GoPro Hero 11 as Video Camera: My Rig

My rig: the GoPro, mic adapter, binaural ear mics, and handle. I get a rig that records wind-protected stereo and the ability to walk and run with the camera with no gimbal. I get 10bit color, high bitrate (180 Mbps), and 5.3K resolution at 60 fps, so I get smooth motion without ND filters. Image quality is excellent, and there is also very good 4K 120 fps.

Example (Union Square Underground and Above Ground):

5K frame grabs:

Backlit.

Forget shallow DOF, of course, and very low-light settings.

Markr041 wrote:

so I get smooth motion without ND filters.

The footage looks good, but I am a bit confused about the above statement.

I guess I don't understand how you are defining "smooth" here. The image definitely looks SHARP and clear. That can certainly be a good thing.

Just, I guess I don't see how this is eliminating the need for ND filters since the main use of ND filters (for me, at least) would be to allow for more motion blur.

I guess for others the main use of ND filters would be for shallower depth of field???

Or maybe I am missing your point entirely???

But again, the footage looks good.

Off The Mark wrote:

Markr041 wrote:

so I get smooth motion without ND filters.

The footage looks good, but I am a bit confused about the above statement.

I guess I don't understand how you are defining "smooth" here. The image definitely looks SHARP and clear. That can certainly be a good thing.

Just, I guess I don't see how this is eliminating the need for ND filters since the main use of ND filters (for me, at least) would be to allow for more motion blur.

I guess for others the main use of ND filters would be for shallower depth of field???

Or maybe I am missing your point entirely???

But again, the footage looks good.

You are asking the right question. I am asserting the motion looks smooth at 60 fps even at high shutter speeds. Motion blur is to make motion look smooth at low frame rates. At high frame rates you do not need to hold down shutter speeds.

The answer is in the video - does the motion look natural, realistic ( smooth)? As opposed to stuttery or jerky. To me the motion looks natural, and the shutter speeds were high, at 60 fps.

Markr041 wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

Markr041 wrote:

so I get smooth motion without ND filters.

The footage looks good, but I am a bit confused about the above statement.

I guess I don't understand how you are defining "smooth" here. The image definitely looks SHARP and clear. That can certainly be a good thing.

Just, I guess I don't see how this is eliminating the need for ND filters since the main use of ND filters (for me, at least) would be to allow for more motion blur.

I guess for others the main use of ND filters would be for shallower depth of field???

Or maybe I am missing your point entirely???

But again, the footage looks good.

You are asking the right question. I am asserting the motion looks smooth at 60 fps even at high shutter speeds. Motion blur is to make motion look smooth at low frame rates. At high frame rates you do not need to hold down shutter speeds.

The answer is in the video - does the motion look natural, realistic ( smooth)? As opposed to stuttery or jerky. To me the motion looks natural, and the shutter speeds were high, at 60 fps.

Thanks for the elaboration.

Yes, it looks smooth as in not-jerky or juttery. I didn't notice much / any rolling shutter either (might be there, just I didn't notice it).