BTM_Pix

Pleased to announce that my Pocket4K app for Android is now complete and is with beta testers so barring any calamties will be available from the Play store on the 21st of December. Here is a screen shot with a quick run through of the features from top to bottom : Across the top we have the controls for Aperture, ISO and shutter angle. Next up we have the colour temperature and tint controls, the preset white balance selectors, the Auto White Balance button and, of course, the Record button. Beneath that we have the 8 snapshot memories which you can use to store and instantly recall 8 different custom settings of ISO, Aperture, Shutter Angle and White Balance. To store the preset you long press on the memory slot that you want to use and to recall it just short press. Haptic feedback is given to indicate that the preset has been written and the currently loaded preset is denoted in orange (M1 in the shot above). Presets are stored in non volatile memory so are always available in any session. Next is the focus controller, which is operated using the slider and/or the fine tune buttons. A long press of the button moves instantly to closest focus and infinity respectively. The AF button in ths row activates the single shot auto focus. To accompany the focus controls, you then have 6 memory slots (A to F) to store focus points and you can switch instantly between them by simply pressing the required one. In addition, next to these are the controls for A-B-A focus transition and the speed control. Again, all focus points are stored in non volatile memory for use in any session. Finally we have the controls for applicable MFT power zoom lenses with the same interface as the focus controls (including long press for instant minimum/maximum zoom) and 4 non volatile memory positions for later recall. There is another function that it can do that I'll let you know about closer to release date and I will put up a little demo video of it in action late next week.

Optically, it is at least as good as the PF. It is also not far off being a third of the price used against a new PF. Another plus is that it has a physical aperture control so is more flexible in terms of being used on a different camera type whereas with the PF using Nikon's new electronic control you are limited to only being able to control the aperture with a Nikon body. So it performs as well as the new one, is much cheaper and also more versatile. Against that, of course, is that it is twice the weight, about a third bigger and doesn't have VR. Until the Z series came along, it would be that final aspect that would be a deal breaker for a lot of people but IBIS should address that. I'm saying should as I've never tested that so I can't comment with any authority over it but anecdotaly it does seem to work well. Which leaves us with the size and weight issue. My use for the original version was for events where a long lens wouldn't be the primary lens I'd be shooting on but wanted the ability to have that extra reach if I needed without having to haul a 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8 with me. So things such as press conferences or close action positional stuff like boxing or track cycling etc. It worked very well in that capacity and the weight and bulk saving was a godsend versus the f2.8 But then the PF version appeared and moved all of that to another level, particularly with the addition of VR, so it was an instant buy for me! As I say, the Z series will take care of the VR part but the original lens is still quite a lump which may be a drawback or at least less desirable, for your intended use. It certainly was for mine. If you were looking for a compromise solution then for somewhere roughly in the middle price wise you could maybe look at a used 70-200mm f2.8 with a 1.4TC. In terms of size, it isn't far off the same as the original 300mm f4 and it would give you near enough the same on the long end with the TC with the added versatility of being a zoom but also taking the TC off and getting the extra stop back. The bottom line for me is that if the PF didn't exist then I would still happily be using the original and if I was buying from scratch then provided I didn't need the lens to be stabilised I wouldn't have a particular problem getting it again at that significant saving. For my needs though, the size and weight is a significant enough advantage that it is worth stretching for but your needs may be different. I would definitely recommend you going and trying one first with your own camera though to make sure it works as a combo for you. But just make sure that you aren't tempted to try the PF version out while you are there

Aren't BM themselves part of that 'Panasonic etc' group though as the original Pocket camera works in that way too? I do understand that there isn't actually a 'fault' here as such (aside from the odd glitch when fast scrolling or the occasional mismatch on the iOS app) as its expected behaviour because of the way the values are being interpreted but there is an argument to be made regarding the difference between expected behaviour and desired behaviour. Obviously, I might well possibly be in a small minority of one over this not being desired behaviour as it doesn't seem to unduly concern other owners that they have these anomalies. However, the question would be if it will remain this way in the Pocket4K or be changed to the way in which it works with other manufacturers including yourselves with the original Pocket?

