Let's talk ergonomics...

[Brook Willard]

Alright, let's talk about ergonomics here. The Epic has a long way to go. Get ready for another giant Brook post.

As usual, the place to start is with the RED ONE.

The RED ONE, while obviously an amazing camera in many ways, will always be plagued by a few serious and irreparable design oversights. With EPIC on the horizon, RED has the perfect opportunity to start from scratch and "get it right."

Some of this post may come off a little abrasive, but I think everybody knows that my heart's in the right place.

Before we jump into the RED ONE, let's think of film cameras for a moment. As camera technology progressed and experience began to take its toll, film camera body designs changed from blocky, awkward contraptions to sleek, balanced precision tools. While RED may only have two years of experience in making cameras, they can and should draw from a hundred years of tweaked and perfected designs in the film industry.

At this point, unfortunately, EPIC's body design can be most closely equated to that of a 1970s Bolex. Sure there may be a few more 1/4-20 taps... but ultimately the only thing that could be done to that camera to make it more awkward would be the addition of a hand crank. As excited as I was at NAB to see the camera, the first thought I had when I laid eyes on the body was "holy crap, they made it worse."

I know RED says they've been talking with ACs from the beginning about the design of the camera... and that's great. There is one point to consider, as broad as this statement may seem. While the stereotypical "AC" has tremendous experience with proper film cameras, he or she likely has zero experience designing proper film cameras. It's a different eye. They know what works on an Arri because it's always worked. I've met only a few ACs who have ever been presented with a clean slate upon which to design a camera.

Advice should come from all sides, but those that have been following RED from day one [with a film background of their own] have developed an eye for these things beyond what a director or short-term user may be able to say. A famous director of photography who's used the camera once may have some feelings on the camera... but they may have only used the camera for a few days. While they may have tons of experience in the film industry and they may be a very influential person, I think it's important to pay attention to those of us on this forum who live, breathe and sleep RED. There are lots of you guys on here... let's let the people make the camera! Not necessarily just the IMDB credits. :wink:

With all that fun out of the way, there are a few key points about the RED ONE's body that should be taken into serious consideration when designing EPIC. Here they are in no particular order.

Lens mount location.

Most of the ergonomic problems with the RED can be attributed to the location of the lens mount. There are two primary problems: the lens mount is too high and the throat is too long. Another way to phrase it would be to comment on the lack of a shoulder cutout in the bottom of the camera. Ultimately, both are the same. If there was a shoulder cutout, it would lower the effective position of the lens mount.

EPIC needs both: a shoulder cutout and a lower optical axis. Interestingly, it seems that the optical axis on the EPIC has actually been raised when compared with the RED ONE. The lens throat also appears to be longer. Both need to go.

Examining the logic behind the lens throat to begin with, I can only come up with two factors: the interchangeable lens mount and the adjustable flange focal distance. Film cameras are obviously constrained by the presence of a mirror shutter and accordingly cannot and do not have a long lens throat.

At $40,000, the EPIC is no RED ONE. I don’t see a lot of people investing this kind of money into a camera only to put a Nikon mount on it. While some Nikon mounts will certainly get made for the camera [and that's fine...], it should not affect other [more important] decisions. As it is a more professional camera with a more professional price, it may be time to pick priorities. While the different lens mounts shouldn’t have much to do with the throat length of the lens mount [the FFDs are so similar on different lens types that it’s not a significant concern], the adjustable collimation mount does.

The adjustable lens mount has a lot of problems that – ironically – the original lens mount did not. I'm not saying I preferred the old lens mount... but it did have a few upsides.

Having put the camera on a collimator, the lens mount is a little disappointing. At least the old mount would keep the lens square to the sensor when shimmed properly. What I’m saying is that the throat needs to go. If the adjustable lens mount necessitates a long throat… get rid of the adjustable lens mount. The long throat is the source of several problems beyond this section – most notably would be the location of the controls [see way below]. Give me shims!

Moving on.

 

[Brook Willard]

Shoulder Cutout.

Rather than blathering on more and more, here are a few diagrams I built. These diagrams are to scale. The optical axis of the cameras have been lined up.

First, the Arricam LT.

As you can see, the lens mount location is the major problem here. The height of the mount puts the flat bottom of the camera lower than the lowest point of the LT’s body. Once you take the shoulder cutout at the magazine throat into consideration, the problem is pretty obvious.

