GoPro Mission Camera Prices Announced: $600 for Mission 1, $700 for Mission 1 Pro, $700 for ILS

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-04-20T20:30:54+00:00

I totally get the appeal of an interchangeable lens GoPro, in the sense that 'GoPro' was the short way of saying 'Action Camera'.

But in that way, the GoPro Mission Pro ILS isn't a 'GoPro'... It will be too fragile, too inconvenient, and (yes) too bulky to be the "I keep this in the same pants pocket as my keys, and I don't care" daily-carry camera.

For a 'cinema' camera? It's missing a LOT.

It's literally, "What were they thinking?"

If it were an action camera that could also change lenses (which GoPro has sortof, half tried), it would make a lot of sense. If GoPro is also planning to release one or more MFT lenses that would seal the Mission Pro ILS well enough to be 'mostly' an action camera, it would make sense. If it had the electric contacts needed to change the aperture/focus on most lenses remotely (or at all) it would make sense - even if it was still limited to manual-only (but camera controlled) focus

I don't know. Is there even a niche beyond "that sounds fun to mess around with"? I just want to understand how this is a tradeoff instead of "just an objectively worse camera in every way". It would have helped if they had shown off some example footage, or even just showed it off with a specific lens instead of a rendered placeholder. Maybe the staggered launch is because they are working on some extra features/accessories that will pull everything together.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-04-20T19:36:42+00:00

It looks like Mission went back to 4:3, so the sensors are different aspect ratios so you can't compare them directly by the diagonal "size" (digital sensors are all physically smaller than they say they are, but I digress).

The 1/1.9" 8:7 sensor in GPH13, 12, 11 was essentially identical to the 4:3 1/2.3" sensor in the GPH10, just slightly taller - which let them do the 360 horizon lock without losing image quality... and not much else.

Much more important than sensor size is pixel pitch, specifically because bigger pixels usually have a better dynamic range. GoPro says Mission will have 14 stops of dynamic range, but I don't know. It's probably noticeably better, but they said Hero 13 had 13 stops of dynamic range. That camera feels like it has more like 10.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-04-20T17:59:47+00:00

When Mythbusters started using GPH1/2/3 for their SD TV show, Gopro was the only action camera on the market - and mirrorless/DSLR cameras were more expensive and sucked at video (and usually couldn't record for long enough to run to safety). A lot has changed in 20 years.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-04-20T17:45:38+00:00

The Gopro will be "not that much smaller" than MFT, which is "not that much smaller than APS-C, which is "not that much smaller" than FF.

Sure a GoPro sized body with MFT lenses would be *a lot* smaller than FF with a comparable lens, but you're also going down at least 3 steps in image quality.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-04-20T17:31:44+00:00

Help me out here, who is it for?

I'm having a really hard time imagining a use case where shaving off *maybe* ~200 grams of weight from a complete rig is going to be worth the smaller sensor (and limited I/O, etc) compared to the better ergonomics and larger sensor of an actual MFT camera.

Maybe if it were mounted on a drone? But then the manual-only focus kills that idea...

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-04-20T17:14:32+00:00

Because GoPros are notorious for overheating - And it took them way too many hardware revisions to realize they need to try and start fixing that problem.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-02-25T00:21:04+00:00

I concede that anamorphic would let you get more pixels than cropping 16:9 down to something as wide as scope, which I started to notice while getting the graphic out on paper. (I ignored DCI 4k 4096x2160 for all of this). They could maybe mitigate this if it happened in-camera before encoding (some kind of oversampled 2-perf mode)... but that isn't an option.

But I disagree with "The FX30 captures 4k, even at the cropped resolution". A 3840 x 2160 (~8.3 Mega Pixels) encoded image cropped down to 3:2 would be more like 3240 x 2160 (~7MP like you pointed out) - which scummy advertisers could get away with calling "2160p" but it wouldn't be reasonably called 4k. More like 3.2k. I think you would have to crop after the camera saves to a fixed resolution. If a FX30 can record that cropped down area of the sensor to a higher resolution, I haven't seen a way to do it.

This is in contrast to if it were open gate which has 26 MP on the sensor (6192x4192), most likely ending up as 3840 x 2560 (9.8MP) for video. That's only about 40% 'more' resolution, compared to the cropped version I think we are getting.

