iPhone Hardware Accessories

Any comments on vignetting? Especially with the wide lens?

The ultrawide vignettes (in one corner only, of course). But it's a tiny area, which you can either get around by some cropping or if you use a format wider than 16 by 9.

If you stack NDs, that's quite a different story.

I was on Kondor Blue's website for another reason when I came across the announcement of a MagSafe device for iPhone 15 storage discussed two posts up.

The most economical way to supply portable power to an iPhone 15 is probably a standard power bank. However, I was curious about whether I could use a 50Wh Hank-Woods Mini V-mount that I have. It looks like it's an option. Kondor Blue makes a 16" D-Tap to USB-C power cable. I'd plug the cable into my V-mount battery's D-Tap port and into my phones's USB-C port. At US$35, the price is reasonable.

B&H's page (image below) only talks about cameras, but Kondor Blue's site says that this cable can be used to supply power to a laptop or to an iPhone 15: https://kondorblue.com/products/16-d-ta ... d-straight

I don't know the weight of other 50Wh Mini V-mount batteries, but mine weighs 300g (10.5oz). This setup would work as is from a tripod or monopod, but I'd want a longer cable so that the battery could be in my coat pocket, on my belt or in a shoulder bag. My previous experience with Kondor Blue suggests that it might be possible to request a longer cable.

I've tested how much standby and continuous filming time I get from the Hawk-Woods on my Pocket 4K. I don't know what the iPhone 15 draws, but a Blackmagic document says that a Pocket 4K, filming at 4K, draws about 16Wh when idling and 22Wh when running, based on reasonable assumptions. In my tests, I was able to run the Pocket 4K close to 4 hours on standby and 3 hours continuously filming. Put differently, the Hawk-Woods was roughly the equivalent of using five Canon OEM batteries. If anyone's interested, I wrote a number of posts about these tests on this forum: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105319&start=250#p673191

B&H page. This is the link: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... power.html

D-Tap to USB-C.jpg (107.91 KiB) Viewed 21989 times

I'm using a Beastgrip Pro universal cage until the Beastcage for the iPhone 15 Pro Max is shipped next month. As explained in an earlier post, I have a use for the universal cage after the phone-specific cage is delivered.

I thought that I'd point out a difference between these cages that doesn't appear to be discussed elsewhere.

The Beastgrip Pro is highly protective of a phone, I suspect more so than a phone-specific Beastcage. In a fall on concrete, I think it's likely that the Pro frame would absorb practically all of the impact. A Beastcage is probably a bit less protective, simply because it hugs the phone. The Pro is built around the phone, which is in contact with very little of the cage, and the contact point is cushioned. I posted three photos of the Pro in this earlier post (see the third photo in particular): viewtopic.php?f=2&t=191338&start=150#p1005207

However, heightened protection comes with a limitation. Beastgrip's filter adapter has a 58mm thread. With the Beastgrip Pro cage, a step-up ring can't be more than 67mm, possibly less if one's filters have unusually thick walls. The frame will block anything larger. This limitation does not apply to a phone-specific Beastcage. Beastgrip has confirmed that I'll be able to use a 58mm to 82mm step-up ring, and my 82mm filters, with the iPhone 15 Pro Max Beastcage.

It isn't an issue for me because I've acquired a set of 58mm filters that can be used on another camera, and on the universal cage after my iPhone 15 cage arrives. It's amazing how much cheaper 58mm filters are than 82mm filters, especially second-hand

I need a 67mm pola. Any recommendations?

Moment?

I need a 67mm pola. Any recommendations?

B+W

I need a 67mm pola. Any recommendations?

My basic view on polarisers is the bigger the better. I have a 112mm polariser that I use with a large format lens. It's a pleasure. To evaluate its impact and how to position it, I can just hold it up by hand and look through it at the subject while rotating.

I'm mostly standardised around 82mm. I use Schneider's B+W and Heliopan filters. I haven't used Nikon's Circular Polariser II, but it has a good reputation and I would seriously consider it.

As of about three years ago, Schneider B+W has two main lines of filters, Master and Basic. The Master polariser is thinner to address vignetting with wide angle lenses, has more coating and costs about 1 stop instead of the usual 2. I use the predecessor of the Master, which is essentially the same filter. It's called an XS-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission MRC-Nano. "Master" is a lot shorter B+W's Basic line is essentially the former F-Pro line. The following is a good explanation of current B+W lines: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threa ... ing.42314/

Heliopan has equivalent filters, but they're more expensive.

If interested, Heliopan and Hoya still make linear polarisers.

B&H has some used B+W and Heliopan polarisers. My experience with B&H's used operation, over many years, has been uniformly good. For counterfeiting reasons, I would not purchase a B+W or Heliopan polariser from Amazon, and I'd be careful on eBay. B+W has a page to check for authenticity.

Recently, I acquired some used filters for Beastgrip's universal cage. The filter adapter takes 58mm, and the maximum step-up ring size is 67mm. I have a 58mm to 67mm step up, and I was able to purchase a B+W 67mm linear polariser from B&H for US$19.

The filter was cheap because B+W no longer makes linear polarisers, and because a couple of generations of photographers have been scared off them. I don't expect a problem using the filter with an iPhone. If I'm wrong, it will be an inexpensive experiment and I'll update this post.

Anyway, people looking for a polariser might keep linear ones in mind.

