Kodak 360 VR rig for Solo

[twitchyzero]

Oii I totally forget there's no FPV. Thre's no way to run HDMI cable from one of the cam to the internal HDMI connection?

that's even worse of a value proposition than I'd thought

DJI S1000 is $10,000 and then they put a $40,000 camera on it. $35,000 Steadicam with a $200,000 3D rig on it. The film industry does this all the time.

Put the Nikon 360 camera on a Solo and half your view will be the belly of the Solo. At least with the Pixpro, the 2 cameras can sandwich the quad and make it disappear. And remember, the cameras are not Solo-specific, just the $150 mount so it's not like Kodak has a huge infrastructure to maintain.

DJI and Steadicam are not ditching their clients for good. I can't confidently say the samething about 3DR and their consumers. We are finally realizing the impact of 3DR's signifcant staff restructuring...the latest beta app is a prime example.

Good point on the 2 camera sandwiching being better than 1 in this case.

 

[Dave Tolsky]

Oii I totally forget there's no FPV. Thre's no way to run HDMI cable from one of the cam to the internal HDMI connection?

that's even worse of a value proposition than I'd thought

Which camera would you run the cable from? One would be getting the world from above and one would be getting the world from below. This is more about shooting your entire surroundings so just maintain your line of sight and trust your instincts. You should know what you are shooting at that point. And thank your lucky stars you have a vehicle to fly these cameras and make the drone disappear in the stitching process.

 

[twitchyzero]

no framing = less professional results and lower % of keepers

 

[Dave Tolsky]

no framing = less professional results and lower % of keepers

While you're at it, don't forget "emits lack of confidence" you are better off not attempting it and leaving the Solo VR to those who can't wait to explore the possibilities

 

[Dave Tolsky]

While you're at it, don't forget "emits lack of confidence" you are better off not attempting it and leaving the Solo VR to those who can't wait to explore the possibilities

When you're "shooting the world" framing becomes less of an issue. "Framing" is what you do when you have a fixed focal length lens and have to come up with good cinematic composition. Shooting the entire world in 360 is just that. Framing is no longer a priority, keeping your aircraft stable and flying skillfully is your new priority. Sooner or later you have to take the training wheels off (fpv) and develop some
flying skill

 

[twitchyzero]

great point

no framing required when you get everything around you.

Still, FPV is paramount. It has nothing to do with training wheel/nanny aid. If you wanna do a VR of the nice mountain across that lake that you cannot physically get to? It'll be next to impossible to judge distance and positioning when you're 500m away. The margin of error is huge and the guesswork shoots up exponentially.

 

[Dave Tolsky]

great point

no framing required when you get everything around you.

Still, FPV is paramount. It has nothing to do with training wheel/nanny aid. If you wanna do a VR of the nice mountain across that lake that you cannot physically get to? It'll be next to impossible to judge distance and positioning when you're 500m away. The margin of error is huge and the guesswork shoots up exponentially.

If you think FPV is paramount this particular VR setup is just not for you. But please don't spoil it for the rest of us who are going to capture awesome images with this setup. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

 

[twitchyzero]

not sure how I'm spoiling it for you...it's not like i'm telling you not to buy it or enjoy it. Use your money how you see fit, I'm just sharing my thoughts.

I just don't see value in it, highlighting its weaker marketing position as well as its shortcomings/inconvenience. Never tried to justify it was for me. If you see value in it, more power to you. If you don't mind swapping out the delicate gimbal each time and/or dedicating a Solo purely for VR, even more power to ya.

Please do share the VR/360 footage and prove me wrong. I just need VR goggles first

 

[SARDG]

...Please do share the VR/360 footage and prove me wrong. I just need VR goggles first

Google cardboard... about 10 bucks. Or... just hold your phone up in front of your face and twirl.

 

[User Name]

OH, OK
B+H Photo selling Solo+Gimbal for $372!!
quite a few members here got in on that deal

Sorry to be a sticker for facts, but an error that was honored but quickly fixed does not validate that "a Solo with gimbal can be had for $372". $599, fine, that's a great price, but $372... no, only those lucky enough to have jumped on the mistake got it for that, and it's unlikely to ever happen again.

Yep, I'm full of it. What's with the hostile tone?

I'm not sure my reply was exactly hostile, I simply called BS on your claim, which was entirely appropriate given it's absurdity.

No thank you at that price! So what I paid almost $2K for Solo + gimbal + Hero4...the current market pricing for Solo means this VR rig makes no sense from a dollar perspective.

You're connecting two things that really have no material bearing on each other. I too dropped upwards of $2k on the Solo/gimbal/backpack/camera. Do I wish I waited and paid less? Sure, absolutely, but that's the perils of being an early adopter. But to tie the current price of the Solo to the price of the VR camera is, like your "a Solo can be had for $372" claim, absurd.

