PHANTOM 4 vs. INSPIRE 1

[pgaucher]

After a full 10 days of using the DJI Phantom 4 in Bali Indonesia, our verdict is in: IT IS AWESOME. It is so good in fact that we are questioning our whole UAV equipment strategy moving forward.

What would have cost tens of thousands of dollars a few years ago is now readily available for less than $2000, with the added benefits of more advanced computing and camera technology. Aside from hollywood cinematic productions, is there really a need for anything else? As people become more and more mobile, should the equipment used by professionals not be aligned with their lifestyles?

We have been avid users of the DJI Inspire platform since it came out 15 months ago. We love it, we've traveled the world with it, and we have captured some amazing footage with it. However, it is quite a burden to carry around through airports and customs and our latest test of the Phantom 4 really makes us wonder if we will ever be using the Inspire for more simple projects.

Here is our take after 10 days of intensive testing of the DJI Phantom 4.


1) The new intelligent flight modes facilitate the capture of awesome footage. While they do not substitute the accuracy of manual flight control, some of the functionalities actually do a better job right off the bat than an Inspire with 2 operators. This means more complex shots can be achieved with only one operator, reducing the need to hire additional staff for more traditional jobs. Essentially, the equipment pays for itself.

2) The overall precision of the craft is extremely close to the precision observed with the Inspire 1. The only major difference is how the craft reacts in windy conditions. On that front, the Inspire has a clear advantage, but in normal conditions, the P4 is a pleasure to handle in the air.

3) Observed flight times easily topped 25 minutes per battery. This is a significant difference compared to the 14-15 minutes you achieve on the Inspire 1 (or perhaps 18 minutes with the TB48 batteries). That extra flight time allows you to capture more footage, and in a worst case scenario allows you to redo shots time and time again until you nail it perfectly, or until lighting conditions become optimal. The other big advantage of this added flight time is distance which is covered below.

4) While we were not in a position to test maximum range (there is no real point in doing this anyhow) we did however capture some great volcano sequences at more than 3.6km with no loss in video signal. Getting there with the Inspire might have been possible with some modifications, but the stock version of the Inspire would not. Even if it did, the time required to get there and back would deplete the battery of 70% of its power reserve, making the whole trip pointless. The inspire may have the speed advantage, but the sports mode on the Phantom 4 allows it to reach points of interest even faster, thus preserving that battery life for capturing awesome footage.

5) Image quality on both the Inspire (X3) and the Phantom 4 would be considered equivalent from our perspective. However, the camera mobility and flexibility is where the Inspire takes the crown. Having the possibility to control the camera independently to the flight path is something we missed a lot during this trip. We felt the main palatable functional benefit of the Inspire over the Phantom 4 is the ability to have independent camera control. Having the ability to select the camera you want is obviously a clear win for the Inspire, but for 75% of shots, the Phantom 4 was up to the task.

Overall, our impressions of the Phantom 4 were extremely positive. Based on this experience, it will become our go to solution for most mobile (international) aerial filming projects in the future, unless the projects require highly technical sequences. For local projects however where we don't need to carry gear through airports and customs, the Inspire remains our top choice.

The above video was shot entirely with the Phantom 4.

Let us know your thoughts.

Cheers

Patrice Gaucher LL.B.
CEO, Aerial Entertainment Studios
Hong Kong

www.aerial-entertainment-studios.com

 

[dazzab]

That's pretty impressive alright. But it's hard to tell just off a Vimeo video given all the compression they do etc. Some of the highlights look a bit blown out to me. I really think the X5 and X5R cameras are going to be very hard to beat given the lenses are far better. As you have mentioned the Inspire is a more solid to fly with as well. I'm sure the next iteration of the Inspire is going to take it even further. I'm looking forward to a coax 8 or a hexa that provides some redundancy. If they aren't working on that then they have been living in a cave as every regulator wants redundancy.

 

[pgaucher]

That's pretty impressive alright. But it's hard to tell just off a Vimeo video given all the compression they do etc. Some of the highlights look a bit blown out to me. I really think the X5 and X5R cameras are going to be very hard to beat given the lenses are far better. As you have mentioned the Inspire is a more solid to fly with as well. I'm sure the next iteration of the Inspire is going to take it even further. I'm looking forward to a coax 8 or a hexa that provides some redundancy. If they aren't working on that then they have been living in a cave as every regulator wants redundancy.

I've heard some very mixed reviews of the basic X5 for video. People are complaining about the sharpness vs. the X3. I am sure the X5R will be really awesome however.

 

[John Doecliff]

Good review. It's amazing how far this technology has gone in such a short time. The phantom platform isn't the end all to beat all but for the money it's hard to beat. I'm a little disappointed that I work so hard to build and fly a semi-custom MR and DJI swoops in and tops it for less money. It's just like some professional photographer with all the high end gear and experience and then some teenager with a cell phone shows up and takes a better picture. It's hard to get used to. LOL.