Leaderboard

So, I've happened across the service manual for our old friend the GX80/85.... A while ago, a brave soul on DPReview cracked open his LX100, located where the internal mics connected and made a breakout cable. Its documented here https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/3845240 So with the aid of the newly acquired GX80/85 service manual, I had a look to see where the mics were and was there a similar potential. The good news is that there is. The mics themselves are located under the hotshoe . The service manual provides all the information you need to trace the signal and connect a break out to your own connector. You could conceivably do the same for the speaker output and make a headphone port if you were so inclined. You can use this IR mod guide to get you going with the cracking open the case. https://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/life-pixel-panasonic-lumix-gx85-diy-digital-infrared-conversion-tutorial And then take it from there with the service manual I've attached here to do the rest of the steps to get to the hotshoe removal. LUMIX GX85 Service Manual.pdf Now, I'm no expert on consumer law but I have a sneaking feeling that doing this mod might invalidate your warranty a little bit so its all at your own risk. What we could really do with is someone who already has a completely dismantled GX80 to try this out for everyone eh @Andrew Reid ?

Hey guys, Yesterday my daughter and I made this animation. I've not done it much before, but it was a nice way to learn 3d space and camera moves in AE. Although it was just a fun little project for a rainy day and I didn't have any intention of showing it to anyone, I'm proud if it and her in many different ways, so thought I'd upload it. Would love your thoughts. EDIT: the images were scanned from paper drawings with a €70ish camera - does that count for the cheap camera challenge? ?

The first few generations of tech always look hideous - just wait, it will get better, then it will get great. This is me going on record.

Canon EOS M RAW 2x Anamorphic with 7Artisans 55mm f1.4 & MOSTY SC43 2x Adapter. *Double Focus *Recorded @4:3 (1600x1158) converted to 2.39:1 (4096x1716)

That 2.8k 120p mode is compelling

The lens will retain value and can continue being used in the event you upgrade to a better M43 camera. The LX100 though is a 5 years old camera and will continue to decrease in value. Better to invest money on things that will retain value, in the event you want to sell or upgrade.

For shooting in studio with real time tracking and rendered background, they used 8K screen for the backdrop.

4K is the new 1080p. I just don't see why you guys don't see this coming?? Jesus it is 2019, nearly 2020. 8K is going to be the new 4K. Move up or be left behind. This stuff is big boy toys. Always has been. It will Never end. Sure it is cheaper than ever now, but to keep up, it is still not easy. Tech never stops, there is money to be had. Money is King. Like I have said, you young guys just don't get it lol. I have been through all this crap. Better IS better if you are making money at this stuff. Do you really think a Client would be content with you using the Pk4 over this new 6K machine?? I doubt it. If you can't afford an extra 1000 bucks why have you? That is reality. When they are paying out the ass they will look at your gear, trust me. Sure if you are doing this for fun buy a LX100 or a GH2. Even a EOS-M, etc..

Anamorphic modes are coming to pocket 4k, also s16. Take a leaf out of @BTM_Pix's book and epoxy the booster onto the camera and eliminate all hassle forever... or leave it on there without the epoxy

Very interesting. My thoughts. 1. Boy am I glad I sold my second BMPCC4K before this was announced. 2. I don't care one bit about 6K. 3. But I care a lot about the bigger sensor and EF mount. Getting a good combo of lenses and/or adapters on the BMPCC4K that didn't vingette and didn't have massive barrel distortion was a PITA. I'm already kitted for EF. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC will probably live on it.

The anamorphic mode is coming to the 4K as well in the next camera update ?

