Upgrade 120Mbps bitrate and 10-bit video on GoPro... 11

[markr041]

And now my Hero 11 overheating test. 2.25 hours of shooting 5.3K light trails at night.

ISO at 100. Shutter at 1 second. Wide lens, Natural color, 3200K WB. Video is straight from the camera. No editing or processing.

The camera did not shutdown. I stopped recording at 2.25 hours, with 11% battery remaining from full.

4.5-minute video.

[kye]

5 hours ago, markr041 said:

And now my Hero 11 overheating test. 2.25 hours of shooting 5.3K light trails at night.

ISO at 100. Shutter at 1 second. Wide lens, Natural color, 3200K WB. Video is straight from the camera. No editing or processing.

The camera did not shutdown. I stopped recording at 2.25 hours, with 11% battery remaining from full.

4.5-minute video.

What was the ambient temperature during the test?  Please tell me it was above 35C 🙂 

[markr041]

8 minutes ago, kye said:

What was the ambient temperature during the test?  Please tell me it was above 35C 🙂 

No, it was not very hot, about 65 F.

[kye]

2 hours ago, markr041 said:

No, it was not very hot, about 65 F.

Ha ha...  I guess it's guaranteed to work if I'm filming in my fridge then lol.

[androidlad]

The stock lens on GoPro is plastic with evident haloing and softness. A third party all-glass lens mod is available (Hero 10 for now):

https://www.peauproductions.com/collections/peaupro-cameras/products/peaupro14-gopro-hero-10-black-ribcage

[Emanuel]

9 minutes ago, androidlad said:

The stock lens on GoPro is plastic with evident haloing and softness. A third party all-glass lens mod is available (Hero 10 for now):

https://www.peauproductions.com/collections/peaupro-cameras/products/peaupro14-gopro-hero-10-black-ribcage

11 model is the same fit as much as 9 so I guess for any of those three models at least, no?

[markr041]

1 hour ago, androidlad said:

The stock lens on GoPro is plastic with evident haloing and softness. A third party all-glass lens mod is available (Hero 10 for now):

https://www.peauproductions.com/collections/peaupro-cameras/products/peaupro14-gopro-hero-10-black-ribcage

Any evidence you have that this "all-glass" mod is actually better? This is just a claim. I don't see "softness" in GoPro videos. That is the least issue of GoPro image quality as far as I can see.

Post a video showing the alleged improvement.

[markr041]

 

[kye]

12 hours ago, markr041 said:

Any evidence you have that this "all-glass" mod is actually better? This is just a claim. I don't see "softness" in GoPro videos. That is the least issue of GoPro image quality as far as I can see.

Post a video showing the alleged improvement.

The existing lens may well be soft compared to a high-spec alternative, but I'd suggest that the images from the GoPro are bordering on over-sharpened already, so if the lens is swapped for a sharper one then that is likely to be a net-negative on the overall image quality.

It might, however, reduce chromatic aberrations and fringing etc which would be an improvement.  

I'd be curious to see a comparison between the stock and third-party lenses.

I'd also be curious to see a 1:1 crop on the 5.3k files you're recording - could you post a short clip to YT?  Instead of downsampling the 5.3K file onto a 4K timeline could you simply put the 5.3K file onto the timeline at a 1:1 scale (which would crop part of the original image).  If you're able then including a 2:1 where it's zoomed in to 200% would also be nice.

[markr041]

7 hours ago, kye said:

The existing lens may well be soft compared to a high-spec alternative, but I'd suggest that the images from the GoPro are bordering on over-sharpened already, so if the lens is swapped for a sharper one then that is likely to be a net-negative on the overall image quality.

It might, however, reduce chromatic aberrations and fringing etc which would be an improvement.  

I'd be curious to see a comparison between the stock and third-party lenses.

I'd also be curious to see a 1:1 crop on the 5.3k files you're recording - could you post a short clip to YT?  Instead of downsampling the 5.3K file onto a 4K timeline could you simply put the 5.3K file onto the timeline at a 1:1 scale (which would crop part of the original image).  If you're able then including a 2:1 where it's zoomed in to 200% would also be nice.

I do not downsample the 5.3K-shot videos to 4K in post. The full-resolution video is uploaded. That is YouTube downsampling. Given that YouTube does not display 5K video and recompresses, I do not think there is anything to be learned about resolution from watching YouTube videos.

When sharpness is set to low in camera I don't think the images are oversharpened. I do increase sharpness in post a bit. I do not see much purple fringing either. Resolution and these are just not the real issues of GoPro video. All the complaints are about fisheye bending, and the lens swaps offer longer lenses that are rectilinear. They are cheap glass lenses designed for old cameras that could not shoot 5.3K video that I doubt offer high quality.

[androidlad]

On 10/2/2022 at 4:09 PM, markr041 said:

Any evidence you have that this "all-glass" mod is actually better? This is just a claim. I don't see "softness" in GoPro videos. That is the least issue of GoPro image quality as far as I can see.

Post a video showing the alleged improvement.

Comparison of the glass lens mod and original plastic lens:

The stock lens is evidently more hazy and less detailed, demonstrated here and by some of the face crops in a previous reply.

Look at the power lines, poles and especially the inscription text.

[markr041]

3 hours ago, androidlad said:

Comparison of the glass lens mod and original plastic lens:

The stock lens is evidently more hazy and less detailed, demonstrated here and by some of the face crops in a previous reply.

Look at the power lines, poles and especially the inscription text.

