Let's talk ergonomics...

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I suggested a shoulder cut out in another post long ago so I'm all up for it Brook. I think that the ARRI 235 is the closest in streamline but LT would do.

I also suggested that you should somehow designed the battery's and the cradle section, as the mags of the 235 or LT so you continue that streamlined ergonomics.
It's important that the control LCD is not in the back. It doesn't work if you want to make this kind of design. It needs to be on the side.

They're talking wifi control so maybe a clip on module that can be on either side? As an option for the AC?

(PS make it hotswap as well)

Fredrik Callinggard

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

At last, a thread that has a real target... To make Epic look and feel professionally designed. Probably I have to put only feel... the looks are for Prada bags...

Brook, my congratulation for starting this thread !

First...

I really hope that the molding of the housing hasn't being finalized...

Second...

I'm wishing Jim to read carefully this thread...
Jim is about making a X10 your success in the industry!

IT IS TREMENDOUSLY BIG TO REALIZE AND PERCEIVE THESE SUGGESTIONS

IT IS BIGGER THAN THE SENSOR DESIGN THAT YOU ANNOUNCED

Excuse me for writing loudly... but my feelings was the same like Brooks "Oh god they made it worse..." and that is a very bad signal...

So I want to be very clear, am not your father to tell you what to do, am not even a client of yours... (yet), am probably a tiny ant in front of you... but you have to hear the calling of your client base and interact in an open discussion about that subject. You replying for all shorts of things, you are open to people, you have the balls to confront them...

You are having the once in a lifetime opportunity to interactively design your next camera in public, with the help of your clients. This has never happened before and you have this unique opportunity, to exploit the collective perception, and ideas, of thousand users, to design the best ever designed camera in the world. And all that for free.

So use your 3D design team to show ideas to your forum members and discuss them for a certain period of time with all of us...

Make your decision, what to keep and what to throw, and thats it...

Its simple... just thing differently... its perfect.

If you want, I can help you on that, just drop me a PM... I hope the sleep was that good...

[Brent J. Craig]

Jim, time to put Brook on the payroll (if he isn't already). He speaks for a lot of us here!

[Noah Kadner]

Wanted to add- very nice diagrams. :) Also good points.

-Noah

[David Mullen ASC]

We all have our different priorities... but your average narrative feature movie has a lot more handheld shots than aerial and underwater shots. I've shot over 30 features and have almost no aerial or underwater shots in any of them. The meat & potatoes of narrative feature filmmaking is shooting actors moving around on sets and in locations, using a camera assistant for focus pulling.

That said, if a camera is small enough, then you have more flexibility in configuring it for handheld with accessories even if it adds more weight.

Again, if you do other types of shooting, your priorities will be completely different. A Steadicam Operator or a Technocrane operator, for example, may prefer a smaller box-shape over a kidney shape, assuming they don't also have to do some handheld shooting themselves.

Aaton, with its Penelope design, has gone with the attitude that camera assistants should stand on the "dummy" side of the camera, BTW.

Great work, Brook.

The other day, one of my AC's was complaining about the lack of a tally light in front because when the camera is high in the air on a remote crane, pointed downwards, you can't tell if it is running or not from the ground. Unless there is one there and we missed it. He was also complaining about the lack of a lock button so that the menu buttons can't be accidentally pushed once things are set.

[Bruce Allen]

What a wonderful thread, Brook. So nice to see everything summed up in one place here and so much well-thought-through advice. Great explanatory graphics.

Red should also look at the Aaton line - Penelope, etc... it's no coincidence that their cameras also fit the above ergonomic guidelines.
EDIT: David beat me to it

I'm amazed Matt Uhry hasn't added his voice already - he has been saying the same thing and would be 100% behind this.

Hey, quite a lot of this applies to Scarlet too (currently it looks like an Epic chopped in half)... but that is for another thread.

Why don't Red just use the P+S interchangeable mount system for the Epic? It doesn't have a big throat. They wouldn't have to waste time redesigning mounts again then, and since P+S are well-known among their potential Epic customers, it would result in more camera sales since they would have no doubts about the mount. That move would probably would pay for itself handsomely.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Paul Hazlett]

AKS.

