Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Dragon Reality Check

Mark L. Pederson said:
Who cares :)

Getting wifi into a module will be game-changer for me. So many applications for that - and fast, on-camera non-destructive adjustments to color - it's a big deal.
Click to expand...


The ALEXA has been capable of this for a couple of years now. Hard-lined or wireless through a closed wifi network you can control the camera's menus and edit/add metadata when recording raw (via Codex). Additionally, you can incorporate a CDL server hooked up to a control surface (like a Tangent Element) and wirelessly transmit CDL color looks in real-time to the camera that are then recorded as tracking metadata every time the camera rolls. It's an intuitive, instantaneous, and industry-standard setup. The F65 can also work directly w/ CDL's but I'm not sure about wirelessly.

I would love to see RED as a company start to come out a bit from their proprietary pipeline and embrace the greater industry a bit more with things like CDL and open software implementation.
 
Adrian Jebef said:
I would love to see RED as a company start to come out a bit from their proprietary pipeline and embrace the greater industry a bit more with things like CDL and open software implementation.
Click to expand...

RED needs CDL implementation in RCX and camera if they want to get any real marketshare in episodic television. Period.

The camera already has all the tech required for this functionality since it can load an XML based look file already. The camera has MORE control over color parameters, and can control and load MORE than you need in order to implement CDL.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
You don't need a module for CDL workflow. No additional hardware needed at all.
Click to expand...


RED would basically just need to code it into their firmware / software. CDL is a fairly straight-forward operation. RED's current RMD color preview system is actually more powerful than CDL for creating looks in-camera and I can see the wide appeal for the owner-operator user base. But for the professional film/tv industry CDL has become the defacto standard for creating, transferring, and maintaining color looks throughout the production process from pre-production testing all the way to the final DI. It's a tool that's sorely missing from RED's offerings.
 
Adrian Jebef said:
RED would basically just need to code it into their firmware / software. CDL is a fairly straight-forward operation. RED's current RMD color preview system is actually more powerful than CDL for creating looks in-camera and I can see the wide appeal for the owner-operator user base. But for the professional film/tv industry CDL has become the defacto standard for creating, transferring, and maintaining color looks throughout the production process from pre-production testing all the way to the final DI. It's a tool that's sorely missing from RED's offerings.
Click to expand...


100% agree. It could be accomplished very quickly.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
100% agree. It could be accomplished very quickly.
Click to expand...

Sounds like something RED should look into.

After that, perhaps some slim module that provides additional functionality - such as two XLRs, Wifi, and perhaps other TBD features...
 
DOCKER

DOCKER

I guess everything old is new again.

Brook Willard and I spent hours discussing a a housing that would be essentially the "back half" of the camera. This discussion touches on a number of things we were het up about then. To Brook's credit he got together with ViewFactor and put some of the earliest Epic AKS (FMJ) on the market - these crucial attachment points made solid franken-rigs possible for the bigger features they were adopted by. IAC, our original concept was more multi-purpose than just adding a small module.

THE DOCKER:

My concept is an ergonomic aluminum shell that houses electronics, ports for various needs (see foregoing discussion) slots for media behind hinged doors, rod pockets, sliding shoulder pad with VCT-14 QR hardware, battery plate (V-mount stock). The Epic brain would mount up and front. Recessed QR LCD mounts; dumb side and rear. "Standard" EVF mounting system bracket.

This "cover the waterfront" approach is likely to produce a $20-30K product that weighs at least 6 pounds plus battery and adds significant length. Instead of a plethora of custom rigging options I'd essentially have two: 1) strip it and grip it (or "speciality" rig it), 2) pop the Epic/Scarlet in the housing and shoot it in a more ENG form factor that should also work great on most existing support systems for full sized cameras. Every "Docker" would be the same form factor with SDI ports, knobs, etc always in the same place with industry standard connectors.

IMO, as long as the added weight and bulk are well balanced a rig that was 25-30 lbs with lens would be just fine in a wide variety of situations, with strip it and grip it still an option. Yes, it will be overkill in a lot of situations. That said, if the economies of scale kick in to keep the cost down and they became ubiquitous, then we might have the Transformer we, and, perhaps more importantly, the rental houses, are looking for...

Cheers - #19
 
I think you get Frankenrigs with any camera on a film set. Frankenrigs are the rule, not the exception.

Oftens its it's hard to even see the camera in those crazy onset BTS photos we see.

The EPIC is no exception.


Battistella
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I guess everything old is new again.

