BTM_Pix

OK, a bit of an update....

As I'm still in the UK, I was able to go and visit the camera shop where I've bought a bit of kit over the past few years.

Because they know what my day job is they were virtually rushing to get a Sony A9 out of the cabinet as soon as I walked in so were a bit dismayed that all I wanted was to have 10 minutes with an FZ2000!

Anyway, here is the news.

I did a couple of test recordings of the 200mbps HD format so I could have a look at the files and compare them with what is coming out of a G7 when its making the corrupt files. 

I then captured a remote session to look into these MP4(LPCM) modes to see how they were selected from the app.

And then something caught my eye in Cinelike settings which I'll come back to in a bit.

So I ended up walking out with an example high bitrate file and a surreptitious capture of a remote session to look at the commands when selecting it.

And the camera shop ended up with no sale or even a whiff of an interest in the A9. Though they know I'll be back for something at some point!

Now I had the correct command I could be sure that we are sending the right one to the G7 (in this case) but we are still in exactly the same boat regarding the corrupted file. Copying the chunk of the real FZ2000 to it will persuade it QuickTime to play a black file of the correct length and VLC is identifying the codec (so I think I've got the right sector) but won't play it. 

The command is definitely in the "make me a cheeseburger" category as selecting the 200mbps format file will automatically change the camera into the MP4(LPCM) mode so there is no command from within the app to do this as it just happens as a package at the camera end. As the other cameras don't have that option then we are definitely in the territory of just prodding it with a stick to see if there is a fluke combination of formats to switch between that will make it do this combination internally.

The bottom line with that is that I'm going to have to throw it back out there for everyone else to pick up their own sticks and prod their cameras for this one as I need to be getting on with the other thing. And being a bit selfish about this, its a bit of a diminishing return for me effort wise as I'd sooner plug it into a second hand ninja star to get edit ready prores if I was looking to up the HD quality for me. Or actually even chop in my FZ1000 against an FZ2000 if they come down in price a bit as it is a seductive camera with features like that, the NDs and the VLOG option.

///EDIT 

The FZ2000 files are NOT playable in the G7 so I think this might be a big clue as to this hunt ultimately not bearing any fruit

//////

OK, sad part over, what about what caught my eye?

Well, the FZ2000 has an additional control in Cinelike D for shifting the colour tone of the whole image. 

It has a plus and minus control which shifts to violet/magenta and yellow/green respectively. And this is independent of the white balance.

Now, I think that is a very interesting little function that people could be able to manipulate to create some profiles that are more akin to other manufacturers favoured tones?

And when I say that the FZ2000 has got that Hue function, what I of course mean is that now we've all got it

Big caveat here is that I have only tried this on the G7 as thats all that I've got to hand at the moment but it should work on the others too but please test it and let everyone know if it does or not for your camera.

Updated html file attached to enable it and I've used values that will get it going for you but please make your own experiments by just editing the last number in the command to shift it in the direction you want. I have no idea what the range is so I've set it at 5 either way so you can see the effect but tweak away until you find the end points! 

Enjoy and please report back if it works for your camera so everyone can share the results.

DEPLOY CINELIKE D AND V WITH HUE.html

19 minutes ago, Grimor said:

I tried differents video repairs tools with no luck.

Beside the corrupt files, are there other settings we can play with?

Color_mode, video_quality, ...

Anamorphic 4k and 4.2.2 colour subsamplig will be interesting tries.

Do you know how the app request it from Gh4/Gh5 ?

Looking at the user manual online for the FZ2000/2500, it refers to being able to switch the recording mode in the video menu between AVCHD,MP4,MP4(LPCM) and MOV

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/camera/om/dmc-fz2500_en_adv_om.pdf

It describes MP4(LPCM) as the "data format for image editing" and it is this mode that needs to be selected on the camera to use the 200mps All-I formats etc.

So with them calling them Editing formats, thats the mystery of what the "ed" in those mp4ed_**** ones means.

Now, the GX85 doesn't have that selectable in its menu so I need to do a session with an FZ2000 to see if its selectable via the app.

