I watched a YouTube video this morning where the guy was taking a selfie shot, walking along on the Action 3, using Ultra Wide FOV. It has never occurred to me to use Ultra Wide for a selfie shot because of distortion and I've always avoided wide angle lenses if possible for face shots, but his selfie actually looked OK.

So I did a little experiment myself. I stood by the window and took 3 face shots of myself at very close distance using Ultra Wide, Wide and Standard Dewarp.

Then onto computer for a pixel peep ; ) and found that Ultra Wide is indeed sharper looking at the outset than the other two fov's. I sharpened them up in post as best as I could just to see how they would polish up and the Ultra Wide need less than the other two. (We're talking eyebrow focus here!!)

If anything, I could really back off on Ultra Wide whereas the other two sharpened up to a point and ran out of juice as it were!

It looks like Ultra Wide is the one to use, although this goes against the grain for me, especially with MY face!!! I might try zooming closer in post to see whether this looks better than wide......

It's the cropping for the other field of views that slightly pulls focus to the 'soft' side. Ultra Wide doesn't as much as the other two. Bear in mind, I was focusing on my eyebrows to see it!!!

Not sure you read what I wrote yesterday, but wider angle = more in focus (law of physics).

But yeah Ultra Wide is the way to go to get it at sharpest, more narrow = digital zoom in camera.

I don’t think I saw what you read. To do with FoV?

I was surprised at the difference between Ultra Wide and Wide. Between Wide and Standard Dewarp, not so much. Ultra Wide definitely ‘sparkles’ a bit more!!

That is great, to hear that Ultra-wide,  maybe wide without the   Rocksteady on will be almost as good wit ha gimbal. until all experiments and finds their "Sweetspot" that is what we get.  great to hear again
FISH

Fishycomics Posted at 1-17 03:58
That is great, to hear that Ultra-wide,  maybe wide without the   Rocksteady on will be almost as good wit ha gimbal. until all experiments and finds their "Sweetspot" that is what we get.  great to hear again
FISH

I was surprised Fish. The Ultra Wide actually ended up looking TOO sharp!!!

The added depth of field perhaps due to wider angle? So maybe that’s why I’ve had a problem with 0.3m focus. Wrong fov?

It was just a few minutes faffing around this morning, but it certainly looked different and has been a fov I’ve always avoided.

Iancraig10 Posted at 1-17 04:03
I was surprised Fish. The Ultra Wide actually ended up looking TOO sharp!!!

The added depth of field perhaps due to wider angle? So maybe that’s why I’ve had a problem with 0.3m focus. Wrong fov?

At least we know  it's there to use . as gopro says super-view is for instructional surfing or showing your activity. that you can look back on and learn.  but now ultra-wide is wider then superviw so what  would it really be used for ?  what can we show to learn from?

Iancraig10 Posted at 1-17 03:42
I don’t think I saw what you read. To do with FoV?

I was surprised at the difference between Ultra Wide and Wide. Between Wide and Standard Dewarp, not so much. Ultra Wide definitely ‘sparkles’ a bit more!!

Yes it have to do with FOV

It has me thinking…… what fov are people using in order to test sharpness? I did another rough test and again, Ultra Wide is sharper and more defined. Until now, I have barely used this fov but the improvement to picture sharpness is quite significant.
I'd not thought about this, but if we use Ultra Wide, then cutting into the picture in post won't be much different to what the camera is doing but the computer might make a better job of sorting the pixels out if we want a sharper picture ......

I know it’s really wide, Fish, but trying it out today hasn’t been as bad looking as I thought it would look. The edges can be either straightened in post or just cut out to give a 'Wide' angle!!

It’s only because I saw this YouTube video where the guy was consistently using it in Ultra Wide and said so. I must try this out in a more vloggy situation I think, because this looks like it’s going to work for me, as long as that fov doesn’t make me too wide looking!!! I’m wide enough as it is! I love the camera, but just want it to be sharper looking and this might be the solution.