As mentioned in the post just above, Heliopan and Hoya still make linear polarisers. Heliopan actually makes two, a single coated one and a multi-coated one. As far as I can tell, the multi-coated version is available in Europe, but not in the U.S. Teamwork Photo in London (https://teamworkphoto.com) sells both, indeed the entire Heliopan line, and is happy to ship to the U.S. and Canada. Its ex-VAT prices are also comparatively attractive. If their site says that a filter is out of stock, check with them. My experience is that the wait time is likely to be short.

B&H's archivai page on B+W's 67mm linear polariser: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... rizer.html

The Specs say that the filter factor is "About 2.5 (1.3 stops)".

It looks like customer reviews of this line of filters ended in about 2013. According to reviews, some people were using them with a circular polariser to create a variable neutral density filter.

b+w linear polariser 67mm.jpg (125.24 KiB) Viewed 21697 times

What do you guys or gals with more audio experience than mine think:
Røde ME or Hollyland Lark M1 for the iPhone?

What do you guys or gals with more audio experience than mine think:
Røde ME or Hollyland Lark M1 for the iPhone?

In October, Curtis Judd reviewed the Hollyland Lark Max and compared it to the Røde Wireless Pro and DJI Mic. Some months ago, he also reviewed the Røde ME. This is the October review, which you may find helpful:

Personally, I think that presenters who care about the impression they leave their viewers won't use any of these systems. Wearing a brick of a mike is distracting for viewers and makes you look like a dork.

I think that the people who are doing this would come across better, and sound better, if they just used a handheld mike. For example, Shure sells a wireless version of its SM58, one of the most popular and reliable mikes ever made, for not much more money. For even less, there's Shure's PG58. Or spring for a decent lav.

When it comes to mikes, hide it or flaunt it

I also don't understand the obsession with wireless. I use DPA 4060 lavs, which are among the most highly regarded. On the advice of Gotham Sound, one of the U.S.'s most important location sound houses, I use them wired. It makes life a lot simpler, and you get to put your money into the quality of your microphone, and if necessary a compact body-worn recorder, instead of spending it on bargain basement wireless.

If he wasn't "reviewing" it, Tom Antos wouldn't be caught dead wearing this thing:

Røde Wireless ME

tom antos.jpg (78.82 KiB) Viewed 21604 times

A wired lav is fine if both the camera and the subject are stationary. A simple walk and talk quickly becomes cable hell.

I share the distaste for a chest-mounted brick mic. There's a reason professional sound recordists are experts at hiding even the smallest lav. Like with boudoir photography, it's what you don't see that counts.

Kids today! The same ones that tolerate incessant jump cuts and holding the phone vertically.

Gimme a Tram to plug into the (well hidden) receiver, please.

A wired lav is fine if both the camera and the subject are stationary. A simple walk and talk quickly becomes cable hell.

No cable hell if the subject has a tiny audio recorder in his pocket. Curtis Judd on the US$350 Track E, which can jam timecode and comes with a lav. Good fit with a Tentacle Sync E timecode box:

Tentacle Sync Track E Tiny Audio Recorder: Like Wireless But Not Wireless

B&H page for the Tentacle Sync Track E: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... audio.html

Recently, DPA discontinued its MMA-A, which includes a very small, high quality preamp and can record up to two tracks to an iPhone in a pocket. If I recall correctly, it's not restricted to DPA mikes. It should be available as new old stock or second-hand at a reasonable price: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... audio.html

There are lots of good, small recorders on the market by Tascam and others.

Not cheap, but I've used this Lectrosonics that also comes with a lav and has timecode. Curtis Judd talks briefly about this recorder at 15:55 of the video above. Lectrosonics's small, personal recorders are being used in feature films and for reality shows. They're brilliant: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... gital.html

Kids today! The same ones that tolerate incessant jump cuts and holding the phone vertically.

Actually, I can't think of a single successful YouTuber who's using one of these bricks as a mike.

Why would someone buy the most expensive smartphone on the market and then feed it sound from a mike that looks like hell and a dirt cheap wireless "system" that's unreliable and that you'll be lucky to get a couple of years use from?

The wireless 'bricks' all accept a 3.5mm lav mic input, so that's a compromise that looks better than wearing the brick. One thing Curtis mentions is that the latency of the RODE is much better than the Hollyland and DJI. I think the Hollyland is around 30ms whereas the RODE is around 7ms. I have the original RODE GO and it is not a bad solution but I wouldn't consider it for professional work since it doesn't have local backup recording and my guess is that its audio quality isn't great. It's all relative, though.

The wireless 'bricks' all accept a 3.5mm lav mic input, so that's a compromise that looks better than wearing the brick...

I have the original RODE GO and it is not a bad solution but I wouldn't consider it for professional work

Yes, but note that the Tentacle Sync Track E recorder comes with a lav, and the Lectrosonics recorder is sold both with and without one. I imagine that most purchasers of DPA's preamp for iPhone, or something like a small Tascam recorder, already have a mike.

Curtis Judd agrees with you. He says in the first video above that he sees the Røde, Hollyland and DJI as "consumer" devices and explains why.

Leaving aside YouTube, Judd makes his living as a location sound recordist and mixer. He knows what he's talking about. I think that people should listen to what he says, in the Tentacle Sync Track E video, about wireless.

I've been a Gotham Sound client (a very small one) for many years, and I purchased my DPA 4060 lavs from them. At the time, I told them that I was prepared to go wireless, but wanted their view. As always, they gave me straight-up advice. They told me two things. Don't use wireless if you don't have to, and realise that wired will give you better sound. That advice cost Gotham money, because real wireless costs real money.

