PRODUCER – Maker Machina is a promising all-in-one tool designed mainly for line producers, plus a collaborative tool for different projects, from short commercials to music videos. This software aims to end the nightmare of having all the production data separated into other apps by offering a comprehensive interface where everyone can be on the same page, saving time and making production more efficient. 

Christoph Tilley’s first impressions

In our first video, Xaver showed us how PRODUCER – Maker Machina works, giving a step-by-step explanation of its different features and the things under development. Changing the production paradigm in an industry where everything has evolved quickly, except in this area, could make this software a reference for filmmaking teams. 

Thanks to features like automating repetitive tasks, connecting the different parts of a shoot in the same program, and making communication easier, PRODUCER – Maker Machina offers a blueprint of the entire production without having to use external apps, send emails, make redundant phone calls, etc. 

Right now, there are more than 5,000 filmmakers testing the app, and filmmaker Christoph Tilley gave us his first impressions in the video above while using the software in a commercial shoot out of the office. 

He likes that the program gives you all the production information in one place, speeding up the process in an industry where speed and efficiency are gold. As an independent production company, Christoph finds PRODUCER – Maker Machina liberating, which gives more space to be creative on set and focus on making movies.

The things he would love to see in the future are a sophisticated budgeting tool and a time-tracking tool to avoid switching to external apps like Notion. Finally, Christoph recommends that other filmmakers test the tool and see if it fits their workflow. His team found it helpful and a time-saving tool, which, again, is essential in this industry. Even if just saves an hour per year, PRODUCER is worth it for him.

Price and availability 

You can sign up for PRODUCER in seconds here. The Free plan has no time limit, giving you the best chance to fully explore the tool and unlock its potential. When you sign up before 31st of March, you’ll also be able to take advantage of a limited 50% off deal that is available for Public Beta users only. To claim the offer, follow the instructions here.

What do you think about PRODUCER – Maker Machina? Would you be interested in testing the program? Which features would you like to see in the future? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

LENSGO is a Chinese company specializing in audio accessories, teleprompters, and smoke machines. Their Smoke B and Smoke S fog machines were released a few months ago and now they are planning on releasing the younger sibling, the Smoke S Mini. It is a smaller and even more portable option, made for those who are looking for a hassle-free, easy-to-use, and extremely small smoke machine. It shares almost the same functionalities as the bigger models but with less wattage and capacity, making it perfect for small shoots.

Both simple and varied

Filmmakers have used smoke, haze, and fog since the advent of making films, and not only for effects in horror films, music videos, or advertising. In many of the movies you watch, they are also used to add haze to create volume and shape in the scenes and reduce contrast while enhancing the lighting.

The LENSGO Smoke Mini S comes in a pouch with the central unit and accessories to shape the smoke in different ways. It also has a liquid refill bottle, a remote control, and a USB cable. The pouch size is small enough to put in your backpack if you are traveling with a single bag only. In today’s era of solo photographers, filmmakers, and content creators, this unit is a perfect fit for their needs.

The Smoke S Mini has 15W and a battery of 1000 mAh that, according to my tests, lasts for about 15 minutes when used continuously. When the battery is out, a red light will appear and the unit will turn off. In real filming situations, you will most probably be using it in short bursts, so potentially, the battery will hold for more than a shooting day. I could fill an average room with a decent amount of smoke within one or two minutes of fog release. However, keep in mind that the Smoke S Mini is not suitable for large venues, considering its limited capacity in comparison to the time and effort required to fill a sizable room with smoke.

The unit can be charged with a USB cable. LENSGO specifies two hours of charging time, which is more or less what it took me after fully emptying it. Refilling the tank is also quick and easy. To do so, unscrew the cover and open the little orange rubber seal. After refilling the liquid, close the seal, attach the tank to the main unit, and put the cap back for protection since the tank gets hot when releasing the smoke. I found the refilling process pretty straightforward, just like the overall functionality of the unit.

When I first saw the amount of liquid included, I was very careful not to waste it, but after one shooting day, the tank still had about 3/4 of the liquid left. I doubt you’ll run out of fluid anytime soon for your intended purpose, however, if you do, you can easily purchase more on platforms like Amazon, for example.

Real use scenario

The LENSGO Smoke S Mini worked pretty well and was easy to use in all the tests I ran. The unit only has two buttons, one for turning the machine on and off and another one for releasing the smoke (pressing twice), and stopping it (pressing once). LENSGO categorizes the included accessories in modes like ‘Portrait’, ‘Dry Ice’, and ‘Incense Burning’, so you get the idea of the different effects you can create. I used it for video and photography with different modes.

The first thing that caught my attention was how valuable the accessories are in shaping the smoke and getting different effects, as they are not only gimmicks but really helpful tools to create different smoke shapes. That said, the smoke effects take place in the first seconds of release, with a defined shape and density. After 15-20 seconds, the smoke blends and spreads evenly, like ambient haze. That will give you the best of both worlds: the smoke for precise and stylized effects and the atmosphere to create volume and separation.

The liquid, as advertised, has no smell, and it did not affect my eyes or my breathing. However, like with any smoke machine, it is advisable to ventilate the area after using the product.

The only thing I didn’t like about it was that some liquid leaks, especially if you release the smoke directly from the tank without any of the accessories. After using it for some time, I noticed liquid drops inside the pipes. However, this does not affect the unit’s functioning. I just cleaned the liquid before putting the unit away after I was finished.

The remote control is another helpful add-on for when solo shooters are doing all sorts of jobs on set. With a simple press of the button, you can release the smoke and film at the same time or even be in the shot if wanted. That also keeps you from wasting liquid since you won’t have to run to the camera and waste those seconds of smoke.

Conclusion

I liked this Smoke S Mini for my everyday use. It is small, portable, simple to use, gives lots of shaping options, and has enough capacity for a full shooting day. I see myself using it in food and product photography and videos, portraits, small documentaries to give the locations a film touch, and stock footage where the short length of the shots fits the output of the Smoke S Mini. The fact that you don’t need electric power to make it function is a blessing for my shooting style.

On the other hand, the features that make this unit shine are also where its limitations are. For bigger shots and locations or extended shootings, such as narrative scenes with dialogue and where one undoubtedly spends hours on a lot more takes, I would prefer a bigger unit, like the LENSGO Smoke B or even a bigger smoke generator unit. Also, the USB input is at the bottom of the unit instead of on the side, meaning that it can’t be charged standing in a vertical position. Other than that, this small Smoke S Mini offered more than I expected!

Pricing

LENSGO will sell the Smoke S Mini for $99, but during the campaign, they are offering the current specials:

Perk A: 300 units for $69, 500 units for $74, Limited exclusive early bird price $79

Perk B: Two units for $139

There are many other perks available on the crowdfunding campaign page, so please head there for additional information.

The LENSGO Smoke S Mini is now being featured on Indiegogo. As always, please take into account that backing a crowdfunding campaign has its risks. We encourage you to research and remember that there is a chance for delays and changes in the final models, and some products are never delivered. Please read Indiegogo’s terms and conditions carefully before backing a project. However, LENSGO is an established and trustworthy company in our industry.

For full disclosure: CineD receives a percentage of the revenue (affiliate share) made from backing up this project on Indiegogo.

What do you think about the LENSGO Smoke S Mini? Would you include it in your equipment for small shootings? Let us know in the comments below!

Quite a while ago, when DSLR filmmaking took over, ZEISS introduced the CP.2 series, the first line of cinema lenses that was really targeted at DSLR filmmakers. I bought a set and it has served me well for many years, using it with all kinds of cameras, even when I switched from Canon to Sony many years ago. What’s amazing is that you can adapt these lenses to all kinds of mounts, and you can do it yourself, which means almost endless versatility. They also cover full-frame camera sensors from the get-go, which is not true with most higher-end cinema primes. 

ZEISS CP.2’s and CP.3’s were designed over a long period of time – and look less consistent

The CP.2s and also their successors, the CP.3’s, are amazing lenses in their own right. Yet, as always, there are some caveats: Many of the ten different Compact Prime focal lengths are still based on older lens designs, mostly made for photography lenses, and they were not all designed at the same time – which means, looking at the entire line of lenses, their look is not entirely consistent.

Secondly, having the ability to adapt these lenses to older, long flange-distance mounts like PL and EF as well as modern mirrorless mounts like E-mount means that for many focal lengths, a long tube has to be added to the mirrorless mount to get to the needed flange distance. 

Last but not least, this mount versatility also means that the lenses can’t all be super fast because of the light loss involved with the needed construction of such long mounts. 

ZEISS Nano Primes: 6 new lenses, universal T1.5 aperture, small, consistent look, entirely new design

ZEISS decided to tackle these three problems all at once by developing an entirely new line of cinema primes. And here they are: the ZEISS Nano Primes. 

What you can see immediately is their resemblance to the CP.2 and CP.3 line of lenses. When we received the Nano Primes, I didn’t immediately realize that they are quite a bit smaller, but you can see this clearly when you place them next to a CP.2 especially. 

Now, here’s what’s amazing: ZEISS launched six focal lengths of the Nano Primes at the same time, 18mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 100mm, and all of them have a very fast maximum aperture of T1.5. That’s especially impressive for wide-angle and telephoto lenses, and of course, to have this consistency is extremely useful when working on sets. Having the ability to isolate subjects and objects even with a wide-angle lens like the 18 or 24mm is very useful in everyday shooting scenarios, I can’t emphasize this enough. 

Look of the ZEISS Nano Primes: Crisp focus, yet creamy bokeh

Now let’s talk about the look – of course, this is subjective, but ZEISS is known to design optically perfect lenses, favoring sharpness and clarity. In the past, some of their lenses could be seen as a bit “clinical” in their look for that reason, especially when comparing them to some more  “dreamy” or vintage-looking lenses, for example, the typical “Cooke look”. With their more recent Supreme Primes which are targeted at high-end productions, ZEISS introduced a more creamy and warmer bokeh while not sacrificing any of the sharpness, which became extremely successful. And when looking at some test footage that I shot with the new Nano Primes, I think they did a great job replicating that look with this less expensive range of lenses. They really look like they could be very complimentary to Supreme Primes in a lot of ways, or even be used instead of them in lower-budget productions. I like the fact that for once, we are not seeing another set of cinema lenses that deliver a vintage-look, like we’ve seen so many times over the last few years from various manufacturers. ZEISS is still about optical perfection, giving you an image you can tweak in post if you need to, while now already delivering a very cinematic and soft bokeh that takes away the digital edge from many modern cinema cameras. 

