12-01-2017 08:49 AM
Name calling and dismissal is not how you perswade someone to see a point
12-02-2017 09:57 AM
Prove your point. Simple as that. Mount the camera filming something and show the dropped frames. If I, for example, mounted 3 cameras videoing an industrial cutting operation at 240 fps for analysis, dropped frames would be a massive issue. Your problem right now is noone believes you because you haven’t provided irrefutable evidence and nobody but you is going to be interested in proving the point for you, so it’s really up to you to go the extra mile and do this. Gopro support won’t help you with it. Not in their interest.
12-02-2017 04:30 PM
"Gopro support won’t help you with it. Not in their interest."
What's your source for this information?
"Prove your point."
I did. Twice. check the videos.
You're claiming that the princpals of parallax motion should be ignored when viewing a Gopro video recorded with stabilization on. That's a bold claim, as it would imply that Gopro has found a way to circumvent the fundamental laws of nature with thier new stabilization. If that's the case they should immediatly be nominated for a nobel prize.
Or just maybe it's just a bug and it's skipping a frame.
The ball is in your court here to explain your hypothosis for how Gopro stabilization is not bound by the nature of reality. Or you could just elect to decline further participation in resolving this issue.
12-02-2017 04:57 PM
Ball is in my court? Don’t think so. I got absolutely no vested interest in helping you prove your point or even get the stonewalling gopro support to pretend to care about this. I’m returning my cameras anyway. I successfully proved my point about my problem to everyone I needed to, including gopro. You could learn something from me. I’m simply telling you here and now that when you can’t convince a jury of your peers that you’re correct, you’re going to get nowhere further than that. How many times you can type ”parallax motion” a minute won’t change that. But by all means, keep believing your fairytale where gopro’s IT "engineers” sit here in their sparetime reading your posts, and wait for their scientific reply,
12-03-2017 02:57 PM
I see you've declined to retire from voluntarily participating in this matter.
In that case, let's try yet another, more elementary approach to providing you with the necessary knowledge of the laws governing how the universe works so that you may understand the dropped frames issue more clearly.
It seems for one reason or another you were not able to look up the concept of parallax, so I've helped you by finding a very informative video on the topic. There are excellent visual aids and very easy to understand examples.
Once you've achieved the required comprehension of these simple concepts, you'll be armed with the necessary knowledge to see that there is not an error, or jitter in the stabilization of the videos in question. During the moment that the missing frame occurs, the sky remains stable, indicating that the stabilization is working as intended. However the foreground objects jump forward in screen space by double their expected rate. This proves that there is in fact a missing frame. If you still disagree, I'm looking forward to your explanation of how it's possible for the sky to remain stable and the foreground objects to jump forward at twice their rate over one frame if there are indeed no frames missing is video.
f you can offer a rational, and comprehensive explanation of how this can come to be without the use of state of the art visual effects, or a tear in the space time continuum I will gladly thank you for teaching me something new and useful.
But experience tells me that you'll most likely decline to engage in constructive discourse and once again resort to dismissal and personal attack.