Of the options discussed above, I have the DPA MMA-A preamp for iPhone and the Lectrosonics PDR (Portable Digital Recorder). They are both terrific devices, and the Lectrosonics is built to take abuse in stride.

Below is a fun B&H video on the DPA MMA-A, also known as the d:Vice, which takes up part of a shirt pocket. The narration is from the presenter's own DPA 4060 lav, and two full-size DPA mikes are used to record Scott Joplin's Maple Leaf Rag. An iPad was used to shoot the video, and the DPA preamp bypasses the iPad's own:

The DPA MMA-A was originally pitched to the journalism market. I don't know why it's been discontinued. It may have been a casualty of Sound Devices's MixPre-3, for which, interestingly, there's a plug-in geared specifically to journalism organisations. Some professional dealers still show it in stock at US$700, but their websites could be out of date. With a little patience, I suspect that one can be purchased second-hand for $400 to $500. While there's an app, it is not required to make the preamp function. It's possible to monitor recording via Bluetooth headphones, although there's a small delay inherent in Bluetooth monitoring.

If I wanted one, I'd start with calls to Trew Audio, which actually shows it as a current product, Gotham, etc.

A wired lav is fine if both the camera and the subject are stationary. A simple walk and talk quickly becomes cable hell.

No cable hell if the subject has a tiny audio recorder in his pocket.

Eeew! Double system! Next, I'll have to bring a slate and a 2nd AC to run it.
That makes pretty good sense, especially with Resolve's auto-sync capabilities.

The operator doesn't get to continuously monitor the talent's sound, though.

Eeew! Double system! Next, I'll have to bring a slate and a 2nd AC to run it.
That makes pretty good sense, especially with Resolve's auto-sync capabilities.

The operator doesn't get to continuously monitor the talent's sound, though.

As I said, DPA's MMA-A just bypasses the phone's preamp with a better one. Because of what I say below, I should now add that it also bypasses an iPhone's algorithms. That said, as the B&H video above shows, it's recording to the iOS device in sync with the video. What double system? I also said that the recording can be monitored. That said, if we're talking YouTube, I don't think that monitoring is a "thing".

Where you have both camera and recorder tracks, that's what timecode is for. Whose timecode does the Blackmagic app accept? Tentacle Sync's, which makes both a tiny recorder and a timecode box for you. The Lectrosonics recorder, which fits in a shirt pocket, also takes timecode.

Or, as you say, you can tell Resolve or Final Cut to sync the two tracks, not exactly onerous.

Personally, I have no interest in using an iPhone's native recording anyway. Forget the issue of preamp quality. Apple, knowing that most people know nothing about sound, does the common sense thing and uses its algorithms to make sure that a recording isn't botched. A couple of years ago, I recorded NY subway trains with both my iPhone and a MixPre at the same time. Opening the files in iZotope RX was quite an eye-opener about how active an iPhone's algorithms are. My iPhone did a great job of getting rid of most of the bass that was very nicely captured by the MixPre and is kinda basic to the sound of a subway train. And you can't fix it, because the sound simply isn't there. It's been limited and compressed away. If you want a sterile, middle of the road audio recording, using an iPhone is a good way to do it.

That said, I do think that iPhone audio is perfectly adequate for many people's purposes. Doesn't change what I said about those ugly brick microphones and bargain basement wireless.

When it comes to a mike, hide it or flaunt it. This is a perfectly good mike that I wouldn't hesitate to use in non-narrative YouTube videos. There's also a reasonably priced, proven wireless version. If you've never heard of this mike, do a search. There's a pretty good chance that it's been used by some of your favourite vocalists:

shure.jpg (83.64 KiB) Viewed 21337 times

Has anyone identified a neutral density or polariser filter that doesn't cause vignetting in the ultra wide 13mm lens? If so, could you share the brand, model and filter size?

Also interested in whether anyone has successfully used a step-up ring to create sufficient clearance to avoid vignetting.

Beastgrip's 58mm filter adapter clears the 13mm lens, but B+W's standard F-Pro 58mm filters don't. B+W's slim, XS-Pro filters might work, but I don't have one in the right filter size.

Robedge, you're far deeper down the sound rabbit hole than I am. If I'm getting clean sound devoid of wind noise and airplanes, I'm happy. I'm just part of the Camera Department. Those sound boys were just somebody to be accommodated.

My 77mm pola vignetted badly when mounted on my Neewer cage, but I had to use a step-up ring to allow the 77mm to thread on to the 67mm mount provided by the Neewer. A 67mm ND screwed into the native Neewer mount didn't vignette at all with the wide lens. YMMV on your Beastgrip cage.

If I'm getting clean sound devoid of wind noise and airplanes, I'm happy. I'm just part of the Camera Department. Those sound boys were just somebody to be accommodated.

I figured that out already

A 67mm ND screwed into the native Neewer mount didn't vignette at all with the wide lens.

That's encouraging. If I can ask, what brand and name and/or product number is the 67mm ND? Does your 67mm ND have a front thread?

Whoa, far more answers than I was asking for
Thanks for all the comments on my audio question. For commercial projects, we are working with experienced audio guys, and, BTW, we are not shooting on an iPhone either (but maybe in the future).

But if you need something for small cultural event tomorrow in a country where a pair of Tentacle Syncs E MKII costs more than an iPhone 15 Pro (but less than a Max) and is only available on pre-order, what do you do?

