BTM_Pix

Well done to everyone who entered. Hopefully we can have another edition so that shiftless lazy buggers like me can actually get their act together and join in this time.

The app needing to be updated message is usually a sign that the initial connect after the handshake has failed. That could be a timing issue with the way its done in the app as it may not be waiting long enough between the two commands. Where you able to test the basic html page version with it ? If do Handshake and then Connect (l'd said the other way round in the post above like an idiot ) on that it is obviously two commands and it will also display an error in the browser window. If that doesn't work then I'll need to find an unguarded G9 in a shop and have a look at whats going on. Thanks for your help in any case.

The procedure because its a bit of a hack of their connection and handshake procedure is Put the camera into Wifi mode. Connect device to camera in Android settings Hit Connect in the app. As its a new connection, the camera may ask you if you want to make a new connection so click OK It will then likely fail as it doesn't like the first connection Close the app Re-open the app and click connect again and it should be fine from then on at every boot. The cameras will only accept one wifi connection at a time so make sure that the Panasonic Image app is closed before using the app. You can check the basic connection by loading this attached html page on any web browser on any device connected to the cameras wifi so either the web browser of that Android device or your pc etc. Just click Connect and then Handshake and then at least you'll be able to try the HLG profile from that. LX100 MARK 2 TESTER.html

Seems he couldn't mount those PL lenses on that Pocket6K then

Union Berlin are currently 3-0 down at home to RB Leipzig and Chelsea are leading 1-0 at home to Leicester City.

Its unfortunate he kind of spoils the surprise of which camera is which by showing the test setup as from the positions of the cameras, particularly the RED stuck out on the end, its not difficult to see which camera is which based on the shift in positions of the charts in the background. Decent test though nonetheless though.

If there was anything Ninja related they probably had to pay a license fee to RED to use it

If anyone gets one of these or already has one, just a bit of a beg that if you have an Android device then we are looking for a helpful guinea pig to try and see if it can be persuaded to take the GH5 video modes and the HLG profile.

Just putting this here for completeness really as its already widely known but regarding the Jinnitech stuff on the newer MINI MAGs, this is one of my 128GB original RED MAG ones for the EPIC that I've opened up. Its the same situation obviously with just being an off the shelf lowish end drive with a rewired pass through connector but again carries the "MADE IN USA" stamp which, if that designation is as invalid as it is on the newer ones (and on the same criterion it should be), means that the practice has obviously been going on several years longer and will provide an opportunity for a lot more users to join in any legal action. The real kicker of course is for people who were forced to sell their original MINI MAGs at a loss to buy the new MINI MAGs when they switched up to DSMC2 cameras when they could have just swapped the drive in the shell or had a $10 adapter.

Sigma have guaranteed it externally to SSD in the FP and said they are investigating doing it internally. I'm hoping that "investigating" is a euphemism for "testing it works and then awaiting the opportunity to switch it on in a firmware update as soon as the coast is clear" .

Can't speak for Ed but I'm fine thanks mate, just been a bit busy writing some code to contribute further.

Incidentally, similar servo testers are available individually or in dual packs so if you wanted to use one on one handle to control focus and another on a handle on the other side for aperture etc then they would be ideal. Ditto if you just wanted to use a single one on a gimbal to control focus.

Hopefully, the G9999 arrives before Brexit does. Yeah, says September delivery when I put it in the basket. If they can deliver them though at that point then its probably worth the wait for anyone who wants one. Worth keeping an eye out for if they chop the price of the lens kit versions next.

I have no opinion on the camera as I've never used it but for anyone looking at one this is a hell of a price https://www.amazon.co.uk/PANASONIC-DC-G9EB-K-Mirrorless-Compact-System/dp/B0779B2K8B

Again, why can I see this horseshit while you are on ignore ??? In the m43 camp? Jesus tonight, I own PL, EF, L, F, X, EF-M and SA mount cameras for fucks sake. Horrible, non factual and brutal comment about why the P6K isn't for me ? Fucking hell you've got issues way beyond not being able to grasp facts. Really the last time I'm responding.

