Hi folks, i cant find this in the manual and I am contemplating on trying it out this weekend but as i don't want to ruin a full sessions worth of video I come here asking...

If i set it to it's widest FOV, what options do I lose if any, i.e. will it still be ok to record in 1080/60, I think it should be ok with that?

The next question related to post editing, If i don't like the widest option, can sommat like Adobe Premiere Pro set it to standard FOV, Is it even a thing?

Bashy Id do some tests before you commit yourself to it.    The widest settings seem to add more distortion and I dont think youre correcting that in a hurry.

Hello, Download the manual to check the resolutions available for all FOV. If you don't like the wide FOV you can always crop in post prod but you will pixels. The widest FOV have a pronounced "fish eye effect". You can correct it in post prod if you want.

----------

DAFlys Posted at 7-10 01:05
Bashy Id do some tests before you commit yourself to it.    The widest settings seem to add more distortion and I dont think youre correcting that in a hurry.

Thanks chap, I'd best have a play then

Xavier1984 Posted at 7-10 05:46
Hello, Download the manual to check the resolutions available for all FOV. If you don't like the wide FOV you can always crop in post prod but you will pixels. The widest FOV have a pronounced "fish eye effect". You can correct it in post prod if you want.

I have the manual, i literally just checked it prior to posting, "wide" is only mentioned 6 times.

osmonauta Posted at 7-10 14:47
I bought a blender the other day and I mixed up some apples and strawberries. However, I was contemplating if it would be ok to use raspberries instead of strawberries? What if I don't like the raspberries? Any feedback would B A-ppreciated!

Ok. Now that we solved the blender issue...

Hi, thanks but your blender analogy isn't the same as my question, I asked if 1080/60 will still work in the widest FOV setting and what settings if any would I lose, and if I didn't like it can it be corrected it post?

Your blender analogy would be correct if I had asked, "Will I like the widest setting?"

As for the rest, it is quite useful, thank you. The reason for my question is that I was hoping for a wider view so that my paddle strokes can be seen better when I try to surf this weekend as I have been asked to do so because I am rubbish at it, they want to see if they can see what I am doing wrong, one of the main strokes needed as the stern rudder, so the wider the view the better.

If that is going to seriously degrade the viewing experience then I won't bother because the idea will be that I will be just sitting there on a wave and the boat will be going from left to right but not by much, perhaps a foot at most (that's what it should be like anyway) continuously, I say that but I can only last a few seconds lol, that said, I will be turning my head a fair bit and exaggerating that a bit too so that the viewer can see the stern rudders etc.

You've put me off the idea now! I think I will do as I normally do and If I remember change to the ultra-wide for a short period just to see what it's like. thanks again.

----------

Bashy, I’m not sure if this might help. (I might have a play around with this myself) I find the ultra wide a bit ugly sometimes, but if you cut the screen to a narrower aspect ration than 16:9 so that it looks widescreen on your computer, it might look a little nicer because the bendy corners have been eliminated with no actual loss in picture quality.

If it needs ‘correcting’, a widescreen aspect ratio might need less doing……

If you do what Osmonauta suggests .... video it with another camera. Great comedy YouTube video! ;)


Edit: I just tried it in my front room with lots of straight edges. It does 'look' less 'offensive' when you narrow the aspect ratio. Actually, it looks rather nice. I did a much lesser amount of compensation than I would normally as well. Things on left/right are stretched but don't appear quite so bad in widescreen. Outdoors with less straight edges, it would probably look fantastically open. Just video with the middle third of the screen in mind.... use the thirds grid to help.

I often change the aspect ratio of my videos from shot to shot. It's a great way to lose clutter without having to zoom in and focuses the viewer on the 'target' more imo. Often, viewers don't seem to notice. Now I've tried the ultra view in widescreen, I think I might use it more. It looks nice. REALLY wide though. I could virtually video half my front room!

Here's a still from a video shot I just took of part of my back garden. Slightly adjusted distortion so that the shed on the right wasn't so elongated.

Wide gives more distortion than Ultra Wide, and with Ultra Wide you can crop in and do a lens correction easily to get straight lines and still wider than Dewarp.