Technical performance of the ZEISS Nano Primes: bokeh look, sharpness, focus breathing, chromatic aberration

Let’s take a look at the technical performance of the Nano Primes. We looked at sharpness, focus breathing, and chromatic aberration. You can find the details of our technical tests in my review article on CineD linked below, but let me just state here, that the results are overall extremely impressive. Even at T1.5, all of the lenses deliver very sharp images, even in the edges.

Focus breathing is very controlled, even with the 100mm lens. It’s very hard to find weaknesses in these technical tests with the ZEISS Nano Primes, but if you force me to, it’s probably the 24mm lens that features slightly inferior corner sharpness and a little more focus breathing compared to the other lenses in the set. Yet its performance is still very, very good, it’s only when compared to the others that you can see a slight difference, which is completely negligible in everyday shooting scenarios. 

The look of the lenses, both in the real-life test shots as well as in the technical tests – is also proven to be very consistent now. You can tell that these six lenses were designed at the same time: bokeh, out-of-focus highlights, sharpness, chromatic aberration behavior, you name it – they all look very much the same with all of these lenses. As Christophe Casaneve from ZEISS pointed out in our interview (watch it here), ZEISS also had access to much more modern, fully digitized design processes now, which allows them to fully design lenses on the computer before they put them into reality. The full, very insightful interview is embedded below, in case you want to know more about the work that went on behind the scenes to create these lenses:

For a lot more technical details about the ZEISS Nano Primes, head over to our Lens Database where we already added all the focal lengths:

Close focusing distance, build quality of Nano Primes

Close focusing distance of all of the lenses is very good – they are definitely not macro lenses, but the close focus is better than what you would expect with most of the focal lengths. In the Compact Primes lineup, ZEISS added macro versions of the 50 and 100mm lenses, maybe these will be added at some point to the Nano Primes, too. 

Build quality is exceptional as you might expect from ZEISS, the weight is comparatively light but similar to most Compact Primes, but none of the six focal lengths of the Nano Primes is exceptionally heavy. Focus and aperture barrel movements are smooth and the resistance feels right. With the CP.2’s it was a bit too strong at times, something which ZEISS fixed on the CP.3’s, and with the Nano Primes, it’s just as smooth. Focus rotation is 280 degrees from macro to infinity and 90 degrees for iris on all of the lenses. 

E-Mount, future mounts (speculation), and electronic connection

Let’s talk about mounts again: At the time of the launch, the ZEISS Nano Primes were only available with E-mount. What’s great is while these lenses are, of course, fully manual lenses, the lenses still transfer lots of data back to the camera: not only aperture data and focus distance but also additional lens data for distortion and vignetting is available through the ZEISS CinCraft ecosystem for post-production purposes. That means, there will be no separate XD-version of the lenses needed like with the CP.3 lenses, they are perfect for VFX acquisition from the get-go.

While they are only E-mount now, the mount is user-interchangeable and ZEISS already announced that other mirrorless mounts will be available in the near future. Which ones exactly they haven’t announced yet, but here’s hoping it’s going to be L-mount, RF-mount, and Z-mount, all of which weren’t available for the Compact Primes, to my knowledge.

We took off the E-mount to check how easy it is to swap the mounts once other mount options will be available, and were pleasantly surprised: It’s only four screws – there were a lot more on Compact Primes – and ZEISS uses Pogo pins for the electronic connection. There is no fiddling with cables or anything like that, so this should really be safe for an owner-operator to do, even if they are not trained lens technicians. Of course, the lenses mounts can be shimmed once that will be needed for upcoming mounts, to correct the back focus. 

Now, let’s talk about the one obvious drawback of the Nano Primes compared to the Compact Primes: the inability to adapt these lenses to PL, EF, or any other longer-flange mounts. I have to admit, when I first heard that this wasn’t possible, I was surprised. But after hearing the advantages of this – faster T-stops, more consistency across the line, and smaller lenses, I quickly understood why this makes so much sense. And think about it: Even higher-end cameras like the Sony VENICE 2 or BURANO by now have an E-Mount, RED cameras feature an RF-Mount – maybe it’s just a matter of time until we have native mirrorless mounts on all high-end cameras with no need for PL anymore. The big downside of course: you cannot use adapters with mirrorless mounts because of their short flange distance, so the mount on the lens needs to be natively fitting to the camera mount. But I guess we can’t have it all…

Conclusion of ZEISS Nano Primes Review

If you are in the market for a set of consistently looking, tack-sharp, modern cinema primes with a pleasing bokeh, and if you’re predominantly shooting on Sony BURANO, VENICE or VENICE 2, FX9, FX6 or even FX3, look no further. The ZEISS Nano Primes are perfectly optimized for these cameras. And in the near future, they’ll also work on other cameras with mirrorless mounts. The ZEISS Nano Primes start shipping in May, and the set of six lenses will set you back 26,000 dollars or 23,000 Euros. 

What do you think about the ZEISS Nano Primes? Let us know in the comments below!

This is the first of our video interview series in which Nino Leitner (CineD) sits together with Christoph Tilley (MXR Productions) and Xaver Walser (CEO of PRODUCER – Maker Machina). Initially, Xaver guides everyone through the online software step by step and presents all the features that are currently available. Filmmakers also discuss the biggest pain points in current project production, and why it’s so important to change the existing paradigm and streamline all the processes.

What is the main goal of PRODUCER – Maker Machina?

The idea for an all-in-one production software came to Xaver during a commercial shoot for a watch brand. The client asked him if they could have all the created content, shooting schedules, and feedback notes in one place. Regrettably, the filmmaker had to acknowledge that he had never come across such a comprehensive tool. That was the first step toward founding a start-up with precisely this goal: to give creatives an all-in-one application for managing productions from early concept through to delivery. Or, as Xaver Walser nicely puts it: “To make a painkiller for filmmakers.”

According to Xaver, the new software is called “PRODUCER” because the person who will likely use it the most is a line producer. At the same time, it is developed as a collaborative tool adjustable for projects of varying scales, ranging from a 30-second commercial to music videos, image and corporate films. Feature films are planned to be integrated at a later development stage.

When you select a project from a visual board, as demonstrated above, you will see the entire production process divided into stages we all are familiar with:

This overview helps to make sure that no step will be overlooked. Simultaneously, the software keeps everything related to this particular project centralized. In the video interview, Xaver explains in detail how centralization works. Let’s look at a couple of existing features.

Automating repetitive tasks in PRODUCER – Maker Machina

What PRODUCER – Maker Machina promises to be good at is automating processes and simplifying repetitive tasks. For example, here we have a storyboard section in which you can drag and drop your scribbles, generated pictures, or references from the Internet:

Apart from moving them around until you get the correct storyline, you can connect each of your pictures to a shooting day, a location (from the list you created before), and characters. Also, it’s easy to collaborate with a cinematographer, adding additional information such as angle, movement, shot size, camera lens, etc.

While you’re going through this process, the software automatically creates a shot list for each day based on the information you’ve provided. Simply make the final adjustments by dragging shots into the desired sequence (e.g., for consecutive shots), include the estimated time, and let the program do the math. Double-check, connect the actors from the list to the character roles, add your crew members for this project – and, wait, what? Has PRODUCER – Maker Machina just generated a correct call sheet?

At first glance, the tool does seem easy to use, fast, and flexible. During the presentation, Christoph Tilley remembered how they had just finished a shooting schedule in a clumsy Google doc, and watching the new software made him jealous. Well, I can only relate.

For easy communication

Extensive communication is another big pain point in our industry that PRODUCER – Maker Machina wants to resolve. The software allows users to add comments to each document and at every production stage. Your clients can also collaborate whenever needed. For example, in the post-production section, it is possible to upload your first cut and share it for quick feedback. Additionally, you can compare different versions of the edit side by side, directly in the software.

Of course, there are enough tools out there that offer us the same in terms of editing and delivery. For instance, a lot of filmmakers use Frame.io to gather feedback. Yet, how many times have your clients lost the link to a rough cut? If they could have everything just in one online tool, wouldn’t it be easier for everyone?

What else to expect?

Of course, an image is worth a thousand words, and our written text can only capture a limited number of features. So, make sure to watch our video above to form your own impression of PRODUCER.

It’s worth mentioning that it’s young software and only a starting point for this tool. At the moment, they have around 4000 people testing the application and providing them with feedback. Xaver Walser says they take all input seriously and have a big roadmap ahead. For example, developers want to add an extensive and structured briefing document or offer the possibility to upload dailies beside each day’s call sheet, just to give you an idea of the upcoming features.

Price & availability

You can sign up for PRODUCER in seconds here. The Free plan has no time limit, giving you the best chance to fully explore the tool and unlock its potential. When you sign up before 31st of March, you’ll also be able to take advantage of a limited 50% off deal that is available for Public Beta users only. To claim the offer, follow the instructions here.

Stay tuned for our upcoming videos!

For our video series, Christopher Tilley will take PRODUCER on an upcoming commercial shoot, test it thoroughly, and come back with honest feedback on what worked and what can be improved. So, stay tuned, and don’t miss our follow-up in a couple of weeks!

What do you think of PRODUCER – Maker Machina? How did you feel about the video presentation? Is it something that you were also looking for production-wise? Are there any features that could be added to the software, in your opinion? Let’s talk in the comments below!

Feature image source: PRODUCER Maker Machina

If you’ve been following this topic on our site for a longer time, you might remember our first piece about Google’s baby steps toward generating moving images from text descriptions. Around a year ago, the company published their promising research papers and examples of the first tests. However, Google’s models were not yet available to the general public. Fast forward to now, and not only has this idea become a reality, but we have a plethora of working AI video generators to choose from.

Well, “working” is probably too strong a word. Let’s give them a try, and talk about how and when it is okay to use them.

AI video generators: market leaders

The first company to roll out an intelligent AI model capable of generating and digitally stylizing videos based on text commands was Runway. Since spring 2023, they have launched tool after tool for enhancing clips (like AI upscales, artificial slow motion, removing the background in one click, etc.), which made a lot of VFX processes simpler for the independent creators out there. However, we will review only their flagship product – a deep-learning network, Gen-2, that can conjure videos upon your request (or at least it tries to).