But I haven't got that camera so will have to try and blag a demo of one to do it.

Still won't get us anywhere if the camera doesn't want to play though.

As I keep saying, all we are doing is telling it to do something like "make me a cheeseburger" which is fine but we are relying on the camera understanding what a cheeseburger is and having the raw ingredients to put it together itself. We can't with this method get down into that component ingredient level.

If you look at the corrupted files in VLC there is no codec information.

I've just taken an example HD file off the G7 and a corrupted 200mps one and compared them in a hex editor and copied the section that I suspect holds the codec identifiers into the corrupted file. 

This then displays the codec as expected when you open the corrupted file in VLC.

It still doesn't play any video but will open in QuickTime and play black for the correct length.

The file sizes it creates are relative to each other (i.e. a 10 second clip will be twice the size of a 5 second clip) but they're not the size you'd expect to see versus the 50mps 'real' files which should of course be much smaller but are actually only about 20% smaller.

So there is something there but it would take a lot more work to get to the bottom of it and then if it is related to the headers then it would also need a conversion app to correct before you could use the files and of course they would not be playable in camera. Thats a lot of ifs and a lot of graft. 

6 hours ago, QB3 said:

Going to try this out today. Thanks for all the work! A question: I had a bad experience with my G7 using CineD where the camera went into sleep mode or maybe was turned off while I was on C1 or C2, etc. When it woke up, some of the WB balance settings had changed and we shot a whole sequence in orange, basically. Does anyone know under what conditions this happens and how to avoid it? Is it the same for the GX85 when using this hack? Tx.

Its part of the feature as far as Panasonic are concerned so you can get quickly back to a known setting including white balance. A lot of people would use it specifically for that to be honest, maybe have a higher ISO and tungsten balance for indoors and then quickly revert to a lower ISO and a daylight balance when they go outdoors. 

Fuji handle it slightly differently in that you have your C settings but with a different 'active' one for want of a better description if you made any changes which persists when you turn the camera off whereas Panasonic always recalls it exactly from the C setting even when you turn the mode dial and come back. 

What I recommend for GX80 to make the Cinelike D/V in camera switchable is to save it to C1 with a jumping off point of ISO and WB and so on and do the same with a standard profile to C2. And then use C3 to save the changes you've made to whichever of those basic profiles you're currently working on so they persist when the camera is switched off.

So it would be like this :

1) Save Cinelike D with 1/50th, AWB, ISO200, 4k24p into C1

2) Save Standard with 1/50th, AWB, ISO200, 4k24p into C2

3) Start camera and choose C1 or C2

4) Make changes to your WB, ISO and file format that you need for this specific session.

5) Save to C3

Now when you switch the camera off it will come back with the settings of C3 (i.e. your currently edited version of your primary profile) and will also do so when you change modes.

You can use exactly this same approach on your G7 to enjoy the benefits of the Custom settings but preventing that WB issue happening again.

2 hours ago, mercer said:

It's my understanding that this is really the apex find with this workaround... which in and of itself is really spectacular and BTM should be commended for figuring this out. If there is anything more to be had, now that's just gravy.

I believe he has offered the materials for others to test certain things but doesn't believe the higher bitrates, V Log, etc... is possible. 

Yes.

There is definitely more to comes in terms of applying the processes to enhance the usability of all of the small Panasonic cameras that can be app controlled (which is where I originally came in with this!) than in unlocking additional rates and so on.

What I would like to spend a bit of additional time on though is trying to get it working on the LX100. I think there is something in there with that and it would be very useful on that camera. Ditto the travel cameras.

With regard to the bitrate stuff, I'll knock something up that will make it easy to do a matrix test as I think the behaviour changes when switching to the usually non-supported ones depending on which one you are currently set to. So there might be a combination that works.

Vlog? Mmm....I think I'm pretty confident that it won't work. I believe after looking at some logs I've received that I'm sending it the correct command but its no go.

Though as you say, hopefully everyone has the tools they need to poke around with this themselves now on different cameras so maybe someone can find the solution themselves.

