Epic render...

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I must say I largely agree with AquaVideo (for a change :tongue. weirdcrew would lose the bet, I like the connectors at the back.
.

connections on the back may be good for water housings.. but the majority of shooters arent going under water.
Having the rear open and free of anything would be extreamly valuable in the field

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I think the CW about Epic has been that it's the direct answer to requests made by A-list DPs. This camera is being made for them (with the hope that it can also be modular enough to satisfy additional markets as well).

Uh, I think the assumption that the rest of us non A-listers are just along for the ride and that our non A-list status makes our needs less important might begin to explain the hostility...

I like to live under the illusion that, as a customer, RED is making the camera for me and listening to what I want...and, given the fantastic announcement about the audio upgrade, that's proof enough to me that they are and they do...that's huge evidence that they care about the needs of their EFP user base.

In my area, outside of the Isle de LA, here in the tiny satellite states surrounding the People's Republic of Boulder, the actual RED owners are equally divided between film production and EFP-style production.

RED would be stupid to disregard this fact of their user base, and they are not stupid. I think RED may even be slightly surprised by the fact that so many EFP producers have adopted their digital cinema camera, but we're image purists, and we hate capturing unique, non-repeatable moments in time that become obsolete based on the inadequacy of the other available imaging systems.

We are not the RED-headed stepchild, we are RED owners with serious stakes in the design of this camera.

And can we just agree to let go of the idea that any expression of a users' need is stupid, worthy of disregard, or counts less than anyone else's? That is completely contradictory to the spirit which birthed RED....

Having said that, I would like to reiterate Lauri's question about the EPIC mount, which was glossed over. We can't really see it in the render, since it is turned away from our view. But will it be radically revised as well? Or will lens interchangeability be as much a priority for EPIC as it has been for RED ONE? Anything on that?

 

[Steve Sanacore]

1st off... while we encourage suggestions and have used many to improve our program, I'm not into disrespectful posts, especially by a Moderator. I'm quite disturbed by the presentation.

Now, to undo some misconceptions.

1st. You can't make a RED fit or act like a 235. The small optical finder sitting right up against the body is completely different than a RED EVF and how it positions next to a RED ONE or Epic. Balance relative to eye position is more important than a measurement of where the PL mount is relative to your shoulder. And the time to judge this is in full shooting configuration.

2nd. The latest Epic render does show the beginning part of a shoulder mount. The step up is measurably different than a RED ONE. The shoulder to height of the PL mount is about the same as a 435. It is about 1" different than a 235 depending on the back of the shoulder mount configuration... assuming that it really does matter (not to me).

3rd. While you can debate 'til the cows come home where the controls should be, the controls on Epic can be removed from the back and mounted anywhere you want... tethered or wireless. That seems to me to be a much better solution than "just" on the front left side of the camera.

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.

Sometimes one gets puffed up because they can see all the way down the block. The trick is seeing around the corner.

Jim

Jim, I think you are doing an amazing job of being revolutionary and trying to conform your new camera designs with too many "chefs" all at the same time. As in all art, everything can usually be improved but at some point you have to lock a design in order to produce the darn thing..... saving more ideas to the next revision.

It looks to me that this latest Epic design is very adaptable to many more configurations than RED ONE.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

connections on the back may be good for water housings.. but the majority of shooters arent going under water.

Whaaat? Surely this has got to change !!! :bleh:

 

[Harrison Diamond]

Hmmmm...since this isn't likely to be the final version of EPIC, has no one here considered the possibility of a second set of drive and power connectors on the side? I mean, you already have multiple options for attaching the control panel....

It's just a thought.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

second set of drive and power connectors on the side?

I'd definitely be down for that, if it can be made to work.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

connections on the back may be good for water housings.. but the majority of shooters arent going under water.
Having the rear open and free of anything would be extreamly valuable in the field

Whaaat? Surely this has got to change !!! :bleh:

I think Pawel that if you look at it - if the power/drive connections were next to the BNC connections they're effectively almost in the back. Yes it's 30 degrees out but still it's just as if it's a "wider camera" with them coming out the back - only thing is that they're protected.

Also, RED please design you're cable connectors so they have a breakable neck and that they can rotate, preferably in "click" mode - that way we can choose direction for our cables when we connect them.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I think Pawel that if you look at it - if the power/drive connections were next to the BNC connections they're effectively almost in the back. Yes it's 30 degrees out but still it's just as if it's a "wider camera" with them coming out the back - only thing is that they're protected.

Also, RED design you're cable connectors so they have a breakable neck and that they can rotate, preferably in "click" mode - that way we can choose direction for our cables when we connect them.

Oh, OK, I see what you mean. That should work. :biggrin:

 

[Jeff Coatney]

We flew our Red in a MK-V steadicam rig and those rear connectors were pretty sweet. Kept the CG fairly close to the Z axis on the lens. The rig was long, but effective. To me the real innovation would be Variable 90 degree connectors. "Variable" as in they swivel (either freely or to six or eight preset angles) "90 degree" as in they keep the cable as close to the body as possible. When we built the camera, we were limited on the Y and X axis by the halo on the mount (just like an underwater housing), we could have compressed the overall length by 20% if we could have crimped the drive and power connectors. Which is bad. So, we let them have their three inch space between the back of the camera and the Drive+battery. Thanks to 24" carbon rods, we were able to cantilever the drive, battery and the empty space for the connectors to bend, but she had too much junk in the trunk for my taste. It worked, but Variable 90 degree connectors would have been AMAZING.

I'm not even going to mention how putting connectors on the side would bone any chance of getting two Epics in a 3D rig.

Hand held shooting, although essential, should not drive the "ergonomics" debate exclusively. Take a step back fellas, and try to look down the road a few miles.