While Runway indeed still runs the show in video generation, they now have a couple of established competitors. The most well-known one is Pika.

Pika is an idea-to-video platform that utilizes AI. There’s a lot of technical stuff involved, but basically, if you can type it, Pika can turn it into a video.

A description from their website

As the creators of Pika emphasize, their tech team developed and trained their own video model from scratch, and you won’t find it elsewhere on the market. However, they don’t disclose what kind of data it was trained on (and we will get to this question below). Until recently, Pika worked only through the Discord server as a beta test and was completely free of charge. You can still try it out this way (just click on the Discord link above), or head over to their freshly launched upgraded model Pika 1.0 in the web interface.

Both of these companies offer a free basic plan for their products. Runway allows only limited generations to test their platform. In the case of Pika, you get 30 credits (equals 3 short videos), which refill every day. Also, the generated clips have a baseline length (4 seconds for Runway’s Gen-2, 3 seconds for Pika’s AI), that can be extended a few times. The default resolution differs from 768 × 448 (Gen-2) to 1280 x 720 (Pika). However, you can upscale your results either directly in each software (there are paid plans for it), or by using other external AI tools like TopazLabs.

What about open-source projects?

This past autumn, another big name in the image generation space entered the video terrain. Stability AI launched Stable Video Diffusion (SVD) – their first model that can create videos out of still images. Like their other projects, it is open source so you can download the code on GitHub, run the model locally, and read everything about its technical capabilities in the official research paper. If you want to take a look at it without struggling with AI code, here’s a free online community demo on their HuggingFace space.

For now, SVD consists of two image-to-video models that are capable of generating videos at 14 and 25 frames at customizable frame rates between 3 and 30 frames per second. As the creators claim, external user preference studies showed that Stable Video Diffusion surpasses the models from the competitors:

Well, we’ll see if that evaluation stands the test. At the moment, we can only compare it to the other image-to-video generative tools. Stability AI also plans to roll out a text-to-video model soon, and anyone can sign up for the waitlist here.

Generating videos from text – side-by-side comparison

So, let’s get the experiments going, shall we? Here’s my text prompt: “A woman stands by the window and looks at the evening snow falling outside”. The first result comes from Pika’s free beta model, created directly in their Discord channel:

Not so bad for an early research launch, right? The woman cannot be described as realistic, and for some reason, the snow falls everywhere, but I like the overall atmosphere and the lights outside. Let’s compare it to the newer model of Pika. The same text description with a different video result:

Okay, what happened here? This woman with her creepy plastic face terrifies me, to be honest. Also, where did the initial window go? Now, she just stands outside in the snow, and that’s definitely not the generation I asked for. Somehow, I like the previous result better, although it’s from the already obsolete model. We’ll give it another chance later, but now it’s Gen-2’s turn:

Although Gen-2 also didn’t manage to keep the falling snow solely outside the window, we can see how much more cinematic the output feels here. It’s the overall quality of the image, the light cast on the woman’s hair, the depth-of-field, the focus… Of course, this clip is far from spotless, and you would immediately recognize that it was generated by AI. But the difference is huge, and the models will continue learning for sure.

AI models are learning fast, but they also struggle

After running several tests, I can say that video generators struggle a lot. More often than not they produce sloppy results, especially if you want to get some lifelike motion within the frame. In the previous comparison, we established that Runway’s AI generates videos with higher-quality imagery. Well, maybe they just have a better still image generator because I couldn’t get a video of a running fox out of this bugger, no matter how many times I tried:

Surprisingly, Pika’s new AI model came up with a more decent result. Yes, I know the framing is horrible, and the fox looks as if it ran out of a cheap cartoon, but at least it moves its legs!

By the way, this is a good example to demonstrate how fast AI models learn. Compare the video above (by Pika 1.0) to the one below that I created with the help of the previous Pika model (in Discord). The text input was the same, but the difference in the generated content – drastic:

Animating images with AI video generators

A slightly better application idea for current video generators, in my opinion, is to let them create or animate landscape shots or abstract images. For instance, here is a picture of random-sized golden particles (sparks of light, magic, or dust – it doesn’t matter) on a black background that Midjourney V6 generated:

Each of the AI video generators mentioned in the first part of this review allows uploading a still image and animating it. Some don’t require any additional text input and go ahead on their own. For example, here’s what Runway’s Gen-2 came up with:

What do you think? It might function well as a background filler for credits text, but I find the motion lacks diversity. After playing around, I got a much better result with a special feature called “Motion Brush”. This tool, integrated as a beta test into the AI model, allows users to mark a particular area of their still image and define the exact motion.

Pika’s browser model insisted on the additional text description with the uploaded image, so the output didn’t come out as expected:

Regardless of the spontaneous explosions at the end, I don’t like the art of motion and the camera shake. In my vision, the golden particles should float around consistently. Let’s give it another go and try the community demo of Stable Video Diffusion:

Now we’re talking! Of course, this example has only 6fps and the AI model obviously cannot separate the particles from the background, but the overall motion is much closer to what I envisioned. Possibly, after extensive training followed by some more trial and error, SVD will show a satisfactory video result.

Consistency issues and other limitations

Well, after looking at these examples, it’s safe to say that AI video generators haven’t yet reached the point where they can take over our jobs as cinematographers or 2D/3D animators. The frame-to-frame consistency is not there, the results often have a lot of weird artifacts, and the motion of the characters (be it human or animal) does not feel even remotely realistic.

Also, at the moment, the general process requires way too much effort to get a decent generated video that’s close to your initial vision. It seems easier to take a camera and get the shot that you want “the ordinary way”.

At the same time, it is not like AI is going to invent its own ideas or carefully work on framing that is the best one for the story. Nor is that something non-filmmakers will be constantly aware of while generating videos. So, I reckon that applying visual storytelling tools and crafting beautiful evolving cinematography shall remain in our human hands.

There are also some other limitations that you should be aware of. For example, Stable Video Diffusion doesn’t allow using their models for commercial purposes. You will face the same issue with Runway and Pika on a free-of-charge basis. At the same time, once you get a paid subscription, Pika will remove their watermark and grant commercial rights.

However, I advise against putting generated videos into ads and films for now. Why? Because there is a huge ethical question behind the use of this generative AI that needs regulatory and attribution solutions first. Nobody knows what data they were trained on. Most possibly, the database consists of anything to be found online, so a lot of pictures, photos, and other works of artists who haven’t given their permission nor have gotten any attribution. One of the companies that try to handle this issue differently is Adobe with their AI model Firefly. They also announced video AI tools last spring, but it’s still in the making.

In what way can we use them to our advantage?

Some people say that AI-generated content will soon replace stock footage. I doubt it, to be honest, but we’ll see. In my opinion, the best way to use generative AI tools is during preproduction, for instance, to quickly communicate your vision. While text-to-image models are a handy go-to for gathering inspiration and creating artistic mood boards, video generators could become a quick solution for making previsualization. If you, like me, normally use your own poor scribbles that you’ve put together one after the other to create a story reel, then, well – video generators will be a huge upgrade. They don’t produce perfect results, as we’ve seen above, but that’s more than enough to draft your story and previs it in moving pictures.

Another idea that comes to mind is animating your still images for YouTube channels or presentations. Nowadays, creators tend to add digital zoom-ins or fake pans to make their photos appear more dynamic. With a little help from AI video generators, they will have more exciting options to choose from.

Conclusion

The creators of text-to-image AI Midjourney also announced, that they are working on a video generator and are planning to launch it in a few months. And there most certainly will be more to come this year. So, we can either look the other way and try to ignore it, or we can embrace this advancement and work together on finding ethical applications. Additionally, it’s crucial to educate people that there will soon be an increase in fake content, and they shouldn’t believe everything they see on the Internet.

What are your thoughts on AI video generators? Any ideas on how to make this technical development a useful tool for filmmaking (instead of only calling AI an enemy that will destroy our industry?) I know that this topic provokes heavy discussions in the comments, so I ask you: please, be kind to each other. Let’s make it a constructive exchange of thoughts instead of a fight! Thank you!

Feature image: screenshots from videos, generated by Runway and SVD

Disclaimer: Let me first say that I am not an iFootage Ambassador. However, the company sent us the product free of charge to review it. This review is my unbiased opinion, as iFootage did not modify, influence, or give input about the article before its publication.

A roller bag love/hate relationship

If you’ve been following us for the past few years and have read some of my articles, you should know by now that I’m slightly obsessed with bags in general, especially when it comes to carrying my filmmaking equipment. In case you missed it and want to get a sense of my fixation on bags, you can read my previous reviews on the PGYTECH OneMo backpack and the Manfrotto PRO Light Flexloader L – which I still consider one of the best all-around filmmaking backpacks to this day.

As someone who has used a wide variety of flight cases, handbags, backpacks, roller cases, and roller bags, my relationship with the latter has evolved over time. Indeed, when I was in my 20s, carrying heavy equipment on my back or shoulders for 10 to 12 hours was not an issue. I could move back and forth and choose rolling cases/bags depending on my mood and project. Now that I’m in my 30s, I can tell you that all my heavy camera kit lives in a – unfortunately, now discontinued – Manfrotto Roller Bag-70. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it remains one of the finest large roller bags available for local or national shoots that don’t involve air travel or the need to check my bag.

As I now mainly shoot as a one-man-band filmmaker, my quest these past couple of years has been to create an efficient shooting kit with everything needed for 90% of my most common shooting scenarios and talking heads: two cameras, lenses, two camera tripods, some LED lights, light stands, and so on. I aim to carry everything independently and make my life/day on set as smooth, efficient, and easy as possible. Indeed, I hate wasting time making multiple trips from my car to the shooting location and the other way around. Currently, I use one rolling bag for my camera kit and one backpack for everything else, i.e. lighting/accessories. While this setup works for me, there are still many times when I thought to myself “Two roller bags would have been nice and maybe easier to move throughout the day.”