Absolutely. Only a matter of time. May not FULLY replace proper cameras, but would be a great run and gun alternative for quick B-Roll shots or something. I use my portrait mode all the time for instagram and have been really pleased. I hope to see more and more computational video over the next few years. Gonna be fun to change focus in post

Really enjoying this lut the more I use it. Some grabs from a shoot today:

Here’s a Frankensteined scope that works out to 1.33X squeeze. I’m actually able to go as wide as 17mm on M4/3: Alright, so I have seen some other people doing this with success and wanted to start a topic on it. Basically what I’ve found is that you can combine a front from one scope with the rear of another, and some combinations will be sharp, others will not be compatible. Regardless, the compatible setups will only be sharp when set to infinity, and the distance between the two groups determines both focus and compression ratio. Once again, it is important to note the infinity-only nature of doing this. You cannot close focus a mismatched pair of anamorphic groups. However, focusing via front diopters or variable diopters is still fair game. This means that, assuming the same front group, a rear group that hits infinity with the groups close to each other will have a mild compression, whereas a different rear group might hit infinity when further from the front group, which yields a stronger compression ratio. With the front and rear the same distance apart as in the original front scope, the compression is the same as the original (usually 2X), but in that case, you may as well use the scope with its original rear group as that’s its intended specification. The other changing factor is maximum useable angle of view. It really is exactly like looking through a tube or tunnel. A front with a certain diameter supports wider angle of view if it is closer to the rear group, and the useable angle of view decreases as the groupings get farther apart. This creates an inverse relationship between wide angle of view and compression ratio (assuming the “constant” is the front group and the “variable” is various rear groups.) This means that long scopes which have limited angle of view in their stock configuration can be modified with new rear optical groups to increase their angle of view, at a cost of compression ratio. Basically, you can turn a 2X scope into a wider 1.5X or 1.33X scope. I’m still a 2X fanboy, but the limitation is usually wide angle compatibility. A great 1.33X that truly goes wide could allow me to have a wide angle in my anamorphic arsenal. It may be deceiving, but for reference, the +2 diopter in my example video puts the focus at around 12 inches. That’s how close I was to the subject matter, and I was still wide enough to capture a full human face. That’s pretty crazy for any anamorphic! I’ve only disassembled four scopes so far, but I have more on the way to further my testing. I have some more theories, but feel that I need to test more before I can be certain that my theories are accurate. Theory 1: Some rear groups just seem to play nice, and others just seem to not work. I’m not sure why at this point, and I’m no optics expert, but one rear group that I have seems to work with all the front groups, another is ok stopped down, and yet another is garbage out towards the edges. Theory 2: The distance between the front and rear groups may correlate (but not replicate) to the length of the scope that the rear group is sourced from. This may eventually aid in predicting the squeeze ratio and angle of view of a combination of scopes, where the front group has already been tested. For example, if a front/rear combo hits 1.33X, but I want to achieve 1.5X, I should source a new rear from a scope that is slightly longer than the scope that the 1.33X originally sourced its rear from. Again, more testing needed. Theory 3: You can’t use closeup diopter elements or variable diopters in between the front and rear groups to simply bring them closer and reduce vignetting/squeeze. It partially works in center frame, but introduces nasty distorted blur everywhere else. Naturally, I’m no expert, but it was something I was curious about, so I tried it. Has anyone else had good luck with combining scope elements? I’d like to discuss it a bit and see what others experiences are.

I'm speechless : ) My future camera purchase... : -)

I am not sure if you were talking to me, but the price difference is substantial, even worst in Europe. 6K is great and all, but doubling the price doesn't help. It crosses that psychological line that people say "screw it, it is so cheap that O am getting this anyway". A price of almost 2800-3000€ will cause a lot of potential buyers to pause and check the cheaper 4K or more expensive and more complete options. P4K plays ball alone in the lower tier of things. @BTM_Pix it is a huge hit here in Greece, and a huge portion of GH5 users got one anyway. All the kids got one, speedboosted with a 18-35mm and destroying the market charging 40€ for a days work! "How many people cancelled because they got fed up and moved on to another camera (after all people couldn't just put their projects on indefinite hold) or their circumstances changed or they didn't like CDNG being removed?" - not many, what else to buy in this price range?! 6K is good and all, but it won't be a standard, 8K is the standard, and after you buy the 6K then there will be an 8K for similar money, because how mimuch to charge for a Pocket camera?! 4 out of the 6 main Film and TV production shops here selling them with some initiative usually (right now one of those is giving a Peli-like case of 100€ for free). If I have seen it on tourists hands filming Acropolis? No!

