My garmin virb 360 arrives today and the plan is to attach it beneath my Mavic (have the 3D printed attachment thingy) to see how it perfoms. Which gets me to thinking, why bother with a gimbal stabilized camera at all? For drones like the Spark and Mavic, in the not too distant future these 360 cams are going to be routinely shooting something like 24k or more and can be stabilised etc in post. I’m sure many others have had the same thoughts - if I were the boss of Dji it’s where I’d be investigating - GoPro are on the way already with their Karma.

You can always stabilize in post processing. It takes some of the 'crispyness' though. I prefer analogue stabilization with the gimbal.

Stabilising in post is always going to reduce quality and reduce the resolution - and the bumpier it is the more resolution loss you'll get as it crops.
That means no matter what camera you have onboard you'll never be able to film at the full resolution.
You just can't beat an actual physically stabilised camera.  I dont think you ever will.

Not in the case of the Garmin - check it out - no cropping or quality loss, uses its gyro and accelorometer

gnirtS Posted at 2017-10-13 03:22
Stabilising in post is always going to reduce quality and reduce the resolution - and the bumpier it is the more resolution loss you'll get as it crops.
That means no matter what camera you have onboard you'll never be able to film at the full resolution.
You just can't beat an actual physically stabilised camera.  I dont think you ever will.

agree with you .. nothing will ever film at the full resolution...need some stabilization

I wouldn't stabilise in post unless I'm prepared to lose res...