With the introduction of their first lineup of bags in September 2023, iFootage has launched a seamless lineup, featuring two backpacks—the Beava Backpack 35 and Backpack 50—alongside a single roller bag. So, will the beginning of iFootage’s journey in the camera bag industry be as successful and prolific as its camera accessories and LED lights? Let’s find out!

iFootage Beava Roller 35 specifications

The iFootage Beava Roller 35 is a reasonably large bag that officially measures 61 x 36 x 35cm/24 x 14.1 x 13.7in (length x height x width) for an empty weight of 3.85kg/8.48 lbs. Based on my measurements, the external dimensions are a tad smaller than what iFootage claims. While the length is 61cm/24in, the height measures 36cm/14.1in when the bag is open, reducing to approximately 30cm/11.8in when closed, and the width is 32cm/12.6in.

As usual with camera bags, the internal dimensions are slightly smaller at around 46 x 23 x 26cm/10.2 x 5.9 x 18.5in from my measurements.

iFootage is not very specific about how much gear you can store in the Beava Roller 35, but according to the promotional pictures, the bag can take up to two mirrorless cameras with lenses attached, an extra telephoto zoom lens, and a small LED light with its ballast. Of course, it all depends on how you set up the eight included dividers. Furthermore, the Beava Roller 35 has an interesting two-stage design that allows you to put more small gear on top of the main compartment, but we’ll talk about that in detail later.

Design

The exterior and interior design of the Beava Roller 35 is austere; the outside of the bag is entirely black, and the company played on the different materials to give it some depth. The zippers have a light touch of red on them.

On the front pouch, you’ll also find the iFootage logo in red. Last but not least, the wheel safety covers are also bright red, but since these are made of shiny plastic, they don’t look very “high-end” to me, but it’s personal taste.

To summarize the design, the Beava Roller 35 doesn’t stand out much in a crowd, which is a good thing for any bag that you plan to use for carrying any kind of camera equipment.

Build quality

The outside of the bag is made of waterproof nylon. This kind of ripstop nylon fabric is used to make military clothes, and all the bags I have had over the years that used this material still hold firm. In short, I have almost no doubt that this bag should both age and survive life on a film set well.

Please note (and this is not specific to the iFootage bag), but bags made out of waterproof nylon easily attract dust and marks, and it’s no different for the Beava Roller 35. Even if I’m kind to my gear, I often shoot in dirty environments – i.e., industrial factories, cities, and streets – so my bags get sludgy reasonably quickly. When you’re back at home/office, a wipe with a wet sponge or microfiber cloth cleans the bag quickly and easily, but it is worth mentioning.

iFootage looks confident with their choice of the bag’s design and fabric, as the bag doesn’t have a removable rain cover. I did not stress-test the water resistance, but I had no issues under light rain and on wet ground. Like every bag and case, I would still be cautious under heavy rain conditions.

The bag’s flat bottom is made of a different rugged/reinforced waterproof material that looks very resistant. You’ll also find two round “feet” at the base so the bag is not in direct contact with the ground. Next to the wheels, the other bottom corners are reinforced for extra protection.

The iFootage Beava Roller 35 is built around an internal metal frame for the main compartment, which makes it a very rigid bag.

Some parts, such as the side handle and the wheels, are secured to the internal metal frame via large Philips screws, which feels reassuring.

However, out of the box, I was not overly impressed with the build quality of the Beava Roller 35. Don’t get me wrong, the quality of the fabrics employed look and feel great. However, the devil is in the details, and some parts, such as the retractable T-shaped handle, the magnetic handles, the wheels, and the zippers, did not impress me for a bag in this price category.

Zippers and shoulder strap

When I opened the main compartment, I instantly thought that the waterproof zippers – even if they are made by YKK (the zipper industry leader) – felt a bit stiff.

Also, on both ends of the main compartment zippers, the upper and lower zipper stops, and the bottom and top tape extensions are not sewn to the bag but just hang loose. This design was done on purpose so you can fully open and unfold the main compartment (more on that later), but it lacks rigidity when you reach the ends of the main compartment zippers. Furthermore, you cannot open it with one hand.

During my time with the bag, I stressed the zippers on purpose and did not have any issues, but they don’t “feel” perfect or as smooth as I would have liked.

Next, the bag comes with a removable shoulder strap that attaches to two plastic hooks sewn on the top of the main compartment. It means that when you open the main compartment, the shoulder strap attachment hooks open with the bag.

This is not an ideal placement, as this top lid is not the sturdiest part of the Beava Roller 35, and they change location when you open it. I would have preferred to have the shoulder strap attachment points located elsewhere – for example, on the left/right side of the bag.

The shoulder strap itself is well padded, and it is easy to adjust – no complaints there.

Handles and front pocket

To grab the bag, there are two handles: one on the left side (or top if the bag is sitting vertically), which is sewn/screwed, and two collapsible magnetic handles on the top. The left side handle, as mentioned before, feels robust and can take some weight. I felt that another handle was missing on the right side, below the wheels, which would be handy when grabbing the bag from both sides.

For the collapsible magnetic handles, it’s a different story. Despite their solid feel and smooth sliding action, the intention is for the two handles to connect when pulled out via built-in magnets in the handles. I loved the concept from the iFootage promotional video.

However, I can’t find another way to explain it other than to say that the magnets are not strong enough. When you join the two handles together, they barely hold. To give you an idea, a slight touch with one finger is sufficient for the magnets to disengage and the handles to open.

T-Shaped carrying handle

Like every roller bag, the iFootage Beava Roller 35 has a built-in carrying handle. Instead of going with a one-tube design like some Think Tank or Lowepro roller bags, iFootage went with a two-tube design, which is usually more rigid and sturdy. However, while most competitors space the two tubes of their handles quite a bit, iFootage took a different direction and went with reasonably close ones.

Press the button on the handle, and you can fully extend the T-shaped tubes.

When fully extended, the carrying handle is held in place with only one locking pin, which feels light to me. In addition, the carrying handle wobbles a lot and inspires little confidence regarding its long-term life. While the mechanism of the two tubes is metal/aluminum, the handle’s top is plastic. Also, the two metal tubes have some flex to them, and I would worry that if they took a fall or a hit, they could bend easily, meaning the folding system might not work as expected anymore.

Wheels

At the bottom of the bag, you’ll find two rollerblade-like wheels with an outside diameter of 85mm from my measurement, while iFootage claims a diameter of 80mm. According to iFootage, these “large rubber premium wheels absorb shock while eliminating sound to create a smoother travel experience and additionally decreases the rev speed which will produce less noise while in use.” I agree, the wheels are silent and pretty smooth from sidewalks which are smooth and easy for a rolling case, to cross/offroad terrains. With decades of skateboarding behind me, I would rate and compare the hardness of the iFootage wheels at around 100A, just a bit softer than Pelican case wheels. In contrast, I usually prefer softer 80A/85A wheels for camera equipment. Let me know in the comments if you get what I mean regarding the reference to the wheel’s hardness!

If you need to replace one of the wheels, it is doable by the end user. You’ll have to remove the bag’s internals, some screws, and the entire wheel assembly.

Pockets and compartments

The iFootage Beava Roller 35 is a simple bag and doesn’t have a plethora of pockets, which is handy if you want to keep things simple. Indeed, the roller bag only has one exterior pocket with two compartments at the front and a trolley sleeve at the back.

The trolley sleeve has a width of 23cm/9.05in and a velcro strip, which allows you to strap it to another trolley without having to make the entire bag slide through the handle.

The front pocket has a width of around 34cm/13.38in at its narrowest point. At the front of the front pocket, there is a little compartment that is a bit smaller with an opening of 30cm/11.8in and a height of 23cm/9.05in. There is nothing fancy about that little front compartment: no dividers or pockets inside, but it’s handy to throw cables or items you need to grab quickly.

Inside the front pocket, you’ll find two large meshed dividers and five small net ones to store pens, compact batteries, and small accessories. Lastly, there is a built-in detachable key ring.

If we want to be a bit picky, the Beava Roller 35 doesn’t have a laptop pocket/compartment, but I wouldn’t carry my laptop in a roller bag, so it did not bother me. Also, this roller bag has no tripod or light stand attachment points. I like to carry my tripod or light stands strapped to my roller bag: it gives me a free hand, saves my shoulders, and I can move everything at once.

Interior design

The Beava Roller 35 is built around a rigid metal frame that helps keep the bag in shape. Now, let’s move to the bag’s interior by opening the long waterproof zipper. Once you open the zipper, you’ll have to fully open the two sides, which are also part of the metal frame, revealing a large opening of around 18.5cm/7.28in. The opening mechanism feels very sturdy and reassuring; it’s a pleasure to open and close it. The inside of the bag has two layers: a top and a bottom/main compartment.

The top compartment is basically one giant removable divider velcroed to the inner liner of the bag. This top compartment has a maximum height of around 10cm/3.93in. Also, there is no way to put any divider on that top section.

However, the bottom layer has built-in velcro that can be used to strap/secure some gear and prevent them from moving around. You can use this top compartment to carry a gimbal, an LED lighting ballast, or small accessories you want to keep at your disposal.

As I mentioned, you can remove the top layer if you don’t need it and want to maximize the bottom/main compartment’s size.

When you flip open the top compartment, you easily access the bottom compartment, which measures around 49 x 24 x 14cm/19.3 x 9.4 x 5.5in. This compartment is where you’ll store your camera, lights, lenses, and all the critical pieces of gear.

Dividers

For the main compartment, the Beava Roller 35 comes with two full-length dividers, three medium dividers with a width of 9.5cm/3.74in, and three small dividers that are 7cm/2.75in wide.

The dividers have a thickness of around 0.7cm/0.27in and are pretty rigid. There is a stripe pattern on the dividers where the firm padding is. These thin dividers only take up a little space inside the bag, giving you more room to store camera equipment.

Once velcroed to the inner liner or full-length dividers, the dividers stay in place and don’t come loose. 

The full-length dividers have two small sections on each side that can be flipped. However, you can’t use one full-length divider as a full-width divider by flipping these two peripheral shorter sides. 

After using the iFootage Beava Roller 35, I found that I ended up not using the second full-length divider. It’s nice that the company includes two, and you might have a use for it, but considering the type of large gear I carried, I seldom used it. So, how much gear can you put inside the iFootage Beava Roller 35?

iFootage Beava Roller 35 – carrying capacity

One of the main reasons to choose one bag over another, except for its design and features, is how much gear you can throw in it. The iFootage Beava Roller 35 was primarily designed as an all-arounder to carry an entire camera kit, including one or two cameras, lenses, but also LED lights, a gimbal, and multiple miscellaneous pieces of equipment.