Look at this:

johansenfoto Posted at 7-11 02:07
Wide gives more distortion than Ultra Wide, and with Ultra Wide you can crop in and do a lens correction easily to get straight lines and still wider than Dewarp.

Look at this:

Hi there, thank you for reaching out and sharing these information with our fellow users. We genuinely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in sharing this informations with us. Your contribution is highly valued, and it inspires fellow users.

Thank you for your valued support.

Hi there,

Kindly take note as on the user manual, recording the video with the largest FOV will effect EIS by enable Rock Steady, Rock Steady+, Horizon Balancing, or Horizon Steady will be disabled.

I hope this information has helped to clarify your inquiries. If you have any other questions, kindly let us know. Thank You!

johansenfoto Posted at 7-11 02:07
Wide gives more distortion than Ultra Wide, and with Ultra Wide you can crop in and do a lens correction easily to get straight lines and still wider than Dewarp.

Look at this:

I never fully understood your video when I first saw it actually. Is there less distortion by using 4:3 or more to do with more captured in the picture?

Iancraig10 Posted at 7-11 04:56
I never fully understood your video when I first saw it actually. Is there less distortion by using 4:3 or more to do with more captured in the picture?

Am I really that bad in English?

My point with that video was to show that you capture more in frame shooting in 4:3 ratio and Ultra Wide (with crop + lens correction in post), rather than shooting 16:9 dewarp mode in-camera.

Oh, ok. I get it now. It’s just that you very quickly covered fov and post, using a certain editor and I wasn’t quite sure whether you were demoing the editor straightening or the fov. You went really fast and I got lost.

I’m probably a bit thick! (Stupid)

Iancraig10 Posted at 7-11 07:47
Oh, ok. I get it now. It’s just that you very quickly cobpvered fov and post, using a certain editor and I wasn’t quite sure whether you were demoing the editor straightening or the fov. You went really fast and I got lost.

I’m probably a bit thick! (Stupid)

I probably went a bit fast, but I try to do different from most people explaining things since they is mostly slow paste so make people skip forward to the point

johansenfoto Posted at 7-11 08:10
I probably went a bit fast, but I try to do different from most people explaining things since they is mostly slow paste so make people skip forward to the point

Yes, I don’t blame you. I tend to skip through videos that start with something along the lines of, ‘In this video, I’m going to ‘ …….

I just think, do it and stop talking about what you’re going to do. Or those videos where you get a tone of b roll with music.that really doesn’t have a lot to do with the topic!!

At least with 4:3 there is the option to use the full width and shift the height up and down.

You’ve got me thinking now…..

I’m off to Florida next week. I’m taking the Action 4 I decided because of its flatter profile and 10 bit. (Plus the audio is superb with the dji wireless 2) But 4:3 does make sense and leave the framing until post.

Iancraig10 Posted at 7-11 08:57
Yes, I don’t blame you. I tend to skip through videos that start with something along the lines of, ‘In this video, I’m going to ‘ …….

I just think, do it and stop talking about what you’re going to do. Or those videos where you get a tone of b roll with music.that really doesn’t have a lot to do with the topic!!

I actually had to skip yesterday through a 17 min long video and until last 2 minutes to see what the video title was about, how the lens I searched performed. Rest of video seems to be just blabla from that bigger 42K sub channel.

What I do really like about shooting in 4:3 is so I doesn't have to stress too much about if things are in frame or not + it is really easy to crop for Shorts/Reels etc.  if needed also from the same recording.

Think you will do a good choice going with OA4 on your holiday, mostly because of the batterylife + sound.

johansenfoto Posted at 7-11 10:07
I actually had to skip yesterday through a 17 min long video and until last 2 minutes to see what the video title was about, how the lens I searched performed. Rest of video seems to be just blabla from that bigger 42K sub channel.

What I do really like about shooting in 4:3 is so I doesn't have to stress too much about if things are in frame or not + it is really easy to crop for Shorts/Reels etc.  if needed also from the same recording.

Yes, the Action also produces better skin tone. Slightly red on the Ace Pro.

The sound really got me to change my mind first of all, and the the superb low contrast with its 10 bit. I’m going to be in glaring sun and having control of contrast might be pretty useful I think, in those conditions

Tomorrow, I’m going to play around with 4:3 and fov I think because of the extra pixels. As I said, I often change the aspect ratio anyway during my videos too cut out clutter and annoying people so the 4:3 could come in handy..