6 hours ago, rainless said:

Works just fine from my laptop... Could not FOR THE LIFE OF ME get it to work with my phone... Any idea why?

I'm on Android and using the Chrome browser...

I'm also using Chrome on the laptop and it worked just fine so... I dunno.

Depending on your Android phone, some of them have a pop up warning when whatver its connected to via WiFi (the camera in this case) doesn't have an Internet connection. It then drops that connection (usually for something in range that does have internet) if you don't confirm quite quickly that it's OK. The pop up sometimes doesnt get to the front of the screen though depending on whats happening on other running apps.

Might be that but might not but no there is no fundamental difference why it wouldn't work on a phone. Unless you've got the Panasonic App open at the same time which will stop a simultaneous browser connection.

1 hour ago, Michael Ma said:

Thanks for the hack!  Works great on my GX85.  Just for kicks, I tried it on my GF7, and it had the very opposite effect.  The contrast felt like it was turned to 11, and all shadows were nearly black while half the sky was clipping to cyan.

This sounds like what it does with the LX100. If I work out what causes it on that then the solution should work for both.

Unfortunately if it is what I suspect it is then it unlikely I'll be able to offer a solution.

58 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

I don't know a lot about MFT, but aren't almost all (if not all) of the lenses designed for an MFT sensor, and therefore wouldn't cover the image circle? An interchangeable lens mount (like they have for the LT, just EF/MFT instead) would have been an interesting solution, with a sensor crop when the MFT mount is on... I imagine it would potentially be too expensive an option though... 

Be interesting to see if this has AF with EF glass, as last I heard the LT certainly doesn't...

Some not all cover it.

JVC use their variable scale mapping system to cover it. Their default is 85% but in practical terms most people have it set to 90+.

The advantage is the small form factor of the lenses and weight to give you the option of something more compact. Plus the 1080p and 2k high frame rate stuff isn't an issue for them at all.

The AF is another area as there are now plenty of EF to MFT adapters that support AF and IS both speedboosted and not as well as things like the Apurture EF-MFT which also adds electronic follow focus. So there are plenty of options there but yeah it all comes down to who they're targeting and how much those people are inclined to rely on 3rd party adapters etc. 

Although having said that there are roughly half a dozen FS5/7s in my general vicinity as I'm stood writing this who are shooting with L series Canon glass so the answer to that would be they don't mind !

The MFT  mount is associated with consumer stuff though so I imagine there would be a different resistance to that. 

38 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

It's cheaper than both the FS7 and the C300, and it overall should give a better image (and better specs, in general) than an FS5. URSA Mini Pro is still a bit of a gamble IMO. I'm still not convinced by the BMD image.

I attended the launch of the VaricamLT and it was expressed that EF mount is what most professional users want, if not PL. They did a lot of market research, and the VaricamLT has an interchangeable EF/PL mount.

The GH5 and Varicam lines are two quite different lines. To really be competitive, they were going to have to make a S35 camera, and MFT is simply not that. 

 

 

I was thinking more FS5 and C200 (though if it is at the 8000€ mark then the FS7 even with external interface and recorder isn't that far off) but completely take the point.

Ditto the mount as well actually.

I'm viewing this from underneath rather than above I suppose.

Cheap varicam rather than what was expected it might be which was an upscale lensless version of the DVX200. 

I still think the LS300 has shown that the Super35 sensor with MFT is a viable proposition but as its been a commercial failure then no one would be using it as a blueprint for success!

18 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The mount is perfect for the customers they are targeting the EVA1 at. If they'd gone with the Micro Four Thirds size sensor and mount to match, the amount of extra M43 glass they would have sold would probably not compensate for the losses Panasonic would experience through damaging their presence in the C100/C300/rental market, which is all about Super 35 and EF lenses.

A good, pragmatic decision and I am sure the GH5 will sell a lot of extra Panasonic lenses to filmmakers any way!

I am not sure Panasonic quite has the ergonomics right yet... The form factor is nice and small now but the physical controls are 10 years past their sell-by date and need to be rethought, as does autofocus if they are to catch Canon.