They fit the Ursa line, so I don't see a reason they wouldn't fit this. They only don't fit speedboosters because there's extra glass between the mount and the sensor.

I wouldn't say your color grading skills are awful. Your client should have provided you with some sample shots / videos, just to give you something you can rely on when creating a look. Turns out you went for a subtle GHAlex look, which may not appeal to everyone, whereas they wanted simple, oversaturated, lively grade.

I think the thirst for ever faster lenses is starting to bite as the prices of the equivalent mft ones can't compete. If you look at something like the Sigma 16mm f1.4 for the Pocket 6K then its not far off half the price of the (almost) equivalent 12mm f1.4 Panasonic lens. Far more choice of fast, stabilised (which is obviously important on non-IBIS camera) native lenses from more manufacturers for the 6K than the 4K so you could argue that the difference in price will be recouped in lenses. The lenses are bigger of course but lets be honest the either version of the camera isn't on the compact side anyway.

Going by the numbers, it appears the pixel pitch will be decidedly smaller. I wonder if it'll use the dual Iso approach, given the different nature of the sensor

This is making the m4/3 mount look more and more in jeopardy. Seems everyone is moving away from it. They might know something we don't, along with Panasonic.

He said it can take it from any device so it should even be able to jam from an Android app like this for your phone if you want to save a few quid if its just for that feature. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.AaronBernstein.ltctimecodegenerator&hl=en_GB

@Snowfun, It looks like a Tentacle Sync: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1372225-REG/tentacle_sync_te1_sync_e_single_set.html/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x856237/SID/EZ

Looks like a direct response to the rapid development of the Z cam cameras. Shame they couldn’t get to 4K 100/120fps. But RAW 6k 60fps for that price is hard to sniff at.

Really? That is awesome! Sweet then im not upgrading at all :D, unless the image looks better.

At twice the price, I still think I'd buy the P4k and a booster over the 6k. There's many more lens options. If the 6k had more 4k framerates, things might be different. I don't see it as worth the upgrade, but I don't think it's supposed to be either.

€3000 puts into a different bracket with different choices doesn't it? When you look at in the cold light of day, its going to be an APS-C EF mount camera with very primitive AF and a (now) compressed RAW codec. If Canon announced something with that spec today there'd be howls of derision I think it makes less sense for a lot of people than the 4K does (not least because the 4K can have EF lenses as well of course) but the choice is there now.

I'm very torn about this update because on one hand I think the m4/3 mount is the most flexible option in terms of lensing plus with the different flavours of speedbosters available you can get much closer to full frame than Super35 if needed. On the other hand 6K for 4K delivery has the potential to deliver a great image and will probably completely solve the only issue I have with the camera which is the presence of aliasing/moirè in highly detailed scenes. (it's got substantially better with BRAW but it's still there unfortunately). Decisions, decisions! ?

I pity all those trying to sell a new p4k online for 1735 euro ...

The comment didn't say "it can't be done on pocket 6k" but that it can't be done on ef mount cameras all together. This is why I mentioned Ursa mini pro just as a fun fact, not a "there's speedbooster coming to the pocket 100% confirmed "

Link to specs: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera/techspecs/W-CIN-15

Didn't know that. Mounted inside, smart!

Theoretically, you'd get a very similar image yes. One difference could be in noise level. The slightly larger sensor should have better performance at any given ISO, but the difference between m43 and s35 really isn't that big.

6k Ef mount ? need an new speedbooster

Pocket 6K Oh...

Someone posted this on bmcuser. Look at resolution.

Yeah, finally fixed.

yea sound is broken

Pipe dream: Full Frame Ursa Mini Pro Hoping for: New external recorders to replace their previous lineup.

I know I'm dreaming on some of these but I'm hoping for: - Anamorphic mode for the Pocket - New VA monitors that can control the BM Cameras - A small EVF designed for the Pocket - BRAW announced for the older BM Cameras They'll probably announce shipping date for the Battery Grip also

- I hope for anamorphic mode on the pocket, if they can make it work like 2K anamorphic is already good. - Hoping on some goodies for the ursa mini pro g1 also.

