If you know the final framing and need a fast clip, a pre-framed mode can save a lot of time. The advantage is immediacy.

Full 360 capture earns its storage and processing cost when the framing is not known yet, when the action moves unpredictably, or when you need several aspect ratios from the same moment. Then the “camera operator” can effectively work after the ride.

For multiple deliverables I would avoid making the vertical version by simply cropping the finished widescreen export. The subject position that works in 16:9 may be wrong for 9:16.

A full 360 source lets you make two intentional reframing passes. That costs more editing time but gives each format its own composition.

In VSDC I would keep the 360 source editable for the shots that matter, cut the story first, then create the final virtual-camera moves only for the clips that survive.

If you need rapid social delivery from the field, InstaFrame can still be useful as a parallel fast path. I would think of it as “quick output” versus “maximum reframing flexibility,” not one mode being universally better.

So a hybrid workflow makes sense: use fast flat output for immediate posts, but keep a full 360 master for the longer edit and later vertical recuts.

That is probably worth the extra storage on trips where the same footage has to serve several channels.

Exactly. The expensive part of 360 is not just file size; it is the number of framing decisions you postpone to post-production. Use that flexibility where it has value.

For a predictable selfie sequence, pre-framing can be efficient. For unpredictable action and multi-format reuse, the sphere is the safer master.