They could have had the Super35 sensor and the MFT mount though.  But as my reply above its probably not what the market they want it to be in wants is to have so I've completely misunderstood where they were going with it.

I remember how gutted I was when BM released the MFT version of the BMCC and how much of a more flexible solution it offered versus my EF mount version so I'm still bitter !!

The price has surprised me to be honest. CVP are saying it will be 'under 8000 Euros', which will be an ex-VAT price.

Thought it was more likely be a bit above the BM Ursa Mini Pro level and certainly not to be more than the new Canon.

Its not that its particularly wildly expensive for what it does but I just thought they'd be more aggressive.

Sony and Canon are the safe bets for most people in that price bracket so I'd have thought if you were going to take them on it would make sense to at the very least be a few quid cheaper rather than more expensive. Seems to me that someone looking to take a chance and go another way from Sony and Canon would be more tempted by the Ursa Mini Pro now?

The other surprise is the mount.

I just don't get the mount choice when you are an actual manufacturer of a wide range of MFT lenses and the users that you want to bring up to this new level of camera all own those lenses and all of the adapters to convert anything to that mount, why would you NOT put that mount on it?

JVC have already shown what a great combination the Super35 sensor with the MFT mount is. (By the by, JVC actually got their firmware update out a day late this week but I haven't had chance to put it on yet.)

I just do not understand it having an EF mount as a real benefit to anyone other than, erm, Canon. Who will now win whichever of these two cameras that you choose.

5 hours ago, Georgios said:

BTM_Pix

GH4 2.3

When i open your first command i get this

"ok1.3GH4tele-normaltele-fastwide-normalwide-fasttouch_command_autooneshot_af_enablesetting_play_sort_mode_enableaf_size_change_pinch"

and for the second command i get this..

cam.cgi.webarchive

 

EDIT on handshake i get this

"err_non_support"

then i hit back-connect it says ok but it doesn't show any text

Thanks for this, I'll get on to it when I get back next week.

3 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

Does it work and switch as easily as the G80? Do you need two custom settings to switch or just the one. 

Yeah, it works exactly the same and same file for both. 

EDIT -

Sorry, I meant the same html file for both to implement it.

It needs two Custom settings on the camera available if you want to switch in camera between Cinelike D and the other profiles. GX80/85 have three available so still one spare for a more photography based or black and white configuration or whatever.

2 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

@BTM_Pix do you have feedback for the GX85? 

What sort of feedback mate?

1 minute ago, sanveer said:

I may have a copy of the old GH4 Firmware. 

 

It needs to be on a camera, if you've still got a GH4?

If you can get it on to a camera then if you then connect to it with the cinelike D html file and send it the commands as per my posts further up to get what it sends back that would be a big benefit.

Its about having both ends of the conversation.

Posing as the camera with the App that had the flaw in it should theoretically populate the menus in the App and from there we can capture the exact command sent back to the GH4 when changing to Vlog from Vivid for example.

There is a bit more to it in terms of convincing the App its talking to a camera though as there is a heartbeat sent every second to the camera that the camera returns an OK to to let the App know its still connected. That means that will most likely have to be replicated programmatically rather than just being put in an html page. Although depending on how long the App can allow for the return to the heartbeat before terminating I don't know. It might be long enough to enable it to just be a simple manual button on an html page. I'm just waiting on a GH4 session output file to be sent to me before I can look at it but I can do the camera simulator based on a G7 to experiment in the meantime but I can't look at it until next week.

Even if I get this simulator going though, please don't build your hopes up over getting vlog on the GX85 or the other cameras.

As is already evident from the file format changes etc, its one thing getting the correct command to the camera but quite another for it to do anything with it.

24 minutes ago, Grimor said:

mp4/mov/mp4ed

24p, c24p, 25p, 30p, 50p, 60p

100mbps,200mbps

I tryed almost all of this combinations, and only "mov_25p _200mbps" worked. Recorded files seens to be without metadata or info about resolution/bitrate, but not corrupted at all. Someone knows how to recover them?