Obviously the LT is larger than the RED and much larger than the EPIC. It’s the best handheld sound camera out there, but the RED’s size is closer to that of the 235. Honestly, the 235 should be the design goal for the EPIC.

Look at that. The shoulder cutout on the 235 is so dramatic that it eats up about half of the RED ONE body. The total height of the 235 is also significantly shorter than my diagram shows – the lower blue block under the mirror shutter is removable. That means that the distance from the optical axis to the bottom of the actual body is only 83mm – 2mm shorter than the distance required for 15mm video rods. You can mount 15mm video rod channels on the bottom of the 235 without rear interference. Add on the riser block [which I have in my diagram] and the 15mm or 19mm studio channels and you can imagine how much clearance there is from the lowest point of the body to the highest point of the shoulder cutout.

The bigger and deeper the shoulder cutout, the thicker the pad can be. The thicker the pad is, the happier the operator is. Just a quick note: the shoulder pad should be thicker on the outside than on the inside… and it should be adjustable in two directions. Either way, there should be a handful of mounting points in the shoulder cutout on the body... there is always room for 3rd party solutions.

Another benefit: the deeper the shoulder cutout is, the higher the viewfinder can be. As it stands, the EVF is a monster. In hindsight, it should’ve had a 90˚ prism… but that’s another story. If the shoulder cutout is deeper, the EVF can be higher. If it’s high enough, its butt can clear the matte box, allowing it to be positioned far enough forward to prevent the interference issues that plague it today. The LEMO on the EVF should also be keyed vertically, to solve the cable clearance issues that it suffers from today.

So… lens mount height and shoulder cutout. Both are extremely important and both are the solution. One will not cut it without the other. As it stands, the RED ONE’s body is essentially upside-down. I can’t stress enough how important this is. I really hope RED decides to just copy the 235.

Next.

 

[Brook Willard]

Interface Location.

The reason I was blathering on about the lens mount throat has to do with the location of the interface controls on the camera. Simply put, the interface controls cannot remain on the back of the camera. Not only are they a serious pain in the butt to access for the camera assistant, the display is out of the AC’s sight, the tally light is out of sight and the buttons are easily hit by accident.

Furthermore, there are many times when an operator wants to put his hands directly on the butt/magazine of the camera. There are other times when the entire weight of the camera is rested on the rear – be it on a sandbag or on the operator’s lap. Also, when shooting in tight spaces, the interface can bounce against a wall and activate buttons by accident. Even if it’s not activated by accident, the rear interface is impossible to access when in a tight space. Further still, based on the design of the RED ONE and its accessories, the best place to put the hard drive and battery is directly over the display and interface controls. Simply put, it would be downright stupid to put the interface on the back of the camera again. I can't stress this enough.

So where to put it?

With the current RED ONE and EPIC body design, there is no other place. The normal answer would be to put the interface on the smart side of the camera… but with the length of the lens throat, it just isn’t possible.

With the lens throat as long as it is, the RED ONE’s smart side controls are too far back to be of any significant use. It puts the three buttons next to the operator’s face. On film cameras, the controls are far forward enough to prevent the operator’s face from interfering. If the lens throat was shortened significantly [or thrown out altogether], the interface could be moved to a little countersunk panel on the smart side of the camera. It would but the display where it needs to be, the buttons where we need them and the butt free and clear.

This image will help explain why I think shortening the lens throat is so necessary.

Compare the interface controls on the RED ONE versus where they are on the LT. They’re about three inches farther back on the RED ONE… right where the operator’s nose wants to be.

Also consider that with the lens throat gone, the interface can reach as far up or down the side of the body as needed. Even better, since the Epic won't have a mirror shutter to contend with, one can actually have the controls reach out in front of the camera body below the lens without a problem! I don’t recommend that personally, but it’s possible. They could go right where the mirror shutter is on a film camera. There is enough space to do it and it will not interfere with the operator if positioned and countersunk properly.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, there is one camera out there that has the interface controls on the butt and kind of gets away with it. That camera is the Arri D-20 [err, D-21]. Its interface control knob is on the back of the camera. So why does that one almost work?

One little advantage is that their knob is countersunk. The camera can be rested on its butt without tapping the button. There is also no display back there to reference. The main huge advantage is that there is an interface control knob on the LCD itself. The D-21’s smart side display only controls the frame rate and shutter. All of the rest of the control lives in the camera’s menu system… which is controlled by the knob on the LCD about 95% of the time. If RED introduces a new LCD with Epic, I'd hope it has more interface controls on it.

