Stabilisation in post

[kye]

With Sony and BM now offering gyro stabilisation, what are your thoughts about stabilisation in post as it relates to the 180 degree shutter rule?

[Amazeballs]

I think i am gonna use gyro stab to some degree but not 100% cos I like the handheld look, just to smooth it out. On some other particular shots I might use it more extensivly. I would also try using a gimbal with a gyro to get it as smooth as possible as I hate that robotic walking gimbal look. Or I would just use my air2s for those perfect floating camera shots. Dunno, need more experimetns. The softwae is just getting developed (I use with gyroflow for now, but I hope either Blackmagic will add support for Sony or the former will produce their promiced plugin so the workflow becomes more intuitive and simple). If I had to choose which one to get - stable footage or motion blur, I would choose stable footage, if that what I need. Some times you must have a motion blur. Just prioritize what you need.  

[herein2020]

I guess I don't understand how the 180 degree shutter angle relates to post stab. I almost always shoot at 180 degrees with most of my cameras except with my drones and I frequently have to stabilize in post (especially since the C70 has no IBIS) but it looks fine to me.

[kye]

1 hour ago, herein2020 said:

I guess I don't understand how the 180 degree shutter angle relates to post stab. I almost always shoot at 180 degrees with most of my cameras except with my drones and I frequently have to stabilize in post (especially since the C70 has no IBIS) but it looks fine to me.

If you have 180 shutter and shake the camera then your images will have shake and motion blur.  This will look normal because the blur will match the shake - if you shake / move left the blur will be horizontal and the size of the blur will match the shake / motion in the shot.

If you stabilise in post, you remove the shake but not the blur.  If you stabilised in post completely so that the shot had no shake then it would look like a tripod shot because the camera movement would be gone, but all the blur would remain, so a stationary shot would blur in random directions at random times for no conceivable reason.

This is a test I did some time ago comparing OIS / IBIS vs EIS (stabilisation in post is a form of EIS).  The shot at 25s on the right "Digital Stabilisation Only" shows this motion blur without the associated camera shake.

The IBIS + Digital Stabilisation combo was much better and is essentially the same as OIS + Digital Stabilisation.  

The issue here is that people using IBIS or OIS often have all the stabilisation they need from that, so the gyro stabilisation is aimed at people who have neither.  This "blur doesn't match shake" also happens in all action and 360 cameras when they shoot in low-light and their auto-SS adjusts to have shutter speeds that include blur (which is why I bought an action camera with OIS rather than EIS).

[herein2020]

7 hours ago, kye said:

If you have 180 shutter and shake the camera then your images will have shake and motion blur.  This will look normal because the blur will match the shake - if you shake / move left the blur will be horizontal and the size of the blur will match the shake / motion in the shot.

If you stabilise in post, you remove the shake but not the blur.  If you stabilised in post completely so that the shot had no shake then it would look like a tripod shot because the camera movement would be gone, but all the blur would remain, so a stationary shot would blur in random directions at random times for no conceivable reason.

This is a test I did some time ago comparing OIS / IBIS vs EIS (stabilisation in post is a form of EIS).  The shot at 25s on the right "Digital Stabilisation Only" shows this motion blur without the associated camera shake.

The IBIS + Digital Stabilisation combo was much better and is essentially the same as OIS + Digital Stabilisation.  

The issue here is that people using IBIS or OIS often have all the stabilisation they need from that, so the gyro stabilisation is aimed at people who have neither.  This "blur doesn't match shake" also happens in all action and 360 cameras when they shoot in low-light and their auto-SS adjusts to have shutter speeds that include blur (which is why I bought an action camera with OIS rather than EIS).

That is a very interesting phenomenon, and makes perfect sense when you think about it.....but I think in the real world it is nearly impossible to see in a typical scene. Your test scene had a lot of sharp edges and detail combined with a lot of shake and post stabilization; in a typical shooting scenario the camera is farther away from the subject, there's few if any sharp edges, and the camera is typically also moving in some visible direction; combine that with compression from online platforms and I don't think it would be discernable at all.

The biggest problem I have with post stabilization is trying to balance the warping effect that post stabilization adds to certain scenes especially when shooting with wide angle lenses or the motion you are trying to fix. For me, I am more trying to smooth a too sudden motion more so than actual camera shake. When using it to smooth out a start or stop in motion it is quite effective but sometimes I have to try all 3 options in DR before finding one that looks natural.

