BTM_Pix

No, the post can't be edited unfortunately. This is the current (and very likely last in this incarnation) version of the html file. The hue control is undocumented in terms of absolute values so you will have to experiment to push it in the different directions by amending the following line and change the last value to effect the change http://192.168.54.1/cam.cgi?mode=setsetting&type=colormode&value=cinelike_d&value2=0/0/0/0/5 Positive values will change it further towards Violet/Magenta and negative values will change it further towards Yellow/Green. The preset ones in the html file are 5 and -5 respectively but they are just meant as a starting point for your own experimentation. With regards to a release log, its probably a bit too low tech to need one to be honest ! As I say, this incarnation of it (barring something unexpected with VLOG) is as far as it goes from my making any new versions of it but I think other people are making their own versions of it now so perhaps they'll do some more with it. It was purely from my point of view a way to begin prototyping wifi control of the cameras rather than an end product in itself so all my efforts now will be towards the hardware controller. The ongoing thread for that development is here And there is also likely to be something else that will be side developed regarding a more hands on approach to picture profile control that is coming out of this thread here When I say likely, I mean I'm probably going to have it working by Monday DEPLOY CINELIKE D V HUE EXTENDED ISO V2.html

There's nothing I can't overcomplicate though Jon, its how I roll I'm very curious about the interaction between the parameters though so with things like sharpening, for example, there may be an interaction with the NR that changes things that we haven't explored. Who knows really the order in which NR and Sharpen controls come in the processing chain for example so we there may be some combination that makes the NR really viable rather than the automatically "right, lets switch that off completely for a start" setting that its perceived as. Or maybe there isn't ! And we'll probably have to throw ISO into this mix as well as that will bring another variable to the party. +3 NR at ISO640 on Cinelike D might be a whole load of different than +2 at ISO6400 on Natural and maybe not in the way that we'd anticipate it being as who knows whats going on under the hood really between the parameter value we see on screen and what is actually being affected. And the spike is actually clipping according to Aperture. Whats interesting is when I put the mouse over the blue square of the colour checker and you can see the RGB values (ignore the L value) under the histogram as in these screenshots. You can see the relative difference in terms of the blue value between the profiles and yet when you do the same over the grey area of the checker they are all in the same relative balance. Order is Standard, Natural, Cinelike D

Haha. Where am I going with it? I think you and I are in accord over how much received wisdom there is with much of this stuff. And truth be told I'm as guilty as anyone else for perpetuating much of it! When you consider the image controls available in a G7 etc you have the following : 8 Base colour profiles 4 Individual modifying parameters to those 8 (Saturation, Sharpness, Contrast, Noise Reduction) each of which have 11 possible settings (+5 to -5 and 0) 2 Global parameters (Highlight and Shadow) both of which have 11 possible settings (+5 to -5 and 0) That means that there are over 1.7 million different combinations. And thats without the additional Hue control that some Lumix cameras have. Oh and thats 1.7 million different combinations per profile. Can anyone honestly say they've tested all 14 million combinations to determine their definitive setup for these cameras? Obviously no one has, even though I know sometimes it feels like we have And on the basis that all of these parameters do actually make a difference, there could be some really interesting combinations of them that no one tries because the received wisdom (and lets be honest with 14 million combinations its no bad thing to use that) tells us that we should use a smallish core base and then tweak from there. Do we actually know, for example, if you have the noise reduction at +5 and the shadows at -5 and the highlights at +4 on a Natural profile with the saturation at 3 and the contrast at 2 and sharpness at -3 that these cameras don't suddenly look like you've got Kodachrome 64 in them? No, because we'd guess that those settings would make it look like it horrendous and not go near them. Does anyone even really know what happens if you have the noise reduction at +5? Does anyone even really know if it actually works at all as I can't imagine most people have ever tried it at that setting. And the reason we don't know, in my opinion, is that not only are there so many combinations but that its just too fiddly to be diving in and out of menus to change them and have the immediate feedback of what the interaction of those parameters actually looks like. So, where I'm going is to make that a lot easier and hopefully people can come across some happy accidents and make profiles that they don't have to spend hours tweaking later.....

I wondered which one of us would blink first!

I'll do a few tests with a couple of different ones I've got around if I get a chance over the weekend. They're all varying degrees of cheapo so I expect it'll be all over the place !

Nice one. Just to manage expectations, though, we'll be able to absolutely confirm what the command is thats sent but its by no means a guarantee that it will work on the other cameras. On the upside, it does likely mean free V-LOG if you've still got the old firmware on your GH4

Its highly likely that it will be purely dependent on what controller people want to use. Its fundamentally in there but just mapped to a thumbstick at the moment. A controller with a fader in (or many faders) is easily supported. Watch this space, I suppose.

