Why should I buy the Inspire 2? Upgrade for P4

[LJCF]

Currently have a Phantom 4 and using it primarily for aerial mapping, using PIX4D to stich images, and rectify to high accuracy ground coordinates. Generally like it, but would like to get a higher res camera, and maximize flight area for relatively high acreages (like 100 to 500 plus).

I use Litchi a lot and like it. So my fundamental question is if I want to get higher quality images and still use Litchi, PIX 4D, etc., and gain flight area (flight time or higher speed) is the Inspire 2 the right answer or ...another product? Not sure the "niche" Inspire 2 is meant for, beyond the camera advantages is it a more robust, professional type product?

Any help?

Cheers

 

[ringolong]

500+ Acres is huge! It takes a lot of time just to film 100.

I would get the p4p it if you are not looking for the X5S. It will provide more flight time, and much cheaper than the I2 with the x4s. The only thing you will have to worry about are the props showing up in your shots, but I am sure you are familiar with that from your p4.

The I2 will get you about 20 minutes with the x5s with low wind, and easy flying. It is a much nicer aircraft that handles wind really good, and it is nice having the capability to change lenses on the x5s for a different look.

You will really really like the p4p, but you would love the I2!

 

[bluelight.support]

I use Litchi a lot and like it.

How to you make survey mission with this - i couldn't work it out so went with Map Pilot

 

[LJCF]

500+ Acres is huge! It takes a lot of time just to film 100.

I would get the p4p it if you are not looking for the X5S. It will provide more flight time, and much cheaper than the I2 with the x4s. The only thing you will have to worry about are the props showing up in your shots, but I am sure you are familiar with that from your p4.

The I2 will get you about 20 minutes with the x5s with low wind, and easy flying. It is a much nicer aircraft that handles wind really good, and it is nice having the capability to change lenses on the x5s for a different look.

You will really really like the p4p, but you would love the I2!

Thanks for the reply. A high quality camera is desired so I can zoom in and not loose so much detail, so I am interested in the X5S.

Yes, 500 is a lot - a square mile is 640 acres, so maybe 1 square mile doesn't sound like so much?? Anyway, my basic interest is higher resolution and mass area covered per flight. So my theory was a high res camera that I can fly higher with and still get detailed images when zoomed in, and a craft that can fly faster. I am not really filming per se, just hundreds of vertical photos stitched together.

People move to fixed wing for what I am doing, but ability to take off and land vertically is a big deal to me and my application.

 

[LJCF]

How to you make survey mission with this - i couldn't work it out so went with Map Pilot

I started with Litchi and would just have it fly a grid pattern on a given parcel, fairly easy. But once I moved to PIX 4D the app does this for you plus all the camera control. I am not sure if PIX 4D supports I2, but I am going to ask.

 

[NickU]

I'd think the P4P would be better suited for you - you've still got the 21MP camera & it's decent quality, meant to be similar to the x4s.

The price differential between what you'd pay for the P4P and the I2+X5S would buy you lots and lots of batteries for the P4P. Those extra batteries mean, to get the best quality result, you'd be able to fly lower altitude missions with a higher overlap - that basically means lots more pictures with more detail (as you're lower) - that will help to give you improved resolution/detail of the resulting sticthed image.

 

[ringolong]

A high quality camera is desired so I can zoom in and not loose so much detail, so I am interested in the X5S.

The I1 with the X5 or I2 with the X5S sounds like what you are needing. There is a zoom lens that is available for X5S, but it is not perfected just yet. The Olympus 14-42 works great with the X5.

 

[bluelight.support]

We had a p4 and i1 pro black. I sold the pro black and am waiting for my i2. The m4/3 camera with the 12mm lens will give great results at 100ft with 1cm/px gsd. Or move to 17mm at 200ft for faster mapping. I still think the bigger sensor is better but it depends on what mapping youre doing


Sent from my iPhone using InspirePilots

 

[LJCF]

I'd think the P4P would be better suited for you - you've still got the 21MP camera & it's decent quality, meant to be similar to the x4s.

The price differential between what you'd pay for the P4P and the I2+X5S would buy you lots and lots of batteries for the P4P. Those extra batteries mean, to get the best quality result, you'd be able to fly lower altitude missions with a higher overlap - that basically means lots more pictures with more detail (as you're lower) - that will help to give you improved resolution/detail of the resulting sticthed image.

Yeah that is exactly what I am struggling with - hence the title "Why should I buy the I2?". Picture quality is very important to me, as we do engineering projects and for example may want to see the actual wires of a power line and similar fine features in an aerial photograph, and know the position (hence PIX4D, ground control points, etc.). So although the P4P may have an upgraded camera, I am concerned as to how it actually compares to the X5S. I "sort of" don't care about the value side of things - price point isn't a huge deal. The price of quality in photography isn't linear in my experience. ( a little better can cost a lot more).

All other things being equal will an I2 with a X5S payload fly a longer path than a P4P? If I can fly the same path length but the I2 at a higher altitude and have a camera make up the resolution difference I am ahead of the game in my thinking.....

 

[NickU]

No, the P4P has greater endurance than the I2. The P4 I fly can go up to 25-26mins, I've only got to a max of about 21-22 mins from the I2/X5S combo so far.

