Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

EPIC-X at IBC...

neither of those setups (the JVC or the Arri) look like theyre even going to approach Scarlet. Let alone Epic.
 
apparently RED is still a "scam" haha

EDIT:

God that thing looks ugly...couldn't they at least made it look good for 130k?
 
Imran Farouk said:
apparently RED is still a "scam" haha

EDIT:

God that thing looks ugly...couldn't they at least made it look good for 130k?
Click to expand...

The way I see it, they seem like snobby brats - I'd like to know what they will do when the DSMC system will hit the streets..."Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?".

Imho, the Arri camera ain't bad looking. It looks like one of their film cameras without the film mags. It's the JVC one that is quiet ugly - even though the Kinetta camera wins the prize for worst design.
 
Irmeli R said:
quote: Kinetta camera wins the prize for worst design.

well are we talking about styling or ergonomic design? because the kinetta had excellent ergonomics. if it's styling you're talking about - i'm not a fan of the 80's toaster design of the red one..but that's just me
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am talking about design - I've only seen the Kinetta in pictures on the web. I am sure they were after ergonomic, but the Kinetta looks like one of those 8-16mm cameras that used to be made in the 30s (and I consider those far from eye-appealing).
When I saw the first pictures of the RED, two years ago, depicting mostly the camera body, I thought it was horrible. But most of the camera-setups I've seen so far look cool.
 
Emiliano Ranzani said:
Yeah, I am talking about design - I've only seen the Kinetta in pictures on the web. I am sure they were after ergonomic, but the Kinetta looks like one of those 8-16mm cameras that used to be made in the 30s (and I consider those far from eye-appealing).
When I saw the first pictures of the RED, two years ago, depicting mostly the camera body, I thought it was horrible. But most of the camera-setups I've seen so far look cool.
Click to expand...

So, for you, it's more important to "look cool" than to be easy to handle, properly balanced, have all the controls in the right place, and produce great images?

Who cares what the camera looks like? It's a tool. Do you really care what a hammer looks like? Or a wrench? What's important is that they fit in your hand, allow you proper leverage, and do the job they're designed to do. Same with a camera. The Kinetta design - regardless of the aesthetics - was probably the best balanced, most comfortable (at least for hand held work, which is exactly what it was designed for) camera (all right, prototype, but still...) I've ever picked up. And almost everyone else who put it on their shoulder would tell you the same thing. Nobody thought it was aesthetically pleasing. And nobody cared.
 
M Most said:
Who cares what the camera looks like? It's a tool.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, it would seem that some prefer to look cool rather than concentrating on getting maximum performance from the cam, probably into fashion as well...."that shirt doesn't go with those pants"... who gives a shit?
 
Emiliano Ranzani said:
Is that just a personal impression or the big names of the camera industry are ignoring what Red is doing? 130k for 2k only? Are they nuts?
Click to expand...

Remember, there is always more to a camera than specs on a piece of paper. I know some people who happen to prefer the Arri D20/21 cameras over the RED. It has nothing to do with 2K vs 4K. There are a variety of factors that go into assessing whether a camera is right for a job or the look a DP is going after. Everything from compression algorithms to ergonomics to workflow.

These new cameras may be just what certain shooters are looking for based on their set of requirements.

RED is a great camera that stands on its own merits. 4K is only one thing that makes it a great choice. Pricing is another area that makes it attractive. Ultimately, the choice is a culmination of things and hopefully is decided based on what works best to achieve the goals at hand.
 
I wouldnt say looks is a factor, obviously your performance is a major factor, I'd rather have something that worked and looked crap rather then something that looked amazing and didn't do what its price was made for...

But looking at it, REDs definetly got funciton down and they hit design...its not THAT difficult is it just to make your 130k product actually look like its a 130k to the street wise gentleman/lady? Just a thought...

Specs and all these features are nice but I also want to be able to go 'damn thats just WAY too good' when I look at the camera and what its doing, which I seem to have been doing on pretty much the last few RED shoots I've done...

No one is contesting the need for features,specs and performance but when you think about it, would you take a ferrari that looked like crap for its price? Ok not the same thing but putting it in perspective, I bought my FX-1 a while back based on its weight and its performance etc. the looks was a bonus which was pretty good for its price...

Looks is always a nice bonus... :)
 
Emiliano Ranzani said:
Is that just a personal impression or the big names of the camera industry are ignoring what Red is doing? 130k for 2k only? Are they nuts?
Click to expand...

It aint the number of pixels that counts it's how you use them. And it's actually a 3.5k sensor.
 
M Most said:
So, for you, it's more important to "look cool" than to be easy to handle, properly balanced, have all the controls in the right place, and produce great images?

Who cares what the camera looks like? It's a tool. Do you really care what a hammer looks like? Or a wrench? What's important is that they fit in your hand, allow you proper leverage, and do the job they're designed to do. Same with a camera. The Kinetta design - regardless of the aesthetics - was probably the best balanced, most comfortable (at least for hand held work, which is exactly what it was designed for) camera (all right, prototype, but still...) I've ever picked up. And almost everyone else who put it on their shoulder would tell you the same thing. Nobody thought it was aesthetically pleasing. And nobody cared.
Click to expand...