If it's all about comparative price, than what you're saying is that if Solo still cost $2k for a complete system, than the VR setup would be reasonable, which is to say that the material value and utility of the VR setup is inexorably dependent on the price of the Solo... which makes no sense.

The future availability of replacement/maintenance parts for the Solo (batteries, motor pods, etc.) would be a totally valid argument, but simply the price, I'm sorry, it's just not.

 

[twitchyzero]

haha I remember when everyone's like $599 is a SALE price..not a price drop...and now here we are.

How is it BS when you've just confirmed the market price is $599?

It's like some people just can't admit they are wrong and will instead call you out for being absurd. I supported my side with proof twice and you're still mostly in disbelief. I give up. You want to go out and buy a $1K VR rig, I'm not stopping you. Don't come crawling back if you see it discontinued in a few months because of lack of interest/poor marketing/sales like majority of 'Made for Solo' products.

That's exactly how I see it, if Solo is still $1400 then yes VR rig priced at $1K is fine by me. Platform is now $599 with extras...why? because its future is doom and gloom. I believe pricing correlates to its current market position. Few months ago I'd tell people to jump on this platform. These days i'll give them the red flag.

Sorry to be a sticker for facts, but an error that was honored but quickly fixed does not validate that "a Solo with gimbal can be had for $372". $599, fine, that's a great price, but $372... no, only those lucky enough to have jumped on the mistake got it for that, and it's unlikely to ever happen again.

I'm not sure my reply was exactly hostile, I simply called BS on your claim, which was entirely appropriate given it's absurdity.

You're connecting two things that really have no material bearing on each other. I too dropped upwards of $2k on the Solo/gimbal/backpack/camera. Do I wish I waited and paid less? Sure, absolutely, but that's the perils of being an early adopter. But to tie the current price of the Solo to the price of the VR camera is, like your "a Solo can be had for $372" claim, absurd.

If it's all about comparative price, than what you're saying is that if Solo still cost $2k for a complete system, than the VR setup would be reasonable, which is to say that the material value and utility of the VR setup is inexorably dependent on the price of the Solo... which makes no sense.

The future availability of replacement/maintenance parts for the Solo (batteries, motor pods, etc.) would be a totally valid argument, but simply the price, I'm sorry, it's just not.

 

[erikgraham]

I think you guys have staked out your positions on this pretty clearly. Shall we move on?

So far, we've only discussed video, but 360 stills are possible with this rig, and those are a lot of fun too. Still photo 360 panoramas don't require a powerful computer to process, and the files sizes are much smaller.

Personally, my interest is in stereoscopic 3D video. I've built a GoPro rig and done some experiments that worked out pretty well. Unfortunately, the stitching software I use (Autopano AVP and Giga) is expensive.

As I learn this, I've done some non-stereo 2D 360 video, and it's pretty cool too. Anyway, what I've found so far is the following:

1. Vibration is a much smaller issue than it is with a regular camera.

There is something about 360 surround video that makes the shakes less distracting. You have to experience it to see what I mean. It's almost as if when your inside the 360 sphere, your eyes do their own "stabilization" like they do in real life (for example when your driving fast down a bumpy dirt road). I don't know, just speculating here. If you have a headset (Google cardboard or some cheap equivalent) then you can check this out by searching YouTube (where there are plenty of shaky 3D videos).

The software I've used to stitch has its own stabalizer and horizon leveler. I assume other stitching software does the same, including Kodaks. If you really want to, you can completely lock down and stabalize your 360 videos, but I suspect you wouldn't want to. I need to experiment with this, but I think leaving a bit of the shakes in makes the experience feel more immersive. Some shakes (in moderation) may actually reduce VR sickness because it's what your brain expects. (Disclaimer: I'm not sure about this, but it a working theory of mine.)

2. Resolution is the biggest problem.
When you stetch a 4K image horizontally and vertically around a sphere, the portion that you actually see at any one time inside the goggles is going to look fairly pixilated. That portion seems to be called the Area of View (or AOV) by experienced users on other forums. Anyway, it's a bit like going back to an old TV. Not bad, until compared to the high def TV we are all accustomed to now.

This Kodak solo rig will suffer from this issue. It claims 4K, but that's not enough.

My work around is to use 6 GoPros in a ring, each set at 4K. So far I've only managed to generate a few "gigapixel" still photo panoramas. I'm still learning, so I can't say for sure if I'll be able to do this with video.

3. Exposure is another issue.
Each lens is getting a different exposure and it's important to even that all out for a seamless experience. It's very distracting when part of the sky is blue and another part is blown out white. The Autopano software I use does a good job of automatically evening out exposure, but I'm not sure about the stitching software that comes with this rig. Based on some of the example videos I've seen, I'd say it doesn't do a great job - but that could be the fault of the user if they didn't take the time to work on this during the stitching process. I just don't know what the Kodak software is capable of in the hands of a patient and experienced user.


