100) do you know of video output during record is possible for either?

John

If you mean clean HDMI out, then no for the LX 100. I don't have one, but the RX-100 III has clean HDMI out, but versions 1 and 2 do not. Just based on specs and what I've seen from the RX-100 II, I bet the video out from the RX-100 III is very very good.

If you want video out during record for FPV then the LX 100 is still no good (it's video out port only works for playback).The RX-100 II will output HDMI while recording and, as noted above, the RX-100 III will do it clean.

 

[Tahoe Ed]

I think I need to quote you. Nice analysis that in my opinion is unbiased.