The image on the right is definitely softer and blurrier. But that could be because it has stronger deinterlacing, and therefore fewer comb effects are visible. When it flies under the pavilion, both have roughly the same optic steps near the lines of the benches, but that could not be due to the deinterlacing but simply to the low resolution. In any case, if the antenna was exactly the same, including in position, then Skyzone has a much better reception. If you have even set the right frequency on the VR03 ...
Thank you for the very detailed observation. I learned new terms from your explanation. I would like to compare the VR03 using the same antenna, but I don't have a spare one. Both devices are set to Raceband 8.
Looking at your channel, I think I subscribed to you. I remember one of your videos convinced me to buy my first FPV set, the Cetus X from BetaFPV. Hehe. It's amazing that you saw one of my videos!
@@tebanFPV Cool. To meet someone whose decision was influenced by one of my videos. Yeah, about 20 years ago when building a satellite dish I became very interested in satellites and television as a hobby, especially when digital and 720p and 1080i HD started in the satellite sector. That's why I know about interlace and progressive video theory a lot...
I thought so too. If I could use the same antenna, the VR03 might perform much better or at least the same. Unfortunately, it only has one antenna port.
@@tebanFPVdid you change your antenna ? I put a foxeer V4 lollipop on my vr03. Running a 1.6W VTX on the quad. I'm not really impressed by the range... Got like 400m on clear sight.
@@PvTLink234 I have a maximum of 800mW for my VTX. I plan to try using the VAS mushroom antenna later to see if it improves the range. I'll update you after testing.
The image on the right is definitely softer and blurrier. But that could be because it has stronger deinterlacing, and therefore fewer comb effects are visible. When it flies under the pavilion, both have roughly the same optic steps near the lines of the benches, but that could not be due to the deinterlacing but simply to the low resolution. In any case, if the antenna was exactly the same, including in position, then Skyzone has a much better reception. If you have even set the right frequency on the VR03 ...
Thank you for the very detailed observation. I learned new terms from your explanation. I would like to compare the VR03 using the same antenna, but I don't have a spare one. Both devices are set to Raceband 8.
Looking at your channel, I think I subscribed to you. I remember one of your videos convinced me to buy my first FPV set, the Cetus X from BetaFPV. Hehe. It's amazing that you saw one of my videos!
@@tebanFPV Cool. To meet someone whose decision was influenced by one of my videos.
Yeah, about 20 years ago when building a satellite dish I became very interested in satellites and television as a hobby, especially when digital and 720p and 1080i HD started in the satellite sector. That's why I know about interlace and progressive video theory a lot...
Vr03 looks sharper. But more interference
I thought so too. If I could use the same antenna, the VR03 might perform much better or at least the same. Unfortunately, it only has one antenna port.
@@tebanFPVdid you change your antenna ? I put a foxeer V4 lollipop on my vr03. Running a 1.6W VTX on the quad. I'm not really impressed by the range... Got like 400m on clear sight.
@@PvTLink234 I have a maximum of 800mW for my VTX. I plan to try using the VAS mushroom antenna later to see if it improves the range. I'll update you after testing.