No need to be so aggressive. I just said that, from the outside, it doen't look appealing. Relax.
 
I Bloom said:
You win. That is a phenomenal game changer.

IBloom
Click to expand...

Agreed. Big for two reasons (for me personally), being able to record something that spontaneously occurred or I discovered (cloud pattern, event, etc) and when out recording in the wild, the ability to simply power down between takes.

I can see having a case with a bare-bones Epic configured and ready to go at nearly all times, pop the case, power, record
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Agreed. Big for two reasons (for me personally), being able to record something that spontaneously occurred or I discovered (cloud pattern, event, etc) and when out recording in the wild, the ability to simply power down between takes.

I can see having a case with a bare-bones Epic configured and ready to go at nearly all times, pop the case, power, record
Click to expand...

Huge for me too.
 
M Most said:
So, for you, it's more important to "look cool" than to be easy to handle, properly balanced, have all the controls in the right place, and produce great images?

Who cares what the camera looks like? It's a tool. Do you really care what a hammer looks like? Or a wrench? What's important is that they fit in your hand, allow you proper leverage, and do the job they're designed to do. Same with a camera. The Kinetta design - regardless of the aesthetics - was probably the best balanced, most comfortable (at least for hand held work, which is exactly what it was designed for) camera (all right, prototype, but still...) I've ever picked up. And almost everyone else who put it on their shoulder would tell you the same thing. Nobody thought it was aesthetically pleasing. And nobody cared.
Click to expand...

So who cares what a phone looks like ? You just use it to make calls. Long battery life, practicality, features and signal quality are really important.
Or a laptop ? Or a pen? Maybe portable music player ? Maybe sunglasses ? You just protect your eyes with those.

How about a Time Tank ? What a waist of time and money, they could have just put two arrows in a round tin box.


Yes I see your point but....don't see why this subject if often tossed around, like creative people in this business shouldn't care about design, and stick with "it's been done like that since the beginning of time" b.s. story. I doubt anyone serious would prioritize design over everything else, but still....come on folks, what year is this...?

Why is this such a big deal and so hard to comprehend ? Pro equipment manufacturers cannot afford to hire a talented designer ? Additional tooling is waay to much for a >50000 device ?

Is it so unbeliveable that people who do visual care about visual ?
It would be an oxymoron if artistic tool was also a work of art ?

It's absurd that 500$ device has more creative design put into it than 50000$ device, IMO.
And the most absurd thing of all is the notion that ergonomics and aesthetics are exclusive.

So - nature = dumb ?


M Most said:
Who cares what the camera looks like?
Click to expand...


I do.


It's one of the most magical, most fascinating and most important devices in human history and it's a ****** shame if a steam iron is designed more creatively.





btw...
M Most said:
Do you really care what a hammer looks like?
Click to expand...


No, but I would rather pick one of those.

picture8p.jpg
picture7c.jpg
 
Which is why there are two examples.
 
I'll take a comfortable camera that factors in the shooter over sexy design any day of the week.

Any camera intended to be used handheld should strive to get the metacenter as low as possible to avoid fatiguing the operator. A comfortable operator means you have fewer blown shots and that means more pages each day. There is no reason the design can not be done in such a way that gets the lens in plane with the camera operators eye (same for the VF) and the weight as low into the body of the operator as possible.

Shooting with the current camera is a disaster. I know, I just went handheld for the better part of 25 days with it and I feel like the teamsters used me for a punching bag.

I still love the images the camera produces, but for the sake of my back (and allowing me to spend some time with my daughter in my arms without being in pain) please get this sorted before the next camera is released. Just slapping some pretty shoulder pad on a new camera that puts the weight high up over the contact point on the operator will be little or no improvement.

The lens should be in plane with the operator's eyes and the weight should be as low as physically possible. See the Arricam for details.

Some thought may be put into redrawing the circuit traces onto a board that allows the body to be sculpted to fit the operators body better and get the weight low. I'm sure there is more to it but if as much effort was put into ergos as the 3D renderings the camera would be a lot easier on the operator.

Rant and thread hijack over.

:J
 
I don't know about other countries, but here in Italy we've an old saying: "Anche l'occhio vuole la sua parte" (literally "even the eye wants its share") - meaning that is normal to look for something that is also visually appealing.

Sure, efficiency (or what we perceive as satisfacting performances) come first: I myself I've been a long-time user (among the others) of the Canon XL-series even though when I first saw the XL-1S (just as when I firstly saw the RedOne body), I thought it looked weird at best.

That said, if I have to spend some tens of thousands (either dollars or euros), I'd prefer to buy something that has also been well-designed, rather than a piece of equipment that looks like a plumber's nightmare.
After all, if all the major manufacturers (and we're not just talking about cameras: how about computers, cars, phones and all the others?) are spending a lot of money on designs (hell, even the guys at Cray Inc. - one of the leader manufacturers of supercomputers - have a team of designers), there must be a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top