I'll be honest, im really not sure why I'm doing this 360 video stuff, other than for fun. The stereo 3D is really cool, but the demands of stitching 6 to 8 4K video streams is pretty high. Especially when I have to do it twice (one for each eye). The number of people in the world who could play back a gigapixel stereoscopic 3D 360 video is probably exceeding low. So it's all kind of pointless. I guess I'm just hoping that in a few years the hardware to support this kind of video will be accessible.

In the meantime, this Solo - Kodak rig looks fun and easy to use. At the very least it will create some awesome family photos and videos.

 

[SARDG]

I have used (better called 'experimented') with stereo 3D since 35mm pin-registered Nikons and (dual) Ektagraphic slide projectors. Later, I tried a system that took both images on a single 35mm frame - so long ago, I've forgotten the details of how that worked - except I clearly remember... not very well. There was an old Stereo Realist 35mm camera, but I know I never had that - it used the original "cardboard" mount for stereo viewing.

Fast-forward to modern 3D TVs (I have three - both active and passive technology), and GoPro's Dual Hero System, and that's where you'll find me today. I have one of those Dual systems mounted on one of my Solos and have taken a total of one 3D flight. The resulting clip wasn't pretty. The lens spacing is more for the action-cams that the GoPros are, than general scenic photography - and you need to fly close-to or have something in the foreground now and again.

I can see that this entire undertaking is still going to be a challenge, but I'm looking forward to having more time to pursue GoPro/Solo 3D.

VR has potential for reviewing training evolutions aboard small CG patrol boats (no Solo involved), so I do have this itch.

 

[Dave Tolsky]

"I just think this is a silly camera in general. "4K" label here is terrible marketing as isn't even anywhere near UHD resolution...it's 2880x2880, LOL"

Do you get off on giving people the wrong information? The 4k spec is 3840 x 2160. Make a note of it!

 

[erikgraham]

Cool

"I just think this is a silly camera in general. "4K" label here is terrible marketing as isn't even anywhere near UHD resolution...it's 2880x2880, LOL"

Do you get off on giving people the wrong information? The 4k spec is 3840 x 2160. Make a note of it!

Just let it go. I agree with your posts, but you guys are high jacking the thread with these personal back and forth shots.

 

[twitchyzero]

Do you get off on giving people the wrong information? The 4k spec is 3840 x 2160. Make a note of it!

There appears to be a few members on these forums who like to get into debates/arguments without doing any research...or perhaps his/her reading comprehension is just not up to snuff.

You're using this for its intended use of 360/VR, correct?

Then you might want to speak for yourself and be the one making note of the specs.

2880x2880: 30fps (1:1),
2048x2048: 30fps (1:1),
1440x1440: 60fps/30fps (1:1),
1072x1072: 60fps/30fps (1:1)

KODAK PIXPRO SP360 4K Virtual Reality Action Camera-US | Kodak

 

[erikgraham]

Ok. It appears you guys aren't going to let this rest. So let me try.

2880x2880 = 8,294,400 pixels
3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels

They are both 4K. The aspect ratio is different, but needs to be for 360 video.

So now can we move on?

 

[twitchyzero]

same pixel count but that's not how 4K/UHD is defined, aka this is a classic case of marketing

but instead of telling me how awesome/great this product is, let's see some of member's stitched final product. I d like to be proven wrong, so far it's just been all talk no walk.

 

[SARDG]

same pixel count but that's not how 4K/UHD is defined, aka this is a classic case of marketing

but instead of telling me how awesome/great this product is, let's see some of member's stitched final product. I d like to be proven wrong, so far it's just been all talk no walk.

There's all kinds of examples on YouTube and FB. But if you are used to seeing news anchor's nose hairs on your 85" TV, you likely won't like what you see.

When I started streaming video over the Internet, video was about the size of a postage stamp and the frame rate was 10-15 fps; we were all hungry for the next big codec to hit so the viewer could actually see the video, instead of imagine it. ...but baby look at us now.

VR products are largely viewed on a small screen, an inch from your eye, but right now, and certainly at this price point, they are not 4K 85" TV products. That's okay...

ETA: You can pan around on your large computer monitor with some examples here.
需要安全验证

 

[erikgraham]

same pixel count but that's not how 4K/UHD is defined, aka this is a classic case of marketing

but instead of telling me how awesome/great this product is, let's see some of member's stitched final product. I d like to be proven wrong, so far it's just been all talk no walk.

I understand the 4K spec. All to well.

But take a step back... Given that the resolution is IDENTICAL at 8.3 million pixels, can we at least agree that this camera is "4K equivalent" and this certainly isn't a "classic case of marketing."

Frankly, quibling over whether it's true 4K is tiresome and irrelevant. As I said above, 4K is just not enough resolution to stretch around 360 degrees.