Hollyland vs Teradek Bolt

[Tom S]

I was recently on an indie set that used the Hollyland monitor transmitter and the whole crew turned their iphones into monitors. I thought this was pretty useful. My Teradek Bolt system has worked great, but gotten old and banged up. How would you compare? Latency and dependability are 99% of my needs, but the iphone feature would be nice too.

 

[Bill Ravens]

After looking at all the possibilities, I bought the ACCSOON SE. Nice fit and finish, and it has more features than Hollyland or Teradek, at a lower and quite reasonable price.

 

[M Harvey]

Newsshooter has reviewed a bunch of these units from Hollyland and Accsoon and others, and they test for latency.

I may be behind on their product lines but, in periodically checking, I haven’t yet seen a true “zero latency” units from these other manufacturers, which is why I myself would always choose Teradek (or Cinegears, etc.). But those other features (app-based view etc) are great if you’re not relying on it for pulling focus.

 

[Fabrice M]

Newsshooter has reviewed a bunch of these units from Hollyland and Accsoon and others, and they test for latency.

I may be behind on their product lines but, in periodically checking, I haven’t yet seen a true “zero latency” units from these other manufacturers, which is why I myself would always choose Teradek (or Cinegears, etc.). But those other features (app-based view etc) are great if you’re not relying on it for pulling focus.

I'm looking for a zero latency transmitter at the moment and I came across this

From what I see in this test, it looks like true zero latency. The kit sells for around $1500 on Ebay, not cheap but still less expensive than Teradek or Cinegear, I'm still searching for other options though

 

[Alex Zeder]

I would buy a few of these DM1000 and install them in a DeLorean because the receiver even manages to get ahead of the transmitter.


RX 1009 vs. TX 1008:




RX 1379 vs. TX 1378:

 

[Fabrice M]

I would buy a few of these DM1000 and install them in a DeLorean because the receiver even manages to get ahead of the transmitter.


RX 1009 vs. TX 1008:




RX 1379 vs. TX 1378:

Wow you're right, something looks fishy. I re-watched the video at 0.25 speed and paused a lot of times, I found some other frames where the circle and frame number are slightly ahead on the RX. Although, the timecode is always ahead on the TX. Anyone has a plausible explanation for this or is it a scam? Anyway, I won't risk my money in this product

 

[Alex Zeder]

Some possible explanations that come to mind:

• it's intentionally fake
• it's unintentionally wrong
• the video is generated by an AI that doesn't know about physical time restrictions
• someone accidentally crossed the cables to the monitors when setting up this test system
  (which is disproved by the fact that sometimes the receiver is actually behind, see picture below here)
• what you see is just temporal noise
• not further detailed IEE 754 rounding errors
• there's a horizontal sensor readout delay, basically a rolling shutter effect rotated 90 degrees
  (also possible: someone held the camera in portrait orientation and cropped it to landscape in post)
• two DM1000 establish a local wormhole from each side and transmit the signal through (watch your energy bill!)
• blame it on YouTube compression

 

[Phil Holland]

Newsshooter has reviewed a bunch of these units from Hollyland and Accsoon and others, and they test for latency.

I may be behind on their product lines but, in periodically checking, I haven’t yet seen a true “zero latency” units from these other manufacturers, which is why I myself would always choose Teradek (or Cinegears, etc.). But those other features (app-based view etc) are great if you’re not relying on it for pulling focus.

I switched over all my on set monitoring to 4K last year. That was another pretty big one, though I imagine that's not everybody's cup of tea.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Some possible explanations that come to mind:

• it's intentionally fake
• it's unintentionally wrong
• the video is generated by an AI that doesn't know about physical time restrictions
• someone accidentally crossed the cables to the monitors when setting up this test system
  (which is disproved by the fact that sometimes the receiver is actually behind, see picture below here)
• what you see is just temporal noise
• not further detailed IEE 754 rounding errors
• there's a horizontal sensor readout delay, basically a rolling shutter effect rotated 90 degrees
  (also possible: someone held the camera in portrait orientation and cropped it to landscape in post)
• two DM1000 establish a local wormhole from each side and transmit the signal through (watch your energy bill!)
• blame it on YouTube compression

Interesting. Thinking, could it not be the clock frequency within the two monitors that differs a fraction of a frame? Then if both get the signal simultaiusly the one to the right slots it a frame earlier. As the two screens does not have external incoming sync.

 

[Alex Zeder]

That's something I considered possible, too. But then there are the frames where the digits just change and the next number overlays the previous number. This either means that the signal to the monitor isn't as accurate as it should be or that the recorded video fps/angle caused this smear (certainly the latter). But in any case this indicates that where this happens on one side and the other side is already a full frame number ahead, that the screen refresh/sync would be abnormally long (>1/30 s), at least longer than the frame rate, hence a bit unlikely although not verifiable wrong.

Apart from this test, I'd rather like to see a focus pull done over a distance with these devices, with more other WLAN/BT devices around, and some other real world scenarios.