Internal 32-bit float stereo paired with lossless 120mm reach from a 20mm lens — all inside a genuinely pocket-sized 10-bit 1-inch sensor gimbal camera?

[Clark Nikolai]

14 hours ago, kye said:

Maybe the draw is that they're old, and therefore that's the novelty, but I've heard people gush over how they love the JPEG look from cameras that have 2MP cameras and the JPGs are hugely compressed and full of artefacts etc.  

...

Here's another one comparing Hi8 vs MiniDV on the basis of the image alone..  24K views!

...

It might also be a nostalgia thing, where the image quality is desirable because it's poor, but in exactly the right way.

I do think nostalgia, even for a time someone wasn't alive for, is a big factor. Another is authenticity, the title is telling on the comparison video. Which is "more authentic?". I think with so much fake stuff out there, or over polished, commercial media, that there's naturally a desire for something real. 

I know a young woman, in early 20s, who last year shot in miniDV for the nostalgia and poor quality. That surprised me because I remember when miniDV was considered high quality (compared to what low budget video makers had access to previously). Things move on. 

There's also trends, as the saying goes, when hemlines are down they can only go up. Now that people can do 8K pristine video easily and cheaply, then low quality and dirty is a refreshing change. About 12 years ago I was searching for, and found, a pocket camera that saved in raw. It was great and I loved how I was able to edit in post nicely, etc. This year it died and so I pulled out the old jpeg-only camera from the drawer and I've been shooting with it. Now, instead of cringing when I see the jpeg artifacts, I accept it as a normal look for a cheap snapshot and kind of a style that's now "approved" by others (at least on YouTube.) The ergonomics are great too. I can have it in my side pocket and while cycling, reach down with one hand, put my hand in the wrist strap, turn it on and take pictures without stopping. You can't do that with a phone. I sometimes wish that the amazing image stabilization and other features that iPhones have was available in a little pocket camera. 

Anyway, I can dig all sorts of things. It's just another brush to choose.

[BTM_Pix]

I think a lot of people feel the world was a brighter and more optimistic place in the 90s and 2000s so it’s a way of putting their current selves back into that time.

Easy to write that off simply as nostalgia but I think at this present time it’s actually a deeper thing as a coping mechanism.

 

 

[kye]

15 hours ago, Clark Nikolai said:

I do think nostalgia, even for a time someone wasn't alive for, is a big factor. Another is authenticity, the title is telling on the comparison video. Which is "more authentic?". I think with so much fake stuff out there, or over polished, commercial media, that there's naturally a desire for something real. 

I know a young woman, in early 20s, who last year shot in miniDV for the nostalgia and poor quality. That surprised me because I remember when miniDV was considered high quality (compared to what low budget video makers had access to previously). Things move on. 

There's also trends, as the saying goes, when hemlines are down they can only go up. Now that people can do 8K pristine video easily and cheaply, then low quality and dirty is a refreshing change. About 12 years ago I was searching for, and found, a pocket camera that saved in raw. It was great and I loved how I was able to edit in post nicely, etc. This year it died and so I pulled out the old jpeg-only camera from the drawer and I've been shooting with it. Now, instead of cringing when I see the jpeg artifacts, I accept it as a normal look for a cheap snapshot and kind of a style that's now "approved" by others (at least on YouTube.) The ergonomics are great too. I can have it in my side pocket and while cycling, reach down with one hand, put my hand in the wrist strap, turn it on and take pictures without stopping. You can't do that with a phone. I sometimes wish that the amazing image stabilization and other features that iPhones have was available in a little pocket camera. 

Anyway, I can dig all sorts of things. It's just another brush to choose.

All good points and it's like everything in that when two people make the same choice it's probably a mixture of everything but in different proportions for each person.

Nowadays I think the "poor" image quality of these older cameras is just viewed as "a look" that you would make from a position of having creative options rather than being something you didn't want to choose but had no better options.

Speaking of pulling a camera out of your pocket with one hand, does the camera button on the new iPhones help?  IIRC you can double-click it to open the photo app of your choice (default or otherwise) and also use that button to take a photo or start/stop recording.  I have a grippy case for mine and holding it with one hand is a very secure experience, with the only wrinkle being that it's so grippy it can be difficult to get it in and out of a pocket unless you've gotten the angle right and the fabric isn't in tension etc.

[kye]

15 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think a lot of people feel the world was a brighter and more optimistic place in the 90s and 2000s so it’s a way of putting their current selves back into that time.