I'm aware that the internal audio of an iPhone is made to allow you to talk to someone on the other side of the world while standing next to Asian traffic, I do that all the time successfully. Of course that's crap for video, that's why we considered a different source.

Anyway, I answered my own question, since obviously there is no 3.5mm input on the Lark M1, so the ME should arrive today. We'll use it with a Sennheiser lavalier. Even the GO with it's internal backup recording was only available on pre-order. I'll report how stable the connection was after the event.

The filter is a Hoya HMC NDX8. Three stops, according to the table on the case. Yes, it has threads to accommodate further stacking.

Regarding my cavalier attitude to sound: I worked with a Oscar winning mixer quite a bit. Rob Young, his name was. One day, when he and I were having a smoke after wrap he confided in me:

"Peter, sound is weird."

To this day, I believe him.

The filter is a Hoya HMC NDX8. Three stops, according to the table on the case. Yes, it has threads to accommodate further stacking.

Bingo! Like B+W's XS-Pro series, Hoya has minimised the frame of its NDX filters while retaining enough front thread to stack. From Hoya's website:

LOW-PROFILE ALUMINUM FRAME

NDX filters are equipped with a low-profile aluminum frame for best durability and minimal chance for vignetting. Especially convenient in landscape photography with wide-angle lenses as well as when stacking filters, which can be done thanks to the integrated front-thread in the frame.

Not a big surprise, but it looks like I need 58mm low profile ND filters, aka "thin" or "slim" filters, for the 13mm ultra wide. I wonder what happens if you try to stack them. I'm not keen on the idea of using a polariser with a 13mm lens, so I may not bother with considering a 58mm low profile polariser too.

My "plan", when the dedicated iPhone Beastcage arrives next month, is to use a 58mm to 82mm step-up ring and my B+W 82mm filters, all of which are low profile. Now I wonder whether the step-up ring will itself be a problem with the ultra wide lens

Regarding my cavalier attitude to sound: I worked with a Oscar winning mixer quite a bit. Rob Young, his name was. One day, when he and I were having a smoke after wrap he confided in me:

"Peter, sound is weird."

To this day, I believe him.

Further to the above post on Hoya low profile ND filters...

In the NDX series, Hoya offers a variable ND, a 0.6 (2-stop) and a 0.9 (3-stop). It appears to have discontinued other values.

In a new series called HD MK II IRND, it offers a 0.9 (3-stop), a 1.8 (6-stop) and a 3.0 (10-stop).

The new HD MK II IRND filters are much more expensive than the NDX filters.

It's also introduced a low profile "Variable Neutral Density II".

I'd be sceptic if a variable ND is labeled with 10 stops, whatever the price. I have yet to see one that covers as much. The ones I've seen don't start clear, but at 1.5 stops and long before 10 stops the dreaded X is showing. A maximum of 6 or 7 stops is more realistic. My best one is by Heliopan.

And then, we all know the disadvantages of polarisers. I think rather than stacking fixed NDs those with magnetic rings seem quite attractive. Unfortunately, they offer only two strengths up to now, ND8 and ND64.

I think rather than stacking fixed NDs those with magnetic rings seem quite attractive. Unfortunately, they offer only two strengths up to now, ND8 and ND64.

It isn't obvious to me why I'd pay US$76 for a Haida magnetic 6-stop ND filter instead of paying $73 for a B+W low profile 6-stop. Don't think I'd take the Haida over Hoya's new $85 low profile 6-stop either.*

Then there's the issue of adding a magnetic adapter ring and, as you say, limited choice of ND strengths.

* B&H prices, 58mm.

As an alternative to a Vari-ND, quick changes of fixed ones might be attractive for run-n-gun.
Of course, if you have the time for screwing them on and off you can save.

As an alternative to a Vari-ND, quick changes of fixed ones might be attractive for run-n-gun.
Of course, if you have the time for screwing them on and off you can save.

In May, Philip Bloom published a video on variable neutral density that's chock full of information, not just on variable ND, but on polarisers too. Freewell paid him to make this video, but that's easy enough to take into account. The sponsorship is kind of amusing if one knows that Bloom has written an unsponsored internet post saying that Heliopan makes the best variable ND filters. Sponsorship aside, this video is quite comprehensive. Contains some nice photographs too.

The TRUTH about VARIABLE NDs!

Toward the end of the video, Bloom talks about Freewell's "Island" system. That system looks a lot like Lee Filter's Seven5 system, which I would love to use with the iPhone. It might well work with some of the iPhone filter adapters, but it's pretty expensive.

British landscape photographer Joe Cornish explains the Seven5 system in this video. From 4:58, he talks about hard ND filters. Since the video was made, Lee has started offering IRND filters, which it also makes for its parent company Panavision. I use these filters, with Lee's Lee100 system, for 4x5, and they are really good.

Philip also just published this gorgeous piece all shot on iPhone.
It should put to bed all those criticisms of the iPhone's poor low light performance.
(although he agrees in the comments that London at night is "pretty bright"

Philip also just published this gorgeous piece all shot on iPhone.
It should put to bed all those criticisms of the iPhone's poor low light performance.
(although he agrees in the comments that London at night is "pretty bright".

That looks great. From the Description:

"Full video on the Apple Log and the iPhone 15 Pro is coming shortly."