For fucks sake. I have you on ignore, how can I see this post ? Seeing that I can....just for old times sake and for ONE post only I'm going to respond. READ THE FUCKING FACTS IN MY POST YOU FUCKING MORON The lens options for EF mount are not endless if you want to use PL mount lenses. You want to talk about serious cine shooters an yet want to pretend that PL lenses wouldn't somehow fit in that area ? Seriously ? I'm going to repeat this one more time so you can try and understand it. There is no lens that you can put on an EF mount camera that you can't put on an MFT mount camera but there are plenty of lenses that you can put on an MFT camera that you can't put on an EF mount camera. Therefore, the lens options for EF aren't "endless" as they literally end at any lens with a flange distance less than 44mm. As for the rest of your post well I'll leave you to your "spreading false information" and the "unless you feel threatened" fantasies like the pound shop Donald Trump you clearly are. Fuckity bye.

EDIT>>> I had a longer reply but really I think "Fuck off" will suffice. I'm joining the long list of people that have you on ignore you complete and utter tit.

So I keep meaning to do something more elaborate for the BMMCC but never have the time but I had an hour free this afternoon to knock this together for anyone who wants something cheap and easy to base a DIY controller on. Basically, its a 6 channel servo tester that costs £15 from Amazon ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/LewanSoul-Channel-Digital-Over-Current-Protection/dp/B073XZH264/r ) and a £5 solder less VGA breakout from Amazon ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/sourcing-map-Breakout-Connector-Solderless/dp/B07MQX1BBP ) (Yes, I've soldered the ground but thats only because mine must have been made on a Friday afternoon and they put in one side of the connector wrong ) With this, you can use the rotary pots to control four parameters on the camera so you could use it to have physical control of focus, aperture, ISO and WB etc. I've shown the solder less breakout as it makes things really easy for anyone to connect up (it has a shell to enclose it obviously) but you can just solder to a connector if you want to. Obviously you will want to use longer cables than these test ones ! The connections from the breakout to the servo board are BMCC PIN 1 > SERVO BOARD - BMCC PIN 14 > SERVO BOARD + BMCC PIN 3 > SERVO BOARD SERVO 0 S BMCC PIN 8 > SERVO BOARD SERVO 1 S BMCC PIN 12 > SERVO BOARD SERVO 2 S BMCC PIN 13> SERVO BOARD SERVO 3 S You then assign the functions that will be controlled by the pots on the servo board in the remote menu of the camera by setting the functions to be controlled by PWM1-4 respectively. (servo pot 0 is PWM1, pot 1 is PWM2 etc). So if you want to build your own DIY physical controller thats all you need to know to get it going and then its up to you how you case it etc. Because the BMMCC only has 4 ports you can control through then you have got two spare controllers which if you wanted to get fancy you could connect actual servos to for controlling manual focus lenses, zoom control etc.

Mine does.

Thats the spirit !

Based on comparing the actual sensor size of the Pocket 6K with the JVC LS300 then from my experience the typical VSM setting on most MFT lenses would just cover it. Though even a small windowed crop mode of 5-10% with that extra resolution would be a worthwhile trade off to be able to use those lenses. You think and have seen ? Which one is it ? Your argument or one that you have seen? Either way, can you talk me through how there can be a better argument for the EF mount camera when both cameras could take EF lenses and the MFT camera can additionally use native MFT, Leica M and PL mount lenses ? Based on the arguments you have thought of/seen would your Nikon Z6 have been better to be F mount or is it better to have the shallower Z mount that opens up a whole mass of different lens options and also be able to use F mount as well then? MFT P4K users ? As opposed to what? Users of the non-existent EF P4k? You are conflating two entirely different things. These are different cameras and hence why the reaction from people who actually own the Pocket 4K has been largely muted because either they aren't that bothered about the extra resolution or prefer the extra flexibility of the MFT mount or don't want to spend the extra money to trade up the camera and the increased IT costs of dealing with 6K or some combination of all of those. And some owners have gone "great, I'll buy the 6K one and use that as well". As much as you'd clearly likely there to be a massive outpouring of rage from Pocket 4K owners about this new camera, it just isn't there because this is not a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K thats come in at the same price with more resolution, it is clearly a different camera. For anyone with a bizarre fetish for revelling in and stoking other people's outrage, I can see that that would be a disappointment but it doesn't alter the facts. Now, if the Pocket 6K had come out with an MFT mount at or around the same price then you might well have needed a few extra boxes of Kleenex and some screen wipes but thats because that would have been a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K. But then of course, that would also be related to it using the same, more flexible, mount. You can't get any detail on the P6K if you can't get your lens on it. Are we just going to gloss over the fact that you can't mount the vast majority of PL lenses on it or does that not now matter for a cinema camera ? There are flaws in a lot of the side by side tests but if we let that slide then considering its twice the price then it should really shouldn't it? Which is why its whats known as a different camera.