The one place where I think this phenomenon would be perceptible nearly always would be shooting detail shots for real estate. In real estate videos though you nearly always use sliders or gimbals for that very reason....too many sharp straight edges that would make any camera shake, post stabilization, or horizon tilt very apparent.

I think at the end of the day nothing beats true stabilization equipment, IBIS, Digital IS, and Post stabilization are all just tools to get you "close enough" when "close enough" is acceptable.

[kye]

42 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

That is a very interesting phenomenon, and makes perfect sense when you think about it.....but I think in the real world it is nearly impossible to see in a typical scene. Your test scene had a lot of sharp edges and detail combined with a lot of shake and post stabilization; in a typical shooting scenario the camera is farther away from the subject, there's few if any sharp edges, and the camera is typically also moving in some visible direction; combine that with compression from online platforms and I don't think it would be discernable at all.

The biggest problem I have with post stabilization is trying to balance the warping effect that post stabilization adds to certain scenes especially when shooting with wide angle lenses or the motion you are trying to fix. For me, I am more trying to smooth a too sudden motion more so than actual camera shake. When using it to smooth out a start or stop in motion it is quite effective but sometimes I have to try all 3 options in DR before finding one that looks natural.

The one place where I think this phenomenon would be perceptible nearly always would be shooting detail shots for real estate. In real estate videos though you nearly always use sliders or gimbals for that very reason....too many sharp straight edges that would make any camera shake, post stabilization, or horizon tilt very apparent.

I think at the end of the day nothing beats true stabilization equipment, IBIS, Digital IS, and Post stabilization are all just tools to get you "close enough" when "close enough" is acceptable.

Yeah, I suspect that it's often under the threshold of what is perceptible.

I also have a theory that this threshold is getting higher over time as people slowly get used to cameras that expose with SS.  Your comment about compression from online platforms is an interesting one, as, YT in 4K has more resolving power than basically any affordable camera had a decade ago, so that's actually gone through the roof, but peoples perception has dulled more than enough to compensate.

I've actually gone the other way in my work - I used to shoot quite dynamic shots and stabilise in post a lot, whereas now my shots are much more static and I basically don't stabilise in-post at all.  This forum used to be full of people talking about motion cadence, which despite never really getting a good definition was a pretty subtle effect at the best of times, and yet now people seem to be comfortable with the blur not matching the cameras movement, which I would imagine would be an effect at least one or two orders of magnitude more significant than motion cadence.

I also find it amazing that people have adjusted to 4K being cinematic, when even now many cinemas are 2K, and every movie (apart from those on 70mm) basically had 2K resolution by the time you saw it in a theatre.  

How perception changes over time!

[Phil A]

The worst is stabilizing in post when someone is (not so carefully) walking with the camera. Everything just rhythmically blurring for a fraction of a second. It shows especially when there’s a lot of trees, traffic signs, etc in the frame.

[markr041]

IBIS and OIS in no way can deal with the shakiness of walking with the camera. But gyro stabilization alone can.

Here is a gyro-stabilized 4K video shot with the BMPCC6K in 6K BRAW (no IBIS or OIS), which has handheld static shots and walking shots:

 

[FHDcrew]

Nice footage!  What lens?

How do you think a 20mm FF equivalent lens would fare for gyro stabilization?  I have a 45mm FF equiv, but I feel that is just too extreme for gyro to handle. How much would I need to crop with 20mm lens, to get steadicam-style footage out of the gyro stabilization?

[herein2020]

On 7/24/2022 at 10:56 AM, kye said:

Yeah, I suspect that it's often under the threshold of what is perceptible.

I also have a theory that this threshold is getting higher over time as people slowly get used to cameras that expose with SS.  Your comment about compression from online platforms is an interesting one, as, YT in 4K has more resolving power than basically any affordable camera had a decade ago, so that's actually gone through the roof, but peoples perception has dulled more than enough to compensate.

I've actually gone the other way in my work - I used to shoot quite dynamic shots and stabilise in post a lot, whereas now my shots are much more static and I basically don't stabilise in-post at all.  This forum used to be full of people talking about motion cadence, which despite never really getting a good definition was a pretty subtle effect at the best of times, and yet now people seem to be comfortable with the blur not matching the cameras movement, which I would imagine would be an effect at least one or two orders of magnitude more significant than motion cadence.

