pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: GoPRro will license videos upwards of 1000$  (Read 3432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 22, 2015, 15:01 »
+2


« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2015, 15:55 »
+3
Yeah, suck everyone in, then when you get a nice sized collection, start paying $.38 for each video. Sound familiar?  :-\

« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2015, 16:41 »
0
Interesting. Guess it all has to be done with a gopro which I dont have. (yet)

« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2015, 11:17 »
+2
Hi All,

Just checked out the page I think they need a different lead in clip. The idea of strapping a Go Pro to the bill of a bird is kinda messed up. Interesting to see where this will go.

J

« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2015, 06:35 »
+2
Interesting. Guess it all has to be done with a gopro which I dont have. (yet)


then don't bother getting one. If you do it for the camera in an attempt to get another "interesting tool" or addition to your kit, you are flat out gonna be disappointed. (It may be a different story for people who cannot sit still and plan on jumping around and need a small camera to go with them while breaking their necks, plus want all those Twitter-generation sharing functions and toys on top   -- but if that's not you, then this specialised thing is not for you.) I bought and tested one but sent it back for its appauling image quality:

 - the GoPro fisheye effect really sucks,
 - even at 1080p60, you cannot even slowly pan without having a severe strobing effect (and I don't believe anyone would want a GoPro for recording panoramic views or sunsets); this is apparently caused by some sub-micro sized tiny little sensor that blows the high-data-volume 60p thing as well as the acceptable Mpx amount and really doesn't make much sense,
 - the mike is (understandably) heavily wind-filtered and, therefore, produces overly weak, far-away sounding audio (there is an external mike input though which might (?? fixed mike level presets allowing for this at all??) improve the camera's poor audio), albeit this requires a micro-USB-to-3.5mm adapter first :( , adding to handling issues and fall-offs etc,
 - micro SD cards are way too small (physically to handle) and hence impractical for real-life situation on the job; haven't got the time to go searching for 20 minutes if I drop them...

I am aware of **some** of the issues being remediable (correcting fisheye in software) but most are not. And why would I when there are better cameras out there that cost less than a GoPro! Also, people may have got better things to do than adding an, otherwise unnecessary, extra step in post-production. Even DJI who initially recommended using GoPros in their older Phantom and Phantom 2 quadcopters have now come up with a better camera and lens and are expressly boasting the fact that their own new Phantom-3-and-beyond camera has a 94 FOV and no fishy stuff anymore. While not touting DJI consumer and prosumer drones here (as I prefer more versatile, less-closed-down solutions), there must be a reason DJI now avoid fisheyed cameras.

For starters, if you only try finding actionable information on lens correction data, the only thing coming up is the usual garbage about using "that great preset in Adobe AfterEffects" but nothing in the way of actual **values** that can be used in non-proprietary software like openShot or shotCut etc. I knew how to click some drop-down entry in AfterEffects before. I also can see why Adobe would want to push only THIS "solution" -- thank you very much.

** EDIT **: after trying for some time now to fix the issue using what little actionable information is out there for non-Adobe users, I found out that even thoroughly lens-correcting that distorted pile of GoPro output does not really help too much: instead of that pathetic fisheye, you now get skewed horizons all over your image except for the very center. Not surprising it didn't work so good for me: others seem to have the very same problem, as seen in this YouTube example RAW original footage and lens-corrected version. To make a long story short, this is hardly the result one would want after losing significant amounts of additional time on that just-not-good-enough GoPro stuff.

Also, the obscene amount of packaging going into presenting these GoPro thingies in a way they "shine as great toys for boys" is not good at all! (While the extra one-way "mount" may come in handy for makeshift solutions, fixes, or DIY holders, the useless throw-away "showcase"  and transparent dome you're also buying with it is flat-out wasteful.) Welcome to the Brave New World of Apple- and Chinese-led "Environmental Awareness"...

GoPros compare favorably only when the "competition" is a cheap toy camera or maybe a Yuneec CGo-1 and similar. In these instances, the GoPro has more of a quality-feel to it and also produces better results than these "garbage cams" (that only cost a fraction though). Compared against any MFT or DSLR, it hasn't.

So, at the end of the day, a decent mirrorless system camera is clearly the better choice. This even goes for Aerial or Multicopter applications (as a Nikon 1 J1 costs a lot less, shoots way better images -- both photos and HD footage which includes slow motion, albeit limited to 720p and lower resolutions  --  and has a body weight of just 192 grams to fit many copters, even smaller quads).

"Being a Hero" doesn't mean we need to also be braindead from now on out.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2015, 15:40 by marquixHD »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6675 Views
Last post December 06, 2007, 18:58
by vonkara
3 Replies
2889 Views
Last post June 27, 2008, 18:00
by CofkoCof
11 Replies
9435 Views
Last post March 24, 2009, 09:39
by leaf
13 Replies
4841 Views
Last post October 03, 2010, 14:38
by oxman
1 Replies
5333 Views
Last post June 02, 2013, 06:41
by roede-orm

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors