GoPro 5 leaks

Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
401
Reaction score
104
check out this page. He has some details about the GoPro 5 due this fall.

GoPro HERO5 Leaks Out

Not a lot of info, but enough to be interesting

I'm hopeful more changes include shooting stills and recording 4K, as well as a narrower view without a fisheye on the 4K setting. My apologies to Peau Productions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perry Lawrence
When I attended @EyeWingsuit 's course he recommended shooting in 2.7k instead of 4k. The reason being that shooting at 2.7k meant less work for the CODEC and better video. He also predicted an 8k camera coming out soon that would only create more work for the CODEC.

Anyone have anything to say about this?
 
What would everyone do with 8K images? There are no markets except for Japan who has one 8K channel.

You want to use it on a 1080p timeline so you could zoom out 8X?

No, I don't need 8K. I need more fps, I need to shoot video and stills, I need to have a higher quality codec?

There are many things I need in my GP5, but none of them are 8K.3
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samphoto
I've finally given up on better quality stills out of my GP4. What I do now is shoot 2.7k wide FOV video in protune mode with all of the built-in enhancements turned off. Then I pull the video into Premier Pro and drop a LUT on top if it (I like the Ground Control GP LUT but I pull the saturation back to about 60%). Then I save frames as JPGs.

Takes more time but I like the results more than the stills I get.
 
When I attended @EyeWingsuit 's course he recommended shooting in 2.7k instead of 4k. The reason being that shooting at 2.7k meant less work for the CODEC and better video. He also predicted an 8k camera coming out soon that would only create more work for the CODEC.

Anyone have anything to say about this?

There will be yet a third 8K cam announced in a few months; whether it'll play or not, who knows. Lotsa vaporware out there. Currently, even the best h.265 encoders are slow with 4K, and there is little to get excited about on the display side for a while.
There will always be those that like to measurebate over the numbers tho, so have fun, have at it. Practically, the bigger resolution turns into poorer video, depending on the downconvert that is inevitable for a while.
 
Yeah, 2.7 60 seems to be the way to go for flying except maybe in the dark. I usually shoot in medium though since legs annoy the [EXPLETIVE REMOVED] out of me and my gimbal never works right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: EyeWingsuit
As soon as 8K is out, there will be people clamoring for 16k...... because 16 is a bigger number than 8.

As with anything, someone will be able to product spectacularly better results with far lower caliber gear than another person will with the latest and greatest. If you're not that someone who truly knows how to work the gear (and I'm admittedly not either), than more resolution will gain you pretty much nothing, if not degrade your end product by how much more difficult it is to work with.
 
I'm in the industry and I have not heard any early rumours about 16K. For 16K to be displayed, the TV in your family room would need to be about48 feet diagonally, and you would sit about 12 feet from it!

Movie theatres would double their screen, seating would be more upright, closer to the screen. It would be hilarious.

Oh, no actress would be beautiful enough for the big screen. You'd have to triple their pay to agree to go on.

No, I DONT think 16K will be a thing. You can breath easy. BTW, 8K presents the same issues. Even 4 K TV's right now are too small for 4K. Think about 80 inch and up, and think 8-10 feet away from the screen. I have a 50 inch 4K, and you need to sit about 6 feet from it. My 30 inch monitor for editing is less than 2 feet away, and frankly 30 inch is too small.
 
I find some slight quality difference in 4K vs 2.7K in a 1080p timeline ProRes 422 or LT export (Final Cut Pro 7).
 
I'd expect you would, given the conversion requirement.
Natively, you'd see even more, but in the end, get less (unless you're delivering to 4k, of course)
 
what about using 4K expressly for the purpose of pulling frames for stills?
video I shoot 2.7k 60 wide with the 3.97 lens
but the best still I have managed was a single frame from a 4k video
 
4K is great for pulling stills. You might find legs once in a while depending on winds, but the images are great.
 
So my question is, it states in the short article that there are no connectors or ports in the back. This should mean that it will not work with the current gimbal correct because the Hero 4 and earlier have the connections in the back as well as the HDMI on the side.
 
So my question is, it states in the short article that there are no connectors or ports in the back. This should mean that it will not work with the current gimbal correct because the Hero 4 and earlier have the connections in the back as well as the HDMI on the side.

It's GoPro. There is no desire for it to support other products. Historically, GoPro has denied consistency in compatibility to any number of products. It's not to their benefit, for example, to support Solo or any other third party tool. It's not terribly different than Apple and their lack of concern for products outside their own ecosystem. Anyone expecting it to work with any number of third party tools is not aware of GoPro's history. People with gimbals that use the power or HDMI feed (millions of em'), will also be left high/dry, or stuck with the hero 4
 
I'm pretty sure that if it's smaller, and has HDMI@720p out, we can most likely make it work but lose a bit of convenience. We would just have to revert back to manual start/stop of the recording and wouldn't have control of camera settings via the app. It would be like solo app v1 a year ago lol.

If it's smaller, we can design a 3d printed housing to make it fit in the gimbal. Plenty of balance kits available to make that work. Gimbal would still be controllable via paddle on controller as well as smartshots, and would still have live feed via HDMI.

Time will tell.
 
what about using 4K expressly for the purpose of pulling frames for stills?
video I shoot 2.7k 60 wide with the 3.97 lens
but the best still I have managed was a single frame from a 4k video

4k stills are a lower resolution then a photo in photo mode (3840x2160 @ 8.3mp vs 4000x3000 @ 12mp). For quick and dirty stills its fine, but if you want a photo, photo mode beats a 4k still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EyeWingsuit
I'm in the industry and I have not heard any early rumours about 16K. For 16K to be displayed, the TV in your family room would need to be about48 feet diagonally, and you would sit about 12 feet from it!

Movie theatres would double their screen, seating would be more upright, closer to the screen. It would be hilarious.

Oh, no actress would be beautiful enough for the big screen. You'd have to triple their pay to agree to go on.

No, I DONT think 16K will be a thing. You can breath easy. BTW, 8K presents the same issues. Even 4 K TV's right now are too small for 4K. Think about 80 inch and up, and think 8-10 feet away from the screen. I have a 50 inch 4K, and you need to sit about 6 feet from it. My 30 inch monitor for editing is less than 2 feet away, and frankly 30 inch is too small.
I found this article fascinating in regard to screen size, resolution, and what the human eye can take in.
4K Resolution Rules TV Screens But Look, The Emperor Has No Clothes
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,093
Messages
147,741
Members
16,048
Latest member
ihatethatihavetomakeanacc