I was being very, very generous in my description of what that scenario entailed As for its veracity, as I say, the information in the film has been written about in several different books by David Walsh and also featured in various interviews with Betsy Andreu and, as yet, I am unaware of any action being brought by anyone over it. On balance, I have to say that if I was going to go after someone for defaming me, I certainly think I'd choose to go after people alleging that I'd helped enable Lance Armstrong's decade long deception than a camera blogger who satirised me a little bit but thats just me.

I think its being misinterpreted by a lot of people that the Pocket 6K is the Pocket 4K Mark II and it just isn't. The resolution is one thing but the mount dictates that it a different camera. There is no lens you can put on the Pocket 6K that you can't put on the Pocket 4K but there are plenty the other way round. If I look at 3 example lenses of a similar focal length that I own and use on the Pocket 4K but will not fit on the Pocket 6K: Panasonic 25mm f1.7 MFT mount 7Artisans 28mm f1.4 M mount REDPro Prime 25mm t1.8 PL mount So would I prefer the bump in resolution or to be able to use those lenses? I'd like both but I'll take the lenses thanks. That doesn't mean its right for everyone, of course, but for me as a Pocket 4K owner its my preference. What seems to be forgotten in all this is that when the BMCC was launched with the EF mount, people were absolutely thrilled right up until the point that BM produced the MFT mount version shortly after which devalued the EF version immediately as everyone wanted the more versatile mount. So I find it curious that the EF was the "wrong" mount and the MFT was the right mount then and yet now it seems to be the other way round when even leaving aside the additional adaption capabilities there are also far better MFT mount lenses available now than there was then too. Who knows whether history will repeat itself again here and the Pocket 6K will be released with an MFT mount?

I've not seen price hikes on Atomos products since it was announced so that would suggest to me they are absorbing the licensing cost rather than passing it on for now so likely no difference if thats the case. With Nikon, it depends if its the patent that is stopping it but as Apple's partner with ProRes RAW you would expect Atomos to be somewhat in the loop about the purpose behind Apple challenging the patents and to have had advance warning. If it is stopping it then thats not great as it means it will require the conclusion of the appeal which could take some time. If Apple's appeal was successful then, yes, Blackmagic would be able to switch Cinema DNG back on but its by no means a given because they might have their own farther reaching reasons to stick with BRAW to establish it as a standard. It depends on how much you interpret RED's patents on compressed RAW having stifled other manufacturer's developments in the time they've had them. Twelve years is a long time to have had this stuff off limits and the supporting technology of processor speed and storage speed/capacity has long since been available to allow other manufacturers to do it. The big question is whether the will and the market was there for them to do it and whether the patent thing is just a red herring ? Clearly, the patents where as challengeable over a decade ago as they are today so has it only taken the will of a (big) company actually coming up against the restrictive nature of them now to mount the challenge? I'm pretty sure that companies the size of the likes of Sony, Panasonic and even Canon had the resources to have challenged this a long time ago if they really had a vested interest in doing so to clear the way for specific products. So whether the GH6 would get internal RAW if Apple wins this appeal is probably still as much to with their own internal purposes as it would ever have been. Crucially though, for camera buyers, is that it would no longer be a convenient shield for manufacturers to hide behind when challenged about drip feeding features. Aside from the flippant response of industrial designers specialising in faux military product housings suffering a downturn, there would inevitably also be a price to pay for RED's reduced profitability which, as is the way with this world, would likely arrive in the form of reduced jobs, investment in R&D and support. Although, it could be argued that the flip side of the downturn in income and the sting of losing might actually stimulate a positive response in the longer term in terms of the focus in finding a different way in that new reality. The elephant in the room of course is that a loss for RED would mean it was a win for Apple but thats a whole different can of worms.