Yes, for stills you can select the two slots to be used for the RAW/JPEG splitting, backup or in sequential mode but for video it is sequential only. The sequential process can be set so that stills will go to one card and video to the other though, which is a worthwhile function for a hybrid. So, yes, for video there is no backup option unless you have an external recorder and use the internal SD with simultaneous output to HDMI setting.

Its a difficult question to answer because it will depend on the gimbal you are using in terms of what restrictions it may have with regard to where you can mount the camera itself, which in turn may have implications with regard to the restrictions for where you can mount anything else to it. The Pocket 4K seems to be presenting some challenges with regard to gimbals so I would recommend asking in the gimbal thread what people are doing with specific gimbals regarding mounting external power and SSDs. Of course, with both external power and the SSD being on cables, it would also be possible to mount them off the camera and on the gimbal handle itself or a side mount to it so there should always be an option even if mounting it to the camera proves impractical/impossible due to physical restrictions or balance complications. As I say, have a look in the gimbal thread at what people are doing as if you are committed to using it on a gimbal then their experiences will give you the right steer not only about power and SSD mounting options but also, due to the Pocket 4K being a bit of a challenge with regard to gimbals, probably about which actual gimbal to get for it in the first place.

Yeah, the Tamron is a little bit short on the long end compared to the Sigma. Having said that though, you can make up for some of the restriction of the Tamron that by having a non-speedboosted EF>MFT adapter in your bag and still have the speed advantage of it being f2.8. I suppose it depends on what MFT it is going on as well as you have ETC mode on the Panasonic and of course the fully variable mode on an LS300. I'm not holding my breath on BM doing it but a switchable 1.1 or 1.2x crop mode on the Pocket4K would be a welcome addition to give a bit more flexibility but also to deal with some of the sketchy edge performance on some native lenses and vignetting on speed boosted APS-C lenses. The 18-135mm USM is interesting as well because of the power zoom adapter that they do for it. The combo can be picked up used for under £400 which is an interesting proposition if someone is looking for something comparable to the flexibility of the Olympus 12-100 f4 at a significant saving.

For the money (£150-200) a used Tamron SP AF17-50mm f2.8 zoom on a speed booster has a lot going for it as a constant aperture stabilised 24-70mm equivalent. Not exactly the quietest lens in the world but I can't think of anything that gets you that performance at anywhere near that price. Its quite light in the bag as well as on the pocket too.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0087BV56W/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_iyOaCb5Z3CMHJ The battery locks into the holder so is secure. The camera end is on a locking connector so is secure that end. You could lock the barrel at the battery plate end quite easily. Its worth bearing in mind that the external battery is also simultaneously charging the internal battery so you do also have a backup from that point of view. You could fabricate a simple barn type roof to cover it if you wanted to with regard to keeping the elements out. Although I have to say that if you are operating the camera in those sort of conditions then the camera is going to be more of a problem than the battery. Again though, I would repeat that if you want to make something from scratch, then you would also need to have some circuitry in there so you are going to have to factor someone in to design that aspect as well.

What is it exactly that you want to put in the box? The battery plate I'm using is £10 from Amazon. Printing something from scratch and including the circuit to deliver the right voltage for the camera is likely to cost more in materials let alone effort ?

Don't worry, it will be quite an easy multiple choice one like this. Q. Assuming an ISO value of 800 and a shutter speed of 1/48th of a second, what is the correct aperture setting for the scene below ? f10 The other f10

The official cable pack finally showed up. The barrel connector adapter works fine with the cheap SmallRig Sony battery adapter that many people may have from the original Pocket and BMCC days. There are a myriad ways to mount the adapter to any sort of rig you have or even directly onto the 1/4" 20 mount on the top of the camera as I've done here. Tested the Dtap with a V mount battery and that is fine too for anyone looking for that type of solution. The only thing I would say is that I'm probably going to put some heat shrink on the cables as on my ones at least the cables aren't a particularly snug fit into the connector and I'm not sure how they would get on long term with repeated insertion and removal.