I would consider the Beava Roller 35 more suited for mirrorless or small cinema cameras. Indeed, the relatively “small” 14cm/5.5in height of the main compartment limits the amount of gear you can put inside if you don’t want to sacrifice storage space by removing the top compartment. The Canon EOS C70 is one of the tallest cameras that can fit. No problem either holding a RED KOMODO/V-RAPTOR or a Sony FX3/FX6, for example. However, don’t expect to store a Sony FX9, a RED DSMC2, a Canon EOS C300 Mark III/C500 Mark II, or a fully-rigged camera. The same height limitation applies to lenses, which are often too long to be stored vertically. This means you’ll need to store/carry lenses horizontally, which wastes space.

I tried multiple interior layouts, and here is what I was able to carry at best:

• One Aputure 200D LED light with the power supply and cables.
• A Canon EOS C70.
• One Canon RF24-70 F/2.8 L IS zoom lens.
• One Canon RF70-200 F/2.8 L IS zoom lens.
• Camera batteries and memory cards.

The top compartment could fit a DJI RS 3 Pro gimbal fully assembled easily.

While this is pretty decent, one main downside is that I felt I was wasting space and that the main compartment’s interior needed to be more versatile for my needs. Indeed, to get that layout to work, I had to combine multiple dividers to get to the reorganized width of the bag. I think it all comes down to simply having more dividers included or available to purchase separately to truly optimize what you can fit inside the Beava Roller 35. 

To give you an idea, my Manfrotto Roller Bag-70 – which is just a little bit bigger than the iFootage Beava Roller 35 – can carry twice as much camera equipment due to a more optimized divider layout, even if it doesn’t have two compartments. However, the Manfrotto roller is less suited to carry LED lights and gimbals. You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

Finally, I would say that for photography equipment, which is usually smaller than video gear, the original divider layout of the Beava Roller 35 could be okay.

Final thoughts

To summarize this review, after spending a couple of months with the Beava Roller 35:

• The bag’s design has many good ideas: removable shoulder straps, full-width openings like doctor’s bags, two compartments, large and replaceable wheels, etc.
• It has a pleasant overall build quality, but many details could be improved, such as the T-shaped carrying handle that wobbles, the feeling of the zippers, and the magnetic carrying handle that doesn’t stay in place.
• There is some room for improvement regarding the dividers’ layout, the number of included dividers, and their versatility.

For their first series of bags, iFootage did a good job with the Beava Roller 35. It ticks many boxes, but it clearly has some room for improvement: adding a handle at the bottom of the bag, and a way to securely close the bag with a TSA lock would be a great addition; fix the retractable handles’ magnets that are not strong enough, reinforce/change the design of the T-handle, as well as adding more pockets to carry equipment or handy accessories, to list a few. 

And now, for the important final question: is this bag for you, and should you get it? Firstly, if you’re a filmmaker, it will depend on what camera you use. As you can tell from my review, there are many points to consider, but as this is iFootage’s first attempt at creating a bag, I’d say they did fairly well. 

Personally, I would have loved to see a more robust solution and greater attention to detail, but all in all, it mainly depends on the type of equipment you carry around with you. I have no doubt that iFootage will do its best to improve this product in the future.

As usual, when buying new equipment, I highly recommend doing so at a place that offers refunds in case the bag doesn’t suit your production needs.

Price and availability

The iFootage Beava Roller 35 is available now for $319. As a direct comparison, the Shimoda Designs DV Roller retails for $339.95, the Think Tank Photo Airport Advantage XT is $349.75, and the Tenba Transport Air Wheeled Case Attache 2214W is $224.95.

For more information, please visit iFootage’s website.

What do you think about this roller bag? Do you often use roller bags to carry your camera equipment? What is your go-to bag? Would you like us to review more camera bags? Don’t hesitate to let us know in the comments below!

As an ICG Local 600 Director of Photography and a frequent camera operator, I mostly missed the first generation of the Tilta Nucleus. Not because I wasn’t interested – I was just using other solutions like a Preston, Teradek RT, or even a Canon LANC zoom rocker. Since I, or my ACs, were already long invested in other systems, I only started to see the Tilta Nucleus system slowly begin to arrive on set primarily as on-camera zoom rockers (devices intended to simplify smooth, mid-shot zooming for an operator) or as backups for more expensive FIZ (focus, iris, zoom) systems.

It was while working on a spin-off series for Paramount+ that a Movi Gimbal operator first introduced me to his 1^st Gen Tilta Nucleus-M zoom rocker setup. I was immediately impressed by the simplicity and overall cost. Fast forward a few years, and while working on Game Changer S7 for Dropout.tv, I needed a zoom rocker and wireless follow focus (for some specific promo moments), and it just so happened a Tilta Nucleus Nano II was in my set bag ready to go.

First impressions

The Nucleus Nano II ecosystem is made up of a handle, handwheel, and motor or motors. Notably, it doesn’t require a motor driver (typically a small box placed on the camera to help wirelessly control the motors on other systems). There is some crossover between the functionality of the handle that isn’t included in the base kit and the handwheel (both can control motors independently if needed). The handwheel (weighing a little over half a pound) even has a physical side switch called a “zoom rocker” in the menu, which complicates things because, technically, the handle wheel and handwheel knob can do the job of a zoom rocker, too. Confused? Don’t be! In short, whether you want to control your iris, zoom, or focus while holding the camera, or if you want an AC to do it — all are possible with this system. More on this later.

Having used significantly more expensive wireless focus systems, I expected something on the plasticky side with a significant wireless delay or perhaps a clunky menu system. I was wrong on all three points. If anything, the touchscreen is brighter, more responsive, and easier to navigate than its more expensive analog-feeling competitors. However, the on-screen buttons do tend to be on the smaller side, requiring a light and specific touch, or you’ll miss your intended input. I didn’t find it took long to get used to the menu screen, and the auto motor calibration is easily triggered by a long press on an exterior physical “Function” button.

Swiping left or right takes you away from the main FIZ screen to screens displaying different info where you can lens map to specific lens types and save that info for the future. Swiping up allows you to dive deeper into the menu. Accidentally swiping left or right mid-shot will disable the ability to use the focus knob. Still, a digital lock and unlock button in the bottom right of the touchscreen prevents you from accidentally opening another menu in the middle of filming.

A physical TF/DP button lets the knob spin indefinitely or allows you to set stops in either direction.

Typing out longer text on the handwheel (such as connecting to a Wi-Fi signal for Firmware updates) tends to take a while. Still, with patience, you’ll be able to type out even the longest passwords on the 1.6″ touchscreen, and the fact this even has built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity is pretty amazing.

Setting A and B focus points is easy (a single button press for each point), and you even get a haptic vibration response when hitting either point. I initially found the haptic response too distracting, but you can tune the vibration level easily with a quick hop into the menu.

Though the handwheel is plastic, it doesn’t feel delicate, and I’m not worried about damage during normal use. The motors are also light, and they’re easily installed on 15mm rods when powered by a USB-C cable (daisy chaining is possible, too, with multiple motors).

The rear of the handwheel has a locking nato system that is really intended for use only with a Tilta handle, or you might damage the electrical contact pins. But since I needed a zoom rocker solution on this show, I carefully used a small clamp paired with an articulating arm and a tiny nato piece from Wooden Camera to mount the handwheel to the tripod handle. Then, I used my thumb to control an S35 Canon Cine zoom.

Power

Each of the three components of the Nucleus Nano II system is powered in different ways, which annoyed me initially (standardization is always more user-friendly). Still, I quickly got used to the need for continuous USB-C power for motors, an internally charged battery (also charged with USB-C) in the case of the handwheel, and an NP-F550 / NP-F570 battery for the handle.

In my experience from on-set use, the handwheel lasts for about 10-ish hours (not constant use). At one point on a later shoot day, I even used a power bank dedicated to my iPhone to give it a quick recharge while on set.

One of the points of divergence between the Nucleus Nano II system and more expensive systems is the general use of USB-C cables. My Teradek RT kit relies on locking Lemo connectors that you really need to work to pull out accidentally. On the other hand, the included Nano II USB-C cables jut out significantly from the camera body. Perhaps a right-angle USB-C cable would be the way to go here, but I do appreciate how ubiquitous USB-C is, so replacing a broken cable would be simple.

My preferred way of powering the motors is with a D-Tap cable to USB-C, but Tilta makes a $49 power distribution plate that takes NP-F550 / NP-F570 batteries in a pinch. Tilta also makes a D-Tap to USB-C cable. Another accessories brand called Kondor Blue does, too, and both have worked for me without issue. In the case of a stage show with a stationary camera position, you could, of course, power everything off available wall power with long enough USB-C cables (the handwheel works while charging, too).

Setup

Charge the handwheel, add a battery to the handle (if you are using one), get your motors connected to your favorite power method, and you are ready to start. Power on the handwheel by long-pressing the record button (same for the handle), click on “connection” in the menu, and then go to 2.4 GHz to pick channels and assign them to various motors by clicking “search.” Double-click the single button on each of your motors to enter pairing mode, and you’ll see them pop up one at a time in the menu. Once they’re connected to the handwheel, you can assign one of four colors to each of your motors by clicking the button on the side of the motor. Pick the color that corresponds to the motor placement on your lens.

• Purple: Focus
• Blue: Zoom
• Green: Iris
• Other: Yellow (intended for the Variable ND Filter / Mirage Matte Box)

As I was initially using this system only for op-controlled zoom, I set the zoom to the large knob in the menu (normally devoted to focus in default mode) and messed with torque and sensitivity in the menu until I found a happy medium where I was able to dial in the smoothness of the zooms.

Interested in controlling additional menu settings of your camera using the handwheel? Several cameras support that functionality, and Tilta promises more are being added all the time. You can see the currently supported list for camera control HERE.

When power cycling the handwheel, it will remember the last settings and re-connect to both the motors and the Wi-Fi (if you had previously connected).

Calibration is simple, and auto-calibration worked fine for me while using lenses with hard stops. For calibrating lenses without hard stops, use the manual option. It requires you to move the motor to both close focus then infinity, and it asks for confirmation each time.

