4:3 vs. 16:9 Aspect Ratio!! Why I Switched to 4:3 with GoPro 10 Max Lens Mod.

[@TheScottThomas]

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks for the video!!

[@Anto_Levo_Mtb]

I used to shoot 16:9, 2.7k, max lense mod and max hypersmooth, I now shoot 4:3, 2.7k, max lense mod and max hyper smooth……….i like the way it gets more of the bike towards the person plus you get away with if you dont quite set it up perfect on chest mount. I now upload to youtube in 4:3, get the same wide angle but with the bonus of more foward and back.

[@jimbuche8505]

I like how your footage looks in 4:3, good top to bottom, especially on the computer screen without too much black bars. Since I'm kind of filming for big screen watching usually, or sideways phone, I still want to stick with that 16:9 for mine. But the 4:3 looks great. Your settings are same as mine it sounds like. I really like that with 4:3, the chest mount doesn't have to be perfect. One thing I've been playing with though because I do have the mount location pretty dialed (paint pens do wonders to mark the right angle) is keeping it in 4:3 in case I want to use just hypersmooth, but then running it through the very lowest setting of reelsteady. You can't move the Y axis in Reelsteady, but since it's pretty dialed in, I've had good luck since it auto centers it in 16:9. In the right sequence the Reelsteady looks really good, and if not, I can just use the 4:3 with hyper smooth and crop as needed. I have wayyy too much video I need to upload....

[@Anto_Levo_Mtb]

@@jimbuche8505 the max lense mod is a game changer and the stablization from it i find good and no need for real steady. As you shoot 16:9 the 4:3 would allow you to get a crop that suits. I try shoot high birthrate and 60fps as i do take screen shots. I aslo mark the gopro on the mount with red paint which is great…… pity they couldnt mark mounts with degrees or similar to save paint marking

[@thetrailfix]

@@Anto_Levo_Mtb I agree, max lens total game changer, I love it- hope it can go over 2.7K one of these days. I agree, it does mostly cancel the utility of Reelsteady also, but when I shoot 4:3 in hypersmooth, I have all the options now - either 4:3, crop to 16:9, or throw it into reelsteady (it works in conjunction with hypersmooth now, unlike before) and have Reelsteady turn it into 16:9. What I'm seeing is the Reelsteady 16:9 doesn't just crop though - it squishes things in, kind of like the elastic thing that I reviewed in this video, but it does it better, sort of like a superview. Also, even on the 1/100 (the lowest) smoothing setting, it does take out some of the minor jolts that hypersmooth still picks up (much higher smoothing crops too much and looks weird though). Because it's not just cropping, it also has the effect that the peripheral/outer edges blur out a bit -- so it gets the feeling of speed kind of like using an ND filter in a way. I processed a couple different ones the other day that I could do a video comparison with, but it was a little bit low light, so I kind of wanted to go back and film with better lighting. Maybe I'll just put it together anyway. In this particular kind of trail, with low overhanging trees and tight downhill ("Tunnels #4" in San Diego) I think the Reelsteady version actually looks quite a bit better. But it doesn't always. I did a video on the San Juan Trail a couple of months ago and in some sections I don't like it so much. I'm playing around with the fps, usually I do 24, but especially with that Reelsteady blurring on the edges I'm going to try out the 60.

[@DalniySvet]

I edit my movies in Vegas 19 and I'm very frustrated that Vegas doesn't allow me to stretch videos from 4:3 to 16:9 so nicely. You can only crop, or stretch with full frame distortion. It looks like my destiny is to shoot at 16:9 and lose some of the vertical view :(

[@devinbreeding5412]

What are your thoughts on just outputting in 4:3 ratio? From my understanding it is including the most amount of unaltered data? Just got a GoPro H10 for my motorcycle helmet cam. My first step into video creation and editing and currently learning the best settings to use. Thank you for the comparison, was helpful to see.

[@thetrailfix]

Hey Devin - I think just outputting in 4:3 does retain the most info, but it would probably bug me because of the black bars. I want to use as much of the screen real estate as I can. I'm editing a video right now from a ride I filmed over the weekend in 4:3 and it's coming out really nicely to 16:9, and I've definitely used the flexibility and top to bottom breadth for an edit or two in it. The only drawback I'm really seeing in 4:3 is the extra time to frame it in post, but depending on the editing program you're using that likely isn't too much hassle. I use Final Cut Pro which is just copying and pasting attributes, but I don't know much about other software like davinci etc.. Can't imaging it would be too different, but if you're using something like iMovie, I'd be sure that you can reframe from 4:3 if you want to output to anything different. Not sure how robust its features are. In that case, you might be limited to what you shot in, be sure check that out.

[@thetrailfix]

Hey Devin - check out @anto levo kzbin.info/door/WjdA76XbQwO-FTEbx4CxbQ in the string above. He's shooting and outputting in 4:3 on his channel and it looks solid.

[@philwebb606]

The stretched 1 looks great, how do you do that?

[@thetrailfix]

Hey, sorry it took me a bit to get back, but check this tutorial on it, it's really easy to follow, requires final cut pro of course: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6qZinxjidBgq5I