On an unrelated note, do you still have that GX80 in pieces as per your Twitter link picture for this article ? If you do, I've discovered something interesting that you might want to look at if you fancy an external microphone mod for it.

In terms of the sound world, the Zoom F4 is still very young! I feel kinda guilty myself in upgrading from an F4 to an F8n then a Zaxcom Maxx so quickly! Have used a Tascam DR60Dmk1 as well (it was what I had owned as a film student). Then went to a Sound Devices 552 / Tascam DR680 combo, then the Zoom F4, each step along that process from the DR60D was a BIG STEP UP! You'll not regret the F4, is like night and day vs a DR60D in terms of all of features / ergonomics / quality

Fair enough! Same reason I own a Brownie film camera (although mine was even cheaper than a DVX100, it was a gift!).

Also wow, hasn't time flown: "Which Sound Recorder to buy? A guide to various indie priced sound recorders in 2017" Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Because you'd be diminishing the quality of your audio by mixing in with it everything else. It's disappointing because it is a crap solution.... like I said in my previous post. It is barely a step up from using the internal mic, maybe. What kind of travel stuff? If it is fairly generic ambiances of a location then one approach I might consider is: 1) lav into the camera itself for when I'm narrating 2) a Tascam DR-05X in my pocket to pull out and record a couple minutes of stereo ambiance for each general "scene" I'm in to mix in later on during post

It's probably worth mentioning that there are three magic ingredients here.. "wide aperture", "MFT", and "sharpness". Our problem is that if we're testing the adapter for how sharp it is, then we're in trouble with most/all of the fast MFT lenses, because they are absolutely not sharp when wide open! I have the 17.5mm f0.95 Voigtlander and the last two stops are quite soft, and compared to the difference that the adapter is likely to be making they are probably useless. What we need is for someone to test it with a lens that actually is razor sharp when wide open, and for that I think we have to adapt something else. Just look at the lens test that @BTM_Pix posted in the Lenses thread - how much sharper the master prime was than the Rokinon or Dog Schidt lenses when wide open, and then look at the size / cost comparison! I'd be surprised if any of us with our mere mortal lens collections would be able to tell any difference at all.

The market for weeding videos hasn't really matured yet. Hedge trimming might work, but weeding get's a bit repetitive watching after even just a few minutes ?.

I wouldn't worry that much, I am not a mass customer/consumer, and I believe their phones are perfect for what they do and what they need. When I was shooting SLR - they were shooting some plastic Kodak. When I was shooting a dSLR - they were shooting some Canon compact, suddenly, for 4-5-6 years EVERYONE was buying dSLRs! That was the abnormality, right now I find it perfecty normal. The market self regulated, with a hint of the future. I do not think that the masses worry much about Canon or Nikon, and recently we had a resurrection of film and vinyls. I still buy both. Fuji makes very good money with their film business, especially for a "dead medium". I do not really worry for Canon, and I do not care. Still have lenses, FD and EF, but haven't buy a Canon body for a decade. Everyting is getting cheaper, with more features; except maybe Porsche's, they will never be cheap!