This time, I didn't sharpen the picture at all and it looks fine. The sharpened version looks comparatively 'too sharp' actually!!!!

So, I might try a little experiment, walking around with Ultra Wide and if I need a Wide or Standard Dewarp view, I'll do it on the computer!!

I will  try out the Ultra-wide with a gimbal turn it all off and  then  wide and put some clips together .  on the list to do so. I personally know my answer and showed in the coffee cup  but that is 30 cm  that no one will put a backboard and go vlog, the background is important as the foreground if asked

@lancraig10: took some time to put together just yap, others do a better job typing then I they'll do....  -

here i demonstrated for me, for you a video,  Yep time to shave.

Fishycomics Posted at 1-17 11:19
@lancraig10: took some time to put together just yap, others do a better job typing then I they'll do....  -

here i demonstrated for me, for you a video,  Yep time to shave.

Thanks Fish. It’s hard to tell on an IPad, but I still feel that Ultra might just have the edge. Maybe it’s in my head? Did you notice any difference when putting it together?

One of the fov changed the width of your head quite dramatically. 2.7k I think it was.

I had a look on my computer and actually, they are all acceptable, but I still 'feel' that the Ultra has it......

One thing is your forehead shows a little bit of blocking, something almost reminds of that beautifier that some phones have. It's smoothing out your skin which looks like the effect I describe in trees, where they look almost 'painted'. (Compression artifacts)

The Narrow setting changes the proportions of your head!

Love your accent. Much more trendy than mine.

I'm going to try this out I think on mine.

Iancraig10 Posted at 1-17 12:20
Thanks Fish. It’s hard to tell on an IPad, but I still feel that Ultra might just have the edge. Maybe it’s in my head? Did you notice any difference when putting it together?

One of the fov changed the width of your head quite dramatically. 2.7k I think it was.

Yo!

Yes I feel it needs some umph there for me,  I did not  lens correct. I like for the camera to just  record a perfect shot no  gimmicks, a nice shot close up or distant.   Yea Narrow did not cut it wide did for me

Not sure what the narrow FOV is for...landscape perhaps ?  

skysailor64 Posted at 1-17 15:34
Not sure what the narrow FOV is for...landscape perhaps ?

Quality drops as well. I think it might be to do with people wanting to use it less as an action camera and more like a general camera. I guess it’s a fov that many use on GoPros for vlogs.

Just doesn’t work on the Action. Cuts in too much so it’s a bit unsharp.

Fish prefers wide and I can see why. The edges are less pulled out and Osmo recommend wide for sharpness testing. It was just in editing, I noticed that Ultra-Wide looked a little sharper. So that got me thinking about videoing in ultra and cutting in during post rather than let the camera do it.

Wide is the one I choose to use, and I used it yesterday on my plowing video on all scenes until the last one where I tried Ultra Wide just to get more wide shot to see more.

Have you guys tried 4:3 Wide or Ultra Wide and crop in to 16:9 where you also straight out the lines?

Does 4:3 help straighten out the edges?

AR4:3  no not a fan of that, I would stretch the Aspect ratio in the editor. i can do a test iflike for lancraig10 if he wants

Iancraig10 Posted at 1-18 04:14
Does 4:3 help straighten out the edges?

No but you can do it in post.
Idea is to get more in shot/more wide than it would be in camera with dewarp/narrow fov.

GP11 can do it and think it have full sensor readout, that's why I wonder if OA3 have it too.

4:3 on the Action looks like a crop in the sides.  So not 3840 wide….

Iancraig10 Posted at 1-18 05:46
4:3 on the Action looks like a crop in the sides.  So not 3840 wide….

It is or should be the right size since I made them myself with right sizes in the software.
Or did you mean how it looks like when shooting in 4:3 with OA3?

johansenfoto Posted at 1-18 06:00
It is or should be the right size since I made them myself with right sizes in the software.
Or did you mean how it looks like when shooting in 4:3 with OA3?

Oh, ok. It doesn’t just cut the sides. I might have a go with that as well!