I'll give you an example of each of the three main MFT manufacturer's native lenses and three speed boosted ones from different manufacturers, listing the apertures at which they have repeats. NATIVE LENSES Panasonic 14mm f2.5 f11 f14 f16 f21 Sigma 30mm f1.4 f1.4 f1.7 f10 f11 f14 f15 Olympus 45mm f1.8 f10 f11 f14 f15 f16 f21 ADAPTED LENSES (using Metabones T Ultra 0.71x) Canon 50mm f1.8 f1.3 f1.7 f10 f11 f14 f15 Sigma 18-35mm ART f1.8 f1.3 f1.4 f1.7 f10 f11 Tamron SP 17-50mm f2.8 f10 f11 f14 f15 f16 The Metabones has the latest firmware and from the responses by the other two users in the thread, the same behaviour is also happening with Viltrox adapters. Obviously, none of these native lenses or adapted lens combinations shows the same issues when tested on either a "regular" MFT hybrid camera (Panasonic G7 and GX80) or my other MFT mount camera the JVC LS300. With regard to the steps to reproduce, just turn the aperture wheel one step at a time (or you can do it on the app as its the same behaviour) and you will see the points at which the indicated value does not change and these points will remain consistent in either direction. As f10 and f11 are two of the common points of repetition across all lenses, you should also these two byte arrays for each version of f10 and f11 being returned from UUID: B864E140-76A0-416A-BF30-5876504537D9 in any logs you capture in nRF Connect whilst doing this. f10 (0x) FF-06-00-00-00-02-80-02-26-35 (0x) FF-06-00-00-00-02-80-02-40-36 f11 (0x) FF-06-00-00-00-02-80-02-59-37 (0x) FF-06-00-00-00-02-80-02-5A-38 This shows that the parameter value itself is not a repetition (0x3526 and 0x3640 for f10 / 0x3759 and 385A for f11) but the interpretation of it is. So if you write those arrays to UUID: 5DD3465F-1AEE-4299-8493-D2ECA2F8E1BB you will see that you will also get two versions of f10 and f11 respectively.

As per the orginal post it is happening with native (both Panasonic and Sigma that I've tested) as well as adapted lenses. I'll be back from this job later this evening so I can have a look at an Olympus lens for completeness but I'm not expecting it to be any different. If you connect to the camera with something like nRF Connect and register for a callback on UUID: B864E140-76A0-416A-BF30-5876504537D9 and turn the aperture wheel (or use the app) you will see the values for parameter 2 of group 0 change on every increment and should then see the instances where the value has changed but the indicated f stop hasn't.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there aren't many topics on here about anything to do with RED because not many people on here own them. Oddly enough, I do though and have had an EPIC X for seven years and I'm not sure I follow when you say its got the same problem ? It reports those same Canon lenses just fine on its adapter and reflects the actual aperture values (rather than the 64 'send it and we'll let the lens work it out' routine) correctly for the same lenses, with no repeats. It also reports the aperture back correctly from the suitably equipped PL lenses I've got as well so its not an issue I have come across or can reproduce. The design of the product has an MFT mount integral to it though so it was obvious that they would use a selection of those lenses. What they shouldn't have done is say that those lenses are fully compatible because they patently aren't. That's got nothing to do with it being 'dirt cheap' or who they are selling it to. Anyhoo, for what it's worth, my Android remote app fixes the problem so that it will only send the values that each particular lens has a valid matching aperture for. So if a low rent whining prick like me can resolve it then hopefully the $400M corporation can do the same at some point.