Easy to write that off simply as nostalgia but I think at this present time it’s actually a deeper thing as a coping mechanism.

Agreed..  You've likely heard of the term "anemoia" which is from The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows which aims to come up with new words for emotions that currently lack words, and it means "Nostalgia for a time or a place one has never known".

It's gaining popularity too, with that blip being April 2024...

[ND64]

30 minutes ago, kye said:

Nowadays I think the "poor" image quality of these older cameras is just viewed as "a look" that you would make from a position of having creative options rather than being something you didn't want to choose but had no better options.

"Old look" has a similar function to "film look". Both separates the content from reality by not being accurate. Modern camera are capable of representing the real world as it is, like they're just mirrors. But the artist wants to make a dream for the audience. You don't perceive a mirror image as a dream. 

[BTM_Pix]

2 hours ago, kye said:

"Nostalgia for a time or a place one has never known".

It's gaining popularity too, with that blip being April 2024...

That’ll have been Arsenal fans thinking they were going to win the Champions League.

There was a similar book in the early 80s by Douglas Adams and John Lloyd called “The Meaning Of Liff” which used the names of places and assigned them with a definition of a new word.

AITH (n.) The single bristle that sticks out sideways on a cheap paintbrush.

BANFF Pertaining to, or descriptive of, that kind of facial expression which is impossible to achieve except when having a passport photograph taken.

ELY (n.) The first, tiniest inkling you get that something, somewhere, has gone teribly wrong.
 

etc.

I have just got a new passport which has a terrible Banff that I will now have to endure for ten years.

[Clark Nikolai]

8 hours ago, kye said:

You've likely heard of the term "anemoia" which is from The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows which aims to come up with new words for emotions that currently lack words, and it means "Nostalgia for a time or a place one has never known".

I hadn't heard of it before. Thanks.  It reminds me of when the chain store Restoration Hardware first opened up in Canada. They were buying up old patents and remaking products from 100 years ago. I would have nostalgia for these things (tools, kids toys, appliances) then realized I had never seen them before. Even my grandparents didn't have these things (Canada, before the 1980s had our own manufacturing and design of goods so typical appliances and tools that everyone had were different than the US ones that Restoration Hardware remade.) It was funny how easy it was to create an environment in a store that you would get caught up in. Good store though and unique product line. Sadly, about ten years ago though they did a redesign of the company (probably for more shareholder profit) and now it's just another Bed, Bath and Beyond knock-off. There's no reason to go there anymore.

[Emanuel]

On 6/16/2026 at 11:37 AM, BTM_Pix said:

I’d have urged caution in buying the Luna before DJI released the Pro version of the Pocket 4 anyway but now the P4P has been officially released in China then I would definitely hold out for some comparisons.

One of the major USPs of the Luna is the excellent removeable remote screen but it seems DJI have an interesting solution with a small external remote for the P4P.

(...)

Oh and the 17 stops of dynamic range of the P4P is interesting too.

 

Indeed : ) 

https://freewellgear.com/blogs/news/dji-osmo-pocket-4p-vs-insta360-luna-ultra

But:

On 6/12/2026 at 12:39 AM, Emanuel said:

(...)

And here’s another feature that is, undeniably, not only pure fun:

...but just useful enough to say the least : X

I wonder whether will Insta360 POV Head Tracker, or something similar, come to the Osmo Pocket ecosystem too?

Will DJI eventually offer something like this?

If they do, it might sound a little like DJI quietly admitting that Insta360 has come up with something genuinely unique this time or once again? LOL* ; )

At least for now...

*disclaimer: happy DJI user here and just as happy an Insta360 camper...

 

The FrameTap remote is interesting, but it is not really the same thing.

The Luna’s head-controlled POV accessory makes it** feel like a more distinctive product:

**AND Insta360 products, in general, BTW... : X

[BTM_Pix]

10 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The FrameTap remote is interesting, but it is not really the same thing.

It allows you to operate the camera fully remotely so it is fundamentally the same thing.

To be honest, if I was going to use such a thing then having a compact palmable remote is more appealing than walking around looking like I’m holding a crucifix like the Luna option.

But it’s one more thing to carry so there is that.

The head tracker is very smart and for people doing instructional videos it is excellent - even if it does look like you are carrying ET in a papoose when you are out and about.

I guess the drawback is that it is excellent for seeing what you are seeing but falls down as a concept when doing the other 50-75% of what vloggers do which is getting their own face in reacting to what they are seeing.