I also find it amazing that people have adjusted to 4K being cinematic, when even now many cinemas are 2K, and every movie (apart from those on 70mm) basically had 2K resolution by the time you saw it in a theatre.  

How perception changes over time!

 

I have gone full circle, I used to shoot everything from a tripod, gimbal, or monopod; mainly because I started out shooting real estate photography and video. As soon as I started working with bigger projects and faster moving events stabilization equipment felt like a crutch that was holding me back; even the monopod started feeling clunky and too much fiddling; by the time it was the right height, pointed in the right direction, and the camera was ready, the moment had passed.

These days I still have the monopod in the car but haven't used it in over 2yrs, I bring the gimbal to most shoots but usually either don't use it or use it only for a few min of walking shots, and the tripod I do use religiously for runway shows and long form static work. For everything else I shoot handheld. 

One thing I never do handheld though is try to walk; Other than GoPro, I have yet to see a single IBIS system that impressed me when walking. To me, if you are going to walk with the camera you need a gimbal, no exceptions. GoPro of course still has the best in body digital IS that I have ever seen, but they can get away with it due to the tiny sensor.

On 7/24/2022 at 11:30 AM, Phil A said:

The worst is stabilizing in post when someone is (not so carefully) walking with the camera. Everything just rhythmically blurring for a fraction of a second. It shows especially when there’s a lot of trees, traffic signs, etc in the frame.

This is why I still say no IBIS system (other than GoPro) truly works when walking, no matter how many stops of light the manufacturer claims.

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

IBIS and OIS in no way can deal with the shakiness of walking with the camera. But gyro stabilization alone can.

Here is a gyro-stabilized 4K video shot with the BMPCC6K in 6K BRAW (no IBIS or OIS), which has handheld static shots and walking shots:

 

 

I had hopes that I would be impressed.....but I wasn't. The handheld static scenes were ok; about even with IBIS and about even with post stabilization; but the walking scenes were terrible as usual. Way too much warping, and jumpiness; it was obvious where the gyro stabilization was trying to fix the footage. I will be truly impressed when any IBIS or post stabilization can make a gimbal shot indiscernible from a handheld walking shot for the average videographer.

There are exceptional videographers who can shoot handheld without IBIS and without post stabilization and make a walking shot look great (at least for a few seconds to a minute), but they are the exception. Personally, I am always trying to improve my handheld technique because handheld is by far the most freeing while also the most challenging.

Shooting with the C70 handheld has greatly improved my technique, now when I shoot with a camera that has IBIS like the R5 I find myself shooting with much more stability and not needing any post stabilization.

 

[markr041]

1 hour ago, FHDcrew said:

Nice footage!  What lens?

How do you think a 20mm FF equivalent lens would fare for gyro stabilization?  I have a 45mm FF equiv, but I feel that is just too extreme for gyro to handle. How much would I need to crop with 20mm lens, to get steadicam-style footage out of the gyro stabilization?

Canon EF S 18-135 Nano IS lens. Lens stabilization turned OFF. Many shot at the long end (e.g, the flower shots). Shooting in 6K allows plenty of cropping and still a pristine 4K to render.

[kye]

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

 

I have gone full circle, I used to shoot everything from a tripod, gimbal, or monopod; mainly because I started out shooting real estate photography and video. As soon as I started working with bigger projects and faster moving events stabilization equipment felt like a crutch that was holding me back; even the monopod started feeling clunky and too much fiddling; by the time it was the right height, pointed in the right direction, and the camera was ready, the moment had passed.

These days I still have the monopod in the car but haven't used it in over 2yrs, I bring the gimbal to most shoots but usually either don't use it or use it only for a few min of walking shots, and the tripod I do use religiously for runway shows and long form static work. For everything else I shoot handheld. 

One thing I never do handheld though is try to walk; Other than GoPro, I have yet to see a single IBIS system that impressed me when walking. To me, if you are going to walk with the camera you need a gimbal, no exceptions. GoPro of course still has the best in body digital IS that I have ever seen, but they can get away with it due to the tiny sensor.

This is why I still say no IBIS system (other than GoPro) truly works when walking, no matter how many stops of light the manufacturer claims.

