Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tupp

  1. 23 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

    Correct, once it has been done for the first time there is absolutely no need to ever switch it on again.

    Okay.  Great!  Thanks.


    Does the Pocket 4K have an IR pollution issue like earlier Blackmagic cameras?

  2. On 11/9/2019 at 12:24 AM, BTM_Pix said:

    That is a requirement in Android purely for the initial bonding of a new Bluetooth Low Energy device.

    I see.  Well, Google really likes to know what everyone is doing and where they are doing it.



    On 11/9/2019 at 12:24 AM, BTM_Pix said:

    Once the camera has been bonded for the first time then it can be switched off and used without.

    So, if the camera has been bonded and then I turn it off and shoot again five days later, it is not necessary to enable "Locations?"



    On 11/9/2019 at 12:24 AM, BTM_Pix said:

    Although you can change the display to be 1/nth shutter speeds instead of angles, it is still relative to the frame rate so as the minimum off speed the camera can be set to is 5fps this results in a minimum shutter speed of 1/5th of a second.

    Okay.  That limitation prevents use of the Pocket 4K for many night time lapses.  We'll probably rent a GH5 for the time lapse shots.



  3. 7 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

    With regard to apps, I think there is someone on here who makes one that seems to work but if you don't want the extra stuff that that one does like recallable focus and exposure memories, custom white balance stores etc then there are a bunch of others that will do the job for what you're doing.

    Is this the app?


    It looks good, however, I see a possible deal-breaker -- what is the reason for forcing users to have "locations" enabled?

  4. 14 minutes ago, kye said:

    Obviously you have to get the exposure in the ballpark - what get clipped stays clipped, but you don't have to worry about tiny amounts of flickering.  You'll still need to have some kind of auto-exposure to compensate for the light changing.

    There is a special time lapse  program that still photographers use in conjunction with Lightroom.  I know more folks that have Resolve than that special time lapse program, so I will look into using Resolve.  Thanks.


    I have been watching day-to-night time lapse tutorial videos.  Sometimes they ramp the exposure manually, sometimes they use aperture preferred mode (especially on the A7RIII) and occasionally change and aperture, and sometimes they use a special controller.  There are comparisons of all three and I'm not seeing better results from the auto modes nor from the special controller.


    So, I am probably going to ramp exposure manually.  The only problem with using the Pocket 4K is:  how do you get a 5-second exposure out of a camera with shutter speeds delineated in shutter "degrees?"

  5. 5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

    You can make aperture/ISO/WB/shutter angle changes during the time-lapse either directly on the camera or via an app.

    Shutter angles are 11.2 , 15 , 22.5 , 30 , 37.5 , 45 , 60 , 72 , 75 , 90 , 108 , 120 , 144 , 150 , 172.8 , 180 , 216 , 270 , 324 , 360

    That's great to know!  Thank you!


    I wonder how the shutter angle is handled -- relative to the playback frame rate?  That could be a problem a one sometimes needs to make multi-second exposures when shooting time lapse.



    5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

    With regard to apps, I think there is someone on here who makes one that seems to work but if you don't want the extra stuff that that one does like recallable focus and exposure memories, custom white balance stores etc then there are a bunch of others that will do the job for what you're doing.

    Ha, ha!  Whoever it is, that person must be very smart and resourceful!


    I am interested in all of those features.  Where can I learn more about the app?






    1 hour ago, kye said:

    It's also worth mentioning that there's a plugin in Resolve that can smooth exposure changes between frames in time lapses.  It might be the deflicker one, but I can't remember.

    I've used it and it worked well, so you don't need to get everything completely perfect in-camera.

    Thank you!


    It is good to know that it can be done in Resolve without having to obtain a special program.

  6. I am shooting for the first time with the Pocket 4K.  I need to shoot a time lapse sequence as background plate, from daytime through sunset to night time.  I have to separately shoot a subject for the foreground on a green stage.  I would like to use the Pocket 4K for the time lapse, instead of renting a separate still camera.


    Has anyone used the time lapse function on the Pocket 4K?  Can you ramp exposure (change shutter angle/speed, aperture and ISO) during the time lapse?  If so, what are the shutter angle/speed increments (1/3rd of a stop?)?


