Fredrik Callinggard
Well-known member
I've routinely ride my EVF out past the Mattebox on the ET mount using a 16mm Zeiss standard speed, no problem at all.
well it wasn't meant to be literally
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I've routinely ride my EVF out past the Mattebox on the ET mount using a 16mm Zeiss standard speed, no problem at all.
Gibby,
you've got the right idea here but the CG is just way too high. As much as I love Steven and Hector and think their shoulder mount is genius (Got to play with it on Sat.) the Epic shouldn't need one. I'd be perfectly happy with a sliding shoulder pad, as long as I could slide it to within an inch of the front of the camera.
There would need to be a software flip, but it's an idea I've toyed with a few times.
A battery can accomplish that, But so can a sliding shoulder mount like the prototype ET Shoulder I've been testing. On that, the camera is mounted on an ARRI base, and the mount itself has a built-in ARRI lightweight V plate that the bridge plate rides on. With the flip of a lever you can slide the camera forward and backward on the V plate and easily front/back balance the rig.
Perhaps a similar approach would do well with Epic, rather than a fixed shoulder pad well, which would then require you to front/back balance the rig with batteries and accessories to dance well with the size lens you're using.
Jim, will it be possible to change to PL mount to other type of lenses?
I know some people think this almost the dummiest thing to do, but ...
Brook... I'll give you one other hint. Your premise is suspect. Lining up the lens mounts as the basis for comparison is flawed. What matters is balance, control location and viewing position. BTW... no one has seen what production Epic will actually look like. Just so you know.
And the above render of the Scarlet handle is purposely different than what will be produced.
Jim
The distance from the PL mount to the bottom of the camera is fixed. Period. Unless you want to throw away the Arri standard and buy all new gear. So the question is how much "rise" is there on the bottom (for shoulder mount) and how far back is it from the mount. Pretty easy stuff. Except for the board stacks. Epic is as short (as in height) as we can make it given the board stacks (and taller is not good). We could make the body longer... but there is no reason to do so. There is no way to raise the back "floor" any more than we have... which is an almost perfect match to a 435. So what exactly are you asking for as it relates to CG?
Jim
What you just described changes the cutaway about 1/4".
Jim
But seriously, on a cam like that, to have them next to BNC would be better also for your housing?
Otherwise you need to think of a very clever cable connectors. The most annoying thing with RED right now is the cable connectors sticking so far out in the back.
I bet Pawel doesn't like that either :weight_lift:
4th. As for the side outputs. It is much better, IMHO, to have a cleaner right side (when you have no outputs) than a big block of aluminum that makes the camera permanently wider no matter what. The space it takes to go 90 degrees with cables is no more than the block itself. Plus, you still have the option of a breakout box to tidy things up when you want it that way.
Jim