Ah, I see the distinction between them now. Cheers

Could you talk me through this behaviour with the AF-ON button Jase and whether you know if it is the same on the 45 1.8? I have the 45 1.8 and when I'm testing it with my hardware controller in MF mode I can focus manually by wire with the joystick and activate an instant AF by pushing the stick in and I can also activate a joystick steerable mode where I can move the focus point around the screen and then press the stick in to activate an instant AF on that point. I'm curious to know if this would solve the issue for you if it did the same with the 17 as I don't have one of those to test with?

Doing the same thing with 400% crops from my test earlier day (which was daylight obviously) you do see differing things going on in the blue channel. Not just the overall level (which you can see is higher and in a different range as are the other colours which are more bunched in the mid area) but you can see it gets rolled off at the top. So there are differences but its certainly looking like the studio lights shift it a lot more noticeably. Natural profile on top, Cinelike D below it.

It might make a comeback....

This is going to be in sections so bear with me, but loading them into Aperture, you can immediately see the distribution difference with Cinelike D and the Natural profile and this tallies with my test earlier on today. Everything is condensed more with the Cinelike D but its interesting to see how high the blue channel is and how it is almost clipping. *** NEXT PART *** So I can get them to somewhat match visually and using the starting point of Aperture's Auto Exposure function (which is actually reasonably accurate based on if you underexpose in the camera then the correction it puts on more or less always corresponds to the amount of underexposure) From that, it could be see that there was more to go with both of them but quite a bit more with the Cinelike D version. Using the Auto Enhance function (which attempts to give a half decent balance in terms of it usually lifting the shadows) there was a bit more to be had from both and both could be pushed a bit further if needed. But what was apparent was still this narrower band for the Cinelike D version which I had to tweak by adjusting the Green level and rolling off the top of the Blue channel. You can see most of the individual parameter changes for each image in the screenshots for each one. In answer to whether its better to ETTR with the other profile, I'm not sure but there was certainly a smaller margin for error as it was closer to the edge than the Cinelike D one. Is there something in the colour of the lights that was causing the raised levels in the blue channel with Cinelike D perhaps?

Will do. Just let me finish prototyping this interactive picture profile creation tweaker

"Ex Demo" used to be a common way in the UK to get round manufacturer's price controls preventing you from advertising products at discounted prices. When I used to sell recording studio equipment many, many years ago, products would mysteriously go out of stock from the manufacturer if you were advertising below list price. It was completely illegal for them to force price fixing in that way of course but the law didn't stop them being out of stock or giving you a trade discount of 0% if they felt like it, so it was de-facto price control. All of our magazine ads mainly featured an 'Ex Demo' sale list with discounted prices for the products that we weren't allowed to advertise at discount prices. These 'Ex Demo' product prices were, conveniently, exactly the same discounted price we'd sell you a brand new one at if you visited us at the office. So, customers would ring up and go : "I'm ringing about the ex-demo Lexicon PCM70 you've got advertised. Do you still have it?" To which we'd reply. "Hang on, I'll just check.......(on hold to pretend we were looking even though we knew there was no such ex-demo one).....Awww,no..I'm sorry it went this morning....I tell you what though, if you want one, we've got a couple of brand new ones that a customer has cancelled an order for, I'll do you one of those for the same price if you like?" At which point your hand would be bitten off, the customer got a great deal, we had a happy customer who loved our generosity and fairness and we and the manufacturers could live happily in the illusion of no one ever advertising a product below list price. I think some camera stores in the UK are using "Open Box" as being the new "Ex Demo". You knew were you stood with us if it said "Used" though so there was never any confusion. If we ever advertised something as "Used" there was a good chance it had rust on it.

Yeah, I was very interested in how much faith could be put in them if you wanted to really expose to the right and have them set at 100. And my takeaway is that they can largely be relied on if you want to push that far. It was also interesting, for me at least (!), to see the interaction between the profiles and the levels at the same exposure settings. Considering how coarse the histogram display is then this is a good thing What I've seen here might form the basis of a bit more testing for me at some point actually to look at the relationship with the profile, the contrast parameter within it and the additional global shadow and highlight adjusters in the camera. I think there is possibly some scope there to create profiles that incorporate all those parameters into single combination packages to create potentially finished OOC looks that I could make be deployed with a single button press. There might actually be combinations of these parameters that you'd maybe describe as non-intuitive that you look at the actual image its producing and think "You know what, that shouldn't work but I like the way that that looks". With analog synths for example, you pushed and prodded at the controls because they were there in front of you rather than having to deliberately go into menus and find them like you did with digital synths. It brought about happy accidents (as well as absolute abominations of noise) and I think it could be the same with these cameras. Its too fiddly to go in and change things in them through the menus so you become so methodical that you seldom create combinations that might just be really interesting. If all those parameters are laid out in front of you for you to twiddle with and you can see the live results of them (because you don't have to go in and out of menus) then I think that might happen. You'll probably end up with lots of rubbish but might just pan some gold. I'm quite enthused about this now and I'm going off to hack together something to do it!

