DJI Mavic 2 Pro Lens Distortion

So it seems that the DJI DNG files come with lens correction built-in? So I am not sure what the right workflow is… do I leave it alone? or should I ‘undo’ the built-in correction?

Photogrammetry relies on the software being able to calculate all the neccessary camera and lens distortion parameters.

If you’re using images that have already been undistorted then the software will assume and calculate wrong values. So it is heavily advised to use distorted images.

Hey Jasper, thanks for replying… I am aware of how photogrammetry works. Have you used the Mavic 2 Pro DNG files? The lens profile is built-in and Lightroom/CameraRaw (from what I can tell) doesn’t have a way to ignore the profile. It loads the file undistorted. I was hoping that RC’s support for the M2P would include knowledge of this. Maybe the better question would be, does anyone know how to disable the built-in lens profile in the DNG? Hint on what the metadata field is?

I needed to strip the metadata, doesn’t seem like Adobe wants to allow finer control over the application of embedded lens profiles.

Unfortunately, I now can’t correct for vignette or chromatic abberation. 

Hi ,

Use Capture One Pro.  We ran in to the same issues with our Nikon Z7 24-70mm lens.  In Capture One you can set the lens profile to Generic rather than the lens pre-set.  We’re now switching away from Adobe as there is no way, that we’re aware of, to turn off its Automatic Distortion Correction.  You can grab a 30 day free trail of C1P.  I should point out, we’re still testing this workflow to make sure it is sound so I suggest anyone who read this do the same before buying the software.

Hope this helps.

See here:

Thanks for the tip . I can’t easily use Capture One Pro in my pipeline… I do have Affinity Photo and loaded the DNG up and am able to control the image the way I need for photogrammetry. I am doing more testing of my own but I think I will just need to formalize my ingest process to include a script to strip the metadata exactly how I need it and continue to use Adobe products.

I would love some feedback from the developers about this! They should help their customers actually figure out the best result with the Mavic 2 Pro or any format that has these embedded lens profiles. If people are shooting JPG and then going straight into RC, they probably are getting higher error rates than they should if they went RAW/DNG and properly handle the distortion.

sorry - would you happen to have the lens data profile for the mavic 2 pro ? we are having similar issues here:

" getting higher error rates than they should if they went RAW/DNG and properly handle the distortion."

but cant re-shoot so were hoping that someone has the correct lens data / profile to add the mavic 2 pro to the sensor database…

Did you see link in my 3rd post? It shows you how you can strip the metadata, this way you can get uncropped and distorted images. The color will be quite different and there will be vignetting but if you have a color checker you can at least fix the color issues.

Hi 114781753852, not sure if you found a good workflow here but wanted to jump in here with a suggestions.

I’ve been using DxO Photolab for the last few years and just recently wanted to test and see if LR Classic might be better at doing large scale raw processing for photogrammetry where I quickly noticed the issue that you noted in this thread.

I’d highly recommend using DxO Photolab for Mavic 2 Pro datasets. The software detects the body/lens of the camera and downloads a camera profile from their database but you have full manual control over whether you wanna enable the corrections. So it’s easy to disable any distortion correction but enable vignette correction, chrom. aberration, etc.

I also found that somehow the exposures in LR Classic for Mavic 2 Pro photos look a stop or two higher than in DxO and have less room to adjust… DxO is the way to go here. 

Anyway, seems like after 2 years, there’s no good way to turn off these lens profile corrections in LR without stripping the exif info as you had suggested… Shame!