I certainly easily see a difference, but I don't understand this comparison - the "Original" lens is shot in Linear mode, which crops the sensor, and the mod lens shot is not cropping, it is shot in Wide mode. So, the original-lens image is blown up (zoomed) from a crop of the sensor to have the same FOV as the glass lens, which is not a crop. You can tell the "original" image was a cropped since there is no bending at the edges. That can account for the relative softness. Just explain why you cropped the image for one lens and not the other. Or are both crops? By how much for each? What is going on exactly?

[kye]

11 hours ago, markr041 said:

I do not downsample the 5.3K-shot videos to 4K in post. The full-resolution video is uploaded. That is YouTube downsampling. Given that YouTube does not display 5K video and recompresses, I do not think there is anything to be learned about resolution from watching YouTube videos.

When sharpness is set to low in camera I don't think the images are oversharpened. I do increase sharpness in post a bit. I do not see much purple fringing either. Resolution and these are just not the real issues of GoPro video. All the complaints are about fisheye bending, and the lens swaps offer longer lenses that are rectilinear. They are cheap glass lenses designed for old cameras that could not shoot 5.3K video that I doubt offer high quality.

Looks like you missed both points I was making.

[markr041]

14 minutes ago, kye said:

Looks like you missed both points I was making.

You are correct, I do not get what you want or why. What is the point of blowing up the images in a way that no one will view them to literally pixel peep? You can look at the actual images on your 4K monitor with your eyeball 1 " from the screen. I post examples of videos - do you really think they are over sharpened? Do you really see purple fringing? I don't mind you pointing out actual issues in the videos. Look as close up as you want. Or use a 4K projector to blow up the 4K videos to 110" and look close to the screen.  Then look at some Netflix film and compare resolution and sharpness. 

Or do you want a 5.3K frame grab to blow up, so no YouTube processing? This is a prime test of purple fringing. A 5.3K jpeg of a 5.3K frame shot Wide with Low sharpening in camera and at 200 Mbps, uncropped, not blown up.

In this frame grab I see no purple fringing, I see no over-sharpening halos, I see plenty of detail. I just do not get what you are talking about. But I am happy for you to point out in the posted images/videos the flaws you claim. 

[androidlad]

7 hours ago, markr041 said:

I certainly easily see a difference, but I don't understand this comparison - the "Original" lens is shot in Linear mode, which crops the sensor, and the mod lens shot is not cropping, it is shot in Wide mode. So, the original-lens image is blown up (zoomed) from a crop of the sensor to have the same FOV as the glass lens, which is not a crop. You can tell the "original" image was a cropped since there is no bending at the edges. That can account for the relative softness. Just explain why you cropped the image for one lens and not the other. Or are both crops? By how much for each? What is going on exactly?

Because the other advantage of the glass lens mod is that it has no distortion. The closest mode is "wide" that does not engage the software distortion correction (it's going to distort the already linear image if using "linear"). The slight zoom is only around 1.1x, the effect on softness and image resolution is negligible.

[kye]

23 hours ago, markr041 said:

You are correct, I do not get what you want or why. What is the point of blowing up the images in a way that no one will view them to literally pixel peep? You can look at the actual images on your 4K monitor with your eyeball 1 " from the screen. I post examples of videos - do you really think they are over sharpened? Do you really see purple fringing? I don't mind you pointing out actual issues in the videos. Look as close up as you want. Or use a 4K projector to blow up the 4K videos to 110" and look close to the screen.  Then look at some Netflix film and compare resolution and sharpness. 

Or do you want a 5.3K frame grab to blow up, so no YouTube processing? This is a prime test of purple fringing. A 5.3K jpeg of a 5.3K frame shot Wide with Low sharpening in camera and at 200 Mbps, uncropped, not blown up.

In this frame grab I see no purple fringing, I see no over-sharpening halos, I see plenty of detail. I just do not get what you are talking about. But I am happy for you to point out in the posted images/videos the flaws you claim. 

A screen grab works as well, in a slightly different way.

Here's some fringing, but it does seem to be well controlled:

All lenses will exhibit some degree of CA - it's just a limitation on the various physics involved and especially on such wide angle lenses as these.  It's not a criticism or attack.  Also, people add CA in post when emulating film, so it's not always even a negative thing.

The above grab shows slight over-sharpening, as does the below:

It also depends on what you think the ideal amount of sharpening is, which is subjective.  Personally, I prefer a high-resolution but low-sharpness image presentation, but everyone is different, depending on the needs of their project.

[Emanuel]

 

[markr041]

15 hours ago, kye said:

A screen grab works as well, in a slightly different way.

Here's some fringing, but it does seem to be well controlled:

All lenses will exhibit some degree of CA - it's just a limitation on the various physics involved and especially on such wide angle lenses as these.  It's not a criticism or attack.  Also, people add CA in post when emulating film, so it's not always even a negative thing.

The above grab shows slight over-sharpening, as does the below:

It also depends on what you think the ideal amount of sharpening is, which is subjective.  Personally, I prefer a high-resolution but low-sharpness image presentation, but everyone is different, depending on the needs of their project.

I saw the slight CA too.

Here is the full-resolution frame grab (the above was downscaled to 5K, this is the 5.3K) without any sharpening in post (the above had sharpening applied). The frame was shot with sharpening at "low" in camera.

[Emanuel]

47 minutes ago, markr041 said:

The frame was shot with sharpening at "low" in camera.

Yeah, I have noticed it. Reason why your videos show the potentiality of the device.

The proof is in the pudding...

 

[kye]

8 hours ago, markr041 said:

I saw the slight CA too.

Here is the full-resolution frame grab (the above was downscaled to 5K, this is the 5.3K) without any sharpening in post (the above had sharpening applied). The frame was shot with sharpening at "low" in camera.

Yes, this appears better, but still shows small signs:

However, it's nothing to get too excited about.  This is a stress-test image, of course, so it would do much better than this in almost all real-life examples.