How affordable is it?

Tilta has a basic kit that includes a single motor and the handwheel for $299, and this really is enough to get you started (while being mindful of how you want to mount the handwheel. It could be hand-held in a pinch). Additional motors cost $119 (each includes a short USB-C cable and 0.8 pitch gear adapter for DSLR or Mirrorless optics).

A Tilta Nucleus Nano II Handle costs an additional $149. The handle is necessary for controlling a third motor (using the wheel), or you might find it necessary just to make it easier to hold the handwheel. The motor also charges the handwheel from the internal NP battery. Alternatively, you can use the handle as a zoom rocker, and the joystick and onboard wheel can control motors without the handwheel – all helpful for an operator.

You might consider an articulating arm, a nato rail piece for mounting the handwheel on a tripod arm, and a D-Tap to USB-C cable as additional costs.

Who is the perfect Nucleus Nano II user?

Tilta proposes in some of their marketing communications that the Nucleus Nano II be a “backup” focus system for professionals and we should unpack that statement a bit. For one, the Wi-Fi range of the Nano II system isn’t as good as the higher-priced systems I compared it to, so perhaps this isn’t the system to go to for techno cranes and car-to-car. When purchasing, consider your own needs.

The choice of USB-C comes with pros and cons. True, replacement cables are easy to source, but if an operator accidentally clips a door frame, you may lose a motor mid-shot in a situation where a locking cable would have been fine.

Each Nucleus Nano II motor provided a surprising amount of torque and worked fine with the Canon Cine series zooms, SIGMA Cine primes/zooms, and Atlas Orion Anamorphics I tested it with. I didn’t have a chance to test vintage optics with stiffer rings, but I imagine you would be in good shape there, too, given the amount of available power from these affordable motors.

If you’ve never worked with a zoom rocker or wireless follow focus, then this is the perfect starter kit for you. I also tend to agree with Tilta that this can be a perfect backup kit for professionals should a Preston, Teradek RT, or ARRI system go down on set. Also, not all cine zooms offer compatible servo units (for example, SIGMA Cine products) and this essentially turns cine zooms into servo-move-capable lenses if your project demands that type of look.

Firmware update

From the moment the Nucleus Nano II system arrived, multiple firmware updates were available for each of the handwheel, motor, and handle components. Initially, there wasn’t a ton of information about exactly what features these updates were adding, updating, or fixing, but Tilta now has a changelog giving users helpful info about each update HERE.

To update the handwheel and motor, simply connect the handwheel to available Wi-Fi, navigate over to “system,” and click “firmware update.” To place the motor in update mode, you should hold the button on the motor (while unplugged) and then plug a USB-C power cable into slot 1.

Updating the handle requires holding the power and “M” button while turning the unit on and connecting the USB-C cable to a computer. From there, drag the firmware .bin file onto the handle drive to begin the update. Alternatively, you can connect the handwheel to the handle over USB-C and click handle update in the firmware menu. In this option, the handwheel and the motors bypass the need for a computer.

Conclusion & pricing

The Tilta Nucleus Nano II system, in one of those rare times in the cinema tech industry, is priced in favor of the filmmaker – you are getting tons of bang for the buck here at $299 / €289.30. The bright 1.6″ screen of the handwheel (dimmable if needed) makes me wish other manufacturers would add screens like this to their FIZ systems, which cost thousands more.

With the Tilta Nucleus Nano II system, camera connectivity, a side effect of a 3rd party manufacturer interacting with multiple camera manufacturers, may vary. The torque is strong enough for most lenses, that is, if you aren’t too far from the camera. And the menu is easy to navigate.

Tilta’s consistent Nucleus Nano II firmware updates suggest they plan on supporting this system for years to come, and the fact that the original Nucleus-M was introduced in 2018 also supports that idea. The Nucleus Nano II is now a fixture of my DP/Operator kit alongside my Ultra 5″ SmallHD monitor, and my Ergorig.

What do you think of the Nucleus Nano II? Have you ever used one? Would you consider adding one to your kit? Let us know in the comments!

As a documentary filmmaker shooting mostly on full-frame cameras, I am facing a constant battle: What is the best zoom to use to stay decently small with my kit, and still be able to cover the full zoom range that I need? Usually, the answer has been photo zooms: They are small and affordable. Some of the downsides are: hard to focus manually, no smooth zoom operation, and impossible to use with a follow focus – and often inconsistent in the look they deliver across the range of several lenses because that’s not a priority for photo lenses, as opposed to motion picture lenses. 

The emergence of affordable cinema zooms

In the last few years, we have seen the emergence of more affordable cinema zoom lenses, but it’s been a much slower development than with affordable primes, simply because they are harder to make.

It’s important to point out, that many of these more affordable cinema zooms are made for Super35mm and not full-frame sensors. The reason for it is simple: It’s difficult to make a full-frame cinema zoom and keep the size, weight, and price down simultaneously.

The obvious: Laowa Ranger specs

In comes Laowa with their Ranger series and somehow they seem to have found a solution to the problem. The Laowa Ranger 28-75mm and the 75-180mm are both less than 20cm or 7.5 inches long, weigh only 1.4 kilograms or just over 3 pounds each, and both feature a fast T2.9 aperture.

Only recently, they announced even lighter versions of both these zoom lenses, which shed about 10 percent of their weight – this might not sound like a lot, but in fact, it will make it easier to balance them on a gimbal with a small camera, so that’s very welcome. 

Third lens in the Laowa Ranger line-up is coming

The zoom range is decent and covers much of what is needed in day-to-day shooting scenarios. Laowa also announced that there will be a third, wider zoom added to the lineup, covering 16 to 30mm.

This will complete the line and provide a huge range covering all the focal range needs of a documentary filmmaker like me. 

Non-digital look with pleasant sharpness

A Laowa Ranger review also needs some footage – and looking at what I got with the lenses, they strike a nice balance between sharpness and a non-digital look that doesn’t attract too much attention to itself. It seems like these are great all-rounder lenses for individual projects. The closest comparison to the Laowa Rangers will be the DZOFILM Catta zooms, which are also made for full-frame sensors, and which I reviewed earlier.

The Laowa Rangers look distinctively less “vintage” than the Catta Zooms, giving an overall sharper look, which is welcome and makes them very versatile as regular take-with-me-anywhere zoom lenses. 

Front diameter, focus throw, barrel movement

Apart from their identical weight, it’s also great that both Laowa Ranger lenses share an 80-millimeter diameter for clamp-on matte boxes and a 77-millimeter filter thread for screw-on filters. The lenses use standard .8 pitch gears for zoom, aperture, and focus barrels. When you swap between the lenses on your camera, you will not have to move the follow focus because the positions of the gears are identical on both lenses.

Distances are marked in both feet and meters on the lenses. The focus throw is 270 degrees, so maybe a little bit too much to rack focus from macro to infinity without a follow focus, but perfect to control with something like a Tilta Nucleus M remote follow focus system. When rotating the barrels, you can feel some minor inconsistencies, but nothing too noticeable, which is a decent result considering the price bracket of these lenses. 

Laowa Ranger mount options

Having a set of manual cine zoom lenses like the Laowa Ranger Cinema Zooms means that versatility is key – of course, there’s no autofocus, as is common with cinema zoom lenses, but that has the upside of interchangeability, allowing them to be used on practically any camera with their interchangeable mount.

And in terms of that mount interchangeability, they are among the most versatile cinema zooms I have ever come across. By default, the Laowa Rangers come with a PL mount, but you can swap it yourself for the included EF mount. Optionally, you can also buy RF, E, Z, and L mounts for these lenses, or you can simply use an adapter like a Metabones to adapt the EF or PL version of the lenses on a shorter flange distance mount. 

Convenient back focus adjustment without shimming

What’s great is that you can adjust the back focus of the Laowa Ranger lenses using a built-in ring at the back of the lenses, instead of having to shim your lenses when changing mounts.

That’s something we know particularly well from broadcast lenses, but it’s great that Laowa puts this feature into a cinema zoom, which makes the lives of owner-operators who use their lenses on various camera types easier, as well as saving a lot of time for rental houses as this is simply a faster process than shimming a lens. 

Covering full-frame – and beyond?

As mentioned earlier, part of the Laowa Rangers’ versatility also comes from their coverage of full-frame sensors. If you go beyond the size of a normal full-frame sensor and try them, for example, on a RED VistaVision sensor, you might run into some vignetting with these lenses.

To find out exactly if the Laowa Rangers will cover the sensor of your choice, head over to the CineD Databases and check with our Lens Coverage Tool. There, you can combine any lens with any camera sensor in any of their shooting modes to see if a sensor is covered by a particular lens. 

Sharpness tests

Building full-frame cine zoom lenses with a range of 28-75 millimeters and 75-180 millimeters in such small, almost identically-sized packages, is no easy feat – but does it come with compromises to the performance of those lenses? For this Laowa Ranger review, we ran our series of technical tests to find out.

First, let’s look at sharpness. Looking at the wider zoom lens at its starting focal range of 28mm at T2.9, we can see that the lens is quite sharp, not only at the image center but also in the corners with only minor sharpness falloff – not every lens performs this well in the corners when shooting wide open. Of course, when stopping down to T4 and T5.6, sharpness is usually getting better, but we see almost no difference in comparison to an already good performance at T2.9. 

Corner sharpness seems to decrease on the 28-75mm when zooming in further, with less sharpness in the corners at 70mm, for example, but still totally within reasonable limits. 

I see very similar, maybe slightly better corner sharpness throughout the range of the 75-180mm lens. With the longer zoom lens, corner sharpness also seems to be more consistent with hardly any visible change. 

Distortion tests

Now let’s shift our attention to distortion, and let’s look at those recordings again. At 28 millimeters with the wider zoom lens, we can see some visible barrel distortion. This is an expected compromise at the wide end of a wide zoom lens that’s built with a comparatively small diameter front element like this Laowa Ranger lens. It’s a trade-off I am happy to make as a documentary filmmaker in exchange for having a compact lens – and it’s also an issue that disappears quite quickly when zooming in. At 35 millimeters, that distortion is only minimal, and at around 50 millimeters, it disappears. 