One issue might be trying to be discreet as you have to look at someone and ET sat there swivelling to do the same does draw more attention and gives off a mobile surveillance unit vibe.

It such an eye catching feature though that I would expect DJI to be emulating it soon.

 

 

[kye]

48 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

The head tracker is very smart and for people doing instructional videos it is excellent - even if it does look like you are carrying ET in a papoose when you are out and about.

The head tracker seems like it'll be an absolute game-changer for a small number of niche uses and a curio to everyone else.

I'm wondering if it'll be a way to get natural looking gimbal footage, rather than the not-robotic-but-not-organic-either panning / tilting that we seem to get at the moment.  Maybe akin to the difference between a shoulder-rig and a tripod?
The next evolution of it might be to use it to control the camera on a drone - the current state of that art is very robotic.

Still, neither of these is of much use to me, so I'll just be reminded of that Renault model that pointed the headlights left and right along with the steering so you could see where you were going while cornering as well as when going straight.

[eatstoomuchjam]

For me, the head tracker suffers from a few problems.

- No 4th axis stabilization means the footage will be partially smoothed, but with footstep movement (not different from carrying it, but not ideal)
- Is not actually at eye level, assuming that the wearer and people they interact with are all of average height, the viewer will be staring at the chests of everybody - or at their double chins and nostrils.
- Many people are going to find it creepy and will not react naturally when someone comes up to them with ET in the papoose

For this sort of use case, something like the Insta360 Go line is a lot more suitable and it can be clipped to a hat.  People might still find a little square camera on a hat to be a bit intrusive and odd, but at least it's closer to eye height and will be looking directly at people's faces.  And electronic stabilization is generally pretty good these days - haven't used a Go myself, but I'm sure it does a perfectly adequate job of making things not overly spastic.
And aside from the hat use case, helmet mounts for action cameras have existed just about forever and for any use case where the user would naturally wear a helmet, they work well and most action cameras are more robust if there's a crash - and they cost less if they do get broken.

Of course, there are also SmartGlasses that sit exactly at eye height an point to exactly whatever the user is looking at...

[Emanuel]

 

On 6/16/2026 at 11:37 AM, BTM_Pix said:

I’d have urged caution in buying the Luna before DJI released the Pro version of the Pocket 4 anyway but now the P4P has been officially released in China then I would definitely hold out for some comparisons.

(...)

 

 

Here's another from same 1st round of comparative tests:

 

And about the Insta360 detachable screen vs DJI FrameTap remote:

 

The sound in slowmo sounds just different enough too... 

Unlike the Osmo Pocket 4 / 4P (Pro), the Luna Ultra appears not only to provide 48 kHz AAC audio listed at a higher 32-bit depth — with true 32-bit float reserved for the external Mic Pro/transmitter — rather than standard 16-bit audio; it also appears to make 4K100/120fps available as a standard video mode, effectively usable as HFR when and where needed, captured as straight acquisition rather than pre-baked slow motion.

That is a different proposition from restricting those frame rates to a dedicated slow-motion mode with more limited audio handling. 

So yes, both may offer “slow motion” (4K200/240fps with DJI) but audio-wise, this is more apples to oranges than apples to apples. And in slowmo, DJI does not appear to include built-in Mic Audio Backup either.

That matters because, once high-frame-rate capture is baked into a dedicated slow-motion mode, the audio can no longer behave like normal sync sound unless the footage is brought back to real time. By contrast, 4K100/120fps as standard video mode is straight HFR acquisition: usable in real time with normal audio, or slowed down later in post.

[Emanuel]

On 6/19/2026 at 1:49 PM, BTM_Pix said:

(...)

To be honest, if I was going to use such a thing then having a compact palmable remote is more appealing than walking around looking like I’m holding a crucifix like the Luna option.

(...)

No idea about you guys, but I am in love with this tool accessory... pretty useful in those much different configurations:

 

Head tracker, finger tracker/tracking, etc.* ; )

 

*shoulder mode:

 

More comparisons here and there or yet this one too from same Chinese tester BTW.

And here, more for the new Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro with the sample(s) of the new add-ons introduced (whereas Luna Ultra reaches 4K120fps across 20-60mm, DJI's Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro goes up to 4K200fps at the telephoto end).

 

Haven't you bought a gimbal-pocket-cam yet?