Camera app: Protake (first year $14, then $20/yr)

Variable ND filter for daytime shots: NiSi (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... ario.html/)

Conversion LUT: ProLost, free (https://proloststore.com/products/applelog)

Emulation: Film Convert Nitrate (https://filmconvert.com))

This is an excellent article:

What Does and Doesn't Matter about Apple Shooting their October Event on iPhone 15 Pro Max
Link: https://prolost.com/blog/scarybts

The author, Stu Maschwitz, made the conversion LUT that Philip Bloom used in his London video above.

About Maschwitz: https://prolost.com/about

Some observations on the iPhone and filters...

in 2023, Heliopan appears be the only maker of screw-in neutral density filters that offers a full series from one stop to ten. Tokina Cinema does too, but only for size 82mm and up. However, while Heliopan makes low profile polarisers, it's not clear whether it's making low profile ND filters. I have a Heliopan ND 1.8 (6-stop) that says "Slim Version"on the box, and the front thread is shallower than normal. However, I don't see Slim Version ND filters in Heliopan's current line-up.

Everybody else makes a limited set of ND filters that pretty much dictates stacking. For example, B+W makes 2-stop, 3-stop, 6-stop and 10-stop. Some companies are making even fewer. Query whether stacking causes vignetting with the 13mm lens.

Hoya has been transitioning from standard ND filters to IRND, and no longer offers a low profile 6-stop or 10-stop in its standard range. Its IRND filters, like those of others, are very expensive.

Some companies offer variable ND filters that resist vignetting. For example, Heliopan's have no front thread. I share Uli's scepticism, expressed above, about variable ND filters that cover more than 5 or 6 stops. Some companies make two variable ND filters to cover the full range.

There are two approaches to exposure that reduce, but not eliminate, the need for ND filters. As Stu Maschwitz says in the article linked just above, Gerald Undone and Toronto cinematographer Patrick Tomasso argue for ISO 1250. See Gerald Undone's YouTube video "iPhone 15 Pro: Dynamic Range Test". There's also an argument that iPhone footage should be shot one to two stops under-exposed. That said, Maschwitz says that Apple shot its October event at ISO 55.

Philip Bloom, in his video above on variable ND filters, parenthetically talks about a Freewell system that looks a lot like the Lee Filter system. NiSi and some others have also copied Lee. I'll know for sure when I receive a Beastcage for iPhone 15 Pro Max next month, but I think that it may be possible to use my Lee100 system with the phone. Even if I can't use the adapter, it's certain that I'll be able to use the filters hand-held or taped. I'd be very interested in using Lee's more compact Seven5 system, but I'm not prepared to spend the money involved. Anyway, using the Lee system with the phone is an interesting idea. It opens up the use of graduated ND filters (I think that screw-in graduated filters are impractical), and could make the vignetting problem with the 13mm lens go away.

Finally, I question whether there's a significant need for ND filters with the 13mm lens. The rationale for a low shutter speed is motion blur. Just how much potential motion blur is there in most ultra wide shots, and is there enough to matter? Are we mostly talking about rural and urban landscape images?

Philip Bloom promised a "behind the scenes" of the iPhone Apple Log video linked above.

"Early next year", he said.

Peter,

I saw your post in another thread about shooting a sunrise time lapse. Your stills and video work suggest that you might be interested in PhotoPills if you haven't already run into it: https://www.photopills.com

This is a very active app with a large community behind it. It's also fun to use if you're interested in the early morning or nighttime sky. Rafael Pons, who presents their YouTube videos, is endlessly enthusiastic and a bit of a character.

I started using PhotoPills and Artist's Viewfinder Mark II to pre-plan 4x5 and 8x10 photographs. Pre-planning saves time, energy and, given the current cost of sheet film, money. I don't miss making it up as I go along, which of course means lugging around a large format camera and three, sometimes four, lenses, and I can no longer afford to be profligate with film.

I think that PhotoPills, in particular, can be useful as an iPhone tool. One of the subjects that the PhotoPills team and users are interested in, of course, is time lapse.

The time lapse at 1:40 of this video was based on calculations done in the PhotoPills app:

This is how the photographer determined how to compose the shot and be at the right place at the right time:

Continued below...

This is how he did the technical calculations for length and interval:

There's a competing app called PlanIt Photo that some people prefer. I have it, but I haven't used it enough to comment on which is "better". I like the PhotoPills vibe, and the people behind PlanIt! are kinda stodgy: https://www.planitphoto.com

Interesting. Knowing in advance precisely where on the horizon the sun (or moon) will appear on the horizon is valuable knowledge indeed. Using your GPS location would certainly make this a little easier as the math would be complex. That said, the 5X (120mm) iPhone 15 lens isn't really long enough to require extremely precise pointing.

Shooting at a standard interval of 1 second and inputting the resulting file into a 60fps timeline results in one minute of real time producing one second of screen time. No complex calculations necessary.

If you use a 24 fps timeline, the calculation of "how long should I shoot to get a ten second clip" becomes more difficult.

Resolve's "change clip speed" allows further fine tuning up or down as necessary, especially with a 60fps timeline. I find that in the field a one second interval covers most situations.

Subscribed to "Photopills"

So, I promised to report after receiving the Røde Wireless ME, which arrived just in time from their official store in Jakarta. The units work exactly as promised and are easy to operate from the iPhone.

The sound is not like a Schoeps nor even a Sennheiser for sure, but far better than the iPhone mics with all their processing. It sounds quite different if you use the "Gain Assist", which is pretty much a compressor and safely avoiding clipping, or go for "Dynamic". The latter is rather a limiter and sounds warmer and richer, probably the gain assist is applying some EQ too. You can switch it all off and take responsibility, but dynamic is OK.

