This Is Why We Don't Use 4K Superview...

Lon Denard · Apr 15, 2017

Yep, not good.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src=" " frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Kreativedesines · Apr 22, 2017

I don't get it. What's wrong with it?

Lon Denard · Apr 22, 2017

Kreativedesines said:
I don't get it. What's wrong with it?

Jello. Warping. Maybe I'm being too picky.

Airpower · Apr 22, 2017

Jealous of your flying spot!!! But why comments about superview? I don't see much jello or warping just fisheye. Also the video is in 16:9 while superview is 4:3

Lon Denard · Apr 22, 2017

Airpower said:
Jealous of your flying spot!!! But why comments about superview? I don't see much jello or warping just fisheye. Also the video is in 16:9 while superview is 4:3

I had to do a lot of fixing in post. I modified it to put it on YouTube.

Airpower · Apr 22, 2017

you don't mind fisheye?

I have rarely used superview just because I always go for a 16:9 image, though lately I think it would be nice just to have more cropping area above and below frame. I only shoot videos on 24fps so that limit on superview is not a problem for me. The lower framerate makes it look more romantic and smooth. The other problem I've encountered with superview is when using a lens that has soft edges, those soft edges reveal entire soft corners once you're in super view! I found it impossible to take pictures that were sharp edge to edge with several new lenses, the 3.97mm has it worst from my experience

Lon Denard · Apr 22, 2017

Airpower said:
you don't mind fisheye?

I have rarely used superview just because I always go for a 16:9 image, though lately I think it would be nice just to have more cropping area above and below frame. I only shoot videos on 24fps so that limit on superview is not a problem for me. The lower framerate makes it look more romantic and smooth. The other problem I've encountered with superview is when using a lens that has soft edges, those soft edges reveal entire soft corners once you're in super view! I found it impossible to take pictures that were sharp edge to edge with several new lenses, the 3.97mm has it worst from my experience

Oh there's that too but using this system, there's basically no getting away from fish eye so I don't bother complaining about it. Hahaha!

dmyhill · Apr 23, 2017

Have you tried the "linear" option on the GoPro?

(V5, but I can turn the camera on...)

User Name · Apr 23, 2017

There's the warping, but with the proliferation of action cam videos, I find I notice it less and less. Not seeing the jello at all. A little jittery, but overall, I thought they were pretty cool shots overall. Part of me wants to replace my lens, but the other part just says screw it, reduce the fisheye in post and crop a bit. In all likelihood, I'll never fly these things for more than my own amusement, so I don't need to be too technical. I will say, I do hate 24 fps though, the stuttering of foreground objects drives me nuts.

Lon Denard · Apr 23, 2017

User Name said:
There's the warping, but with the proliferation of action cam videos, I find I notice it less and less. Not seeing the jello at all. A little jittery, but overall, I thought they were pretty cool shots overall. Part of me wants to replace my lens, but the other part just says screw it, reduce the fisheye in post and crop a bit. In all likelihood, I'll never fly these things for more than my own amusement, so I don't need to be too technical. I will say, I do hate 24 fps though, the stuttering of foreground objects drives me nuts.

Yes I was thinking that too about 24... I just didn't line the results even after a bunch of post tweaking. Oh well I'm back to 2.7 , med and 60

Airpower · Apr 24, 2017

I think those high frame rates look to much like a sports cam. If you're easy on the yaw the shots come out much more cinematic in 24fps, you can use the blur to divert and attract audience attention as well, and also the ability to really pull down the shutter speed and ISO. While I'm pursuing this as a business and take cinemaphotograghy very seriously, and that you can imitate a slower framerare blur in post, even while I was just doing this for a hobby I thought it made my footage look very different and pleasant.

Sorry to go off a lot on the subject, but I think a lot of us not familiar with professional film have often forgotten what 24fps is good for as manufactures push the fps and resolution race.

Almost all movies and tv shows are shot in 24 fps, it was a big deal when the hobbit was revealed to be shot in 60fps. Some thought it looked real others thought it looked like sports footage.

I think it's amazing that 24fps is the minimum number of frames the human eye can see in a second and combine all the images into motion. Below 24fps it becomes easy to identify each frame. It's also said that this creates motion blur very similar to human eye, but that really depends on shutter speeds.

gnomad · Apr 24, 2017

Airpower said:
I think those high frame rates look to much like a sports cam. If you're easy on the yaw the shots come out much more cinematic in 24fps, you can use the blur to divert and attract audience attention as well, and also the ability to really pull down the shutter speed and ISO. While I'm pursuing this as a business and take cinemaphotograghy very seriously, and that you can imitate a slower framerare blur in post, even while I was just doing this for a hobby I thought it made my footage look very different and pleasant.

Sorry to go off a lot on the subject, but I think a lot of us not familiar with professional film have often forgotten what 24fps is good for as manufactures push the fps and resolution race.

Almost all movies and tv shows are shot in 24 fps, it was a big deal when the hobbit was revealed to be shot in 60fps. Some thought it looked real others thought it looked like sports footage.

I think it's amazing that 24fps is the minimum number of frames the human eye can see in a second and combine all the images into motion. Below 24fps it becomes easy to identify each frame. It's also said that this creates motion blur very similar to human eye, but that really depends on shutter speeds.

Actually 10 fps is the slowest that the eye will not see as separate frames. 8mm was 12 fps as was 16mm and still are.

The world of video goes so far beyond the mediocre crap most people consider good on YouTube it is scary. Watch videos on Vimeo and compare to crap tube, it is night and day.

So many people get caught up in the numbers hype it is laughable, along with all the fawnboy support that brands like DJI get. Check out some footage from the almighty Mavic, and look closely and critically. It is some of the worst footage ever shot by a drone, now compare to Autel or even a GoPro on a Solo and then justify the cost.

Bottom line, I do video and photography professionally and to support that I own dozens of cameras and a dozen or so drones, each one is the best for specific circumstances. There is NO BEST except the one you need for the current shot!

RichWest · Apr 24, 2017

gnomad said:
Bottom line, I do video and photography professionally and to support that I own dozens of cameras and a dozen or so drones, each one is the best for specific circumstances. There is NO BEST except the one you need for the current shot!

Curious if you have any videos you could share of your work? Something from Solo/GP would be cool.

Lon Denard · Apr 24, 2017

RichWest said:
Curious if you have any videos you could share of your work? Something from Solo/GP would be cool.

+1 let's see some magic!

Redhouse · Apr 24, 2017

gnomad said:
Actually 10 fps is the slowest that the eye will not see as separate frames. 8mm was 12 fps as was 16mm and still are.

The world of video goes so far beyond the mediocre crap most people consider good on YouTube it is scary. Watch videos on Vimeo and compare to crap tube, it is night and day.

So many people get caught up in the numbers hype it is laughable, along with all the fawnboy support that brands like DJI get. Check out some footage from the almighty Mavic, and look closely and critically. It is some of the worst footage ever shot by a drone, now compare to Autel or even a GoPro on a Solo and then justify the cost.

Bottom line, I do video and photography professionally and to support that I own dozens of cameras and a dozen or so drones, each one is the best for specific circumstances. There is NO BEST except the one you need for the current shot!

Are you meaning to say "fan-boy" ? or is "fawnboy" a thing? I'm honestly just curious because of the multiple meanings of "fawn" and I'm new to quads. Y'all have your own language sometimes.