This is for those who will buy one then : D 

;- )

[kye]

On 6/25/2026 at 3:16 PM, Emanuel said:

No idea about you guys, but I am in love with this tool accessory... pretty useful in those much different configurations:

 

Head tracker, finger tracker/tracking, etc.* ; )

 

*shoulder mode:

 

More comparisons here and there or yet this one too from same Chinese tester BTW.

And here, more for the new Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro with the sample(s) of the new add-ons introduced (whereas Luna Ultra reaches 4K120fps across 20-60mm, DJI's Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro goes up to 4K200fps at the telephoto end).

 

Haven't you bought a gimbal-pocket-cam yet?

This is for those who will buy one then : D 

;- )

What will you use this kind of thing for?

You seem very excited, but I don't really know what I'd use this for.

[Emanuel]

15 hours ago, kye said:

What will you use this kind of thing for?

You seem very excited, but I don't really know what I'd use this for.

I think the POV Head Tracker should not be seen merely as a vlogging gimmick or as another accessory for people who want to film themselves walking down the street.

There are many different ways of filming, framing and capturing reality. The most “professional” approach is often understood as the most controlled one: you plan the shoot, you discuss the framing, you block the scene, you decide where the camera goes, you decide what the subject is supposed to give you, and then you execute. That is obviously valid, and it is the basis of a lot of good cinema.

But it is not the only way to make images.

There is also another tradition: a more intuitive, observational, physical and spontaneous way of filming, where the camera is less a machine imposing a pre-decided frame on the world and more an extension of the filmmaker’s presence inside that world.

That is where I think something like the Insta360 POV Head Tracker becomes interesting.

The question is not only “what can it do technically?” The question is: what kind of relationship with reality does it allow?

When you are operating a camera in the conventional way, you are always doing several things at once. You are looking, framing, correcting, adjusting, deciding, reacting, and at the same time you are also visibly present as “the person filming”. That presence changes the situation. It changes the people in front of you. It changes the rhythm of what happens. It can intimidate, formalise, freeze or theatricalise reality.

In documentary, this is especially important. The more you plan, the more you risk fixing the subject before you have really encountered it. You may think you are observing reality, but you are already working on a construction of reality. You are no longer only receiving what is in front of you. You are fabricating a gaze, and the subject starts to exist inside that fabrication.

Of course, complete objectivity does not exist. Every image is already a point of view. But there is still a big difference between a camera that constantly announces itself as an intervention and a camera system that allows the filmmaker to remain more physically and psychologically inside the situation.

This is why the POV Head Tracker interests me. It may allow the filmmaker to film without constantly “operating” in the traditional sense. The camera can follow the natural direction of the filmmaker’s attention. The image can become closer to a lived point of view rather than a pre-composed shot. Not perfect objectivity, obviously, but perhaps a more immediate form of subjectivity.

That distinction matters.

A head-tracked gimbal camera could be useful not because it replaces deliberate cinematography, but because it opens another mode of acquisition: a more instinctive, embodied, less intimidating mode. It lets you be present with the subject while still filming. It can reduce the gap between seeing and recording.

In that sense, I see a possible historical parallel with what happened when smaller 16mm cameras became available. Those cameras did not simply make cinema smaller. They changed the grammar of cinema. They allowed filmmakers to move differently, to follow people differently, to enter rooms differently, to film streets, faces, accidents, gestures, private moments and unstable situations in ways that would have been much harder with heavier, more industrial tools.

You can connect that to cinéma vérité, direct cinema, the Nouvelle Vague, the New American Cinema, Jonas Mekas in New York, underground and independent filmmaking, and later the influence of that freer, more mobile language on figures like Cassavetes, Scorsese, and the whole post-studio generation. Even mainstream cinema eventually absorbed some of that looseness, that handheld energy, that search for immediacy.

Jonas Mekas is not just an abstract reference for me. I had the privilege of knowing him personally in the mid-1990s, at the Figueira da Foz International Film Festival, which he used to attend. In that same context, I was also fortunate enough to receive an award as best daily press film critic. More importantly, a project I am still developing today was born precisely from that contact with Mekas. So when I refer to him here, I am not only invoking a name from film history. I am also referring to a very concrete personal encounter with a way of understanding cinema as diary, presence, immediacy, memory and life.

The technology did not create those artistic revolutions by itself. But it made certain gestures possible.

And when a tool makes a new gesture possible, it can also make a new kind of cinema possible.

That is how I would look at the POV Head Tracker. Not as “AI tracking for creators”, but as a small step toward a different relation between body, gaze and camera.

