BTM_Pix

I think they could make it switchable based upon V-Log being installed on the camera, which would be the fairest thing to do anyway.

That way they give themselves a revenue opportunity from those who haven't upgraded and reward the people who have already paid.

Whether its worth having when, as you say, it then involves the user paying another chunk of money for a recorder is neither here nor there for Panasonic I suppose if it means that they overcome a major objection from customers.

Its a bit like the X-T2 only having F-Log externally - it offered a solution for Fuji to an objection and for customers to tick the box of their own 'must haves'.

And then hardly anyone used it

5 hours ago, kye said:

Absolutely, something I've looked into before.  The term you're looking for is "angelcam", which comes from the fact it looks like there is an invisible floating camera that follows you around.  

No, I associate Angelcam with the CCTV streaming platform. I think you meant angel view which is the generic term used for 360 cameras for things like GoPro's Overcapture function ? 

I think its the post process that needs branding somehow to get the point across rather than the capture method because, as I say, 360 has got a novelty/gimmicky thing attached to it which is a big negative to a lot of people.

Maybe we should call it Videofield as its pretty analogous to Soundfield capturing in all directions for targeted steering in post

27 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@BTM_Pix I am following closely this category, and I believe it is the future, it is just not there yet. My impression is that 8K is mandatory, there is just too much information, for small 1-2 lens-ed, low bit-rate and resolution, cheap mobile cameras. I have played a little with the Samsung ones, and they were really useless. The 8K will happen, and will push this specific category of cameras. It is inevitable.

I don't think it will be long now.

Huge market for whoever gets it right and pitches it properly to consumers.

8 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

So with the Saramonic Lav - it's pretty difficult.... "hisssssssssssss"... 

Just on this point, as I seem to remember you are a fan of the Crumplepop plug-ins, their AudioDenoise one does a very credible job on those Saramonics without too much hair pulling.

I know prevention is better than cure but might be worth a whirl if you can find a trial version.

18 minutes ago, sanveer said:

 Even the maybach uses a version where clear windows suddenly becone tinted.

A £180K ND filter on wheels.

I like your thinking

16 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Actually, apart from Sony, I don't see anyone else using an eND. Maybe they don't have the tech. Atleast yet. And maybe it is too expensive to be borrowed from Sony. 

Kinefinity's non-focal reducer EF mount has electronic ND.

I think the Aputure MFT to EF follow focus (again the non-focal reducer version) has it too?

44 minutes ago, frontfocus said:

 And it's not like f/11 fails to focus, it's that it will now work with phase detection autofocus, which ist faster. 

I'm not saying it can't.

I was referring to the testing of it not being subjective in the same way as the other improvements will be.

I have the 100-400 they cite and any improvement on focus speed in lower light with or without the teleconverters will be welcome. Not to mention obvious

Just now, jonpais said:

Just curious - are there any before/after comparisons of AF online yet?

I don't think its out until next month.

 The low light limit for AF being extended and being able to use it up to f11 should be simple pass/fail though.

The other two changes are subjective and will need someone who tracks oncoming birds in flight at varying focal lengths to test !

I'm not sure what BMD are going to do with their portion of the £54.98 that I've given CVP to pre-order one.

Or how they are going to give me it back if I change my mind.

If someone can market it correctly then the ideal cameras for holiday and travel are actually the new breed of 360 ones.....just not necessarily using them as true 360 cameras where you will be expecting people to watch your content with a headset on.

Using them to capture everything front and back and worrying about what the important part was you were meant to be pointing it at later is actually exactly what is needed for most casual users.

Making regular videos from 360 ones using things like Insta One's FlowState process where you decide the angles later would be such a game changer for travel and life with your kids stuff.

They just need to up the quality a bit and market it in a more targeted way. Currently most people just see 360 cameras as a gimmick so I think they need to come up with a new term like "OmniCam" or something that takes away the headset connotation and pushes it as being a more effective source for making regular videos with.

9 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Where's the camera?  

Not in their pocket thats for sure.

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

Presumably a cage of some sort will emerge. Yes it possibly defeats the purpose but it’ll look good. (And possibly prevent the camera rotating on a quick release as it’s only got the single screw hole I think?)

If its anything like it was when the first version was released, it'll be rig mania for a while with people pimping them out.

Though I do have a soft spot for these two.

Thought $7995 for the set of 3 looked very interesting indeed.

Until I saw that was just the deposit!

Still groundbreaking price of course in comparison to others though.

16 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

What is the "look ahead limiters"?

Splits the signal, delays one and uses the non-delayed one as the sidechain to the delayed one.