What do you mean 'update every camera lens out there' ? They just have to profile them to make sure they go to where they should go to. Tell you what, how about they compromise and just profile the ones (80% of which it will affect) they use in their advertising for the camera ? I'm not being funny but if any other camera company had an issue where they had inaccurate aperture control like this (which isn't just a cosmetic issue either) there would be an absolute shitstorm on here but weirdly, as with a few other issues, BM somehow seem to get a pass. Anyway, thanks for those with the cameras that have chimed in to confirm it on their lenses and I suppose just view it as an FYI for everyone who hasn't yet got one.

Thanks for checking. I suppose its at the wide end of the aperture that its going to have to be borne in mind as there may be a bit more there that people won't discover - as with the nifty fifty - unless they go one step further than what it is reporting as the maximum aperture. So the rule of thumb is that when you think you've reached the maximum, turn it one more step. It a bit of a reverse Nigel Tufnel from Spinal Tap really as these go to -1 rather than 11.

Thanks These are the histograms from my "two" f1.3 settings on the nifty fifty and I can definitely see from the shift that they are two distinct settings on mine at least. I know what you mean but I'm not sure its ideal that depending on which direction you approach some particular f stops will decide whether you get the "real" setting or the one that doesn't do anything, particularly if you are exposing via an external light meter? And that even that inconsistency is in itself inconsistent depending on which lens you are using. In the case of my lens above, I had a little bit extra in hand when I went down to the "second" f1.3 that I wouldn't have been aware of if I'd not gone past the first one. It also has implications for anyone trying to match more than one camera as well in that you'd have to agree that both were on the same version of the f stop. It also causes sync issues with their own app where to add to the fun you can have one setting displayed on the app and another on the camera, which again has implications for anyone such as a gimbal manufacturer making a viable remote control for it. The root of the problem is that the camera doesn't profile the lens so the interpretation by the lens of the value that they use for the aperture ends up being a bit of a crap shoot depending on whether the lens actually has a physical setting that matches it.

I'm finding what might be described as "interesting" behaviour when changing aperture values. Aside from the unusually high degree of granularity (there are 66 different positions between f1.3 and f22 for example), I'm finding that there are a number of repeats within these positions. For example, there are two f1.3s, so when you have it on f1.3 then step up to the next value it is also f1.3. This is repeated at several other positions and is the same, for me at least, on both native MFT and adapted lenses. At some positions, there is no difference in exposure (so if you move from the "first" f11 to the "second" f11 it appears the same) but worryingly that is not always the case. On a Canon nifty fifty on a speedbooster for example there is a very clear exposure difference between the two f1.3 settings. The quirkiness of it having that many steps and some repeats is something I can live with if it was consistent between lenses and was only an indication foible in terms of the repeats but its neither of those things unfortunately. I have an understanding of why it is happening based on the BM protocol and messages I'm reading back from the camera over bluetooth but I have a limited range of lenses so obviously, it would be appreciated if any of you could check behaviour of a couple of lenses and see what happens with yours and I'd be particularly interested if anyone can try it with lenses with a wider aperture than f1.3 to see if there is a similar issue there.

As I say, they've recently updated it in the past few weeks to fix issues they had with Mojave so a lot of it will be related to those previous problems. I have not switched to Mojave so can't comment but I'm on High Sierra 10.13.5 and it works fine for me with the latest version installed. It even gives me a Touch Bar emulation at a cheaper price than upgrading my MBP With regard to price, it is a one off price for the regular version ($20-ish) and a subscription add on for the pro version which lets you use the iPad as a digitiser. I use it in a few different ways, depending on what I'm up to. In FCP-X I have the iPad Pro handling the interface and the MBP full screen as the picture monitor. For work, I will be editing pictures on the MBP and use the iPad Pro to view and control the FTP application so I can keep an eye on the transmission of the pictures to the agency without having to swap applications. As Duet works with any iOS device (and the one off payment covers you to use it on all the devices linked to your Apple account) then I tend to use an iPhone more than an iPad for that as it saves space and is an appropriate screen size for a smaller application. There are other similar products out there though so have a look around.