 

I had hopes that I would be impressed.....but I wasn't. The handheld static scenes were ok; about even with IBIS and about even with post stabilization; but the walking scenes were terrible as usual. Way too much warping, and jumpiness; it was obvious where the gyro stabilization was trying to fix the footage. I will be truly impressed when any IBIS or post stabilization can make a gimbal shot indiscernible from a handheld walking shot for the average videographer.

There are exceptional videographers who can shoot handheld without IBIS and without post stabilization and make a walking shot look great (at least for a few seconds to a minute), but they are the exception. Personally, I am always trying to improve my handheld technique because handheld is by far the most freeing while also the most challenging.

Shooting with the C70 handheld has greatly improved my technique, now when I shoot with a camera that has IBIS like the R5 I find myself shooting with much more stability and not needing any post stabilization.

 

My hand-held shooting is mostly of static shots now, so of course they stabilise quite well with IS or EIS, but I do the odd follow-shot when walking with family, which is where the Sony X3000 comes in handy - OIS in an action camera.  I just did a quick search for samples of walking shots with it and found a few that seemed nothing special, but I know when I do those shots I am always surprised when I see the footage as it looks gimbal-like almost every time.  I try and do the ninja walk and hold my hand floating in space, but I haven't practiced it and wouldn't say I'm particularly talented for it, but who knows.

Perhaps the best EIS is from the 360 cameras, where the EIS has infinite crop factor into the lens and the lens distortions are all cancelled out completely.  Of course, if you're filming, a normal shot then you'll crop into the image so much the IQ will be unusable, so that's the downside.

I'm not sure what the sensor size and stops of light have to do with IBIS?

[herein2020]

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

Canon EF S 18-135 Nano IS lens. Lens stabilization turned OFF. Many shot at the long end (e.g, the flower shots). Shooting in 6K allows plenty of cropping and still a pristine 4K to render.

The R5 has hands down the best IBIS that I have ever used, I shot handheld a few shots with a 70-200 at 200mm and it was incredibly stable while filming closeups of people as a B-cam; so I do think modern IBIS systems can equal or be better than the BM gyro results. The difference for me is that when IBIS fixes instability there is no weird jitter or warping that I saw with the gyro results...at least not with the longer lenses (35mm and above).

The other benefit  of IBIS vs gyro is there is no cropping required...with IBIS what you frame is what you get, with post stabilization and gyro stabilization you have no idea ahead of time how much cropping will be needed. For my particular niche in the industry (fashion), it is very important to not have to crop because the crop could be in the worse possible place (middle of the model's head for example), rendering the shot unusable. Just because it shoots 6K doesn't mean you want to leave tons of room around every shot and frame differently to accommodate post cropping later; sometimes you need the exact composition that you shot.

Based solely on the video above, I think gyro stabilization is a lot like post digital stabilization....very good for certain types of movements and very jittery for others; whereas IBIS is excellent regardless of the movement.

26 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm not sure what the sensor size and stops of light have to do with IBIS?

DJI's Osmos and GoPros have the best In Body Digital Stabilization (IBDS?) out there. The working theory is that because the data rates are lower due to the smaller sensor, it takes less processing power to stabilize them (and other action cameras) than the larger cameras which is why their digital IS works so well. Another theory is that the sensor is simply larger for regular IBIS systems so the IBIS naturally will have to work harder to stabilize it. The GH5's IBIS for example blew away the FF competition for years in the IBIS department.

Manufacturers typically rate their IBIS system based on stops of light. For example, the R5 according to Canon has an IBIS rated at 8 stops of light...the highest in the industry for MILCs. Most manufacturers are rating their IBIS systems around 3-5 stops of light. I think the S5 was rated at 5 stops.  Not sure who invented light stops as a measure of IBIS performance, but it is the standard now. 

You can read more about how it is measured here:

https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/

I will say, after this past week, the R5 without a doubt has the best IBIS I've ever encountered in a FF body.  I could hand hold at 200mm and make it look like I was on a tripod for an extended length of time; very impressive in my book.

[kye]

54 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

The R5 has hands down the best IBIS that I have ever used, I shot handheld a few shots with a 70-200 at 200mm and it was incredibly stable while filming closeups of people as a B-cam; so I do think modern IBIS systems can equal or be better than the BM gyro results. The difference for me is that when IBIS fixes instability there is no weird jitter or warping that I saw with the gyro results...at least not with the longer lenses (35mm and above).

