DJI Pocket 3?

[Emanuel]

4 hours ago, FoxAdriano said:

Hello, I am an unhappy owner of DJI Osmo Pocket 3. I bought it recently and used it extensively on a trip. I love the quality of Pocket 3 but what I hate and what makes me want to sell it is that every time I turn it on, the lens looks at me in all directions (especially up) and never ever ever in front. On the trip I was getting depressed for this very reason and I took so many bad shots that I had to throw away. Maybe I can't configure it well, who knows!! Can someone who knows Pocket 3 well tell me if I need to configure it in some way, so that when I turn it on the lens looks in front of me parallel to the ground? A million thanks for your help.

LOL Annoying before to getting fine, isn't it? It's living with or leave it! : )

What is unique is this combo to give that characteristic touch/look by its own:

There's no simply competitor at this such small camera segment level, useless to look for anything else.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

On 6/24/2024 at 3:46 PM, Emanuel said:

LOL Annoying before to getting fine, isn't it? It's living with or leave it! : )

What is unique is this combo to give that characteristic touch/look by its own:

There's no simply competitor at this such small camera segment level, useless to look for anything else.

The most of the look is given by the black mist filter - people love to use very heavy "misting" with this camera.

Personally, I thnk that it gives too much "halation" in the highlights, look like a very detailed scene of the 1st Unreal game. 🙂

A weaker one could take away a good bit of the "digital edges" of the image (which is desirable, Pocket 3 image is VERY sharp, even with the sharpness all turned down) without looking as a meth trip.

[Emanuel]

9 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

The most of the look is given by the black mist filter - people love to use very heavy "misting" with this camera.

Personally, I thnk that it gives too much "halation" in the highlights, look like a very detailed scene of the 1st Unreal game. 🙂

A weaker one could take away a good bit of the "digital edges" of the image (which is desirable, Pocket 3 image is VERY sharp, even with the sharpness all turned down) without looking as a meth trip.

Of course, the filters are part of the cinematography process... Often people talk about like only SOOC is legit and the use of filters or post are mere tricks WTH the pudding stuff is the secret sauce of this craft not else BTW ; ) and you can make with mere skills the Osmo Pocket look like a cinema camera no matter how sharp outcome gives to you ;- )

[kye]

On 7/2/2024 at 1:29 AM, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

The most of the look is given by the black mist filter - people love to use very heavy "misting" with this camera.

Personally, I thnk that it gives too much "halation" in the highlights, look like a very detailed scene of the 1st Unreal game. 🙂

A weaker one could take away a good bit of the "digital edges" of the image (which is desirable, Pocket 3 image is VERY sharp, even with the sharpness all turned down) without looking as a meth trip.

Absolutely.  It's like people have forgotten what the images in the cinema actually looked like, or that they were 35mm film.  I say that because people who apply a "filmic" or "cinematic" look seem to apply a film emulation at about 284% of what is realistic.

This is a scan of (IIRC) Kodak 200T (source) :

The video above is:

• too sharp
• too heavy split-tone
• very heavy-handed diffusion
• ridiculous halation
• etc

It's like they got a film emulation plugin and put some sliders to 0% emulation, and others to 350%.

In colour, "if it looks good then it is good" definitely applies, but it doesn't seem to have a look of its own, it's just got a bad film emulation on it.

[SRV1981]

How do you find this image versus iPhone log?

[Emanuel]

52 minutes ago, kye said:

Absolutely.  It's like people have forgotten what the images in the cinema actually looked like, or that they were 35mm film.  I say that because people who apply a "filmic" or "cinematic" look seem to apply a film emulation at about 284% of what is realistic.

This is a scan of (IIRC) Kodak 200T (source) :

The video above is:

• too sharp
• too heavy split-tone
• very heavy-handed diffusion
• ridiculous halation
• etc

It's like they got a film emulation plugin and put some sliders to 0% emulation, and others to 350%.

In colour, "if it looks good then it is good" definitely applies, but it doesn't seem to have a look of its own, it's just got a bad film emulation on it.

Tools nowadays are each day more irrelevant, any device can offer practically in this industry in 2024 the Holy Grail with the current technology.

What is the non-approved cameras mantra, after all? ; ) Overheating issues? LOL

This craft is much more skills-driven than ever before into digital age since 10-bits 4:2:2 when not raw has become the norm for the light and colour science's sake, no matter how poor the audiences or the filmmakers enrich their show off... ;- )

[kye]

7 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

How do you find this image versus iPhone log?

Which image?

[kye]

6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Tools nowadays are each day more irrelevant, any device can offer practically in this industry in 2024 the Holy Grail with the current technology.

What is the non-approved cameras mantra, after all? ; ) Overheating issues? LOL

This craft is much more skills-driven than ever before into digital age since 10-bits 4:2:2 when not raw has become the norm for the light and colour science's sake, no matter how poor the audiences or the filmmakers enrich their show off... ;- )

If you have good taste and know how to process the image in post, there are many trade-offs that can be made.

For example, 4K 10-bit 422 could be matched by 6K 8-bit 420 if the camera was used with the right ISO settings to generate enough noise in the file so that in post the downsample to 4K would re-create the intermediate values that are inaccessible by the 8-bit.

Art does this with stippling.

Soon, AI will be able to resurrect your SD MiniDV tapes into 3D 8K 444 glory with only minimal error.  The ever-deepening naval gazing will create the ouroboros, assuming it hasn't already.

[Emanuel]

4 hours ago, kye said:

If you have good taste and know how to process the image in post, there are many trade-offs that can be made.

For example, 4K 10-bit 422 could be matched by 6K 8-bit 420 if the camera was used with the right ISO settings to generate enough noise in the file so that in post the downsample to 4K would re-create the intermediate values that are inaccessible by the 8-bit.

Art does this with stippling.

Soon, AI will be able to resurrect your SD MiniDV tapes into 3D 8K 444 glory with only minimal error.  The ever-deepening naval gazing will create the ouroboros, assuming it hasn't already.

What should not surprise me in these boards is the fact people come here to comment the personal taste or choice of this or that shooter -- usually non-professional users (I mean the people publishing videos on YT, not exactly who addresses or writes here about it). This has little to no sense to me.

I'd understand it when aethetics is the topic. But sincerely, along these pages? When the reason to be here is the thread of this or that particular capture device?

The purpose is the discussion of the features and potentiality of a given tool, not the way one or another individual took it in or for this or that stated situation.

 

On this specific piece of technology:

1) Is its sharpness outcome anything you'll be unable to overcome to begin with?

2) Is its tiny sensor size and form factor a limitation of its own as far as IQ concerns?

3) Is its temporal and spatial noise acceptable for the aim of its use, i.e., how it looks when exposed or/and how about its much desired low light performance too for people using it exclusively with available light?

4) How compares with its predecessors and current competitors?

5) What kind of integration is possible to extend with other add-ons, filter accessories, stabilization helpers, the case of a gimbal built-in here, how many other camera suppliers offer the same?? ; )

 

This is what matters in the end. All the rest is pure noise with apparently no fix to me ;- )

 

- EAG :- )

[Emanuel]

*aesthetics (but yes, it is or sounds an ethical trouble no less LOL ; )

[SRV1981]

11 hours ago, kye said:

Which image?

Pocket 3

[kye]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Pocket 3

It would take a lot of footage for me to be able to see through the grading that was applied to each video, and I haven't deep dived enough to do that.

However, both seem capable of creating decent images, if they are pointed at something interesting and treated well in post.  Probably the difference is that the Apple log has a fully-supported colour management profile, which enables it to fit into a workflow that includes professional tools and ability to accurately perform WB and exposure changes in post, and to also align to various other treatments to create the intended outcome.

In terms of which is 'better', the differences in context completely overwhelm this question when compared to the image. 

[lsquare]

Has anyone here bought ND filters with their Pocket 3? Which ones are worth buying? I'm thinking of getting DJI and calling it a day, but I think Tiffen has its own. I don't know if it's any good. 

[SRV1981]

13 hours ago, kye said:

It would take a lot of footage for me to be able to see through the grading that was applied to each video, and I haven't deep dived enough to do that.

However, both seem capable of creating decent images, if they are pointed at something interesting and treated well in post.  Probably the difference is that the Apple log has a fully-supported colour management profile, which enables it to fit into a workflow that includes professional tools and ability to accurately perform WB and exposure changes in post, and to also align to various other treatments to create the intended outcome.

In terms of which is 'better', the differences in context completely overwhelm this question when compared to the image. 

Which will you most likely shoot with when out for personal video capture 

[PannySVHS]

I have not even seen one video with the DJI that looked close to anything I would consider good.

Knowing that DJI devices are capable of a nice and workable image for different delivery goals, this is a testament to the lack of will or ability of the videomakers. The Gimbal looks like it does what it promises to do the part. It is used by aspiring gimbal world champions rather than admirers of cinematography among the youtube crowd. I can feel quite astonished by some videos done with an old GH1, but this thing has looked gruesome to me regarding colors, not event to speak about the meaningless and aimless gimble schlimmble.

DJI, 10bit, S16 sensor, gimble, this thing delivers on paper and it should in real world, considering DJIs achievements with their drones and action cams. But youtube fails to deliver that. Bad testimonies for an interesting special use or vlog camera.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

14 hours ago, lsquare said:

Has anyone here bought ND filters with their Pocket 3? Which ones are worth buying? I'm thinking of getting DJI and calling it a day, but I think Tiffen has its own. I don't know if it's any good. 

Got a Neewer kit, looks like they are ok.

The filter should be very low profile, if not the gimbal would not turn the head to storage properly (the DJI ones AFAIK have this problem).

[kye]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Which will you most likely shoot with when out for personal video capture 

iPhone, because it has different focal lengths.

But that would apply to anything - if I could choose an iPhone or Alexa or FX3 or.... but the other cameras could only have one prime lens, I'd still choose the iPhone.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

DJI, 10bit, S16 sensor, gimble, this thing delivers on paper and it should in real world, considering DJIs achievements with their drones and action cams. But youtube fails to deliver that. Bad testimonies for an interesting special use or vlog camera.

It is a bit of mystery, especially with the option of the magnetic mount anamorphic lenses and ND filters.

Feels like there was much nicer stuff being made with the first one but you could argue that the GH cameras have followed a similar curve in absolute terms.

 

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, kye said:

iPhone, because it has different focal lengths.

As well as the add on wide angle and anamorphic lenses, it does have a decent virtual zoom with a good ergonomic operation using the thumbtack.

Its range is dependent on your resolution of course but for the purpose as a travel camera its pretty good.

 

 

[PannySVHS]

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Feels like there was much nicer stuff being made with the first one but you could argue that the GH cameras have followed a similar curve in absolute terms.

 

Kinda. I think the GH4 ranges above GH3 when it comes to quality output. I can recall about two videos from GH3 users which I found to be compelling back then, GH2 and GH4 dozens.

Phillip Bloom has some decent shots with the DJI Pocket 3. I am sure it has a great image under sufficient light.