Видео

@@michaelfrymus Yes, as you already suspected, you’ll need a splitter to isolate the timecode channel and just get the Timecode Signal from the TC-1 while getting the other channel from your microphone. A Y-splitter that merges a left and right channels into a stereo channel.

@deadendboredom You want them to merge into a stereo? I thought they needed to remain split? So time code can be written in one channel and audio be recorded into the other channel

@@michaelfrymus Yes and no: the TC-1 outputs a stereo signal - one channel carries the timecode, and the other carries the internal microphone signal. If you have a Y L/R splitter, you’ll need to connect the timecode output from the TC-1 to either the left or right channel of the splitter (depending on which channel the timecode is on). The free connector on the splitter is then for your external microphone. To be precise, it’s a male stereo plug that splits into female left and female right plugs. Actually, the cable should probably be called a merger rather than a splitter but here, we’re essentially repurposing a splitter that’s originally meant to divide a stereo channel into right and left channels.

@@deadendboredom great, where am I supposed to find a cable for that now? 😂 I'll spend like 2mo on Amazon looking for it, not knowing exactly what I'm looking for

@@michaelfrymus I’m sorry I can’t provide you with a specific product; unfortunately, this is a rather niche application. Terms that might help you in your search include “Y splitter to mono” or “stereo breakout cable.” I ordered some cheap one for 3,50€ in 2018 and accidentally found something suitable - the product title was: „BestPlug 20cm Y Audio Aux In/Out Cable Adapter Splitter Hub, 1 3.5mm Stereo Jack Plug Male to 2 3.5mm Mono Jack Sockets Female, Black“ I hope this helps you to find something suitable.

@@FilmAndStar Are we using ‘woke’ because we know what it means, or just because it sounds trendy? 😘

@@coplandjason I’m glad to hear that you understood the review. One thing I’ve noticed after using it for a while: there are some lenses that don’t maintain consistent focus after calibration at the three points. You can mitigate this to some extent by calibrating the close point slightly closer or further away, but it’s worth noting that this issue can occur.

@@mustafakamal8608 That’s „normal“ because the adjustment clip only affects the final result of what’s beneath it. Essentially, you’d face the same issue in a horizontal video that you’ve already scaled within the clip itself. Anything outside the frame in the original clip can’t be recovered with an adjustment clip. It's a somewhat destructive workflow - similar to the timeline resolution in this video: the resolution is effectively zoomed in based on the timeline settings, not the full resolution of the original clip.

@@koenout9833 Is it just me, or do these two bags look almost identical? I’ve been hunting for the perfect bag for years now and still haven’t found it. At one point, I had high hopes for Manfrotto since they merged with Kata, but nope, nothing there either. The Cineloader bag disappointed me even more than the Arri bag… I’ve been meaning to make a video rant about this for ages, but I’m not sure I need the added blood pressure.

@ i think the panavision bag is maybe better with the zippers

@@khaled-Samra There could be various reasons for this. To say more, I’d need to see a few RAW images. And are you sure the issue only occurs with this lens?

@@benchabasilem4352 URSA12K is BRAW only

@@peterbratu Only when I couldn’t find the fork, but thanks for asking!

@@tonirivasvideografo The video focuses exclusively on eye-tracking autofocus. Once eye-tracking is active, the set parameters, such as speed, are overridden and no longer relevant. It was only in later videos that I started including tests with different speeds and sensitivities on objects without tracking.

@@deadendboredom Thanks!!

@@daltonrandall4348 yes

@@throughthelensart I completely agree with you, but as it stands, it doesn’t work reliably with all lenses. It really depends on whether the focus throw is linear, logarithmic, or exponential. For example, I have three lenses from the same set that aren’t consistently sharp throughout the range. I’m really hoping DJI is already working on an update to allow for additional calibration points to address this issue.

@@tonyamartin1425 Who said that? At the time of this review, the GM II wasn’t even on the market yet…

@@deadendboredom then you need to update it my mother is half Sony so you are being racist to the Sony 24 70 GM ii and I am offended! you will be cancelled

@@tonyamartin1425 My deepest condolences to your half-Sony heritage. I’ll make sure to consult the GM II’s ancestors and its latest updates before daring to speak again. Please let me know if the lens itself prefers flowers or chocolates for my heartfelt and tearful apology!

@@deadendboredom Well thankyou and some aperture sensitivity training wouldn't hurt. Some people have to work for light! We didn't have 1.4 or 1.2 handed to us like our entitled Prime oppressors! We are back! say it loud! I'm 2.8 and I'm proud!!!!!!!

@@arjuna207 Are you interested in this from a particular perspective? A full run-through with every flavor of codec (LT, 422, HQ) across various situations would be quite involved. When the BRAW update comes out, I’ll probably do a more comprehensive comparison. Currently, ProRes in LT and to some extent in 422 shows a similar pixel-blocking issue like All-I, though it’s much less pronounced. But, of course, ProRes handles fast motion better overall. Given the large file sizes of HQ, I’ve typically found RAW to be more worthwhile. Once BRAW is available, it’ll likely outperform ProRes in every area-except compatibility.