I thought that gyro would allow the camera to eliminate the warping as it would know the focal length and the cameras direction, but it seems to not be so.  That was literally the only advantage of gyro stabilisation over EIS.

54 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

Based solely on the video above, I think gyro stabilization is a lot like post digital stabilization....very good for certain types of movements and very jittery for others; whereas IBIS is excellent regardless of the movement.

I'd conclude that gyro is worth trying in post to see if it does better than EIS, but doesn't seem to have any advantage.  Both are last-resorts compared to IBIS / OIS, or physically controlling the camera with a gimbal, tripod, monopod, slider, crane, jib, etc etc.

54 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

DJI's Osmos and GoPros have the best In Body Digital Stabilization (IBDS?) out there. The working theory is that because the data rates are lower due to the smaller sensor, it takes less processing power to stabilize them (and other action cameras) than the larger cameras which is why their digital IS works so well.

(Disclaimer...  the below might sound harsh, but it's directed at the theories you're presenting, not you!  Hopefully my comments are useful and informative and correct some of the staggering misinformation floating around).

That's nonsense.

The data coming off the sensor is RAW - it's whatever the resolution is x the bit-depth x 3 (RGB channels).  

I think that Osmos and GoPros have the best stabilisation based on two factors - 1) they have fixed lenses and can tune their algorithms based on that, and 2) the entire success or failure of those products rests on how well they implement this feature.

54 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

Another theory is that the sensor is simply larger for regular IBIS systems so the IBIS naturally will have to work harder to stabilize it.

That's also partly nonsense.  Man, the internet really doesn't understand WTF is going on with stabilisation.

I realise that manufacturers measure stabilisation in stops.  This is complete marketing crap - it's correct but irrelevant.

Think of the suspension system on a car.  The tyre follows every tiny bump on the road and the body of the car doesn't want to feel any of those bumps.  The goal of the suspension system is to connect the two but without transmitting the shake from the road to the car.  It's not a perfect parallel as there are differences between these examples, but it's good enough for our purposes.

The cars suspension system can be viewed in two scenarios.  1) how well it smooths small bumps, and 2) what the maximum bump size is that it can handle.

In the first scenario, you're driving down a road and there's a small pothole.  You drive over it, you hear a thump from the tyres, but feel almost nothing in your seat.  This is a reduction in the vibration, and in cameras, this is measured in stops.  It is the ratio of how much vibration goes in vs how much gets through the mechanism.

In the second scenario, you drive up a large curb.  If you're in a small city car, the tyre flexes, the shock goes all the way in, but the wheel hits the end of the shocks and sends an enormous thump up into the car, sending you and the contents of your car flying.  If you were in a huge off-road 4wd, you would hear a thump but the tyres and shocks would have enough vertical travel to absorb it.  You would still feel it to some extent, but it wasn't a disaster.

The second scenario is what you're seeing in your OIS/IBIS mechanism when you see the footage still have shake.  This is what separates small sensors from larger sensors - it's the amount they can travel, not the "stops" of IS.  The sensor simply runs out of travel and can't move far enough.

The math is very clear.  Take 5 stops for example, that's a reduction of vibration by a factor of 32x.  So, you move the camera by 32 pixels but the image only moves by 1 pixel.  You move the camera 50% to one side, and the image moves by 1/64 of the frame - in 4K that would be 60 pixels when you moved the camera almost 2000 pixels....and that's only 5 stops. 

This is why the stops don't matter.  The issue is how far the camera can move the sensor.  Larger sensors probably don't have as much room to move as a smaller sensor.  This is one reason for having a MFT camera the size of a FF MILC - to accommodate this mechanism.

The other biggest challenge is the wobble of IS (both OIS and IBIS) on wide-angle lenses.  This is a problem because spherical lenses are, well, spherical, and sensors are flat.  In terms of EIS, it's essentially a complete fail on behalf of the manufacturers to compensate, as GoPro and DJI have shown by doing it properly.  I looked at a package that corrects lens distortion in post (and also does things like RS correction and flicker elimination) but didn't buy it as it was closer to $1000 than I would have liked, but it's possible.  I could even tell you the math, but I haven't worked out how to implement it yet, unfortunately.  Resolves EIS pipeline isn't designed correctly to do it.