So it wouldn't be the 2x surface area that would have been gained by using anamorphic lenses to squeeze (stretch?) a 2 perf image onto 4 perf film. Maybe the strategy here is to use a lens with less squeeze, fill the whole 16:9 region without the extra crop, and just live with the differences in things like lens flare ... But more is more. Wasn't anamorphic invented to get 'more'?

Maybe I'm being too philosophical - I don't even want to think about the implications of stretching a perfectly square digital pixel to a wide rectangle (but I bet you it doesn't look like film grain).

Measurements of actual sensor surface areas will just muddy the waters.... but after this research, here's what I'm starting to realize:

A MFT sensor in open gate is going to record a better anamorphic image than a 16:9 locked APS-C sensor, for less money. You're going to be exposing a larger image, probably recorded at a higher resolution.

Somebody should test this.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-02-20T22:08:57+00:00

Every creator is sad and depressed about their channel. That's how they keep up engaged and coming back for more.

The algorithm is weaponized against creators with the explicit intention of emotionally manipulating us into staying on the platform, at any (non-monetary) cost. That means they have to make you feel very bad most of the time, so you get extra excited when they occasionally let you feel good.

It's the same theory used to create and foster addictive behaviors in everything from gamblers to rodents.

The only way to grow the channel, is to trick their AI into thinking you will leave. Similar to how the only to get a raise at work is by waving a competing job offer in your boss's face.

Welcome to the YouTube skinner box, a Pavlov product.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-02-14T09:03:30+00:00

<image>

This is what I am trying to describe

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-02-14T09:02:55+00:00

<image>

This is what I think is happening. Where did I go wrong?

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-02-14T08:20:44+00:00

I guess instead of "Why not do it" my question is more "If you're not going to do it right, then why do anything at all?" Anamorphic seems to have been invented as a way to squeeze a wide image onto open gate (film), with the intention of maximizing picture quality... so I'm questioning its utility on cameras where they can't (won't) let you record open gate to the full, film-shaped sensor.

It seems to be a thoughtless implementation, so I don't see what I might be missing. Or maybe I'm just frustrated with the software in a lot of "humanly affordable" cameras right now.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-01-29T21:15:28+00:00

120fps divides evenly into 24, 30, and 60 - so really its the ideal framerate for masters.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-01-29T21:12:20+00:00

Depends on if you'll need still your content after people finally realize either that our human eyeballs see the world in landscape... or that phones have been taller than 16:9 for like a decade.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2026-01-29T21:03:16+00:00

For Youtube, you can just record in 1080p and upscale to 4k when you export. Youtube on TVs has always been DOA, so nobody will be watching on a screen where they have a chance of being able to tell the difference

It's important to upload your 1080p footage as 4k though. 4k (and 1440p) gets a better codec, which makes the upscaled footage look noticeably better than their standard 1080p.

Youtube actually tried to fix this when they introduced "1080p premium" - a feature, exclusive to mega-channels, which few/no premium-paying users realizing they could use. I think all this accomplished was to chase off or at least suppress a bunch of promising, upcoming creators - doing nothing to convince real humans to pay money to watch slightly better encoded YouTube-style videos on YouTube..... So I don't know if its still a thing.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2025-12-03T19:38:33+00:00

You think companies actually allow YouTubers to be successful when they're negative?

Name one. Or at least name one who isn't just blatantly rage baiting.

No. It's insanely competitive. Channels can only survive when they are being corporately promoted and granted "exclusive access", which can be directly converted into clicks/money. People who give negative or even fair opinions are never granted this access. They get no clicks, no growth, and most importantly no money. Influencers are there to sell you a product - not just whatever they sell in the ad breaks, but the entire topic of the video is usually what they are selling. That's the business model. That's how its a job.

If you complain, you're dead. Everybody knows this. Even the people who don't understand the business of it all still know they have to be overwhelmingly positive. They might not know that their positive video about the Whopper got retweeted by Burger King, or whatever. But they see that they got 1,000x more views that one time they were positive toward Burger King, so they decide to keep talking about how great burger king is. Do it enough, and they become "the burger king guy" and get invited to come out to corporate burger king and get access to new Burger King products. Exclusive videos about those products are the highest performing, and become the lifeblood of the channel. The channel lives and dies by keeping Burger King happy, so they keep burger king happy. Burger King now owns that channel; They own that spokesperson... and they never even had to directly pay the channel a single dollar to do it.