Beyond location, there are other problems with the RED ONE’s [and, in turn, EPIC’s] controls that need to be addressed. The buttons on the RED ONE are plastic with weak springs. They also stick out beyond the face of the camera.

Check out the buttons on an Arri. They are generally [but not always] countersunk, they are metal and they have strong springs holding them taut. They don’t rattle around, they don’t feel weak under pressure and they have a long throw. It is very obvious when you push them… and it isn’t often that you push them by accident.

One other little feature? And this one’s just as important as anything… LOCK SWITCHES. Arricams have individual lock switches for each of their control surfaces. There’s a run/stop button on each side of the camera… and each one has a switch to prevent accidental input. RED really should put run/stop buttons on each side [but not the back] of the camera and have an individual lock switch on each side. The lock switch should only lock the interface that it’s right next to.

Please move the interface screen and controls to the smart side of the camera. Please change the button design to be more like Arri. Please add lock switches… and please add a little speaker so it beeps when it rolls and stops. Please!

This is fun. Next.

 

[Brook Willard]

Port Location.

Choosing port location on a digital camera is tricky. No matter where they go… they’ll interfere with something. Obviously the ports either need to be on the dumb side or butt of the camera. The RED ONE isn’t bad, but it could be better.

Before I get into the main event, lets talk about accessory ports. As much as I wish RED would go to 11-pin and 3-pin Fisher connectors, I know they're going to stay with those little four-pin LEMOs. I can't help but ask for them, though. If it’s technically possible… they should wire the accessory ports on the EPIC to support more than .5A of current… preferably closer to 2A [to properly power lens motors without making the breakers nervous].

But that’s just a tangent. Those accessory ports [4-pin LEMOs, I’m guessing] should be everywhere. Put a few on the back, one on each side and one on the top. You never know when or where you’ll need to hook an accessory… you can’t have too many accessory ports. Even if most of the ports are dumb… no worries. Just put ‘em everywhere.

Back to port position. Like I said, the RED ONE isn’t bad. That said, keying the ports incorrectly on the back to prevent use of 90˚ connectors was a bummer move. Having ports on the back [particularly important ones that stick way out] is a bummer in general... particularly when most of the weight of the camera wants to rest on those ports when it's set down.

Obviously if the ports end up on the back they should be keyed properly. If they end up on the side… same thing. But no matter what, the “best” position for ports is the way it is on modern Arri cameras [noticing a trend? ] – at about a 30˚ angle out the dumb side of the camera. This way they don’t stick out the back where they can get broken off… they don’t stick out the side where they can get broken off… and they’re sort of “contained” within the shape of the body.

Case in point:

Rather than making the camera square, making it an “L” shape like an Arricam will result in a logical place on the side to hide the lifeline cables without putting them in the way.

Now I can’t make a section on port location without referencing the D-21 again. It’s a digital camera and it’s chock-full of boards… yet they still managed to place the ports in a “proper” location.

They also managed to put a proper shoulder cutout and placed the lens mount at the right height. That’s not a shot at RED, just a reminder that it is possible with circuit boards. The D-21 has problems of its own – if they're going to copy a camera, it’s not the right camera to copy.

The ports on the back of the D-21 are countersunk and protected. It’s not perfect [I’d rather there be no ports back there], but it’s a somewhat decent solution. Either way, just look at all that port real estate they’ve created on the “L” portion of the body. Obviously the EPIC will be way smaller, but the same concept is still possible. Just put all the ports in the crotch of the "L".

 

[Brook Willard]

Modularity.

Modularity is a funny thing. It’s pure genius in so many ways… but is so difficult in others. By now, we all know the benefits to modularity, and that should never go away. Being able to strip down the camera body to a smooth shape free of snag points rocks... particularly for skydiving footage. Adding only the accessories you need is marvelous. I love being able to rig and re-rig the camera until it’s perfect for a given situation.

But that said, there are some unfortunate downsides. If there’s no wrong way to rig something, it often means that there’s no right way either. That’s one bummer about the RED ONE – there’s no universal shape to adopt. There’s no “right” way to build it for handheld, there’s no “right” way to build it for sticks, etc. I love being able to rearrange the body, but there are many times that I wish there was just a “right” way to do it to balance the camera. I've learned my own ways, but it's never 100% there.

Sometimes having everything adjustable means that nothing ever locks down quite right… it means that sometimes parts will interfere with each other… it just means that there isn’t always a perfect solution.