A funny little experiment I did, was keeping both microphones (the receiver has one too) just about 20cm apart, recording them left and right for some environment. We have one noisy, screeching door and I felt forced to turn around when listening to the playback on a pair of AKG headphones.

The connection was stable in a large room with highly WLAN infested area around, in the heart of the city. We didn't do anything unreasonable, like going to the next room – why would you do that instead of using voice-over? In an open area at line of sight it seems to get to the claimed 100m. With your back to the camera it's less, but still plenty far. In our house it went well through one concrete wall without problems, but not two. But again, who needs that or is standing 50 meters away for an interview?

What I really like is the analog input on the transmitter. It allows me to use most other mics, which don't connect to an iPhone any more. That circumvents the issue of these ME devices being quite obtrusive, as Rob already remarked. Of course you can also turn them around when clipped on clothes or at least cover the shiny surface with the huge logo by some tape. But hiding them in a pocket or on a belt and using a high quality lav is definitely an option.

What I'd like is an analog input on the receiver too, so I could use it for a handheld mic as an adapter without involving the wireless connection, or just having a safety track.

Apart from that, IMHO the ME is OK for a minimalistic approach. It's even light enough to clip it on the filter clip I described earlier.

So, I promised to report after receiving the Røde Wireless ME...

Hi Uli,

I hope you don't mind if I express a different view of this device and clarify some facts.

The Wireless ME appears to be running into some resistance in the market. Since its release last April 3rd, it has had 5 customer reviews at B&H and 1 at Sweetwater. Those are the biggest online retailers of sound gear in the United States. Røde has also been buying reviews on Amazon, giving free Wireless ME systems to people who agree to write a customer review.

As Curtis Judd says in his review, the Wireless ME is designed for people who don't want to be bothered with sound. That's why there are only two user controls for sound quality. One can set the gain at low, medium or high, and decide whether or not to use Gain Assist. That's it for control over the quality of your recording.

It sounds quite different if you use the "Gain Assist", which is pretty much a compressor and safely avoiding clipping, or go for "Dynamic". The latter is rather a limiter and sounds warmer and richer, probably the gain assist is applying some EQ too. You can switch it all off and take responsibility, but dynamic is OK.

Røde has explained what Gain Assist does both in videos and in writing. Røde itself doesn't suggest that it has anything to do with compression, limiting or equalisation, and indeed says that it's possible for the sound to break through 0dB and distort.

Gain Assist does what it says on the tin. It just controls recording level. If it decides that a speaker's voice level is too low, it raises the level. If it decides that the level is too high, it lowers the level. The difference between Automatic mode and Dynamic mode is that Automatic is more sensitive. In other words, it jumps on level changes more quickly. That's why Judd says that Automatic is more aggressive.

The connection was stable in a large room...

One reason that stability is important is that one apparently can't monitor while recording. If something goes wrong, you are sold out.

So it's good that you didn't have a problem, but you are ignoring the experience of others. It's clear from Judd's review of the Wireless ME that the wireless connection is not stable, and that a random drop-out is a constant possibility. As a matter of common sense, people using this system should physically face the receiver throughout recording and not turn their back on it. Judd also talks about radio interference degrading the audio. People who commented on his review say that they have experienced the same thing.

What I really like is the analog input on the transmitter. It allows me to use most other mics, which don't connect to an iPhone any more.

By analogue input, I thought you were gong to say that there's an XLR connection. It turns out that it's 3.5mm, commonly known as a headphone jack. This connection is used for cheap consumer mikes. Current YouTube videos on these mikes are about forestalling obsolescence. The reason is that the bottom has fallen out of the demand for headphone jack microphones.

Contrary to what you appear to think, Sweetwater currently sells about 180 USB mikes, and the number is growing. USB mikes didn't stop with the Blue Yeti, although it deservedly remains extremely popular. The makers include several of the most important microphone manufacturers in the world. Any of these USB mikes can be plugged into an iPhone 15. Røde itself has an article on its website showing how easy it is to connect mikes with other connections, such as Lightning, to a USB port.

That [i.e. the ME's analogue input] circumvents the issue of these ME devices being quite obtrusive, as Rob already remarked. Of course you can also turn them around when clipped on clothes or at least cover the shiny surface with the huge logo by some tape. But hiding them in a pocket or on a belt and using a high quality lav is definitely an option.

I didn't say that they're "obtrusive". I said that they're ugly as sin and highly distracting. Røde knows this, which is why its marketing team has been working very hard for the last two or three years to try to convince people that these mikes are acceptable. Nevertheless, I can't think of a single successful YouTuber who uses one. The fact that these mikes are aesthetically a hard sell may be part of the reason why the Wireless ME has a grand total of 6 reviews on the websites of the two major U.S. online retailers of recording devices.

Personally, I don't think that you could pay Marques Brownlee or Peter McKinnon enough money to wear one of these things. Amusingly, people like Tom Antos and Curtis Judd haven't worn one since their review video

I don't see how turning the ME brick around (which means that the mike clip is now facing outward), or putting tape on it, makes it less ugly. Given the issues around the wireless signal, I don't recommend burying the transmitter in one's pocket.

I can't think of any reason why someone with a "high quality lav" would use a Wireless ME. A DPA 4060 lav costs US$500. Add a mike cable, a terminating connection and sales tax. If somebody suggested that I use a 4060 with a Wireless ME, my response would be "You're kidding, right?"

Apart from that, IMHO the ME is OK for a minimalistic approach.