It’s noteworthy that with the longer 75-180mm lens, there is a little bit of barrel distortion visible at 75 millimeters but much less than at the wide end of the 28-75mm lens. This means that when required to shoot at a 75-millimeter focal length, I recommend using the wider of the two zoom lenses to get less distortion. But of course, there is a similar story here with the 75-180mm lens – the distortion disappears almost immediately when zooming in from 75 millimeters. 

Focus breathing & parfocal tests, minimum focus distance, bokeh

Focus breathing within these lenses exists, but seems quite controlled. The 28-75 performs better in that regard than its longer focal-length brother, but that’s to be expected. 

One of the features that make cinema zoom lenses stand out from photo zoom lenses is the fact that they should be parfocal, and the Laowa Ranger lenses both stand out in that regard. When you change the focal length with a parfocal zoom lens, the focus at the center is maintained. With the Rangers, we sometimes observe a slight, hardly noticeable focus shift when changing the focal length, but for the price of these lenses, the performance is impressive in that regard. Making parfocal zooms is no easy task, and it’s one of the reasons why high-end cinema zooms are a lot more expensive, but the Rangers do a decent job considering their position in the market. 

The minimum focus distance for the 28-75mm is 49 centimeters or 1 foot 7 inches, and 75 centimeters or 2 foot 11 inches for the 75-180mm lens. These are quite decent minimum focus distances, especially for the wider zoom. 

Bokeh looks nice and I would call it “cinematic looking” although you can recognize the nine-blade iris by the shape of the out-of-focus highlights, especially at the wider focal lengths. Chromatic aberration is controlled but seems to be more visible with the longer 75-180mm lens. 

Conclusion: great price/performance all-rounder zoom lenses

Wrapping up my review on the Laowa Ranger, I have to say I enjoyed my time with these zooms and I think they are already finding a good spot in the market.

The price/performance ratio is certainly great as they can surely replace a lot of other lenses in everyday shooting scenarios due to their small size and weight, speed, zoom range, and look. Talking about the look they produce, I like how much they make natural-looking, sharp images that look alike, with very little distortion and hardly any other image problems. The image looks cinematic and definitely like it’s coming from much more expensive lenses. Overall, I recommend the Laowa Rangers if you are looking for cinema zooms that punch well above their weight, cover the full zoom range, and don’t break the bank. 

Do you prefer to work with Zoom or fixed focal length Cine Lenses on your productions? Did you have a chance to work with the Laowa Ranger Zoom Lenses? Please share with us your thoughts in the comment section below.

I love camera operating and try to do it wherever possible – even on larger sets where I wear different hats. There is something about the connection you get with your subject while operating that is unique and that doesn’t quite carry over to a monitor at Video Village. Towards that end, I am laser-focused on operating gear that works with me and doesn’t add pain or discomfort over long hours. Lately, I’ve been a fan of the Ergorig from Cinema Devices for support. Still, monitor placement is equally important (to avoid neck injury), and a quality shoulder rig is right at the top of the priority list. Your shoulder rig choice shouldn’t be an afterthought, and there are a bunch of affordable options out there, but keep in mind quality may vary.

Some shoulder rigs are specifically designed for a single camera system, but there are a few that could be considered “universal.” Here are just a few of the lower-mid-cost competitors:

• SmallRig Shoulder Rig Pro Kit – $335.00
• CAMVATE Pro Shoulder Mount Rig – $286.00
• SHAPE ARRI Dovetail Shoulder Mount with Handles – $666.75
• Zacuto ACT Baseplate – $295.00 (Handles sold separately)
• ikan Stratus Shoulder Rig System for Cinema Cameras – $299.99
• Kondor Blue Shoulder Pad Air Rig – $699.99
• 8Sinn Shoulder Rig Kiti with 15mm LWS Baseplate – $699.99

My history with Tilta as a brand began in the RED DSMC 1 era with a RED Epic Dragon rig. The price was competitive at the time, but it wasn’t my favorite rig overall. Since then, the brand has progressed significantly while sticking to affordable price points. I’m seeing Tilta products on larger and larger sets these days, and their Nucleus Nano II Follow Focus / Zoom Rocker is especially impressive. (Nano II review coming soon).

Tilta markets the Lightweight Shoulder Rig as geared towards “compact camera rigs.” I might be pushing the definition of “compact” a bit with my Canon C300MKIII and SIGMA Cine Zooms, but at about 5 lbs. (2.268 kg) for the body itself, this isn’t a particularly heavy camera. I just think Tilta intends this rig more for the likes of the RED Komodo, Sony FX3, Canon EOS C70, or even a Canon EOS R5 C with DSLR glass.

Either way, it works fine with my Canon EOS C300 Mark III, and I feel like other more mid-sized cine cameras like a Sony FX6 would do well, too. Moving on.

First impressions

It is hard to overstate how much I enjoy self-contained kits, and this shoulder rig comes in a semi-rigid hard case with plenty of interior room that suggests it could take a hit or two without damaging the overall rig. Having everything in a kit means I don’t need to dedicate the time to figuring out another solution. It’s also easy to throw in my vehicle for a shoot at the last minute while having the confidence it’s all good to go when I land at the location.

The main components of the Lightweight Shoulder Rig are the following:

• 15mm Rod Mounts (dual at the rear, and one near the front)
• Baseplate (Arca and Manfrotto compatibility)
• Quick Adjustable Rosette Arms (additional cost from the core kit)
• Shoulder Rig
• Back Shoulder Pad

Out of the case, everything assembles quickly. The first thing I noticed is an adjustable horizontal bar that allows the rig to be quickly set on a flat surface or for added flexibility with the two front handles. I do wish the locking screw for this bar had a safety catch element because loosening this screw while the camera is on your shoulder will tip the weight of the camera forward (something to be mindful of).

The handles are comfortable and feature a fully adjustable arm on either side, allowing for different operator body types and heights. Everyone wants their handles in different places depending on the gig, and this system lets you do just that. Add the quick-adjust rosettes (available as part of a more expensive kit), and this brings another layer of flexibility if you change your hand position often while filming. Some may prefer the locking knob over the quick-adjust rosettes. It just comes down to preference.

For power, you could install a battery plate like this one from Tilta on the back part of the rig itself, but my battery on the C300MK III affixes directly to the camera.

Unfortunately, the included camera plate only has 1/4-20 screws and not 3/8″-16 options, and it is designed in such a way that you couldn’t add 3/8″-16 screws even if you wanted to. Not a big deal for smaller cameras, but I appreciate combining both screw types for larger camera builds.

Everything is a stylish matte black made from aluminum alloy with rounded edges and no sharp points to catch on an operator or AC. A 1/4-20 mounting point on each handle gives you another spot to mount a small monitor or other accessories.

Tilta Lightweight Shoulder Rig – operation

Given the fact that “lightweight” is literally in the product name, you’ll be happy to hear that the overall rig is one of the lightest I’ve ever used. With the low weight, I was worried that corners might be cut in the strength of the overall material, but I didn’t see any sketchy bending or flexing despite having a camera rig at the top end of the overall system weight limits.

A useful design innovation here is the use of a back pad (see image below), an idea I would love to see find additional use in this accessory segment as a whole, and on future Tilta shoulder rig products – it’s that good. The back pad helps when you tilt down because it transfers weight to your back and not your biceps. If you have ever worked on a cooking show where you are often required to tilt from the chef’s face to the plate on the counter, you will immediately appreciate this design innovation.

There are also multiple mounting points on the back pad where you could add a counterweight like this one (designed specifically for this shoulder rig by Tilta).

Strangely, there isn’t a way to make this rig work with a VCT system, and that’s a bit of a bummer if you need to transition from tripod to shoulder and back. If you plan to live on your shoulder for the entire shoot day, then this lack of VCT compatibility won’t be an issue for you. Tilta, as a company, seems invested in the dovetail platform over VCT in most of their products.

And speaking of living on your shoulder – I love the cushion on both the back pad and the shoulder pad. It is incredibly comfortable and feels like you have a piece of memory foam between you and the camera: A+.

Quick moves and heavy use over a long shoot day didn’t loosen any of the knobs to the point where I felt like they were fighting my camera moves. At one point, I actually removed the left handle so I could just leave my hand on the lens barrel. Everyone is different, and having a shoulder rig that can keep up with different op styles is important.

I found the padded handle grips to be comfy, but you could upgrade one of these (depending on if you are right or left-handed) to a $157 Tilta Wooden Handle with Control Trigger – just double-check that your camera has the correct available trigger cable or the record button won’t work. The use of ARRI standard rosettes on this rig also opens up options from a few other brands as well if you want to mix and match components.

Tilta Lightweight Shoulder Rig – conclusion and price

The $339 / €344 Tilta Lightweight Shoulder Rig is priced competitively, takes lighter to mid-sized cameras, and, maybe most importantly, is very, very comfortable. The back pad is something I didn’t know I needed on a shoulder rig (can’t live without it now!), and the whole rig breaks down into a small kit for transport.

I find the adjustable horizontal bar to be a good idea, but in practice, the lack of a safety catch means it feels like a potential future failure point with extensive use – only time will tell there. The lack of a VCT mounting solution makes the overall rig a bit less flexible than it could be from job to job. The single 15mm rod mount is nice, but two would be better for lens support or additional accessories.

There are cheaper shoulder rigs on the market, but you’d be hard-pressed to find one that is this comfortable to film with. The Tilta Lightweight Shoulder Rig strikes the right balance between cost and quality.

What kind of shoulder rig do you use? Is there another one you could recommend? Let us know in the comments below!

First unveiled at Cinegear LA 2023 (very much in prototype form), the Evoke 2400B with a range of 2700K – 6500K, priced at $6,990 with a case, ($6,200 for a limited time at B&H), and with a promised output of a 4K HMI or 10K Tungsten was impressive, but we left that show with tons of questions about how the NANLUX Evoke 2400B would work in practice. Could this fixture work off household power in North America? Would it be a Bates plug only? Would it be backward compatible with other accessories previously released by NANLUX?

Since then, we’ve seen similar 2400-ish wattage draw fixtures announced from the likes of Aputure and Godox. As I haven’t gotten my hands on the Aputure or Godox higher wattage offerings yet, this review will draw on my experience with NANLUX products from a director of photography perspective.