Panavision cameras have "zero" modularity. You get their body and it comes with exactly the right accessories. The follow focus mounts to the body, the cables are all the right length and port configuration, etc. So you rent certain lenses: those lenses will have the perfect length rods, perfect bellows and a proper matte box. Obviously the Panavision cameras are modular within themselves [they can be re-rigged to different configurations and third party accessories can be added]... but it's always guaranteed to fit. You get my point. Some people love it, some don't. I'm not a huge fan.

Arri's system is great. Create a camera body and certain accessories, but make a universal "SDK" for accessories: rod standards. Go to any rental house in LA and you'll find different setups. Every camera will have slightly different accessories. Every lens will have a slightly different support. Everybody has a slightly different matte box collection of a slightly different vintage. It doesn't matter... because it's all based on standards. It's a nice bit of modularity.

RED went above and beyond. There are certain standards [screw sizes and thread pitches, certain arrangements of screw holes that match across all accessories, etc.], but all of the accessories are freeform. You can mount anything anywhere and that's awesome... to a point.

Now I’m not saying to abandon modularity. Not in the least. That’s part of the genius of the RED ONE to begin with. But at the very least, there should be some well thought-out “proper” solutions for different situations. Furthermore, there should be some built-in permanent mounts for things that the camera will always need.

I personally think that Epic should have a magazine slot. Like the CF cards, just bigger. It may not snap into place with a custom connector like a film magazine does, but the location should be fixed and well thought out for balance and security. No cables, no funny mounting options, just a slot where I can slide a RED DRIVE-shaped magazine [one of the new, fancy high speed magazines for that 100MB/s goodness], plug it in, close a door and forget about it. Internal to the body, shock mounted and put far enough to the rear of the camera to balance it for handheld.

The same applies to the CF card slots: make them in a logical location and put a door over them that snaps shut.

RED knows the power of marketing more than anybody. This picture is downright awesome marketing. The camera looks badass, the lighting is sick and the rig looks impressive at a glance. I know the purpose of this image was to demonstrate all of the accessories built together in one possible arrangement and I know that there are a million ways to build the camera.

That said, those that didn’t follow the camera’s development like a rabid monkey might look at this picture and assume that it’s the “right” way to rig the camera. They buy the accessories they see in this picture and build the camera in exactly this way. Just think about how many MB-20s this picture sold. People are quick to assume that the presented way is the proper “right” way.

So a few months later when people get all their accessories and build the camera for the first time, they build this option [complete with handheld grips on the tripod] and realize that it weighs 45lbs, is unbalanced and doesn’t leave a space for your head.

This is a perfect example of modularity showing its ugly side. All of these accessories have different purposes and different ways to be rigged… so there’s no “right” way to do it. Unfortunately, ten months after this picture was released, disappointingly few people know how to rig the camera properly for handheld using the production pack [or 3rd party] accessories.

That’s how it starts to get ugly: it snowballs. Think of the shoulder pad versus the RED cheese plate. Each accessory is designed for one purpose only. It’s a great idea on paper – have a specific handheld accessory and a specific tripod accessory. Unfortunately, switching between the two requires about five minutes of rigging with six screws and one tool. That’s just a touch too modular.

It’s a bummer sometimes when I have to add two 12” rods to the top of a camera just to hold on my battery. I love that I can mount the battery anywhere, but if it requires too many accessories, the weight has gone up and the concept has failed. Hell, when I’m not even sure where to put the battery to balance my rig, it’s just a headache. If there were a more simple solution that was thought out for clearance and balance… it’d save the day.

So if RED does seriously consider the 235-esque design that I’m wholeheartedly recommending here… I hope they give a few specific “fixed” options for where to mount the accessories. Put the magazine slots near the back in a fixed location built into the body to balance it and protect the media. Put the battery mount high on the dumb side of the camera [like the onboard battery for the 235] - up and out of the way of the ports but not in a place where it'll likely get bumped off of the camera.

Making more specific options doesn't mean killing modularity... it just means that the modularity is more mature and thought out. Design it based on balance and clearance… not just extreme modularity. Sometimes three screw holes are better than twenty.

 

[Brook Willard]

AKS.

This is where my mind is. I could make this essay twice as long with all of my little ideas, but I'm not designing this camera. I want to hear some feedback!

If there were a few key points to the whole shebang I want to emphasize, I suppose they'd be as follows:

1. Balance, low center of gravity and ergonomics trump how badass the camera looks. I love the design aesthetic that RED has come up with, but in order to get a useful design out of the camera, one must forget about the word “badass” and everything that it entails.