A minimalist approach is using a decent lav instead of a full cardioid and a boom operator. It is not trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

Three other points...

Having listened to Curtis Judd's review, which was recorded with a Wireless ME, I have no idea why you think that it sounds "far better" than a native iPhone recording of the spoken word.

I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for the "wind protection".

I think that it's irresponsible to purchase a mike system whose batteries can't be replaced and for which the maker has no plan for recycling.

We're still ignorant of why you were compelled to use wireless in the first place.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion. I'm interested in talking about Røde's campaign to overcome the aesthetic objections to these brick mikes, and about its marketing of the Wireless ME in particular.

EDIT: Two typos corrected.

A bit aggressive, Rob. How about dialling it back a bit?

A bit aggressive, Rob.

No it isn't. My first sentence reads "I hope you don't mind if I express a different view of this device and clarify some facts."

Uli and I see the issues that this device raises, and the basic facts, differently. If I could agree with him, I would. I don't agree with him, which should be no surprise to him or anyone else who knows what I've previously written about this.

It isn't personal, it's just two people who have a completely different view of the product. There's no way to disguise that, and there shouldn't be a need to.

If you disagree with the substance of what I said, in particular with my statements of fact, let's hear it.

I'd love to talk about how Røde is selling this thing. It started by buying itself YouTubers to push it on launch, and progressed to buying reviews on Amazon. It's part of a proactive effort to get people to embrace what it knows is an inherently unattractive product. In Røde's videos, it has its presenters wear these mikes right at the neckline, as visible and as in your face as possible. The thinking is "the more viewers see it, the more they'll accept it". If you're interested in marketing, interesting stuff.

On launch day, Rode got a publication called Audio Technology to print a "review" that just happens to start this way:

Review: RØDE Microphones Wireless Me
All the perks of Wireless Go but with a personal touch.

The Røde Wireless Go took the world by storm (as do many of Røde’s products) through its simple ingenuity. Sure, the peculiar little square form factor took a while to get used to, but once we discovered the diminutive transmitter unit also housed the mic itself, no one seemed to mind clipping it onto lapels and dresses for the sheer convenience of it all. No dangly, knotted cables to run through people’s clothing or fiddly clips that spring into the stratosphere if mishandled.

Yeah, Røde knows what the marketing challenge is

Interestingly, RODE markets the Wireless Pro as a body pack with a lav mic included in the package. This, to me, is a better use of the setup and allows you to hide the product. I don't like the look of the cube and the fact that it is reflective is a real miss, IMO. I agree that the marketing campaign to normalize the look of the block is interesting. No one wants to see the mic - it's distracting (almost as bad a jump cuts).

I agree with your points about many things in this thread. There are reasons to use wireless and we all know that the 2.4 GHz solution is prone to failure but in a reasonably quiet environment it can be a useful, inexpensive solution. I think Curtis covers this topic quite well as you've noted along with the pros and cons of this 'prosumer' solution.

I don't mind an open discussion, that's what we are here for.

We wanted this for a very specific situation, and we needed it fast. Both points worked out for us. The only other available and financially 'sound' solution (no pun intended) would have been the Hollyland.

Am I going to sell it, or make it a Christmas gift to a stupid YouTuber you wants to show it to the world?
Not yet.

Connecting a better mic
If you want to input a symmetric source, I'd use this solution:

Bildschirmfoto 2023-12-25 um 11.14.02.png (235.86 KiB) Viewed 20598 times

It's better than a differential amplifier, which needs very precise impedance matching, but more expensive if the transformer has a reasonable frequency response.

Reliability and range
You can trust me that I tested the connection quite carefully under different conditions. A human body is shielding the signal far less than a concrete wall with iron in it. You can easily keep it on your back for 50 meters or more.
For more reliability, you can add a single Go II transceiver with internal recording as a failsafe solution, they are compatible.

Visibility
In a country where you hardly see anybody on TV (maybe apart from the news anchors) without a mic dangling around in their face in so-called skin colour, who cares about those little blocks on their clothes, in particular if you paste it over with some color matching the dress?

Sound
I save this as the last point, since it's the most subjective. But my doctor tells me that my ears are still quite OK. I insist that it sounds far better to me than an iPhone at normal shooting distance, which has mics and sound processing optimised for kids holding it like a chocolate bar next to their face.
Of course, there a mics in this world sounding far better.

Merry Christmas and a happy holiday to everybody.

Earlier in this thread, there was a discussion about how to shade the iPhone lenses. If one is using a filter adapter, one solution is a generic lens hood. These are available in both metal and rubber. I used to mount a Sony RX0 on my motorbike, and I used a Heliopan rubber hood in the hope that it might help if the camera hit the dirt. Thankfully, that was never tested.

Philip Bloom's video above got me thinking about using the Lee100 system, which I have, with my iPhone. I won't know for sure until Beastgrip delivers its iPhone 15 cage next month, but I'm optimistic that it will fix the vignetting issue with the 13mm ultrawide lens. One attraction is the Lee lens shade. It's flexible and can be extended and angled as needed. This video by British photographer David Noton shows how it works:

There's a thread here in which John Brawley talks about using Lee100 on a film instead of a standard matte box system. The Pro Glass IRND filter that Noton mentions is a 100mm² 2mm thick version of Panavision filters for film production. They're expensive, but Lee also sells a less costly line of ND filters. Also, other brands of 100mm² 2mm thick filters should work fine.