I’ve had another play around with 4:3 today and have found ……

Astonishingly good straight lines on ultra wide. (As well as the others)
Proportions really look very normal, like a decent lens with less pulling at the edges.

The software that I’m using deals with picture size in an odd way, but I can set it to the proportions of the 4:3 on a 16:9 timeline and it forces the picture to fit. Then I’m able to scroll up and down.

Fish, if you’re watching …. I know that you use this same programme as me …. Try this. Lines and proportions really aren’t action cam like ……

I’m using Movie Studio 2024.

Set format of move to 16:9, 4K,
Import 4:3 material drag to timeline.
Don’t adjust when it asks, make the programme fit the square format to 16:9 (click ‘do not adjust)
The picture is stretched left/right so ……
Click Effects, Size Position and apply
A red dot appears in centre of preview …. For now leave it there.
Click so that ‘Combine input fields is disabled’ in settings in adjustments (no tick in the box).
Adjust height to 2880. (The width of the 4:3 footage)
The picture is the correct size.

You can move up and down by using the arrow keys in the square box so that you get the view that you want, or you can type in the amount manually for small adjustments, but the distortion is massively less!

In this Jpeg (Excuse mess, we're getting ready for Florida) I took this video shot in Ultrawide, 4:3 format and there are no adjustments whatsover for bending back of straight lines!!! It looks like a 'normal' camera and proprtions are really good. As Roger said, you now have the full sensor width of 2880 pixels being used and the choice of up and down viewing with what looks like less bending than you get in widescreen mode.....

In the garden shot below, the fence on the right shows less bending than the shot I did up above and trimmed of the same thing and looks way more 'normal' to me. This was also in ultra wide. I think in Florida, I will be using 4:3 quite a lot after playing around with this. The full 2880 wide pixels are being used. No cropping so there is also room to slightly crop in with no loss at 4K. You also get a slightly wider fov with less lens distortions.

Fish, if you see this, have a go. its really good!!

Good Ian than you have done your own tests now and seen that Ultra Wide is actually the way to record and in 4:3 ratio.
Noticed you had to do a bit more adjustments (more steps) than I do in Davinci Resolve, but the result is looking really great indeed.

Before I made that video I did like 3 different tests, so I knew how the results would turn out when I found a wall to use for making the video.

Wide shouldn't actually been a setting any people should use, especially since it will destort the image way more than Ultra Wide does. And also you doesn't gain that much more than Dewarp-mode.
So Wide option should been left out completly on the camera in my opinion.

johansenfoto Posted at 7-12 09:16
Good Ian than you have done your own tests now and seen that Ultra Wide is actually the way to record and in 4:3 ratio.
Noticed you had to do a bit more adjustments (more steps) than I do in Davinci Resolve, but the result is looking really great indeed.

Yes, I noticed that wide fov pushes a kind of ‘bubble distortion’ effect into the shape of the picture. Ultra looks better.

Once the first clip has been adjusted for size, every clip can be done afterwards by just ‘mass’ selecting them and pasting the effect, so the whole video is corrected in one go in Movie Studio. In effect, it's two clicks in an fx box, and then copy and past fx into all of the clips at once. After that, you can adjust each clip up or down to get the view that you want as you edit.

I like the fact that you have more pixels to play around with on the left/right and you can move the view up or down as you please.

Those two examples were done in awful lighting conditions as well, but there seems to be so much less lens distortion. I did no lens compensation on those two shots!

The Ace Pro 4:3 image also gives more pixels at 4K both in height and width!

Iancraig10 Posted at 7-12 09:43
Yes, I noticed that wide fov pushes a kind of ‘bubble distortion’ effect into the shape of the picture. Ultra looks better.

Once the first clip has been adjusted for size, every clip can be done afterwards by just ‘mass’ selecting them and pasting the effect, so the whole video is corrected in one go.

And shooting with 4:3 is the closest we get to full sensor readout.
It do work with OA3 also, but not on the first OA1.

Have actually been out today motovlogging with my atv, and by shooting in 4:3 saved the frame later on when the handlebar mount had moved a bit.