At $40,000, this is a professional camera that should be specifically geared towards the market that it’s obviously designed for: filmmaking. It doesn’t need a Nikon mount or a Canon mount [since they are easy to add to normal PL mounts], it doesn’t need to work as an ENG/EFP camera

I disagree with the Idea that the ENG/EFP market should be shoved to the
side. There are many enhancements and refinements we also are looking for that will be delivered on the EPIC.

Let's not turn this back into an elitist "film only" thing....Please

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Awesome thread, Brook!

I have to agree with phaz on his post above mine. The lines are often blurred between "filmmaking" and ENG/EFP, especially as far as equipment is concerned. IMO, EPIC seems to better fit the ENG/EFP paradigm than the RED One.

Regardless of one's use for the EPIC, multiple lens options are a good idea. Not everyone has a need for cine lenses, even if their budget would allow. For many others, it's a budget issue or simply a desire to use tools (lenses) they may already own. I have a pretty good selection of Nikon glass. I haven't bought the RED Nikon mount, kinda waiting to see how the whole Birger mount ordeal plays out and what happens with their Nikon solution. I would buy the Birger mount system and go through the hassle of installing it on a RED just to use my 105mm Nikkor macro. .

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm afraid the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind when thinking of a camera that tries to be all things to all people.

It's sort of the nature of industrial design for things to either become more universal or more job specific over time, and back again.

Obviously a 35mm Panaflex is not really well-designed for ENG work, just as the F900 was not really well-designed for cinema work. The RED tries to straddle both worlds, and does it fairly well, but the compromise is, well, compromise. There will then be aspects that don't work as well for one group over the other.

The question is whether EPIC and Scarlet are intended to be just as broad-based in usability as the RED ONE, or if they will be designed for targeted markets. Does the EPIC lean more towards mainstream feature and TV production? Does the Scarlet lean more towards the prosumer crowd?

In production in general, we have become comfortable with the notion of specialized cameras. We have lots of options to choose from. I think it is more in the people who want to buy and own only one or two cameras where the interest in having something that does a broader range of jobs becomes more important, compared to the person (like me) who may rent a high-speed camera once a year to shoot something over 100 fps, for example, versus rent an Eyemo to stick into a crash housing once a year. But obviously if I were forming a production company that wanted to shoot both stock footage, ENG stuff, and narrative, I'd be looking for a camera that could serve the widest range in types of shots.

But if you are someone who just shoots narrative indie work (mostly people talking in rooms, driving around, walking through landscapes, and more talking...) then your needs are different. You're more likely to want to shoot handheld than put the camera into a helicopter and shoot aerials. You are more likely to shoot a take that lasts one to three minutes rather than an interview that lasts one hour, etc.

[Brook Willard]

I'll agree that the digging into ENG/EFP may be harsh, but my logic is this:

Imagine if the camera had audio pots on the smart side next to the operator's head, a rocker zoom switch, a giant top handle and no modularity. Those may make it work "better" in an ENG/EFP environment because it's what people in that world are used to... but it would make it function much more poorly in a real cinema-style environment.

My point isn't to abandon ENG/EFP/etc. for the sake of it... but to make sure that cine-style shooting comes first. If a feature for another style of shooting detracts from the cine-style aspects of the camera, well... time to rethink that one. If it adds to it or doesn't affect it... go for it!

Thinks like the Nikon mount option won't detract from the design of the camera, since many a Nikon mount has been added to many a film camera. The adjustable collimation lens throat, however, does detract from the functionality of the camera. No worries, just kill that idea.

That's what I meant.

Great post, Brook.

One point I respectfully disagree with is that some of the ergonomics that you suggest would make it very hard or impossible to put the camera in an underwater housing. I am not aware of anyone shooting F24 or F35 underwater.

Agreed, I think it should avoid the F23/35 design altogether. But the 235 fits nicely into an underwater housing. Adding things like shoulder cutouts and removing the lens throat doesn't have to make it dysfunctional in other environments. It'll still be small enough when stripped to fit into a tube. It'll also still be large enough when built to balance out the Hubble telescope BFZ.

If modularity sticks around in an intelligent sense, there's no reason why this design couldn't be stripped to the bone for situations like yours.