From the end of last month and carrying into this June, I worked on the making-of for A NOITE, Leonel Vieira’s film adaptation of José Saramago’s homonymous play. During the shoot, we used the Osmo Pocket 3 alongside other cameras, including a Sony A7S III, an FX30, a Panasonic GX80/GX85 and other small-format tools, Insta360 included. The film itself was being shot on two ARRI cameras, so this kind of low-profile equipment was obviously not what people on a cinema set are most used to seeing. Even Leonel Vieira, the director, looked at the Osmo Pocket 3 and jokingly said it looked like a toy camera. But that was precisely part of the point. I took the initiative to use it without hesitation, accepting the risks of bringing that kind of device into a professional film set, and combining it with different optical tools, including black mist filters to create atmosphere, Sirui anamorphic lenses and other accessories. In that context, I became very aware of how valuable it would be to have a device that lets me film without constantly managing the camera as an object. Not to mention that 10-bit Log recording is now available on the Luna Ultra as well.

In a making-of situation, the best moments often happen before people know they are “performing” for the camera. They happen between takes, in hesitations, glances, silences, rehearsals, small gestures, private exchanges, and moments when the machinery of cinema briefly becomes human again.

But the moment you raise the camera, adjust the frame, move closer, correct the angle, ask for space or visibly operate, you can lose the very thing you were trying to capture.

The reality in front of the lens changes because of you.

And that is fundamental in a making-of context: to be as minimally intrusive as possible, so as not to disturb the set of the main film being shot. The reactions of the professionals involved are, in many ways, the real subject of a making-of, and those reactions should not be manipulated by the visible presence of the image-capturing device itself. In our case, we were working with a very small crew: two to three people at most. In fact, it was necessary to convince Leonel Vieira to accept a maximum of three people, because ideally he preferred two, and sometimes only one person could be present. In those situations, when only one person was shooting and I still needed two possible angles, a camera A and a camera B, the only viable option was to have a B camera as autonomous and unobtrusive as possible, which is exactly how the Osmo Pocket 3 was used. With a device such as the Luna Ultra and its POV Head Tracker, that kind of work would become much easier, not only during the shoot itself but also later, when reaching the post-production suite and needing more options in the edit.

So a device that lets the camera follow your attention, while your hands and your body remain less occupied by the act of filming, could be extremely useful. It could allow the operator to be less intrusive, less theatrical, less visibly extractive. It could make the camera feel less like a weapon pointed at reality and more like a witness moving through it.

That does not mean this is for every situation. It is not a substitute for composed cinematography, lighting, blocking, lenses, or intentional mise-en-scène. But it could be very valuable for documentary, making-of work, rehearsal footage, street filming, travel, observational cinema, and any situation where spontaneity matters more than perfect formal control.

The professional instinct is often to control everything.

But sometimes cinema gains power when we control less.

Sometimes the most authentic image is not the one we planned best, but the one we were able to receive before reality became aware of our plan.

That, to me, is where the POV Head Tracker could become genuinely interesting.

[eatstoomuchjam]

But all of that was previously already possible by using something like the Insta360 Go mounted on the brim of a hat.  And as I previously mentioned, that has the advantage of actually being the perspective of the person using it, vs the perspective of their chest.

[kye]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

I think the POV Head Tracker should not be seen merely as a vlogging gimmick or as another accessory for people who want to film themselves walking down the street.

There are many different ways of filming, framing and capturing reality. The most “professional” approach is often understood as the most controlled one: you plan the shoot, you discuss the framing, you block the scene, you decide where the camera goes, you decide what the subject is supposed to give you, and then you execute. That is obviously valid, and it is the basis of a lot of good cinema.

But it is not the only way to make images.

There is also another tradition: a more intuitive, observational, physical and spontaneous way of filming, where the camera is less a machine imposing a pre-decided frame on the world and more an extension of the filmmaker’s presence inside that world.

That is where I think something like the Insta360 POV Head Tracker becomes interesting.

The question is not only “what can it do technically?” The question is: what kind of relationship with reality does it allow?

When you are operating a camera in the conventional way, you are always doing several things at once. You are looking, framing, correcting, adjusting, deciding, reacting, and at the same time you are also visibly present as “the person filming”. That presence changes the situation. It changes the people in front of you. It changes the rhythm of what happens. It can intimidate, formalise, freeze or theatricalise reality.

In documentary, this is especially important. The more you plan, the more you risk fixing the subject before you have really encountered it. You may think you are observing reality, but you are already working on a construction of reality. You are no longer only receiving what is in front of you. You are fabricating a gaze, and the subject starts to exist inside that fabrication.