The Zoom F4 is indeed much better than the H4n (I have both and both are for sale! (also have a DR100 MKII for sale)). The noise floor is now usable on the F4, though still not as good as Sound Devices. If that's all that matters, then sure, they are close on noise, even more so with highly compressed online streaming listening. When it comes to sound quality, especially with decent speakers/headphones, any Sound Devices is in another class compared to the Zoom F4/F8! If you can't hear the difference, what headphones or monitors are you using? I'm using the amazing-deal Focal Listens (closed back) and the best-bang-for-buck Stax SRS-3100 w/ Ultra mod (Socas adapter plates and Brainwavz Hybrid Memory Foam pads (also have thick ZMF Lambskin angled pads, though currently prefer the thinner Brainwavz)). Previously: Sony 7506 and Audio Technica ATH-M50 (old model): both are also excellent for the money (and both still used for recording/location monitoring). Headphone amp is Sound Devices USBPre2 (excellent). These are pretty good demos which illustrate the sound quality differences: It's not always about price, sometimes is preference. I always found the RME Fireface 800's mic preamps a bit sterile and digital sounding (harsh). I replaced it with the comparatively cheap Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (over 10x cheaper) which has nicer preamps- smoother, more natural, and more analog like. While the Scarlett has sufficiently quiet and smooth mic preamps, the Sound Devices USBPre2 mic preamps are much fuller and more detailed across the spectrum. Finally, a professional life-saver feature of the Sound Devices products is the analog limiter- it's basically unclippable. Even if you're very careful and set levels safely (e.g. -12 dB), sh*t happens and you're going to get clipping, especially for live/location/doc work. Using a safety track can help but that's more work in post and still not as good as SD (or higher end) analog limiters. For the price difference between the F4 and MixPre6, there's no way I'd recommend the F4, even if I was a brand ambassador for Zoom. If one needs more channels and doesn't have the budget for equivalent Sound Devices or similar gear, the Zoom F8 makes sense. For indie/hobby work, digital limiters (or no limiter) recorders work fine, as it can be no big deal to go back and re-record once you have reviewed the recordings and find you've got some problems. If time is important or one is paid by someone else, analog limiters are really helpful. Regarding Brand Ambassadoring for Aputure: it's cool to promote products one is compensated for, however as others have noted there are some issues with the current Deity: noise floor and off-axis rejection. While it does sound similar to a 416, it's much noisier, and side & rear rejection is much worse than the 416 and NTG-2. I've only listened on YouTube, however this review says the Deity is noisier than a $249 NTG-2. It appears Aputure tuned the Deity with high gain (hotter, more sensitive) and the budget ran out to keep costs and noise low at the same time. It's a fair compromise, and in noisy environments the noise won't really matter, or noise can be removed in post (FFT/spectral or simple expander/noise gate). Regarding mic placement and usage: there are NO RULES! There are guidelines, however what matters is how the mic and placement actually sound for the conditions- that's it. Mic on camera? Absolutely for run&gun and it can sound great. It's totally fine to use a shotgun indoors in a non-reverberant room. The 416 is also an excellent VO/indoor mic. As long as the room's reflections aren't causing the shotgun to 'phase out' (sh*tty sounding phase effects), they can work great. It only took one time after many years of using the NTG-2 as my main mic to hear nasty reverberant phase effects to finally add a hypercardioid. I picked up both the Audix SCX1-HC ($500) and the Schoeps CMC641 (a lot more). If I 'squint my ears' maybe I can hear a difference between these two mics. I ended up keeping both to do stereo recordings. Even though they aren't matched, they work pretty well together (all the indoor Cosmic Flow shoots use both these mics as a stereo recording on booms above talent. Can you hear the difference?). At that time I also finally upgraded to the CMIT5U, which works well outdoors, indoors, and on camera too! Someone criticized plugging a Schoeps directly into the C300 II- as if it could only be mated with a Sound Devices or better lol. When I'm running both camera and audio, simplicity and reliability are first priority. For critical location shooting for playing clients, the higher quality preamps and analog limiters of a Sound Devices mixer would totally make sense. Here the NTG-2 sounds better indoors than the normally excellent Audio Technica 4053b (one of Curtis Judd's favorites): The 4053b and SCX1-HC tested for dialog here: http://www.4kshooters.net/2016/06/28/five-affordable-boom-microphones-for-capturing-high-quality-indoor-dialogue/ Cables: Neutrik connectors are great and after using cheaper cables really appreciate Mogami quality. Over the years I started out with the best low-cost gear I could find (Rode, Audio Technica, Zoom, Tascam) and slowly upgraded to better gear (Sound Devices, Sennheiser, and Schoeps). You really appreciate the quality of the higher end gear after learning on the budget gear. The Audix SCX1-HC is a special gem- fantastic quality for the price. For internet streaming and listening on a cellphone (where most people consume low-budget/indie/free content), the budget Rode and Audio Technica gear is plenty good!