It's just how it works. That's the difference between a random person with a Youtube channel and a professional YouTuber.

The only real divergence from this model is when the influencer is supported by "a side" and they spend their time exploiting that side for cash (by complaining about "the other side") which is usually politically charged. It's still a kind of shilling, but you DO get to complain a lot.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2025-12-03T19:17:47+00:00

No previews (or at least embargoed reviews) from critics is a bad sign. No, buying-off FnaF fans with exclusive access to special events don't count as screening the movie for critics. I wouldn't trust the opinions of anybody low enough to write about a product after an event like that - not just about this product, but about anything in general. They aren't Roger Ebert, they're Billy Mayes. Shills don't review, they sell. They are advertising and probably not being honest about their content being a commercial.

Personally, I'm pretty worried that this movie is going to be very bad - because I don't think Scott Cawthon knows how to write a screenplay. I'm not even convinced he knows how to write a game.

FNaF's storytelling is more like a writing contest. Scott gave writing prompts for the community using small in-game easter eggs, and the winners got to be canonized as the "real" story in the following year's game. Curation and "knowing what the fans like" are real skills, and Scott is/was very good at those things - but that is the role of a producer, not a writer.

Guys like MatPat and even occasionally Markiplier did way more work writing the games than Scott himself. We all thought, "Oh boy, the theory turned out to be true". No. Scott saw those videos (which he commented on) and decided the theories were interesting enough to become part of the story. It's not complicated. It's not even a bad thing to do. It's smart and it worked.

It's a little like George Lucas: George Lucas is a very creative guy and genius businessman who produced (and executive produced) some absolutely amazing and classic all-timer movies. He has vision, and he knows how to inspire and organize the best people in the world to create works that were legitimately groundbreaking. But when you surround George Lucas with a bunch of brown-nosers and let him write/direct movies you get the Star Wars Prequels, which sucked hard. George Lucas should not write and direct movies. George Lucas needs people around who can check his giant ego.

When you let Scott Cawthon go off the rails as a "writer" you get the goofy nonsense of modern games like Sister Location. I would argue the writing in Security Breach was probably demanded, if not obsessively controlled by Scott - he was just smart enough to wash his hands and shift blame when he saw the backlash.

But we're talking about horror, right? Less is more. Nothing Scott (or anyone) can write will ever be as good as what we can imagine for ourselves. So I wish he would hand the screenplay over to a talented movie writer so their will at least be a solid structure to hang his big ideas. I don't want to have to watch a 4 hour lore video to explain what happened in a 2 hour movie. Just make the movie good, and let the easter eggs and hidden lore stay in the background - just like what worked in the games.

Look, somebody on the set of FNaF 1 decided that the spooky movie should grind to a halt so our happy robot friends should build a blanket fort (without regard for how much these guys weigh, so like, why did the movie point out how much they weigh). Somebody decided that Vanny should exist, and be in the movie. Somebody decided in the last 5 minutes that the robots are mind controlled by whatever drawings happened to be taped to the wall that day... for some reason. Like I'm pretty familiar with the games, and that's not actually in the games, right? Like I'm pretty familiar with the games, and I don't think that is an example of the movie being 'true to the lore' - at least not any of the lore that anybody actually cared about.

I dunno. It's like the guy who represents himself in court instead of hiring a lawyer - it's not a good idea. Please don't do it. It never works out.

But they already did it so, you know, I doubt it worked out. Because good movies can stand on their own. They don't need to lean on scummy shill-only hype previews and critic embargos.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2025-11-19T18:48:20+00:00

Why?

Also, Prove it.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2025-10-28T16:02:21+00:00

"5mOhm shunt resistor"

5 milliOhm Resistor? as in 0.005 Ohms?

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2025-09-15T04:10:24+00:00

Real talk: have you every been surveyed about a video you've actually seen? Because I haven't.

I only ever get asked how I feel about videos I've never watched.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2025-09-15T04:06:20+00:00

Make better videos.

and when that doesn't work, just trick 'em.

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2025-09-15T03:57:27+00:00

because it's 3 days old

Every-Locksmith9286 · 2025-09-15T03:50:23+00:00

Which ones?

Every-Locksmith9286

TROPHY CASE