[stephen]

 

Use 180 degree rule and in most cases stabilization in post works fine. But of course it is used to smooth and compensate for small movement and jitter when camera itself is panning or moving rather slowly. I try to use proper technique while shooting in order to get stable footage at first place. Most of the time shoot handheld without gimbal. One of the keys to get stable footage without gimbal or IBIS or IS in lens is to use heavier rig (2-2.5 kg). The other is to use good technique, lots of tip and tricks. For example with top handle and 35mm or wider lens can even do short walks.

For long walks or runs will not shy away and use gimbal. Still proper walking technique is needed as gimbal can't compensate for up and down movement.

BMPCC 4K/6K Giro stabilization was kind of disappointment for me. In all tests normal 'warp' stabilization in Resolve worked better than gyro. Unfortunately there is no substitute for good shooting technique and heavier rigs or gimbals.

My observations are that in the professional video/cinema world nobody complains about camera size or rigs. You either go after ultimate picture quality (whatever this for you is) or convenience. I often watch this video about DP Hoyte van Hoytema and Christopher Nolan.

Why Christopher Nolan & Hoyte van Hoytema Films Everything In Camera & IMAX

Impressive how big the iMax 70 mm film camera is. Somebody has to help put it on Hoytema's shoulder. Аs they say: Go big or go home. 🙂

[markr041]

19 minutes ago, stephen said:

 

Use 180 degree rule and in most cases stabilization in post works fine. But of course it is used to smooth and compensate for small movement and jitter when camera itself is panning or moving rather slowly. I try to use proper technique while shooting in order to get stable footage at first place. Most of the time shoot handheld without gimbal. One of the keys to get stable footage without gimbal or IBIS or IS in lens is to use heavier rig (2-2.5 kg). The other is to use good technique, lots of tip and tricks. For example with top handle and 35mm or wider lens can even do short walks.

For long walks or runs will not shy away and use gimbal. Still proper walking technique is needed as gimbal can't compensate for up and down movement.

BMPCC 4K/6K Giro stabilization was kind of disappointment for me. In all tests normal 'warp' stabilization in Resolve worked better than gyro. Unfortunately there is no substitute for good shooting technique and heavier rigs or gimbals.

My observations are that in the professional video/cinema world nobody complains about camera size or rigs. You either go after ultimate picture quality (whatever this for you is) or convenience. I often watch this video about DP Hoyte van Hoytema and Christopher Nolan.

Why Christopher Nolan & Hoyte van Hoytema Films Everything In Camera & IMAX

Impressive how big the iMax 70 mm film camera is. Somebody has to help put it on Hoytema's shoulder. Аs they say: Go big or go home. 🙂

No, the 180 degree rule does not work "fine" with gyro stabilization, as clearly stated by both BlackMagic, GoPro, and Sony and consistent with my extensive experience with gyro stabilization for all three camera brands. Blurring wreaks havoc with gyro stabilization. If done correctly, there is no way the warp stabilizer in DaVinci Resolve does better than gyro stabilization for the same camera.

And, btw, gyro stabilization corrects rolling shutter. This is not too relevant for the R5, but it is for many cameras, including the BMPCC6K.

For those who don't appreciate what gyro stabilization does, this 4K (shot in 6K) video shows the before and after of the walking and long telephoto shots (this does not prove that gyro stabilization is better than your preferred choice, however mistaken or not, but shows what it handles).

 

[FHDcrew]

Is there a shutter speed higher than 1/50 that eliminates flicker for 24p or 30p footage?  I need a solution for doing gyro stabilization indoors even if it is very run and gun with artificial, overhead lighting. 

[kye]

11 hours ago, markr041 said:

And, btw, gyro stabilization corrects rolling shutter. This is not too relevant for the R5, but it is for many cameras, including the BMPCC6K.

That's interesting and makes sense - although it's something that EIS could also compensate for.

[stephen]

Did a test with 75 degree and 60 degree, still not satisfied with the results. Maybe am doing something wrong ? It is possible. Lens on BMPCC 4K was vintage one with no electronic contacts. Correct focal length was set in camera.

Even if gyro stabilization works great, shooting at angle different than 180 degree breaks one of the major technical rules that give us esthetics that we call cinematic. This is still a problem for me. For others it may be OK.

[webrunner5]

I think the gyro only works in 4K and you have to use only panny or oly lenses.