BTM_Pix

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! 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.

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

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.

What sort of feedback mate?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I think I mentioned earlier in the thread but those are messages from the camera to the app to tell it what items to give the user access to. Its one piece of the puzzle in that you can still construct set commands based on them (or estimates of what they will be) but the camera will not necessarily action them and you will generally get an "err_parameter" message in your browser. An example of this would be to send : http://192.168.54.1/cam.cgi?mode=setsetting&type=videoquality&value=mp4ed_c24p_100mbps_c4K Sending this will be actioned by Panasonic cameras that have the functionality enabled but won't be by those that won't. In this respect, it is pure good fortune that although Cinelike D and V are not enabled in the app the camera will actually activate them if we send it the commands. There are other examples such as the ISO50000 mode and 23 point AF mode that aren't listed but I was able to get working. You will also see this selective rejection when you have the camera in PAL mode, you can send it NTSC based formats such as 1080p60 but it will reject them. If you then boot the camera using the multi button diagnostic mode into NTSC region you will be able to send them and it will action them. We can only presume that Panasonic had it in mind to have Cinelike D and V in the GX80 and left it in there. Something unusual happens when you tell it to go into one of the high bitrate 1080p modes in that it switches to 4K24p so its not entirely rejecting it but its also not doing it either. Again, I'll say that the LX100 is doing something odd with the Cinelike commands so there might be something worth tinkering with there. For now, I'm only concentrating on looking at command stuff for my hardware box (which is all I was originally intending to be tinkering with this stuff for anyway before I uncovered the Cinlike thing!) so hopefully now so many of you are using this you might all find some new stuff with your own experiments.

I was going to point you to this thread on BlackMagic forum as there is a discussion relating to what you want to do it. But I notice that someone with a very similar diagram to yourself has already asked this on there... https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=40229

Glad you had the "Appetite" for it and that it worked out "Bonny"

If you got your hands on a v2.2 or v2.3 GH4 and then "rediscovered" where the particular version of the Android app was that did the "free" vlog upgrade before Panasonic closed it down then you'd be able to discover what command it was that was sent using the same process as the packet capture here. Unless the GX80 wanted to play ball though then you could be sending that command all day long and it wouldn't do anything. The GX80 does not throw an error when you send what I suspect is this right command and it does change the picture profile, just not to the one you are seeking. The LX100 changes it's profile to something entirely unusual when you tell it to use Cinelike D. If you've got an LX100, use my html page to make the changes as per the GX80 and you'll see what I mean

You can change those in the camera as per the original profiles Although the name of the profile appears blank if you select it in Menu>Photo Style and then cursor down you can change the contrast, saturation,NR an ld sharpness. Changed parameters persist on reboot and if stored in C1 etc

With the GX85 now having Cinelike D, a used one and a used BM Video Assist from B&H could be your friend if you only want 1080p for <$1000? Better monitoring, edit ready ProRes etc A real pity the smaller VA doesn't have XLR inputs like the bigger one as it would be a great combo. Although if you put up another $200 you could pair it with the G85.....

They were my instructions to be fair but no matter, we got there in the end!

I suspect this list of reasons is going to end up like this in reverse