What capture mode was it in when you sent the command?

On one single occasion I got it into that condition and it did a runaway recording that wrote no file data after I had to stop of with a battery pull.

I've found you can switch it to mov and it will record corrupted files.

All other attempts switch it to 4k24p and the files are recorded with that metadata. Though as I reported earlier with ISO50000 it doesn't register the right value in the metadata

I think there might be something in it reacting differently to the recording format command depending on what format it is currently in.

I'd tried both doing it from 1080 and 4k but there might be a combination of the variants that allows it. I can't do much on it right now but it needs a matrix of the settngs with different buttons to quickly but exhaustively test the combinations. 

A

EDIT!!!

FFS I've just spotted you are trying this on a G80 and NOT a GX80

No wonder I didn't get the same behaviour!

OK, same thing applies with the matrix to test the permutations

Closest relative I've got of it is the G7

I'll check it when I have some time 

1 hour ago, Grimor said:

@BTM_Pix @robbino Here is the old Imgapp v1.9.5 (android) with the Vlog bug if someone wants it.

https://mega.nz/#!YJlQiAzK!j1X1MzwAu84kfwzjXixGj1Njgp9zjQAYCkj9jQUcOAo

All you need now is the correct rev of the GH4

Unless of course we did this the other way round and I could fool that Android app into thinking that thats exactly what it was talking to........

Mmmm

If anyone has a GH4, if they put up the return from the camera using the Handshake and Connect commands in my html file and then the return from these commands we might possibly maybe sort of almost kind of have a shot :

http://192.168.54.1/cam.cgi?mode=getinfo&type=capability

and then this command

http://192.168.54.1/cam.cgi?mode=getinfo&type=allmenu

20 minutes ago, Grimor said:

Well, i´ve tried and found this  "OK answer" from changing quality settings in my camera" (G80) :

<P><A HREF="http://192.168.54.1/cam.cgi?

mode=setsetting&amp;type=videoquality&amp;value=mp4ed_25p_200mbps">DEPL
OY
25p200mbps</A></P>

But nothing happend , no rejected, but no new features.

Same result with almost all "Enable = yes" features i try.

So, only if says enable "Yes" you can send the command to the camera without be rejected, and even then they are few possibilities that it works.

Lucky you, GX80 Owners!!

The tip of android sniffer (Packet capture) is really great to found the correct syntahx of every request.

Thanks @BTM_Pix , @Robbino , and Folks!

The Enable element is purely to tell the smartphone app from the camera which options to show the user so, yes, in virtually all cases it means the camera will only action return commands that match its enabled list. Its use for this purpose is to be able to collect the (usually) type and value parameters for the setsetting function.

As I said earlier in the thread, you should see that that particular command you sent did actually have an effect of sorts in that it will have put the camera into 4k24p mode as unless it is a rate based on a different region (i.e. you'd sent mp4ed_30p_200mbps) then it will accept them but revert to its uppermost setting.

Vlog is unlikely but, again, if you got hold of a rev 2.2 or 2.3 GH4 and found that particular Android version of the ImageApp that enabled Vlog to be activated for 'free' then you could packet capture a session between the two to see exactly what the command was. I don't know anyone with that rev of GH4 but if you do then the version of the ImageApp you'd need is floating around on some dropbox links if you google hard enough for it. But my suspicion is that because the GX80 etc post date Panasonic closing that loophole in both the camera and the ImageApp then it wouldn't work anyway. The long shot would be it possibly working on an LX100 but considering what that does when it receives the Cinelike D command its far from certain it would work properly.

28 minutes ago, Brousseb said:

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I was able to apply Cinelike D to my zs100 and it appears to be working, it's very close to my GX85 although not 100%, maybe due to the smaller sensor.

Sorry I was writing a big reply when you posted that so completely missed it

Nice one

That's a TZ100 in the UK isn't it?

Just been asked to leave John Lewis midway through hacking their LX15.

Was able to handshake it and fake the connection but they pounced as I was about to hit Deploy!