I'm flying a P4 and an I2 at the moment, I haven't tried the I2 with any photogrammetric stuff yet but have with the P4. Personally, I'd probably still pick the P4/P4P. Because you're not just relying on the camera for resolution, but also on the sticthing software, the improvements of the I2 aren't going to be that great over the P4P or X4S to really justify the massive step up in price. I think you'd be better off flying the mapping missions at a lower altitude and higher density and overlap.

 

[LJCF]

No, the P4P has greater endurance than the I2. The P4 I fly can go up to 25-26mins, I've only got to a max of about 21-22 mins from the I2/X5S combo so far.

I'm flying a P4 and an I2 at the moment, I haven't tried the I2 with any photogrammetric stuff yet but have with the P4. Personally, I'd probably still pick the P4/P4P. Because you're not just relying on the camera for resolution, but also on the sticthing software, the improvements of the I2 aren't going to be that great over the P4P or X4S to really justify the massive step up in price. I think you'd be better off flying the mapping missions at a lower altitude and higher density and overlap.

 

[LJCF]

Nicku, thanks for the feedback. I am curious on your comment on stitching software - I have always presumed that the stitching software (PIX4D in this case) doesn't actually process the image quality, so the camera image quality does matter. Am I wrong here?

 

[bluelight.support]

What are you trying to achieve? Are you looking for measurements or just to stitch together?


Sent from my iPhone using InspirePilots

 

[NickU]

The stitching certainly has to process the images as it has to blend the images together, it also has to correct for lens distortion, and for shooting angle, parallax errors etc.

If you ever try to manually stitch images, then you'll begin to understand how much tweaking needs to be done, and how much of a value judgement some processes are. The pictures are blended using some magical formula based on colours and shapes and points being similar, they're given error values (effectively a score) to determine how good or bad a match to each other they're likely to be. The stitching then blends or discards according to what it figures is best.

So flying lower, slower and greater overlap increases the likelihood that points can be matched with less error. You've also got a lot more information (granularity) in those photos as you're closer to the subject. It's like you're increasing the recording bitrate (cause you are!), and so increasing the effective camera megapixels.

 

[LJCF]

What are you trying to achieve? Are you looking for measurements or just to stitch together?


Sent from my iPhone using InspirePilots

We typically use ortho rectified aerial imagery as a back drop for civil design projects, so to answer you question we need both (measurements and stitched together), but for finer measurements we would always rely on high accuracy field survey over a photograph. But having said that, having the photo be digitally accurate is very important to us. Accuracy is a relative thing....and dependent on final expectations.

 

[bluelight.support]

Picture quality is very important to me, as we do engineering projects and for example may want to see the actual wires of a power line and similar fine features in an aerial photograph, and know the position

In which case I2, 12mm Olympus lens, Map Pilot with terrain add-in and Photoscan Pro, 3D Survey or Pix4d (although i don't get on with pix4d), together with 4-6 ground control points and GNSS ground station. Only way to go

 

[bluelight.support]

We typically use ortho rectified aerial imagery as a back drop for civil design projects, so to answer you question we need both (measurements and stitched together),

In which case you already have the ground survey and static ground control points which you can add to the ortho and assuming you are using RTK or RINEX to get 1-2cm accuracy, you will get that on your orthos, DEMs, and 3D meshes out of Photoscan etc. Sounds like you're nearly there.

Inspire 2 will look at lot more professional on scene, and will also provide a little more security than Phantom with 2 batteries. Phantom 4 Pro is nice and we are looking at one as a backup to I2, but your still not going to beet the Micro 4/3 format. 1" is good, M43 is better

 

[LJCF]

In which case you already have the ground survey and static ground control points which you can add to the ortho and assuming you are using RTK or RINEX to get 1-2cm accuracy, you will get that on your orthos, DEMs, and 3D meshes out of Photoscan etc. Sounds like you're nearly there.

Inspire 2 will look at lot more professional on scene, and will also provide a little more security than Phantom with 2 batteries. Phantom 4 Pro is nice and we are looking at one as a backup to I2, but your still not going to beet the Micro 4/3 format. 1" is good, M43 is better

 

[LJCF]

Yes, the high accuracy survey side and data processing is mainstream in our business (Topcon GR5s, robotic total stations, etc.) and software wise, AutoCAD, Bentley, etc., so that part of the world is covered, and we can create DTM's etc.
My main interest is in the photo quality and areal coverage going in to a program such as PIX4D, which we are using on a month to month so far - but fairly pleased with it. As I sort of use this forum to think through this (and get the much appreciated comments) I am slowly coming to the obvious conclusion that flying a high quality camera (not necessarily just more megapixels) is what I am gunning for at the end of the day, and a craft capable of flying it robustly. Not sure if the Inspire 2 is the right beast, but maybe....

 

[bluelight.support]

Bentley

Bentley software already is a 3d mapping / ortho package in itself, Pix4d would be a lower quality option.

With the level you are working at you already have 1cm accurate ground control points, so any imagery you take will be accurate and give accurate 3d models with what you have.

I have used the Phantom 4 which gives good results and 1cm ground resolution which is good, the Inspire 1 gives a better quality (although you need to get your head round the manual focusing issue), the Inspire 2 will give better results again due to the quality and size of images. However if you don't know how to process the images in the first place no amount of expensive software will wok.

What software are you using to collect the images in the first place ?