Think about the LMB-5 versus the clip-on RED was working on. There’s a design where they took a great ergonomic solution and sprinkled badass all over it. There were a few places where they went a little far with the badass on that design [the circles over the filter tray spring catches come to mind], but overall it was solid. It’s clear that the physical usefulness of the matte box was paramount and the awesome was added later. I’d rather have a moderately ugly product that works than a bitchin’ paperweight.

2. Low, equal rotational mass and parts where they need to be. A low CG will be easier on the operator. Making the body itself balanced will make life easier for everybody. The RED ONE is pretty balanced as it stands, but it’s basically upside-down and too short from front to back.

Consider the cooling system in the camera. The vents are on the bottom of the camera. I’m sure there’s some technical reason for that that I just don’t understand having never been inside of a RED before, but to my eyes, I see a problem. One, it raises the rest of the camera body too high. Two, it puts the vents right where I want to wrap a shoulder pad [which might block the vents]. Three, it’ll absorb heat from the operator’s neck. Four, heat goes up!!! It just doesn’t make sense for any ergonomic or obvious technical reason.

Next, consider the lens mount throat again. I guess it adds some clearance, but it’s clearance we don’t need! I think the mount should be flush with the front of the camera body. Remember, we’re used to having a mirror shutter that actually reaches out in front of and below the lens mount. It’s solving a problem that never existed… and it’s creating more problems of its own [balance, control placement, etc].

3. Low optical axis. As Matt Uhry put it, “lenses and matte boxes and rods are heavy. If you lower the optical axis, this helps lower the CG. Also, a lower optical axis makes handheld shots more nodal, and helps the operator keep a good horizon. This also helps get the lens and matte box clear of the EVF and gives the operator a better view over the matte box with his left eye when looking for other compositions.”

Don’t forget about that shoulder cutout.

4. Last but not least, remember the market of this camera. 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 and it doesn’t need to have as many “hand-holding” features for those stepping up from an HVX. It’s a professional camera with a professional price. If adding more ports, using higher quality materials or reshaping the internal circuit boards to fit into a proper body costs more… charge more. I understand why RED did a lot of what they did with the RED ONE. But with EPIC, it’s time to pull out the stops.

RED's certainly proven themselves with the RED ONE. Now it's time for them to rock the house with EPIC. All of my recommendations will cost money to implement. They should just pass the costs onto the buyers. I doubt there's one potential EPIC customer out there who would prefer a little cube with a lens mount on it for $35,000 when they could have a digital 235 for $45,000.

This post is way too long. I could write 50 pages about this... but I'll start here. These are just a few broad ideas to get a discussion started. This stuff's been weighing on me since NAB - I wrote most of it down in April. Now that the thoughts have fermented for a while, I've only come up with more ideas.

So what do you guys think?

 

[4Kcuts.com]

Great post, other configuration ideas

Great post, other configuration ideas

I think too that the cable configurations and keying was poorly planned, why the power cable sticks so far out the rear is a challenge. In the wind, all these cables can cause vibration. I have spent much time redesigning the layout of my red. I cut my power / drive cradle in half, reconfigured some universal mounts with a band saw, and now hang the battery on one side and the drive on the other, tight to the camera body, unlike the Red side rail plate accessory that hangs to far off the sides.

Moving things to the sides, makes the camera short and stubby, instead of tall and thin, better IMHO in the wind. I also added quick release plates, to add the battery and drive fast, and to not have to mess with the rods. This all makes it one solid beast. But my favorite configuration is the battery belt clip, and a compact flash card. Tight and light(er).

I also wish Red offered other cable plug designs, searching for lemos and putting them together is a bit of a challenge

What are others preferred configurations and modifications?

 

[Andreas Fernbrant]

I think you are absolutly correct. The design is not where it sould be, I haven't seen it in real life but I think they need to rethink the design.

Arri 235 is a good choice to model from.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Brook.

Great thoughts and tread.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Shoulder Cutout.

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. That thing just doesn't fit into anything usable. While some of those shapes may be comfortable to balance on the shoulder, the camera is also used for aerial and underwater work where often hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent just to adapt the housing or the mount for a specific camera. I think the shape of Epic is perfect. What may need to be considered is that some of the accessories can be assembled in such a way that it is also perfect for shoulder operation, but don't make it curved or stick controls at some strange angles just because it is better for shoulder operation only.

 

[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.