Of course, complete objectivity does not exist. Every image is already a point of view. But there is still a big difference between a camera that constantly announces itself as an intervention and a camera system that allows the filmmaker to remain more physically and psychologically inside the situation.

This is why the POV Head Tracker interests me. It may allow the filmmaker to film without constantly “operating” in the traditional sense. The camera can follow the natural direction of the filmmaker’s attention. The image can become closer to a lived point of view rather than a pre-composed shot. Not perfect objectivity, obviously, but perhaps a more immediate form of subjectivity.

That distinction matters.

A head-tracked gimbal camera could be useful not because it replaces deliberate cinematography, but because it opens another mode of acquisition: a more instinctive, embodied, less intimidating mode. It lets you be present with the subject while still filming. It can reduce the gap between seeing and recording.

In that sense, I see a possible historical parallel with what happened when smaller 16mm cameras became available. Those cameras did not simply make cinema smaller. They changed the grammar of cinema. They allowed filmmakers to move differently, to follow people differently, to enter rooms differently, to film streets, faces, accidents, gestures, private moments and unstable situations in ways that would have been much harder with heavier, more industrial tools.

You can connect that to cinéma vérité, direct cinema, the Nouvelle Vague, the New American Cinema, Jonas Mekas in New York, underground and independent filmmaking, and later the influence of that freer, more mobile language on figures like Cassavetes, Scorsese, and the whole post-studio generation. Even mainstream cinema eventually absorbed some of that looseness, that handheld energy, that search for immediacy.

Jonas Mekas is not just an abstract reference for me. I had the privilege of knowing him personally in the mid-1990s, at the Figueira da Foz International Film Festival, which he used to attend. In that same context, I was also fortunate enough to receive an award as best daily press film critic. More importantly, a project I am still developing today was born precisely from that contact with Mekas. So when I refer to him here, I am not only invoking a name from film history. I am also referring to a very concrete personal encounter with a way of understanding cinema as diary, presence, immediacy, memory and life.

The technology did not create those artistic revolutions by itself. But it made certain gestures possible.

And when a tool makes a new gesture possible, it can also make a new kind of cinema possible.

That is how I would look at the POV Head Tracker. Not as “AI tracking for creators”, but as a small step toward a different relation between body, gaze and camera.

From the end of last month and carrying into this June, I worked on the making-of for A NOITE, Leonel Vieira’s film adaptation of José Saramago’s homonymous play. During the shoot, we used the Osmo Pocket 3 alongside other cameras, including a Sony A7S III, an FX30, a Panasonic GX80/GX85 and other small-format tools, Insta360 included. The film itself was being shot on two ARRI cameras, so this kind of low-profile equipment was obviously not what people on a cinema set are most used to seeing. Even Leonel Vieira, the director, looked at the Osmo Pocket 3 and jokingly said it looked like a toy camera. But that was precisely part of the point. I took the initiative to use it without hesitation, accepting the risks of bringing that kind of device into a professional film set, and combining it with different optical tools, including black mist filters to create atmosphere, Sirui anamorphic lenses and other accessories. In that context, I became very aware of how valuable it would be to have a device that lets me film without constantly managing the camera as an object. Not to mention that 10-bit Log recording is now available on the Luna Ultra as well.

In a making-of situation, the best moments often happen before people know they are “performing” for the camera. They happen between takes, in hesitations, glances, silences, rehearsals, small gestures, private exchanges, and moments when the machinery of cinema briefly becomes human again.

But the moment you raise the camera, adjust the frame, move closer, correct the angle, ask for space or visibly operate, you can lose the very thing you were trying to capture.

The reality in front of the lens changes because of you.

And that is fundamental in a making-of context: to be as minimally intrusive as possible, so as not to disturb the set of the main film being shot. The reactions of the professionals involved are, in many ways, the real subject of a making-of, and those reactions should not be manipulated by the visible presence of the image-capturing device itself. In our case, we were working with a very small crew: two to three people at most. In fact, it was necessary to convince Leonel Vieira to accept a maximum of three people, because ideally he preferred two, and sometimes only one person could be present. In those situations, when only one person was shooting and I still needed two possible angles, a camera A and a camera B, the only viable option was to have a B camera as autonomous and unobtrusive as possible, which is exactly how the Osmo Pocket 3 was used. With a device such as the Luna Ultra and its POV Head Tracker, that kind of work would become much easier, not only during the shoot itself but also later, when reaching the post-production suite and needing more options in the edit.

