Should Red bother with CF port on Epic?

[Paul Leeming]

Hi all,

given the new info on the SSD side port option on the upcoming Epic/Scarlet cameras, I don't really see the point in even bothering with a CF module for Epic (read Epic/Scarlet if you wish).

I'd like to see, out of curiosity and for Red's purposes, how many of you plan to use CF cards with Epic given the new 1.8" SSD mag system and the limitations CF cards would entail (plus the fact Red are no longer making CF cards for Red cameras).

Personally, I think it would be better to simply offer the 1.8" SSD side port as standard, which would give Red the economies of scale to not need to charge extra for building them, and NOT have a CF option at all since it imposes so many limitations, is a dead tech according to Jarred and actually holds the system back.

So your thoughts - will you ever use a CF card with Epic or will you simply go the SSD route and never look back if it were the standard port on the Epic body?

Cheers,

Paul

 

[Jon B.]

I wouldn't need the CF.

RED may not want to cut that media option because of customers who are reluctant to spend the money. I disliked having CF and drives with different ports into the camera. Too much going on.

One media solution with different capacities. That seems to be a simple and reliable way to go. I'm all for no CF.

 

[Curran Giddens]

I had already decided months ago that I was going SSD only. Hopefully they will discount the price of the announced Side CF Module for those in Stage II going with SSD only.

Unfortunately the cost for my two Epic's SSD media and modules will be more than the rest of all the other new Red accessories combined.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

For potential Scarlet buyers, I think the argument against SSD-only is the current pricing. As the Scarlet fixed package was originally priced ($4750) it was a real steal. Substituting SSDs and SSD module would cause a substantial percentage increase in price. Maybe it's the way to go... have to see.

 

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

I want a compact form factor -low weight, with on-brain-ssd module, the options using CF cards will be severely limited. I say move into the future!

 

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

By the way, price on storage options:

Current 16Gb CF card @ 300$ = 18,75$ per Gb

64 Gb SSD card @ 950$ = 14.84$ per Gb
128 Gb SSD card @ 1800$ = 14.04$ per Gb
256 Gb SSD card @ 3200$ = 12.5$ per Gb

So the prices on the new media beats the current CF pricing.

Besides having full speed capability on board the brain without futher modules is extremly appealing to me.

 

[Johnny Friday]

how the heck are the cards costing so much. I can't recall, but seemed i could get one installed on a mac at 256gb at around $500-$600usd. What is so special about the RED SSD that it costs $2500 to 2700 more?

I certainly love the ability to utilize SSD's, but the cost is way out there. Or is this also covering the module on the side and the card? Not that the module should be any big cost. ?????

 

[Kwan Khan]

So the prices on the new media beats the current CF pricing

Agreed
SSD port should be the default (Epic).

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It seems to me that the SSD module should be the default on EPIC, but that really depends on what media is available. It still makes sense for RED to default to the CF module if the supply chain is going to cause regular SSD availability issues.

RED has already made the CF module for EPIC, so no reason to not have it as an option. Perhaps faster and larger CF cards will come to be at some point. Although, C.Fast should be replacing CF in the consumer market within the next year.

I'll be going SSD on my EPIC cameras. And will probably bite the bullet and buy 2 or 3 of the 256GB for each camera. They are the best $/GB ratio of any RED media (except the now discontinued RED Drive).

CF still makes a lot of sense for EPIC if you will be shooting mostly stills and of mostly static objects, where high frame rates won't come into the equation, or if you don't have an issue with the shorter record times and more frequent media swapping.

RED SSD MAGs are more expensive because:

* Custom housing and connectors

* Meets MTF and and shock requirements that off the shelf SSD's do not

* Probably SLC based and not MLC based. Which means they should not degrade in performance over time. Or at least not on a level that will affect their ability to do the job.

 

[Tom.Wong]

My question is, what's gonna happen with roll over media options? If they kill CF, that eliminated the dual CF slot option so you can theoretically record endlessly. You will run out of space on a SSD or drive eventually, even when you throttle down the redcode. Whether I like CF cards or not (I don't, it hits the wall on capacity and speed way too fast, and burns out faster than an SSD ever will) isn't the issue, there should be some kind of rollover system, even if it's to another SSD.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Epic should allow for roll-over as we can have the side SSD module as well as stacking one or more inline SSD modules on the back of the brain.

 

[Tom.Wong]

Well hopefully that will be the next announcement. there have been many times where rollover recording would have been clutch on a R1. and if people are gonna be shooting at RC 250, it's gonna be even more worthwhile.

 

[Paul Nordin]

For potential Scarlet buyers, I think the argument against SSD-only is the current pricing.

Jarred has already said the CF module will still be available for Scarlet. So I'm unclear on what the issue is. Options are all the new SSD module is all about. Use the CF for size and budget constrained. It doesn't seem to limit much on Scarlet, not so on Epic with it's much higher bandwidth requirements.

 

[Tom.Wong]

the hope was at the very least a 64 gb CF card, with faster read/write speeds. 16 gb is still kind of killer at 8 minutes a card at 4k. plus it's limitation with redcode, framerates and so on. I guess people wanted a CF card with larger capacity and closer to what you could get out of a RED DRIVE or even more. Maybe too much to ask for since CF is limited in itself, even the fastest sandisk cards won't compare to a SSD. Which is why RED probably dropped their CF program because they were hitting wall after wall.

 

[Erich Ocean]

CF still makes a lot of sense for EPIC if you will be shooting mostly stills and of mostly static objects, where high frame rates won't come into the equation, or if you don't have an issue with the shorter record times and more frequent media swapping.

I dunno, I'll be getting a couple SSDs like you, but for shooting stills. Specifically, I want the ability to shoot lossless 2.5:1 REDCODE for stills, and the literature says the 256GB is the minimum entry point for that. There's a lot of shots that look amazing but typically come out blurry, and lossless recording will be a must for still photographers IMO. When the images are flying by at 24fps, there's not much detail you can grasp anyway so the compression is fine, but a 13MP still is a whole different ballgame. For that people will want the absolute best the sensor can deliver.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I would imagine that if you have the camera in "still" mode, it's going to have an affinity for shooting RC250 or some flavor of mathematically lossless. The camera should be able to buffer as it writes, just as any DSLR does now, so in that scenario the slower/smaller media may be workable. However, if you want full frame rate options at the full quality, you're correct. I guess that's why I said that about higher frame rates not coming into the equation.

But you do raise an interesting point. If we are shooting stills and don't need 24+ fps, is it possible to record RC250, or equivalent quality, to the smaller and slower media?

 

[Paul Nordin]

Epic should allow for roll-over as we can have the side SSD module as well as stacking one or more inline SSD modules on the back of the brain.

Yep, my thoughts as well.

I don't morn the death of CFs, I appaud it! SSDs make way more sense for Epic.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip)
* Meets MTF and and shock requirements that off the shelf SSD's do not

I thought that was MTBF - mean time between failures.

When I see MTF I think modulation transfer function.

:biggrinjester: I only had to read 9,000 of Jeff's posts to find a typo :001_tt2:

Cheers, not jeers - #19

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Yep, you got me Blair... Sometimes I type faster than the brain thinks.

 

[David Rasberry]

What about C-fast? Is that possibly going to be practical or cost effective?