Paul C. Buff, Inc. Technical Forum

I was wanting to submit the following idea for consideration - using the iPhone / iPad via WiFi (or bluetooth - though this would likely need a repeater) as a controller for the Einstein Lights - similar to the cyber commander, but larger, easier to read as well as use (not that we don't love the tiny joysticks ;-). Once this door is open via WiFi - a MacOS controller would also be excellent since we could run it on the same system as our tethering (MacBook Air anyone?). Ideally all control types/units should be active at the same time.

Interestingly enough Elinchrom has taken the plunge on this:
http://www.elinchrom.com/product/EL-Sky ... ml#content

~mike

A quick search of the site turned up 21 hits for iPad, the first one has the same suggestion and Paul's response.

See it here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1787&hilit=ipad

Fred

Thanks, posted their also with some expanded suggestion...

I have to say I never really get the infatuation with having a mobile device controller for Einstein. That is what the CC does. It does a fine job, it is dedicated to the task, and will probably be around a lot longer than my mobile devices which tend to fall into obsolescence quickly (Einstein control would just be a small value-added for them, not their main task). I get the desire for remote camera control but not for wifi Einstein control. Once the lights are dialed-in my CC generally just sits there with the CST doing the heavy lifting....

I wanna know how you would call for technical support if you were having problems. ;)

Seriously, I will not say never on a product, but that would require a design and support staff to integrate into and maintain compatability with a 3rd party system(s). That is a big investment of resources from a company this size. The resulting cost would probably be atypically high for our buisness model.

PowerEngineer: Here's a couple of thoughts that may help you see another view. The first question to ask is do you see value in an control interface for your lighting via laptop/computer? If you do then we are really just discussing the device (iPad vs laptop vs c.c.) not the concept (and really since you own a C.C. You are already bought into the concept of remote wireless control). So if the discussion is about the device, then I'll point to the user interface on the c.c. as well as the size of the display as good reasons why additional options should be considered. Dedicated purpose driven devices are wonderful because they have only what they need to and are less prone to failure (we all love reliability - and I certainly give props for the built in light meter as being very handy while acknowledging the features in 3rd party light meters mean I still use them). However, the other side of that coin is they are also a serries of compromises driven by market size and bill of materials to produce. Companies like PCB (and Elinchrome) gets a much different price point on things like display, batteries, wifi and so on than a company like Apple. One result of this means they by nessicity need to offer something less than what's possible - say a screen 4x smaller for example. Because Apple has opened the API up for their device (one that is the same across multiple device form factors), others can leverage their hardware engineering and economy of scale pricing and as a result deliver an improved experience to their user base - letting that base better choose what makes sense in their context. PCB did something similar in the Enistein's via the RF unit - that is the reason they are pluggable (which is a pain in the ass when transporting, setting up, and tearing down but ultimately allowed Pocket Wizard integrate their system - providing choices to the user which I appreciate. Ultimately it was a good decision, I just which it wasn't a pinned plug solution). This recognition that one size doesn't fit all in interface and device as well as the ability to leverage state of the art hardware not available otherwise I believe is what is driving the push to devices like iPhones, iPads, and iPods for companies. It would be easy to envision an improved, touch, user interface on a screen with both more real estate and better resolution, contrast, brightness, etc (easy to read) as an example. Would I use it instead of the c.c.? Not always. More likely in addition to, say when I'm teaching or sharing with people (the iPhone 4 and higher as well as iPad 2 and higher has the ability to remote it's display to TV's for example - meaning a group of people could really see what you were doing very well). That is one example, and there are certainly others.

Tech Support: I'm assuming the first question is a retorical step up for the cost discussion which was your real answer? But just in case it wasn't the answer is the sames as who we call when Photoshop (or any other program) isn't doing what is expected on the computer and OS they didn't build. We'd call whoever developed the App. And they would look at it and figure out if it was them or the OS maker, and if it was the the OS tehn that OS maker then figures out if it is the OS or the hardware.

Now to the second part of your response, I can certainly understand your point, and you might be right, it may be out of a company such as PCB's reach both resource and investment-wise (depending on how crazy PCB got with it). But as a counter point, I'll suggest a few data points in the form of the sole part time developers that ship iPhone apps to control TV's and TiVo's or X10 units and so on. If a college student can code something like that in their spare time, then I can only hope a single professional programmer could achieve something similar or better in a small fraction of their time it took the student - push it out as a beta or an experiement for a year and see what happens if you have to. At worst you get some learning to pump into the PCB innovation engine.

The deal clencher for me on the Einsteins was the Cyber Commander - it is one hell of a productivity boost over eveything else in the market and simply amazing. But there is room for improvement. I and the other customers of yours posting similar querries are simply asking that PCB keep pushing that productivity and user interface envelope, and as your customers I believe we've already proven we're a market for it and willing to pay (and I think companies like Elinchrome have also figured that out).

The first part of my answer was quasi-rhetorical, quasi-serious, and quasi-joking about how you would call us for tech support if the problem in question is on your phone. It is almost impossible for us to trouble shoot a Cyber Commander without the user there with Cyber Commander in hand following along. I know there are work arounds with multi tasking phones or using a different phone. Hence the smiley.

We are aware of the technology announced by Elinchrom, as well as the desire from some to have this technology. However, we would need to sell enough at a given cost to make it a worthwhile business venture. At this time, it has not been established that enough market is there for such a device, nor is the debate over the market status within the scope of this forum.

Well, not a shoot goes by that I don't curse the interface on the CC. If you're dead-set against a connected system, let me offer two specific improvements that could probably be accomplished in firmware:

The main menu screen cursor is moved by one stick or the other. I can never remember which one I'm supposed to move, and sometimes I have to push up when I want it to go left. List the choices in a column above the stick that moves it, for heaven't sake. Up, down.

The light setup screen has one stick for "parameter" and one for "setting". Mildly confusing, but worse, the screen cursor for each stick is the same color. Make one cursor blue and one red, put red & blue markers above the respective sticks.

I don't have my CC at hand, this is just recalled from my nightmares. But it's just basic interface design, I'm sure somebody more competent could suggest further improvements.

I doubt there is an iPad or iPhone or Android user out there that is fully satisfied with what is does vs what they would like . . . . and these companies have 1000 times the engineering staff and budget than companies like mine. Plus, I'm not prepared to ask my customers to toss their Cyber Commander every 6-12 months and buy a new one.

Also, if Profoto, etc. were ever to do a Cyber Commander equivalent you could expect to pay more like $1000+ instead of $179.95 . . . . but of course they would first have to develop an Einstein equivalent and that would be a $2000-$3000 product. They're still pushing obsolete SLA battery supplies for 8 times the price of Vagabond Lithium portable power.

The only other company that even has the IGBT technology and corresponding color accuracy and flash durations is Broncolor and you are talking $14,000 or so. Even then Einstein is faster (1/13,500 sec t,1 vs 1/8000.)

No Virginia, Profoto and Elinchrom don't do IGBT, and typically specify only misleading t.5 durations, not t.1 . . . the real thing. I will go on record as stating that Profoto publishes by far the most misleading specs in the industry.

Recognizing that there may not be enough business to justify investing time and money into such a development, what about handing the project off to some Senior Design students at an engineering university? At the school I went to, teams of students had to come up with a project and then develop it from start to finish. I would have been all over an idea like this (we made an MP3 player when there weren't really many on the market yet). In many cases they worked with a company, and this might be an opportunity for PCB to get another product in the marketplace without having to make much of an investment. Just a thought.