    If the exposure can't be adjusted on camera during a time lapse, can it be done with a wifi/bluetooth app?   If so, what are the best Pocket 4K apps?


    Any help would be much appreciated!

  7. 4 hours ago, kye said:

    Even the animated gif in the thumbnail thread (showing the Canon camera and shallow DoF) clearly shows that the camera position has changed,

    I don't think that the tester moved the camera -- the tester was using a single zoom lens and he simply zoomed to change the focal length and then cropped into the image to change the sensor "size."  On the other hand, in doing so, the entrance pupil of the lens might have moved forwards/backwards.


    The problem with such a test (other than the fact that the tester is using the exact same zoom lens for a comparison) is that he didn't test separate optics made for different size formats.



    4 hours ago, kye said:

    I have 55mm, 40mm lenses at home, plus a 0.71x SB for the 55mm, so should be able to do a comparison (55mm x 0.71 = 39mm).

    That won't work -- it's an almost identical scheme to the above mentioned test in which the tester used a single lens zoomed to different focal lengths.  To do the test properly, you have to use two different lenses -- one designed for a smaller format and one designed for a larger format.


    I would also suggest the the two lenses that you choose to test should be made for two formats of extremely disparate sizes.  Comparing a M4/3 lens to an APS-C lens might show a difference that is too subtle for most to perceive, and likewise when comparing lenses made for APS-C and full frame.  To make the difference obvious to most people, it would best to compare, say, a lens made for 16mm film to one made for 4"x5" film.


    By the way, I made those animated gifs, because I could see the subtle yet important differences between the two images that evidently escaped most viewers when the photos were presented one above the other.  Even after gifs were posted, some folks could not see the slight, telling differences in focus and DOF, to my dismay.


    So, you have to hit people over the head to demonstrate a difference.


    Here is a photo taken with a camera that has a 14"x17" film plane.  Aside from the peculiar contrast (it's a tintype), do you think that this look (especially from the focus/DOF) can be duplicated on a Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera?  If you could achieve an identical extremely shallow depth of field with a lens made for M4/3, that girl's shoulders would be a completely blurry mush.



    4 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

    I'm about to get my first MFT camera so I'm excited to do my own tests vs FF, but it really seems to me that mathematically there's no difference between formats, it just comes down to real-world imperfections and real world availability of manufacturing.

    I love M4/3, but there are general differences in the look of different formats that do not involve "imperfections."  By the way, at what point was it declared that lenses for larger formats have more "imperfections" than those made for smaller formats?


    Please not that the "equivalence principle" and the depth of field formula are correct in finding the two mathematical limits (front and back) of depth of field.  However, neither of these notions account for how the focus rolls off outside of these front and back limits, nor do the equivalence principle and DOF formula  describe any variances might occur within their two mathematical limits.


    There are variables that affect focus that generally increase/decrease depending on the format size for which the optics are designed.  For instance, it is easier to put more lines of optical resolution into larger formats.  The smaller the format, the more difficult it is to squeeze in the same number of optical resolution lines.  When a lens gets near the practical limits cramming lines of resolution into a smaller area, it must certainly affect the look of the focus, which influences how the DOF looks/rolls-off.

  8. 4 hours ago, leslie said:

    Please pardon my ignorance, is there much difference between halogen and tungsten ?

    A halogen bulb is one of the two primary types of tungsten light sources.  This type of lamp uses a thick, quartz glass "envelope" with a tungsten filament and halogen gas inside, hence the terms "quartz," "halogen" and "quartz halogen" -- all of these terms refer to the same type of bulb.


    The other type of tungsten lamp is "incandescent," which is the same technology as traditional household bulbs.  Incandescent lamps have a thin, large glass envelope enclosing a tungsten filament and such bulbs are often filled with argon gas.


    Quartz halogen bulbs are significantly smaller and longer lasting and their color remains consistent throughout their life.  Incandescent bulbs are more delicate and discolor as they age.