The NANLUX engineering team had a choice. They could have aimed the Evoke 2400B at the pro-only crowd with a Bates plug or left it open to more owners/ops. In my opinion, NANLUX picked a great middle-ground by shipping this unit with both “bare ends” and an Edison plug (for use in the United States) with a switchable 15A/20A plug. More on the switchable plug in a moment, but shipping with “bare ends” gives you maximum flexibility to add whatever plug you want with minimal effort or electrical skills. Career gaffers and best boys will be fine with bare ends and busy owners/ops will appreciate a more turn-key solution.

After receiving the Evoke 2400B for review, I immediately had the opportunity to throw the fixture into use on a Netflix promotional video in Los Angeles for an upcoming series. On that first shoot, the intensity barely rose above 20% – because frankly, I didn’t need it for interiors shooting at 24fps. It’s that bright. Thankfully, I had several more weeks to really put the Evoke 2400B to the test.

First impressions

This lamp head is not meant for a C-Stand. Combo style stands only here, please.

It will come as no surprise that the Evoke 2400B lamp head (33 lbs.) and power supply (25 lbs.) are both larger and heavier than their 1200-watt cousins, but I was surprised by how compact everything still is. You can fit the lamp head, ballast, head cable, and 15A/20A switch power cable into a flight case (not to be confused with a NANLUX trolley case that includes a fresnel with the Evoke 1200). With the flight case that was sent to me, I was not able to fit the 45-degree reflector, but NANLUX is making dedicated flight cases that can fit it all.

Regarding durability, everything is rated IP55, which is defined as “limited protection from dust and low-pressure water jets from any direction.” The flight case feels indestructible with plenty of interior foam protection, and the ballast has protective rubber at either end – this whole kit could take hits and keep on cooking. There is also a handy image on the interior of the lid that helps with packing if you are renting the kit or unfamiliar with how to pack everything.

Like with past Evoke models, the lamp head yoke is rock solid and doesn’t seem prone to slipping in any orientation.

There is fan noise (although it isn’t as much as I would expect given the size of the lamp head). My solution was to keep the fan in “smart” mode for the duration of filming over several shoots, and audio never mentioned an issue. Granted, I never had a reason to move the Evoke 2400B within 3 feet of any lav or boom microphones.

Accessories

NANLUX has decided to go with electronic contact pins (see image above) for their Evoke 2400B accessories. That idea is reminiscent of ARRI’s approach with their Quick Lighting Mount system for the Orbiter fixture. I’ll admit I’m a little wary of proprietary electronic mounts that could be used to exclude 3rd party accessory manufacturers (sometimes brought up as a concern with the RF Mount on the camera side). Still, NANLUX has assuaged these fears by allowing an easy turn-off of the setting in the menu that requires accessories with these pins.

The argument in favor of these pins is to guarantee compatibility and not risk melting or damaging an NL accessory that isn’t specifically designed for the Evoke 2400B heat. There is also the possibility of future electronically controlled accessories, but those have yet to be announced.

The NANLUX team also mentioned they are working to make these pins separately available for NL accessories that users might already own and to Chimera and DoPChoice for their own compatible products. No word yet on how to affix these pins or if they are available at an additional cost.

Power

This part of the review dedicated to power considerations will depend on your particular country, so please keep that in mind. In the United States, you are limited primarily to 15A circuits in homes (sometimes a 20A circuit might pop up in the kitchen or the laundry room). Still, generally, you can expect to run a single ARRI M18 HMI off a household wall outlet drawing roughly 1800 watts without much fuss. Or, again, in the case of a 15A circuit, you could run a Tungsten 1K and a 650 drawing 1650 watts.

The Evoke 2400B with a power draw of 2200W required to reach its full output will not work on a 15A circuit at 100% intensity. For this, NANLUX has created a novel solution that allows this fixture to work off of house 15A power or 20A power where necessary, simply with the flip of a switch. NANLUX could only provide me with a prototype for this switch, but the prototype worked as intended during testing.

Output also scales with the power input, so if you are set to the 15A / 1700W side of the switch, the fixture still lets you select from 0% to 100% when dialing up or down brightness. All of this is to say that with the Evoke 2400B, you have a more flexible fixture that doesn’t require being limited to a soundstage or dragging a 20A generator around. Pretty cool.

NANLUX has done a good job making their past 48V Evoke-line ballasts interchangeable in the case of the 900C/1200 and 1200B, but please note that the 2400B is 96V and won’t work with those other fixtures.

Output & Kelvin handling in CCT mode

I would be remiss if I didn’t give a special thank you to Rev Studio in La Jolla, California, for installing a 20A circuit to allow this review to happen in advance of filming. How cool is that?!

The Evoke 2400B has two different output modes: constant (with a lower power draw) and max (top end of the power draw), and thus Max mode is more likely to pop a circuit.

I went ahead and tested the output in Max mode using lux and color handling (in Kelvin) of the Evoke 2400B at a distance of ten feet (3.048 meters) with my Sekonic C-700U Spectrometer in the center of the beam (you do lose a bit moving away from the center of the beam with this reflector, but generally it is a very even spread). Here are my results with a target of 5600K with the kit 45-degree reflector attached and the launch firmware installed.

A result of 5733K with a target of 5600K is excellent and the 37000 [lx] / 3430 [fc] value is fantastic. This is a very, very bright light.

And now on to a target of 3200K:

We do see a drop in output here (32900 lx and 3050 fc) when compared to our 5600K results, but the CCT Kelvin accuracy is literally spot on at 3207K. In general, phenomenal test results out of the Evoke 2400B.

Evoke 2400B – control

I have thoroughly covered the Nanlink app (now very much improved with consistent updates) in past NANLUX Evoke reviews, and you can still control the fixture that way through integrated 2.4G/Bluetooth. You also have DMX/RDM, sACN, LumenRadio TimoTwo CRMX, and Art-Net control. In my mind, that covers about 99% of the professional users in the marketplace, but feel free to hop into the comments if you can think of another lighting control protocol the NANLUX team should consider adopting.

If none of the above control options work for you, NANLUX has even included a tiny remote control, which might be best in solo owner/op situations.

Given the price point of this unit and the feature set, I think most users will be primarily taking advantage of some flavor of wireless or wired DMX here. You also obviously have access to physical rear control dials that work in exactly the same way as past Evoke models.

Who is the NANLUX Evoke 2400B meant for?

Considering we are about to see several high-output LED sources hit the market as I’m writing this, we should give some thought to who the perfect user might be for the NANLUX Evoke 2400B. In the United States, the NANLUX brand is slowly becoming more prevalent on the rental side in larger markets like Los Angeles. A quick search of Sharegrid.com shows that smaller shops and owner/ops are also steadily adding more NANLUX fixtures to their inventories.

Why should we care about others adopting NANLUX fixtures? In short, the film industry remains a place where perception and “what is popular” is still considered, for better and for worse. Producers being familiar with NANLUX as a brand means these lights are easier to bring on set (because Producers sign the checks). More NANLUX in larger markets means the fixtures are also easier to service if a unit accidentally gets damaged.

The $6,990 price tag and the size of the Evoke 2400B kit means if you are a smaller to mid-sized production house, you will likely only have the budget and space for one or two of these fixtures in-house at most. As a Freefly Ember high-speed camera owner, I was most interested in the light as a way to get better exposure at 4K 800fps while in the studio.

We went ahead and shot a quick test at 1000fps with a 50-100 SIGMA Cine zoom at T2.8 and the Ember at ISO 100. Big takeaway – no flicker and we only needed to get the light to 25% output in Max mode to get enough exposure for the shot at 5600K. Feel free to check out the video portion of this review if you want to see the slow motion in action.

As an owner of both the daylight-only and Bi-Color 1200W Evoke fixtures, I want to stress that neither of those lights has been made obsolete by the Evoke 2400B. For one, the Evoke 2400B doesn’t have a compatible fresnel accessory yet and those other lights do (along with the 900C). The Evoke 2400B kit is larger and less portable than its 1200W cousins.

In short, consider if you need the output or the +/- 80 Green and Magenta feature of the Evoke 2400B when purchasing. You might be fine with one or several 1200W fixtures instead – it will depend on the type of work you do. If anything, hats off to the manufacturer NANLUX for giving us the ability to use this light on 15A and 20A circuits for maximum flexibility.

Future-proofing the NANLUX Evoke 2400B

As previously mentioned, the Evoke 2400B sports a price tag of $6,990, and that price includes the case. At this price, we should expect this light to be a years-long part of the kit. I understand that Bi-Color isn’t color and full-color fixtures are where we are generally trending as an industry, but there is a case to be made that the majority of our work isn’t shooting colorful Bladerunner sequels and that daylight and tungsten are somehow present in 90% of shots we help create.

I spoke with a Gaffer recently who was trying to move all his fixtures to full color, and I get that, but on a price-per-watt level, you are paying a premium on a color fixture that you might be leaving in CCT mode for the majority of your work.

Your story might be different, but the tradeoff when going for a color fixture is a cut to output. And sometimes you just need a light with a punch. The Evoke 2400B has that, and the ability to dial in green or magenta tint providing added versatility in settings where you can’t control every element in the shot, such as a large mall food court or an exterior with multiple buildings in the distant background beyond your control.

In brief, consider how often you may need color-capable lighting in your work. When the RGB ARRI Orbiter first came to market, it was $10,000 (with needed accessories), and that’s a 500W light with a fraction of the punch of the Evoke 2400B. Food for thought.

Final thoughts

I have enjoyed watching NANLUX and their partner company NANLITE continually listen to feedback from the filmmaking community and adapt their designs to be more on-set friendly. Shipping this fixture with bare ends, a switch that toggles between 15A/20A, every imaginable connectivity option (including a little remote), and +/- tint 80 adjustment just guarantees the Evoke 2400B won’t sit on the truck or in the SUV collecting dust on your shoot day.

The cost of the Evoke 2400B, while pricey on a watt/dollar basis at $6,990 is actually more affordable than at first glance, and I’ll argue that it makes sense as a years-long investment in an industry where there is constantly a new, shiny piece of gear hitting the market.

The Evoke 2400B is now shipping and for a limited time only, a fixture kit with a reflector and flight case is even cheaper than the light-only version at B&H.

What do you think? Have you used the Evoke line from NANLUX in the past? Would you consider adding the Evoke 2400B to your kit? Let us know in the comments below!