So a device that lets the camera follow your attention, while your hands and your body remain less occupied by the act of filming, could be extremely useful. It could allow the operator to be less intrusive, less theatrical, less visibly extractive. It could make the camera feel less like a weapon pointed at reality and more like a witness moving through it.

That does not mean this is for every situation. It is not a substitute for composed cinematography, lighting, blocking, lenses, or intentional mise-en-scène. But it could be very valuable for documentary, making-of work, rehearsal footage, street filming, travel, observational cinema, and any situation where spontaneity matters more than perfect formal control.

The professional instinct is often to control everything.

But sometimes cinema gains power when we control less.

Sometimes the most authentic image is not the one we planned best, but the one we were able to receive before reality became aware of our plan.

That, to me, is where the POV Head Tracker could become genuinely interesting.

Interesting points and I definitely see the challenge and how this potentially provides new potential solutions to some aspects.  

@eatstoomuchjam mentions having something mounted on the brim of a hat, and this does in some way create an alternative option.  

Perhaps the added feature of the head tracker is that you can track the direction of the head without having the camera on the head, which makes me question where would you have it?  The further from the head you put it the more parallax error, and unless it could have some sort of offset (which is probably possible) then the framing might be off.  

Maybe it's better as a more walk-around camera rather than if you're stationary and what you're filming is mostly stationary.  I do see "those shots" in docos from time to time where the footage you're seeing wasn't shot well but is pivotal to the story and therefore included in the edit.  For example when crossing a border into a war zone the audio is of the border guards talking with the producer and the visual is the camera seeing the back of a car seat, or everyone is running while chaos ensues, etc.

I can definitely see that it's an alternative to a chest-mounted action camera where the ultra-wide is capturing far too wide a FOV, and where the head-mount would capture the action with a much tighter FOV.

I can also see someone doing BTS rigging one up with an NPF battery and mini desktop tripod and body clamp and just wandering around with it constantly turned on but not always recording, and the fact that it's always on and always moving would mean it would become invisible after a while, making the footage it captures much less influenced by its presence.

Interesting stuff.  I guess it's probably a thing where the right uses for it are almost invisible.  Like how shoulder-mounted ENG / doco cameras can be used to create footage that doesn't call attention to itself, but in certain drastic situations such cameras do really call attention to themselves, this would be able to capture footage that doesn't call attention to itself in situations where no other camera setup could.

Great discussion!

[Emanuel]

11 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

But all of that was previously already possible by using something like the Insta360 Go mounted on the brim of a hat.  And as I previously mentioned, that has the advantage of actually being the perspective of the person using it, vs the perspective of their chest.

Yes, but I don’t think it is exactly the same thing.

A GO clipped to a hat gives you a small head-mounted action camera. Useful, of course, and probably better for some pure POV situations. And I say this as someone who actually owns two Insta360 GO 2 units and the GO Ultra. In fact, the GO Ultra was also used in the making-of situation I mentioned above, so I am not dismissing that kind of camera at all.

But the interesting part of the Luna accessory, at least to me, is not simply “put a camera where the head is”. It is the possibility of using the head as a control input while the camera itself can remain somewhere else.

And that is a whole different thing.

With a hat-mounted camera, the camera position, lens, sensor, stabilisation, codec, monitoring and point of view are all physically tied to the head. With something like Luna Ultra, you are potentially dealing with a much larger sensor, better latitude/dynamic range, 10-bit colour, log recording, stronger codec options, proper monitoring, several focal lengths, a real gimbal system and a camera body that can be placed where the shot actually makes sense.

So it is not just “POV versus POV”.

It is the difference between a tiny self-contained action camera recording from the head, and a more complete image acquisition system where the head becomes one possible way of controlling the frame. The gaze and the camera body become partially decoupled. The head can guide the framing, but the camera can still benefit from a better sensor, 10-bit recording, log capture, stronger codec, better lens choice, better stabilisation, better monitoring, better audio possibilities and a more deliberate production setup.

So I agree that an Insta360 GO on a hat is a valid alternative for some situations. But I see this as potentially more than that: not just a POV camera, but a different way of operating a small gimbal camera with less visible intervention from the operator, while still keeping the image quality, 10-bit colour depth, focal-length flexibility and production control of a more serious camera system.

 

And the outcome is already starting to speak for itself. Even if the example comes from the competing Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro side, the IQ benchmark is becoming very clear.