    Never touch the quartz glass of a halogen bulb with your fingers/skin.  If you do, immediately clean the quartz  thoroughly with isopropyl alcohol and a clean paper towel or plain cotton pad. Otherwise, the oil from your skin will impregnate the quartz and weaken it when it heats up, which can cause the bulb to explode.



    3 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    Yeah of course putting on gels takes down the power of the light by a lot. 

    A 1/2 CTB gel cuts about 1/2 stop of output.


    On the other hand, if you are mixing ballasted daylight fixtures (such as HMIs), it 's just as easy to put CTO gel over those fixtures.

  9. 8 minutes ago, kye said:

    Of course they're big and heavy

    On the contrary, tungsten lights are usually smaller and lighter than their LED counterparts with equivalent output.  Plus, tungsten lights have no fans.


    The Lowel Omni is compact and light-weight with a high power density and a nicely focus-able beam, but a redhead would work, too -- it's just a little bigger and has a more limited focusing range.

  10. 16 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    I'd suggest a used Lowel DP. You can use them with a 1000w or 500w bulb. 1000w gives you a ton of light.

    The DP light is a great fixture!  I used two of them in a shoot just last week.  With the FEL (1kw) bulb, you have a lot of punch that you won't find in most LED fixtures.



    16 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    Keep in mind where you'll be using it, obviously won't look great mixed with daylight. 

    Easy enough to use 1/2 CTB gels, so that the tungsten color mixes well with daylight.



    16 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    Combine with a dimmer and you are good to go.

    Keep in mind that the dimmer has to be rated for at least 1kw, if one uses the FEL (1000w) bulb or the EHF (750w) bulb.



    16 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    Avoid the omni lowel lights, bulbs tend to burn out easily and they are just not as good.

    Completely disagree with you here.  Omnis are GREAT lights!


    The reason why folks have had problems with the bulbs is that most of the bulb manufacturers initially did not include a central filament support, so the filament would break easily with shock, plus the focus mechanism on the Omni is exceedingly fast.  When the FTK (500w) bulbs started to appear with filament supports, most of the bulb problems disappeared.  However, one still should be careful not focus too quickly with an Omni light.

    The Omnis have a greater focusing range than the DP lights, and two Omnis easily fit into the space of one DP light.  At 500w, the Omnis also pack a lot of punch for being so compact.  I would definitely recommend Omni lights, and I always carry at least one in my lighting kit.


    By the way, I heard that QC dropped a little when Tiffen bought Lowel, so it might be wise to search for the pre-Tiffen fixtures.



    1 hour ago, photographer-at-large said:

    ...terrific these "corn" bulbs are now CRI 95+

    Yes, but don't lick them.


    Seriously, many of these "corn" bulbs have exposed contacts next to the LEDs, and you can get a little zap if you touch the contacts.

  11. 47 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

    It seems like too much resolution / sharpness in digital formats has always been where the magic starts to go away.

    Higher resolution is not necessarily the primary advantage of larger formats -- the advantage is the look.


    Our own @richg101 developed a medium format DOF adapter -- the Forbes 70.  He used the OG Blackmagic Pocket (HD) with the Forbes 70, and the images were beautiful and distinct from smaller formats.


    In addition, or own @Gonzalo Ezcurra made the largest format DOF adapters that I have seen (14"x14" and 20"x20"), and he used HD cameras with it, but the footage was wondrously gorgeous.

  12. We've had heated discussions in this forum on the DOF equivalency principle and on the difference in the looks of different size formats.


    I am on the side that there is definitely a difference in the general look of different size formats.  I also maintain that the DOF equivalency principle does not account for the rate that the focus "falls off" outside of the mathematical DOF range and that this DOF falloff rate differs between different formats.


    Keep in mind, that the assertions above apply not to the size of a sensor nor emulsion, but to the optics made for a particular size of sensor/emulsion.


    If one compares the images from a 16mm camera to those from, say, an 8"x10" camera, the difference in look and DOF falloff is striking.  Here is footage from a recent 8"x10" camera:


  13. 2 hours ago, JuiH said:

    hi, would ETTR still be suitable for 8-bit 4:2:2 from a 5D MArk iv or an EOS R? i have C.Log on both of them. i much prefer the 10-bit 4:2:2 of my Sony FS-5 however i find it harder to achieve pleasant skin tones with the Sony than with either of the Canons.

