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?

[Emanuel]

On 6/27/2026 at 7:08 PM, eatstoomuchjam said:

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.

The gyro control itself is not new, correct.

But I don’t think the interesting part here is simply that “gyro control exists”. Of course it does. Larger gimbals, phone apps, remote monitors and systems such as the Ronin 4D have already explored that territory. The question for me is not whether the underlying idea existed before, but whether it becomes useful in a different way once the whole system becomes small enough, fast enough, integrated enough and unobtrusive enough.

Many ideas in cinema technology existed before they became truly useful.

Stabilised camera movement existed before Steadicam became the right combination of body, balance, operation and image. Small cameras existed before 16mm, and later DV, changed the way filmmakers could move through reality. Remote operation existed before it became practical in the hands of a one or two-person crew.

So yes, if we reduce this to “a gyro controlling a gimbal”, then it may sound like nothing new. But if we look at it as a pocket-sized 1-inch 10-bit Log gimbal camera, with several focal lengths, proper monitoring, autonomous operation and a dedicated head-tracking accessory, then the proposition changes.

It is not only the control method. It is the form factor plus the image pipeline plus the operating mode.

And this is also where the remote / detachable screen side becomes important. If this is not a meaningful step forward, then how do we explain that DJI, despite all its experience in this category, still seems one step behind on this specific point? Not necessarily behind in image quality or engineering as a whole, but behind in this particular operational concept. The comparison makes that fairly easy to see. DJI can offer remote control through its ecosystem, apps and accessories, but Luna Ultra brings the detachable screen, remote monitoring and camera control directly into the body concept itself.

To be fair, DJI still has a major advantage in ecosystem continuity. If, apart from the optical accessories, the Osmo Pocket 3 accessories remain compatible with the Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro, that is obviously a strong point. It means users are not forced to abandon an existing accessory ecosystem. But that is a different kind of strength. It is backward compatibility and ecosystem maturity, not necessarily a new operating concept.

That matters because the remote is not just a convenience feature. It changes the way the camera can be used.

There are also small operational trade-offs on the DJI side that are worth noticing. For instance, the dedicated low-light video mode tops out at 4K30p, while Luna Ultra records up to 4K120p in regular video mode and offers PureVideo low-light capture up to 4K60p. Not the whole story, of course, but another sign that Insta360 seems to be moving ahead of DJI* in a few practical areas here.

And yes, we have already seen Insta360 explore part of this same logic with the GO line, namely the GO Ultra. With the GO Ultra, for instance, you already have that very useful modular idea of separating the camera unit from the monitoring/control/battery side of the system. In the Luna Ultra, this logic is taken into a different class of camera: the detachable touchscreen remote allows independent monitoring of battery information for both the main unit and the remote, and the system manages charging between both parts. Even if the remote does not appear to support fully independent USB-C charging while detached, the operational concept is still important. The monitoring/control side and the image-capturing side start to behave as distinct elements of the same camera system.

That is precisely the point. The more the monitoring, battery handling and control are separated from the visible camera body, the easier it becomes for the device to disappear into the situation. And for documentary, BTS, production diaries or observational work, that can be a much bigger deal than it first appears.

A phone strapped to your head controlling a larger gimbal is one thing. A compact dedicated device that can sit inside a BTS, documentary or walk-around setup, become boring after a while, and follow intention without the operator constantly raising, aiming and correcting the camera is another thing.

That is where I think the usefulness may appear.

Not necessarily for everyone. Not necessarily for controlled narrative setups. And probably not as a replacement for a skilled operator with a proper camera package. But for small crews, making-of work, observational documentary, rehearsals, production diaries, street work and situations where the act of operating the camera visibly changes the behaviour of the people being filmed, I can absolutely see the value.

In that sense, I don’t see it as revolutionary because gyro control is new.

I see it as potentially revolutionary because a previously awkward idea may finally be arriving in a form factor where it can become natural, invisible and operationally useful.

 

*And not only when compared with DJI or another compact device... ; ) take a look at this higher-end comparison too : X

[Emanuel]

These two [1*] [2] Korean hands-on videos are probably among the most useful references I have seen so far on the Luna Ultra / Pocket 4P discussion.

EDIT — plus this one from another reviewer elsewhere: [3]

Not because they end the debate, on the contrary : ) but since they also help show the real operational trade-offs better than most spec-sheet comparisons, while still offering some fairly clear findings on the usual comparison points, such as outcome, colour or dynamic range, whenever those aspects are covered.

source

 

*In this 1st video, right from the start, you can see exactly that approach: using this kind of camera as a serious B-cam tool (Osmo Pocket 3) in commercial work, very close to the way I have also been using small capture devices in a similar role, as mentioned before.

[filmmakereu]

On 6/27/2026 at 2:28 AM, 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.

Most people will probably end up buying both and using them with two different focal lengths, as in the case of the filmmaker you referred to. That level of flexibility is hard to beat.

 

 

After all, they’re portable and easy to carry around. The footage matches pretty well too. I wouldn’t even mind making a few minor tweaks, if any are needed.