My latest two-part collection on the proprietary-vs-multisource “tug of battle” within the pictures world lined each lens mount and flash illumination-source “locks”, however it virtually had a 3rd case examine entry. Partly two, I’d talked about Godox, a provider of (amongst different issues) digital flash models for varied different producers’ cameras. A few of Godox’s flashes (whose product names start with the characters “TT”) are powered by standard AA batteries, whereas others (whose names begin with “V”) use proprietary battery packs. The elemental tradeoff, I’ve concluded from each anecdotal analysis and private expertise, is one in all comfort (extensively obtainable off-the-shelf, already-charged cylindrical dry batteries) versus per-battery greater quantity cost density (proprietary cells).
Non-standard battery packs—not solely from one machine producer to a different, however even from machine to machine inside a specific producer’s product line—are a longstanding unlucky actuality within the pictures business. That stated, no less than Canon and Sony’s de facto requirements (by advantage of their widespread use) have additionally been unofficially adopted by third-party steady gentle, exterior monitor, extended-life exterior energy and different tools suppliers. And unsurprisingly, the charging docks used to replenish these proprietary battery packs are additionally proprietary. Right here, for instance, is my Godox V1o flash unit (the “o” signifies that it really works with Olympus cameras, together with these of different Micro 4/3 suppliers akin to Panasonic; Godox additionally makes V1 variants for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm and Pentax, the latter which I additionally personal):
Right here’s what the battery-plus-dock combo seems like with the cable related:
And right here’s your entire “package”:
Now one other look (from my private “package”) on the charging dock, its related AC-to-DC “wall wart” and the cable that comes with the package and connects the 2:
Word that the dock connection is USB-C, whereas that for the “wall wart” is USB-A.
In exploring my new “toy”, I’d been curious to see if I might use a high-capacity moveable battery (typically known as a energy financial institution) to recharge the flash unit’s personal battery when, for instance, I used to be “within the discipline” capturing photos and away from an AC outlet. Particularly, I personal (amongst different high-capacity moveable batteries) an Anker PowerCore+ 20100 mannequin A1371:
And since each it and the Godox charging dock embody USB-C connections, I believed I’d use a typical USB-C cable to attach them for highest-possible potential Anker energy output and consequent fastest-possible potential Godox charging pace. However the combo flat-out refused to work; the charger dock gentle didn’t illuminate and, extra importantly, the battery didn’t cost. The identical factor occurred (or maybe extra precisely, didn’t occur) after I tried connecting the Godox charging dock over USB-C to an Anker PowerPort+ 5 A2053 multi-port charger:
And even to the Aukey PA-Y8 single-port USB-C charger that I exploit with my iPad Professional:
(the Aukey is on the left)
So, what’s occurring? At first, I suspected that Godox might need bundled a proprietary cable in its package. However I believe no less than a few of you’ll have already found out what I initially missed however ultimately “grokked”…the important thing wasn’t that the Godox cable was proprietary, it was that the cable was USB-A on one finish. After I tried out different USB-C to USB-A cables (and USB-A wall warts, multi-port chargers and the like related to that finish of the cable), all of them labored advantageous…even the USB-A outputs of my Anker PowerCore+ 20100 energy financial institution.
Whereas I initially thought that this example was a one-off, the quirk is seemingly extra widespread than I’d initially believed. As I’m changing into extra (and equipment-invested) in videography, I’ve picked up a few HDMI wi-fi transmitters, each particular to my gimbal (Zhiyun) and extra generic (Accsoon, in my case). In skilled video seize settings (of which, to be clear, I don’t harbor any delusion of ever being an energetic participant), such gear generally finds use in, for instance, enabling an off-camera director to view the footage because it’s captured by the digicam.
Skilled videographers additionally hardly ever if ever depend on a digicam’s built-in autofocus, as a substitute focusing manually…and typically they don’t even do this themselves and leverage a focus puller, who can maybe clearly additionally profit from off-camera wi-fi viewing. Typically the wi-fi transmitter connects to an identical wi-fi receiver module and from there to a show over HDMI. Different instances, the wi-fi broadcast, instantly obtained by an Android or iOS pill, smartphone or different cell machine, is considered instantly on it.