D-Log 2 10-bit colour:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/937883892382597

 

Small pocket gimbal cameras are no longer just convenience tools or “good enough” secondary cameras. They are beginning to produce images that can stand on their own, with a cinematic quality that would have been unthinkable in this form factor only a few years ago.

 

Back to the subject and to my eyes, this is not just a clever accessory.

It is part of a real revolution already in motion.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Interesting points and I definitely see the challenge and how this potentially provides new potential solutions to some aspects.  

@eatstoomuchjam mentions having something mounted on the brim of a hat, and this does in some way create an alternative option.  

Perhaps the added feature of the head tracker is that you can track the direction of the head without having the camera on the head, which makes me question where would you have it?  The further from the head you put it the more parallax error, and unless it could have some sort of offset (which is probably possible) then the framing might be off.  

Maybe it's better as a more walk-around camera rather than if you're stationary and what you're filming is mostly stationary.  I do see "those shots" in docos from time to time where the footage you're seeing wasn't shot well but is pivotal to the story and therefore included in the edit.  For example when crossing a border into a war zone the audio is of the border guards talking with the producer and the visual is the camera seeing the back of a car seat, or everyone is running while chaos ensues, etc.

I can definitely see that it's an alternative to a chest-mounted action camera where the ultra-wide is capturing far too wide a FOV, and where the head-mount would capture the action with a much tighter FOV.

I can also see someone doing BTS rigging one up with an NPF battery and mini desktop tripod and body clamp and just wandering around with it constantly turned on but not always recording, and the fact that it's always on and always moving would mean it would become invisible after a while, making the footage it captures much less influenced by its presence.

Interesting stuff.  I guess it's probably a thing where the right uses for it are almost invisible.  Like how shoulder-mounted ENG / doco cameras can be used to create footage that doesn't call attention to itself, but in certain drastic situations such cameras do really call attention to themselves, this would be able to capture footage that doesn't call attention to itself in situations where no other camera setup could.

Great discussion!

Exactly, that is the interesting part for me too.

I don’t think the best use of this will necessarily be obvious “POV footage” in the usual action-camera sense. The more interesting uses may be the almost invisible ones: situations where the camera is there, alive, following attention, but not constantly being operated in a way that announces itself to everyone in the room.

Your point about parallax and offset is completely fair. If the camera is too far from the head, then the head direction and the actual camera perspective will never match perfectly. But I am not sure that perfect matching is always the goal. In many documentary or making-of situations, what matters is not to reproduce the exact optical perspective of the eye, but to reduce the burden of manual operation and preserve a more natural relation with the subject.

That is why I find it interesting for BTS, documentary and observational work. Not as a perfect substitute for a shoulder camera, not as a Steadicam either, even though, as a gimbal camera, it belongs to a lineage that goes much further back, including the invention that so impressed Kubrick that Garrett Brown ended up operating his own system on THE SHINING. I see it more as a small autonomous B-camera, or a reactive camera system, able to follow intention without forcing the operator to constantly lift, aim, correct and therefore disturb the situation.

In a film set, for instance, the value may be precisely in allowing the device to become boring after a while. If people stop reacting to it, or react to it less than to a conventional camera operator moving around with a visible setup, then it starts doing something useful.

So yes, I think the strongest uses for it may be almost invisible. Not spectacular POV shots, but the kind of footage that exists because the tool reduced the amount of intervention needed to capture it.

[eatstoomuchjam]

11 hours ago, Emanuel said:

But the interesting part of the Luna accessory, at least to me, is not simply “put a camera where the head is”. It is the possibility of using the head as a control input while the camera itself can remain somewhere else.

For me, I'm still not seeing that as especially useful or revolutionary.

It's been possible for a long time, probably 10+ years, to do gyro control of larger gimbals (usually through the phone app, but I think I had or saw at least one with an external gyroscope controller in the past).  It never took off much and I never saw anybody strap a phone to their head to remotely control their gimbal.  I'm not sure if gyro controls are in DJI MIMO, but if they are, it's already basically possible with the Pocket 3.

I've found gyro control to be somewhat useful with the Ronin 4D (including with the flex unit).  On one shoot, I was getting too tired to carry the camera anymore so the grips started carrying it around while I controlled the frame from the gyro on the high bright remote monitor.  It worked...  OK.  It'd be better if we'd practiced it beforehand, probably.  For me, it's more "parlor trick" than "genuinely useful tool" in most cases.