Brook Willard and I spent hours discussing a a housing that would be essentially the "back half" of the camera. This discussion touches on a number of things we were het up about then. To Brook's credit he got together with ViewFactor and put some of the earliest Epic AKS (FMJ) on the market - these crucial attachment points made solid franken-rigs possible for the bigger features they were adopted by. IAC, our original concept was more multi-purpose than just adding a small module.

THE DOCKER:

My concept is an ergonomic aluminum shell that houses electronics, ports for various needs (see foregoing discussion) slots for media behind hinged doors, rod pockets, sliding shoulder pad with VCT-14 QR hardware, battery plate (V-mount stock). The Epic brain would mount up and front. Recessed QR LCD mounts; dumb side and rear. "Standard" EVF mounting system bracket.

This "cover the waterfront" approach is likely to produce a $20-30K product that weighs at least 6 pounds plus battery and adds significant length. Instead of a plethora of custom rigging options I'd essentially have two: 1) strip it and grip it (or "speciality" rig it), 2) pop the Epic/Scarlet in the housing and shoot it in a more ENG form factor that should also work great on most existing support systems for full sized cameras. Every "Docker" would be the same form factor with SDI ports, knobs, etc always in the same place with industry standard connectors.

IMO, as long as the added weight and bulk are well balanced a rig that was 25-30 lbs with lens would be just fine in a wide variety of situations, with strip it and grip it still an option. Yes, it will be overkill in a lot of situations. That said, if the economies of scale kick in to keep the cost down and they became ubiquitous, then we might have the Transformer we, and, perhaps more importantly, the rental houses, are looking for...

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Sorry but that sounds ridiculous. 25-30 lbs with lens? There's a reason people don't like using an F65 and this would put the camera into that category. $20-$30k more for an aluminum rear add on shell which makes the camera a lot heavier and bulkier, no thanks. You could add every Innocinema accessory on the rear for under $10k. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Red could just make another model in the Alexa form factor with all those features for probably less than $15k over current price. Probably much lighter than a housing option and a hell of a lot better looking. Not sure that accessory/housing makes much sense...
 
Matt Ryan said:
Sorry but that sounds ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's FAR from anything I would touch.

Let's break this down nice and easy:

#1: New PRO IO Module 2.0 w/wifi - 1/2 size of 1st gen IO module

WIFI

connectors:
2 x BNC monitor out
GPIO Trigger - 4pin lemo 0b (aux power + GPIO)
TIMECODE IN/OUT - 5pin lemo 0b
1 x RED LCD/EVF - 16-pin lemo 1b
1 x 5volt USB power
2 x 12V aux power - 2 pin lemo 0b

nothing more - nothing less - all connectors at an angle.


#2: New Audio XLR Module

4 mini-XLR inputs
4 on/off knobs with gain
 
Last edited:
Mark L. Pederson said:
#2: New Audio XLR Module

4 mini-XLR inputs
4 on/off knobs with gain
Click to expand...

Heh. Some people want full size XLR, some want Mini. How doth one satisfy all given the choice between two champions?
 
Last edited:
I"m fine with the idea of cables, I just remember the Red One getting a ton of flack about using the minis.
 
Phil Holland said:
I"m fine with the idea of cables, I just remember the Red One getting a ton of flack about using the minis.
Click to expand...

Better than just 2 3.5mm jacks hahaha
 
Phil Holland said:
I"m fine with the idea of cables, I just remember the Red One getting a ton of flack about using the minis.
Click to expand...

Which always struck me as odd, because the film cameras it was built to replace didn't have audio at all...

But seriously, I think that minis are more and more accepted all the time. When the R1 came out, hardly anybody had seen one. Now they are in some well-respected sound devices. (Pardon the pun.)

As an alternative to minis, how would you feel about a breakout cable? It could come in a couple of flavrs: multi to XLR (in x2 and x4 flavrs) or multi to snake with break-away (like the ENG/EFP guys use all the time). The multi could carry 4 channels of audio plus return.
 
Matt Ryan said:
Better than just 2 3.5mm jacks hahaha
Click to expand...

Yup, I have to say it was just a bad idea to take a stereo connector and use it for balanced mono. It was ingenious, but nobody got it. It took a full year to get people to stop screwing it up every day and complaining all over Reduser.
 
D Fuller said:
Yup, I have to say it was just a bad idea to take a stereo connector and use it for balanced mono. It was ingenious, but nobody got it. It took a full year to get people to stop screwing it up every day and complaining all over Reduser.
Click to expand...

I personally didn't care, but most every sound guy I worked with hated them with a passion.
 
My solution is to use the 3.5mm stereo to full size XLR that I mount up top via a cable clamp on a rod. That way I know it doesn't get tugged out and I can also get the XLR connection secured anywhere I have a 1/4-20 mounting point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top