@@deadendboredom I'm dissapointed that prores is marginally better than all-i in regards to the blocks. In some places in your video the mesh looked horrendous. I shoot mostly 4k S, but sometimes i need to crop and i'm a little dissapointed of the quality. I'm also curious about braw, i'm a davinci user so that will be ideal.

@@beatboxxdannyschwarzboxing9768 Any male-to-female USB-C 3.2 extension cable should technically work, since you still use the original cable with the correctly fitting connector housing on the grip. So, this extension cable becomes less critical. I can only send you the Amazon Germany link, and I’m not sure if it’s available in your country or if I can even post the link here. amzn.eu/d/04VU6qL

@@ethelquinn Yes, I’m looking forward to it, too… the only question is when, since it looks like winter 2025.

@@dc292177917 Oh, absolutely, that’s what I Do… though for anyone who prefers lugging around a fully built setup with bits and pieces sticking out, begging to be snapped off or yanked out, hey, all the power to you! Personally, even the USB-C cable on the side of the focus motor comes out if we so much as blink between scenes. 😉

@@deadendboredom 10mins just to talk about the bad design of a free case most users wouldnt even touch, good on you mate👍🏻 also for the calibration process its not meant to be done on that tiny screen on the handle...

@@dc292177917 A free case - kind of like the tires that come free with a car? Could you clarify where I’m supposed to handle this calibration process? Is it in the app, where the feature doesn’t exist? Or maybe on the $2000 Transmission System High Bright Monitor? Or am I just meant to select from pre-set profiles for lenses that are already calibrated?

@@michaelfrymus If there’s a D-Tap to USB-C PD solution, then yes-the handle can only be powered with PD during operation. When you say “handle,” do you mean just the battery grip or the entire handle unit? If it’s only the battery grip, theoretically it’s not required. However, I haven’t found a power plate like the one used for the gimbal that provides the lower voltage needed. If you mean the entire handle unit, then yes, it’s actually necessary to use LiDAR, with one exception: if you’re using the DJI Video Transmission (the big one)

@@myerssamuel1057 Active motion tracking from the gimbal isn’t enhanced by the focus unit. Focus: For example, if a person being tracked is momentarily blocked by an object between them and the lens, the focus will shift to the foreground object. Once the person is visible again, the tracking resumes. To prevent this, you’ll need to intervene by holding the focus wheel on the handle. I’ll get back to you shortly with more details on how it performs in different lighting conditions.

@@deadendboredom ActiveTrack and LiDAR are not integrated in any way? LiDAR would greatly improve auto-tracking in low light.

@@myerssamuel1057 I’m not sure if the RS4’s ActiveTrack truly benefits from the LiDAR, as I don’t own an RS4 myself. However, the following insights might clarify where the LiDAR actually helps and where it doesn’t. With LiDAR, regular autofocus without tracking is very reliable - even in complete darkness, the focus locks onto whatever is centered in the focus box. For person-tracking autofocus, I’ve found it works down to around 7 LUX (ISO 6400, f1.8); beyond that, it starts to become unreliable. If the RS4’s ActiveTrack operates through the Raven Eye using the actual camera feed, then tracking autofocus would, for example, be much more reliable on a Sony camera set to ISO 12800 f1.2 than through the LiDAR unit alone. This is because the LiDAR unit relies only on its own built-in camera for tracking, which isn’t as light-sensitive as the professional camera sensor.

@@deadendboredom Are you saying ActiveTrack relies on the LiDAR camera and NOT on the LiDAR itself? That's confusing. I thought ActiveTrack with LiDAR used the LiDAR to find and track the subject, and the that camera on the LiDAR was only to display on the Gimbal screen the framing area of the LiDAR and the location of the tracked target the LiDAR was seeing. That way you can make sure the subject in both LiDAR and camera are somewhat in the same area. I guess I need to find better documentation on these units.

@@myerssamuel1057 Let’s set ActiveTrack aside for now, as I don’t have the RS4. What I’m quite sure of, though, is that object recognition does not work via LiDAR alone. The camera in the sensor is responsible for tracking and determining the location, and then the LiDAR measures the distance to that specific point. LiDAR itself can only measure distances to points - it can’t recognize objects. A “regular” camera, on the other hand, can recognize objects but can’t measure distance. Here, the two technologies work together, each complementing the other’s capabilities. That’s at least my understanding of it.

@@rezjrprod Hard to say without a common reference point… From what I can tell, the motor is stronger than I’d expected, and so far, it’s handled every lens I’ve tried with no issues. That said, I haven’t tested it with any older lenses that might have stiffer focus rings. I might be able to tell you more by the end of next week.

@deadendboredom For instance the nucleus nano to has no issues with vintage lenses because of motor has been strengthened since the last I use the Helios 442 and the mir1

@@rezjrprod I just tried it on the zoom ring of a lens with relatively high resistance, and the motor had no issues handling it.

@@rezjrprod I experimented a bit more, and I can say with confidence that the motor is really powerful - I can barely stop it with my hand. I’d be very surprised if it had any issues with any lens, unless the lens itself has a mechanical problem.

@@cinematic-studio If you want to film in 50P, you should also set your timecode device to 50P. For the TC-1, this feature was added in one of the latest firmware updates. So, if you can only select up to 30P, you should perform a firmware update.