I'd already set the alarm off doing their GX800. Status on that was that it took the Deploy command without error but called up the Standard profile.However, the lighting in their was so poor and I had to be so quick that I wasn't able to do full compares to the real Standard profile to see if it was actually Cinelike D. 

So file that one under potentially possibly maybe until I have another opportunity. 

I'm intrigued by getting it on to their small cameras, particularly the travel zoom ones.

13 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Right, but seeing stills is not the same as seeing actual, moving footage. Paul Leeming's LUT is the one to use if anyone is interested.

Absolutely not, no.

But having seen them both in motion when I have been doing it (other quick tests trying different stuff not static charts) I can definitely say there was nothing different going on to my eye. 

I'm away doing this assignment so I have Peli cases full of Nikon and Fuji's rather than Panasonics but I'll definitely do an A/B when I get home next week.

I'll put it through Film Converts Cinelike D profiles as well to check it end to end.

45 minutes ago, Grimor said:

Or move the BTM_Pix  hack to another topic.

@BTM_Pix Whats is the method your are using for sniffing/capturing packages from the camera-app communication? 

I can try it with G80 and share with you the results if you want.

Packet Capture on Android and then some manual requests from a browser and/or something of my own creation!

Any additional sessions can bring a bit more to the table if you invoke functions that the G80 has that the GX80 doesn't to see if it can be persuaded to implement them.

I don't have a direct feature comparison list of what's missing but I'm sure there is one somewhere online 

23 minutes ago, jonpais said:

It's been a little while now since BTM_Pix shared his hack for the GX80, but still no sample footage. I'd be interested to see whether the profile really resembles Cinelike D in the G85. The following is straight out of the camera, no color correction, no sharpening, nada. It has not been exposed to the right, it is just for comparing how skin tones and dynamic range compare with your footage. 

 

Though not motion, I  put a post on the first page of two frame grabs from footage recorded with Cinelike D on both the GX80 and the G7.

To my eye they show identical handling of the same scene. Only to my eye though so there may be some on much closer inspection but I think for all practical purposes they are the same.

I don't know the exact family relationship senso and processor wise between the GX80 and the G7 so any small differences between the performance of Cinelike D on both are likely attributable to that.

Its impossible to do a direct comparison between what official Cinelike D would look like on the GX80 of course as there is no official one but just to stress that no other parameters were harmed in the making of the hack. 

I agree that I would love to hear from people who have implemented it to see what difference if any its made to their output and any difference they've had to make to their workflow either capture or post to accommodate it.

I'd be particularly interested if anyone has a Cinelike D based LUT to see that it maps across as expected.

Using the ruse of wanting to "compare its wifi control to my FZ1000"  , I spent a few minutes packet capturing an FZ2000 app session in a camera store earlier to get some examples of it sending the 100 and 200mbps 1080p setting to the camera.

The commands were formed exactly as I was expecting them to be so confirms my findings that although the camera will accept them it won't properly action them but it will change to 4K24p instead. This is a different behaviour to when you send an outright "illegal" setting (i.e. a PAL rate when its in NTSC region and vice versa) where it returns an error. Whether it simply reverts to its uppermost setting when given a request that it doesn't reject but can't find an actual match for I don't know but the end result is the same in that it doesn't get us anywhere.

With regard to the LX100, the Cinelike D and V are acting almost completely the reverse to how you would expect them to in that it massively saturates the colour! However, it also completely and I mean completely canes the black level. I've got a hunch that with the LX100 being such a close relative of the GH4 that there might be something involving an interaction with the master pedestal level and/or the luma level which are changeable on the GH4 but not on the LX100. If someone who has an LX100 could try this and see what you think. It might be correctable with changing a combination of the saturation/contrast/shadow/highlight controls to bring it into line and if it is then it shouldn't be an issue for the Deploy function to combine the string of changes into one click.

I stress might though !

And I can't look at anything to do with this for the next four or five days at least now while I'm away doing the day job assignment so don't hold your breath.

Just a heads up about the error logs from the other thread.

Manual its from is GX7 but they are all common so should work with your GH5 and might give you some insight into where the error was.