The very first prototype I did was not too dissimilar actually !

Just a slightly different aspect to this but I was curious about how accurate the zebras are and how useful the histogram is with these cameras so I did a little test with the G7. I set the zebras to 100 to flash the middle column where the colour checker is stuck on and framed it so the door was in shot to see the different shadow levels with different profiles. Ignore the completely deliberately blown out right third portion of wall and sky as this is for a completely different test ! So that you could see what the camera was actually doing (and more importantly what it was saying it was doing), I recorded the output with the overlays on into a Ninja Inferno and did 3 passes using Standard, Cinelike D and Natural profiles, altering the shutter speed to change the exposure to show where the zebras came on for each. Annoyingly, I can't record the scope overlays of the Ninja Inferno as it was interesting to monitor what the camera thought was 100 and what the Ninja Inferno did. The good news is that the zebras are pretty accurate (I checked at 80, 70 and 60 as well) and you can see that reflected in the scopes in these grabs in FCPX. You can also see that Cinelike D is reducing the peak and stretching other parts of the range compared to the same exposure using the different profiles (all profiles were set to 0 for every parameter so there is more to be had from tuning but that was outside of the scope if you pardon the pun of what I was doing. What I found interesting is how there was quite a coarse change in level between the exposure combination of ISO/SS and F stop that would trip the zebras and the closest one that wouldn't, with the level going from 100 to around 92-ish. Using a variable ND, I was able to slightly tune that between the cracks as it were to eek a bit more out but if you've got the precision to be turning an ND like that all the time then you'd be better off being a safe cracker. So, the takeaway for me from doing this is that the zebras are accurate enough to use at 100 if you want to really expose to the right and the histogram is, erm, a yellow graphic. Download link for the video file if anyone wants to have a look in their own NLE is here https://mega.nz/#!ZyYCgC6R!WTM3Nz2MXfSzKtwG0hPhOBAvSqNaOq4eOnIUycnPQ3I

I am currently checking out two controllers to use with it that I think will be the definitive ones for people to choose. There'll be an update with them next week so stay tuned !

Always think Flickr pools are a decent resource for lenses as you generally get thousands of examples to look at and they come from a very broad range of lighting conditions and subjects. And because the exif data is generally intact you can see what camera they were used with then you can see if they are tuned for their native cameras etc It won't give you that same degree of feedback regarding handling for things like AF or IS and so on like YouTube or Vimeo does but its a lot easier to have an overview based on multiple sources of its general optical performance. https://www.flickr.com/groups/mzd17mmf18/pool/

This video I thought showed it quite badly but who knows what his settings were so its difficult to tell. But having said that, the first video you see on YouTube when you search for the lens and adapter is Canon themselves demonstrating it at the broadcast show on a C100 so they don't seem to be shy about pushing it for the C100 so its definitely worth a demo of it as a combo to see if there maybe is some sorcery going on.

Not thus far but my work on it at least is suspended while I'm doing the hardware controller. We've got a lead with an old version of the app that had the 'free' VLOG glitch but needs someone with a GH4 with the old firmware before Panasonic shut the door on it to try and do some exploring to see if it could be applied to the G7. Priority list for what I'm up to is the hardware controller, followed by Cinelike D on LX100 and then after that I'll revisit VLOG if no one else has been looking at it. I don't think the extra bitrates are viable using this method.

EDIT However they're achieving it, its working pretty well on this video. I'd seen a few others where it was very noticeable but I suspect that what they were exhibiting was it not being set to f5.6 so it was stepping through its maximum apertures for each part of the range. It may make a bit of mechanical noise though from other comments I've read.

I don't have a Sony camera to test it with but does their smartphone app enable manual focus or touch AF with the A7xxx cameras? I might be able to do a version of my Panasonic wifi controller for it for gimbal use if it does.

Yes, you can save it to the custom picture profile but it is easy to overwrite it, meaning you would have to do the hack again which might not be convenient if you're out and about ! Safest thing to do IMO is do both and save it into one of the C registers.

My speculation is that they would manipulate the ISO (secretly ) briefly at the crossover points to smooth it out rather than you needing it be enabled but its just a guess as to how they could do it. But I'm basing that on how bad the phenomenon is on Fuji's wide zooms (and to a far less extent their tele ones) but perhaps its just fundamentally better on this Canon lens. If I come across one in a shop I'll let you know.