David Noton's website: https://www.davidnoton.com

A wedding photographer named Matt Johnson has tried out Blackmagic's "iPhone to cloud to DaVinci Resolve" feature. First time I've seen anyone use it.

The Blackmagic Cloud discussion is from 6:00 to 8:12:

"According to Tilta, they used the company’s latest innovation to shoot the film, including the Khronos Ecosystem, specifically designed for the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max. Also, the team used the Blackmagic Cam App, which now supports the Nucleus Nano II wireless follow-focus system."


https://www.cined.com/tilta-khronos-spo ... ne-15-pro/

A wedding photographer named Matt Johnson has tried out Blackmagic's "iPhone to cloud to DaVinci Resolve" feature. First time I've seen anyone use it.

The Blackmagic Cloud discussion is from 6:00 to 8:12:

Watched the whole video - the cloud portion was interesting. Much of what he said reaffirmed my suspicion that recording with an iPhone (even the latest, greatest) just won't give you the cinematic footage you might want because of the tiny sensor (no bokeh), but the light-weight form factor and cloud integration is nice. I'm sure it has its place. I was surprised to hear him mention that he likes recording in H265 because of the more manageable file sizes. I have the iPhone 12 Pro Max at the moment and can get reasonably similar footage with the 1x camera. I too would prefer a 85mm lens on the Pro Max rather than the 120mm (another comment he made). Interesting times.

We should expect to see direct to cloud shooting for BMDs other cameras.

That’s the obvious leap.

JB

Watched the whole video - the cloud portion was interesting. Much of what he said reaffirmed my suspicion that recording with an iPhone (even the latest, greatest) just won't give you the cinematic footage you might want because of the tiny sensor (no bokeh), but the light-weight form factor and cloud integration is nice. I'm sure it has its place. I was surprised to hear him mention that he likes recording in H265 because of the more manageable file sizes. I have the iPhone 12 Pro Max at the moment and can get reasonably similar footage with the 1x camera. I too would prefer a 85mm lens on the Pro Max rather than the 120mm (another comment he made). Interesting times.

I'm shooting H265 myself. If I understand correctly, so is Peter McLennan, and perhaps others. I don't want to invite the complications of ProRes unless I feel that I need to, and right now I don't.

I'm within the exchange window and I've considered trading the Pro Max 120mm for the Pro 77mm. I haven't made a final decision yet on how much weight I want to give the Pro Max's longer battery life.

I've made an arbitrary decision not to worry about bokeh...

Wikipedia on Deep Focus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_focus

Gregg Toland:

New developments in the science of motion picture photography are not abundant at this advanced stage of the game but periodically one is perfected to make this a greater art. Of these I am in an excellent position to discuss what is termed "Pan-focus", as I have been active for two years in its development and used it for the first time in Citizen Kane. Through its use, it is possible to photograph action from a range of eighteen inches from the camera lens to over two hundred feet away, with extreme foreground and background figures and action both recorded in sharp relief. Hitherto, the camera had to be focused either for a close or a distant shot, all efforts to encompass both at the same time resulting in one or the other being out of focus. This handicap necessitated the breaking up of a scene into long and short angles, with much consequent loss of realism. With pan-focus, the camera, like the human eye, sees an entire panorama at once, with everything clear and lifelike.

H.265 is really OK if you don't use the extremely low default data rates, but up them to a reasonable level with Cinema P3. The encoder seems to be very flexible. For regular camera footage it is more efficient than ProRes and just as good in 10 bit 4:2:2. I think you only need ProRes if your editing station has no hardware decoder.

In my tests a fully charged iPhone 15 Pro Max still had 66% charge left after one hour of recording 60 fps to an SSD (ProRes in this case). The iPhone Pro still had 58% under the same conditions. The SSD was getting power from the phones.

The stabiliser is very good, even with the 5x (120mm equivalent) handheld, but only as long as you don't move the camera. It tends to overshoot then as if it were a simulated Steadicam, but without the mass. The 5x works reasonably well on a small gimbal, but I'd also prefer the 3x.

Nice citation, Rob.

H.265 is really OK if you don't use the extremely low default data rates, but up them to a reasonable level with Cinema P3.

This forum is hosted by Blackmagic Design and this thread is about Blackmagic's iPhone app and gear for it. I use the app with H265 and it works just fine given that it is three months old and under active development. I do not want to get into a debate about whether Cinema P3 H265 is "better". That will just lead to what's happened to two other threads on this forum. If I want to use a three year old app that's struggled to find an audience, I know where to look. If I want to compare the most mature app on the market, it's FilMic Pro. Meanwhile, this forum and this thread are about the new kid on the block.

On December 8th, you started a thread titled "Cinema P3 Pro Camera for iPhone": viewtopic.php?f=2&t=193419#p100525

I agree entirely with your first two sentences:

I thought I'd open a new thread regarding this nice app instead of mixing the discussion with the one about BM's camera app. Seems a bit unfair and misplaced.

That's a diplomatic way of acknowledging that a couple of Cinema P3 evangelists have more or less hijacked two threads that are supposed to be about the Blackmagic app. It would indeed be nice if they'd establish their own sandbox. Unfortunately, your December 8th Cinema P3 thread has been ignored, including by you, so it's just more of the same.

How about we spare this thread. If you do a view and post count, you'll find that it's doing just fine as a place to discuss the Blackmagic app and related gear.

P.S. Early on in this thread, one of the Blackmagic moderators moved the posts from one of the threads on features and bugs and gave it its current title.