Hence, it allows it to effectively look into the future to know when the peaks are coming and be ready and waiting with the adjustment so its giving you a brick wall guarantee.

3 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Is a pity it doesn't have more than one output from the BMPCC4K, as then you could have a LUT on one output for the client and no LUT for your own monitoring. 

If its like the Ursa, you should be able to have one (or none) for your camera LCD and a different one for the HDMI output.

If you wanted to use an external monitor for yourself as well then you could go out of the HDMI without a LUT, through your monitor (without a LUT) and into the client monitor where you have a LUT applied there.

7 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I'd assume/hope so, as that is just an extremely normal workflow for many MANY productions. 

Record raw/log for the best results, but apply a LUT on the image you sent to the client monitor so that they don't freak out! 

The Ursa Mini Pro can have a different LUT on each of its monitoring outputs so I'm hopeful too but I suppose its another wait and see.

12 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I've used the BMPCC almost naked while running around like a headless chicken at weddings. 

Its the pluralisation of wedding that concerns me most about that statement !

3 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

The GH5 and BMPCC5K sensor are very different? It is the GH5S and BMPCC4K sensors which have a similarity. 

 

Well if you're going to bring facts into it !

My mistake.

1 minute ago, sanveer said:

I doubt that. They are happy offering ProRes or whatever else by the HDMI out. .

I thought the wink thing would've got the point across that I wasn't entirely serious?

2 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Curiously having RAW via HDMI won't solve the problem. The Price Difference is too great.

It would do in terms of @IronFilm 's point that I was actually answering regarding how you would match the BMPCC4K and a GH5 if you had both.

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

The Bluetooth feature... I so want to post a picture on reduser of me controlling the Pocket 4K using a Hydrogen...

On a more serious note, what sort of remote control might we anticipate?

It is the same protocol as the Ursa and BMD have already released the documents so there is nothing stopping someone working on products for it now in time to be ready for launch.

It is Bluetooth LE so is much easier to talk to directly from cheap single board computers if someone wants to make a hardware controller.

So you can expect anything from phone apps, basic start/stop triggers to full blown hand grips full of buttons mapped to all controls.

Just now, jonpais said:

Precisely. Paul Leeming has already promised to make a LUT for the Pocket 4K.

He's so busy on it that he hasn't spotted that his website is broken !

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

A solid case is made for that. 

But the only downside I might see of that dual camera set up is GH5 & BMPCC4K might not match as easily for quick turn arounds as using two Panasonic cameras together in a two camera shoot. 

 

I think the commonality of the sensor between the two will potentially make that less challenging.

With the ability to bake in a LUT on the BMPCC4K there does present an opportunity to have it produce out of camera footage that matches Panasonic's internal profiles more closely. Some sort of unifying LUT for the BMPCC4K, such as a version of the Leeming LUT for it, would have potential.

Plus, of course, by then Panasonic will have yielded to public pressure and enabled RAW through HDMI for the GH5

4 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Well, good to know that it is technically possible. On the other hand, Sony still seems to sell the original a7S new, so maybe it would breed new life in to it???

If they were to put it in anything, they'd put it in the A7Siii (whenever that happens) to stimulate sales of that.

But, then again, you then end up with the protectionism stuff again where they don't want to give away the farm on the lower (ha!) end cameras.

There is also the issue of getting too closely in bed with a 3rd party damaging your own brand if the whole solution doesn't work 100% of the time. There is a thread on here at the moment regarding the GH5s not playing nice at certain resolutions with the Atomos and both sides pointing fingers at the other. A bit of a minefield things like that, as is only being one firmware update away from disaster on either side so it also increases the support testing efforts and so on.

Manufacturers should make their own for all those reasons but for some reason (protectionism or not sufficient demand/return or both) they don't seem to bother.

I think it will help that this sensor has been available for quite a while so is a known entity and they've had the opportunity to study what other companies are doing with it.

That, combined with using the same OS as the Ursa, should make it much more of an integration job rather than a ground up development.

Add on Blackmagic now having another 5 years experience of learned lessons of development of building cameras and its not unreasonable to suspect it will be plainer sailing this time round.

I'll still be standing well back when I first plug mine in though, obviously.  

In 2021 no doubt.

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

So I hope people are prepared for this instead of jumping on board and expecting something this won’t be and then spreading hatred because their unrealistic expectations weren’t met.

I think you are completely disregarding the fact Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web for precisely that though.

We live for the let down and the entitlement fuelled ranting

Technically feasible but politically/commercially less so would be my opinion.

The only new sales it would generate would be for Atomos so I can't imagine the will would be there.