    Even though the format you mention may be uncompressed, the fact that it is 8-bit might cause banding artifacts to appear when you adjust the levels back down in post.  Be careful and/or run tests in advance.


    In your NLE, you might find filters that have sliders and color wheels that will allow you to quickly change the Sony skin tones to your liking.

  14. ETTR is suitable for raw and uncompressed formats.


    Just be careful going by a histogram alone.  If you have zebras, set them in the range of 95%-100%, and use them to determine your upper limit and to choose which parts of the image may or may not blow-out.  Waveform is also good for finding the upper limit.

  15. 30 minutes ago, cam1982 said:

    Sure not, the guy didn't create Oakley either.

    Well, he certainly didn't invent tacky sunglasses and ugly shirts.



    31 minutes ago, cam1982 said:

    Just hype.

    Promo-wear has built-in hype, just because it is part of the fashion industry.  On the other hand, the sunglasses and shirts probably didn't get as much hype as the RED One, which was vaporware for about 3 years.



    32 minutes ago, cam1982 said:

    A perfect hoax.

    The RED founder and "hoax" mentioned in the same post?  Oh, the irony...



    34 minutes ago, cam1982 said:

    Maybe we too and didn't notice yet.

    Some guy made a video about RED's special drives.  I think he noticed something.

  16. 1 hour ago, nathlas said:

    Has anyone in here bought any Dalsa camera ?  😅

    Has anyone here bought a Panavision DXL?  😎


    Whether or not someone on this site bought something has no reflection on the innovation nor quality of the item in question.



    1 hour ago, nathlas said:

     In case you don't remember Dalsa's rental price was 3k$/day !!!  

    I don't think that I ever actually knew what the rental prices were on any one of the different Dalsa 4K raw cameras.


    Nevertheless, Dalsa was offering 4K raw long before it was even a glint in Jannard's eye.


    Keep in mind that the first ones to break ground usually incur the most development cost and sink the most resources into a type of product.  So, initially, a new type of product is usually very expensive.  Often, someone with deep pockets sees the development, and swoops into a market to take advantage of it (and gets all the credit).



    1 hour ago, nathlas said:

    How it compares with 15k$ to own RedOne ?

    How does that $15K, very late-to-market, buggy RED One compare to a $1,500 Pocket4K?


    Do you see how that works?



    1 hour ago, nathlas said:

    Jannard's revolution made those camera affordable to all of us .

    Jannard just rode a wave.  Raw video and higher resolutions were inevitable in cinema cameras, as was raw compression.  He didn't invent really anything.

  17. 4 hours ago, nathlas said:

    They propably do not remember well around 2007 where Red  launched RedOne at a cost(15k$) of a Sony Cinealta's screw 😃 (Sony F23 and F35 cost was over 100k$) and deliver for first time RAW files

    RED was not the first to offer a cinema camera that shot 4K raw -- that distinction goes to Dalsa.  Dalsa introduced their 4K raw camera at the 2003 NAB.


    At any rate, 4K raw and compressed raw were inevitable and obvious in the cinema world.  At the Dalsa 2003 launch, raw files and the megapixels war had already been around for years in the still photo world.  So, it doesn't take a genius to simply apply such notions to moving pictures.


    In regards to RED's wavelet compression, it had already been established in JPEG2000.  So, it doesn't take a huge mental leap to merely apply the same compression method to another video format.


  18. 3 hours ago, Shell64 said:

    There is something about the camera being locked down and moving compared to a gimbal where the camera is “floating and moving.”

    Up until about eight years ago, we said the same thing about the difference in the solidity of the look between a dolly and a Steadicam.

  19. 2 hours ago, sanveer said:

    Also, curiously it has an EF mount (?). I think all this is true, Panasonic has truly something insane in the offing.

    Agreed.  If Panasonic uses an EF-mount once again (in spite of the fact that they already utilize the shallow and more versatile L-mount), that is truly something insane!

  • Create New...