Oh that that where the only bug in that project. Have a look at Duet. I use mine with the Mountie clip system that attaches it to the side of the laptop screen but any old stand will do. They have recently fixed the issues they had with Mojave.

The original poster didn't come back with a resolution but I suspect this thread from DVXUser is the same person. Judging by that, the solution did seem to be sending it back to Panasonic for a repair (or replacement in his case as it was under warranty). There is an interesting post further down in that thread from someone saying that their one didn't AF unless it was actually recording so that might be worth a try to at least try and see if it makes a difference. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?356676-12-35mm-2-8-NO-FOCUS-past-12mm

Just pondering whether if you attached something like this to the 1/4-20 mount on the top of the camera you could then have an adjustable way to mount some additional weight to the camera itself to try and balance it for the additional weight of the 18-35mm (Its about 140g difference looking at the specs of the lenses) without having to move it back too far ?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean about buying all the options? If you are talking about the different resolution options, then if you buy the €90 Multi Rez Stock Kit then you get all of them included. Or are you talking about the overall cost when you add the controller? As even with the more expensive option (the Arturia) its about €180, which is less than a fifth of the price of another option such as the BM Mini controller. Having said that, the BM Mini controller is a very, very nice looking piece of kit. I previously couldn't justify the cost of the available ones based on how much I did it but these and other lower cost solutions have given me pause for thought and I possibly will in the near future. I'm very much in favour of anything that offers a tactile interface to applications, so I use numerous different MIDI controllers for controlling DAWs and synths and even Lightroom via the LrControl plugin. And, of course, who can forget my very own custom real time Panasonic picture profile tweaker Maybe I should revive that for Resolve ! For keyboard shortcuts for Resolve and other applications like FCP-X, Logic and Lightroom I use silicon keyboard covers like these They are about £5 each on eBay and just lift on and off when you swap applications. I also have a generic one for when I'm working as it keeps the elements out of the keyboard. The other thing I've used for editing for years is the Contour ShuttleXpress. I used to use the original one but the more compact one is enough for what I need for jog/shuttle and marking in and out points etc. I'm not a colourist so I can't speak about it with any authority or insight whatsoever but I can definitely see where the wheels and trackballs would be a big boon, analogous as they are to the controls inside the software. If you want to dip a toe in then Tangent (who make a series of lower cost hardware controllers for Resolve) have an app that can turn an android or iOS tablet into a virtual version. The full price is £80 but they do a free version which you can use for an hour a day to see if its something that works for you. I wasn't actually aware of it before myself so I think I might have a go as well. Video about it here

With it being Bluetooth LE, I suspect this will be related to the F8n not allowing multiple client devices being registered for notification and/or write on the same service characteristic(s). However....whilst not a single button button option I think this will provide you with a solution.... If you go into the Ipad settings screen and tell it to forget the F8n then it will remove the bonding from the F8n which will then make it available to the iPod. Then when you want to swap back you would do the same on the Ipod to break the bond and make it available to the iPad. As I say, its not an instant single button solution but shouldn't take more than 10-15 seconds.

Nce find. If anyone is interested in a hardware controller for Resolve then Tachyon also have a 40% off sale running on their interface software to run with affordable MIDI controllers. The Arturia Beatstep version is ideal for keeping the footprint small and the Akai APC40 version has a ton of direct access controls. You have to source the controller yourself, the Arturia is roughly £75 and the Akai APC40 (which has to be the Mark I) is about £40 used. With the current sale on the software, the total solution is about £135 for the Arturia and £100 for the Akai. https://posttools.tachyon-consulting.com/davinci-resolve-controllers/beatstep-resolve-edition/ This is a run through of it and at 06:00 there is a very cool feature to control curves.