Anyway, one of many gadgets I now personal is Accsoon’s CineEye Air:
Right here’s some promo footage of it in motion on-set:
Not like its CineEye massive brother, it doesn’t embody an embedded battery; it’s as a substitute powered externally by way of both a DC “barrel” plug or…you guessed it…a UCB-C enter. And…you guessed it…I initially couldn’t determine why connecting it to a USB-C outfitted energy supply was unsuccessful. Fortunately, within the viewer feedback part of a superb evaluate of each the CiniEye and CineEye Air (spectacular vary, low latency and excessive decision/body fee, eh?):
I discovered my reply:
@W00ge
Does yours work with a USB-C to USB-C energy cable? Mine doesn’t.
@PhillipSkraba
I’m afraid I’m oldschool and solely have usb – usb-c cables, they each work advantageous with these.
And the state of affairs on this case was much more baffling, as a result of Accsoon didn’t even bundle a USB-A to USB-C energy cable with the unit to offer homeowners with preliminary accent steerage.
So, what’s occurring right here? Why on earth would a producer embody a USB-C energy “sink” connection that’s incapable of being efficiently mated with a USB-C energy “supply”? Round 5 years in the past, inside an summary writeup titled “USB: Deciphering the signaling, connector, and energy supply variations,” I wrote:
Through the Energy Supply (PD) specification, launched in v1.0 type in July 2012 and most lately up to date to v3.0, micro-USB and USB-C connections are able to dealing with as much as 100W of energy switch by way of a mixture of boosted present and 4 totally different voltage choices; legacy 5V, plus 9V, 15V, and 20V. Charging supply and sink gadgets negotiate their respective capabilities and necessities upon initiation of the connection.
Sounds easy, proper? One other more moderen EDN contributed article authored by Infineon Applied sciences goes into extra element on the negotiation course of, which employs the USB-C connector’s two Channel Configuration pins, CC1 and CC2 (fast apart: the Infineon article solely covers by USB Energy Supply spec v3, which helps as much as 100W energy switch capabilities. Coming-soon USB PD v3.1 aspires to actualize longstanding 240W guarantees by way of, amongst different issues, beefier cables…it additionally helps finer-grained voltage-and-current combos and variances of each all through the charging course of).
I can solely assume that in these specific circumstances, the Accsoon or Godox “sinks” aren’t appropriately implementing this negotiation handshake (in the event that they implement it in any respect), ensuing within the “supply” giving up and disabling its energy output. All of the USB-C energy “sources” I’ve entry to at my dwelling workplace appear to additionally be PD-supportive, alas, so I can’t verify this speculation by attempting a non-PD USB-C supply as a substitute. Knowledgeable-reader insights are welcomed within the feedback.
Extra typically, although I’m loath to “look a present horse within the mouth”, USB’s charging and broader energy supply schemes are a longstanding and lingering mess. Don’t get me flawed; significantly with respect to USB-C and its Thunderbolt 3-and-newer “kissing cousin”, there’s lots to like, akin to:
However take into account these enthusiasm-offsetting case examine examples:
Loads of different comparable points additionally exist, alas. And the competing existence of proprietary approaches akin to Qualcomm’s a number of Fast Cost generations additional confuses the state of affairs for shoppers (and even techies like me).
Does the blame for these and different examples of interface woe lie solely and even predominantly with the USB Implementers Discussion board (USBIF)? Actually not: assuming the specs that the group comes up with are sufficiently complete to cowl all potential “nook circumstances”, it’s then as much as the IC and system suppliers to observe them to the letter from an implementation standpoint (or not observe them and endure the results). And I additionally don’t dismiss the results of USB’s utilization pervasiveness; protection of any resultant implementation “glitch” inevitably finally ends up being equally pervasively disseminated. That stated, I can’t shake the nagging conjecture that if USBIF and its members had been to spend a bit much less effort and time on quickly advancing the interface’s capabilities (to maintain tempo with Thunderbolt and different interface approaches, amongst different issues) and a bit extra effort and time cleansing up in the present day’s interface implementations, we’d have lots fewer “glitches” in consequence.
Agree or disagree? Let me know your ideas within the feedback.
—Brian Dipert is the Editor-in-Chief of the Edge AI and Imaginative and prescient Alliance, and a Senior Analyst at BDTI and Editor-in-Chief of InsideDSP, the corporate’s on-line publication.
Associated Content material