Just an observation, but I recall Evin and Brook to be on the tall side for shooters. Does this factor into your desire to lower the lens height? What is the average height of a camera op in Hollywood? Do you think this should be taken into account when determining relative body to lens height?

IMHO, these are among the many questions we should be asking before Red starts cutting steel.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I'm not even going to mention how putting connectors on the side would bone any chance of getting two Epics in a 3D rig.

I think it's important to be aware of that the connections are on the side but at the back of the camera - more or less one side in the back.

We're not talking side as in side - were talking side but facing to the back.

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Arri's 100 year history with hands on film making can't be sneezed at.
I do appreciate that Jim wants his own unique design but I don't believe you have to reinvent the wheel.

Wow I long for the day when I can hoist an ergonomic BL4 with a Cooke 18-100 on my shoulder again. With a 400' magazine that was what only 75 Lbs? And then the A.C. was holding the block or belt battery?

Or the ARRI III which they actually had to invent special "hand held mags" after the fact just to make it ergonomic? Not to mention the fact that the ARRI III was almost useless until Cinematography Electronics came out with their electronic baseplate that actually let you dial in digital speeds?

Has anyone here actually been an A.C. with a BL 1 or 2 with the blimped housings? I did, it sucked ass. Separate strips for every lens zoom and focus that you had to slide in to the outer rings of a housing that was only there because the camera threw so much noise out the front of the camera that you couldn't shoot sync sound in a studio without it.

The ARRI 2C was without a registration pin. The animation guys did not trust the single side pull down and reg pin of the ARRI III. The BL was heavy as crap and noisy and with the BL3 onward Clairmont Camera had to modify theirs themselves with a pitch control to reduce noise. There have been so many after market mods on the biggest part of ARRI's history it is mind boggling.

I kind of hit this point in the thread where I realize most people here have not had a full ARRI experience. How about the 535-A? Takes 2 grips just to lift the bugger onto the dolly, had some really iffy electronics in the beginning also that almost sunk some L.A. rental houses with some long term customers. The 435? Great camera, still has the ergonomics of a Arii III still an MOS camera.

My point is RED is on their second and third camera body and considering all of this ARRI ergonomic input and comparing a camera company with 2 years experience and a company with 91 years and - seemingly - only making cameras you like for the last 10 - maybe you should cut RED some slack. Isn't ARRI glad they did not listen to user input.

Why are there not these comparisons to the Genesis? The Millennium or the Platinum. Big as heck and heavy. In the day the Panavison was THE only quiet camera for sync sound. But most people couldn't afford to rent them.

It took ARRI 80 years to make film cameras that you like. I don't know how well the digital side of the company is going.

I have had a couple of shoots recently, one with an EMMY award D.P., another with and OSCAR award D.P. - they loved the camera in general, some small critiques. When it came time to hand held they (or the operator) threw a pad on their shoulder put the battery on long rods behind them and shot. The images looked great and we did the job. The operators on these projects had some or no RED experience but all mentioned they hoped the RED would be picked over larger 2/3" competitors because the digital mags on those cameras were so top heavy that they could not keep the horizon level.

If you are dealing with people that have lots of old fart experience, I guess like me, they really like - even the current version of the camera. I just wanted to inject some real history into this discussion.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The Butt

The Butt

EVF: I would buy a version that was more "L" shaped if offered. Seems like a good way to improve weight distribution and keep it out of the way but maybe that's just my old ENG background talking.

Would like to be able to set the camera on its butt without tweaking connectors, mashing joysticks or accidentally pushing buttons. I like the idea that the control panel would have a easy mounting option on the operators side toward the front.

Battery/Drive attachment: I would buy a version that could snap onto the back via bracket or dovetail and would be self contained. Please allow me to describe my concept:

I remove the control panel from the rear and put it somewhere I prefer which opens up the bracket/mount on the back. Make the mount point strong enough to attach substantial accessories to, yes it will be overkill for the control panel and add a couple ounces of weight, BUT, now I can hang several pounds on the back without adding rear iris rods and the attachment hardware for them.

This provides a convenient place to attach a housing for the battery and drive that offers protection from shock, elements, field abuse, etc. The casing should be lightweight - aluminum, magnesium, whatever - but should be rugged enough to grab onto.

Perhaps this mount I imagine would be some kind of dovetail style bit that would also have contact pins behind a sliding cover that would allow me to snap on this power/drive solution without cables...

I realize this rear mounted solution will make the unit longer but if I have a tight quarters shot (or short UW housing) I'll just rig it another way. For handheld it could provide nice counter balance for the lens/mattebox, etc up front - just like hanging a brick on the back of an ENG rig adds weight yet actually reduces operator fatigue via better balance dynamics.

I agree with the concept of keeping the camera head small because you can't "saw off" the back. What I am pimping for is a slick way to attach a back end that keeps the COG low, eliminates some cables, protects drive and battery, can be held securely by the operator for interesting hand held angles, etc. Yes, I suppose it might look a bit like a 200' mag but it can be shaped more for utility since it doesn't actually have reels inside.

Perhaps it could even have a forward facing half shoulder cut out that matched up to the rear facing half shoulder cut out on the head sorta like in Evin's diagram (yes, I realize this is an adaptation of that concept). A little velcro and a memory foam pad in the niche...

 

[MikeCurtis]

This may have been said elsewhere, but I'd love to see a RAM buffer in the camera, such that Red Drive jostles that temporarily suspend writing (parking of the head?) can be ridden out - when heads parked, data to buffer, write speed would be sufficient to catch up with "real time" for a few seconds.

 

[Robert Sanders]

Brilliant idea.

 

[Shawn Bannon]

Has anyone here actually been an A.C. with a BL 1 or 2 with the blimped housings? I did, it sucked ass. Separate strips for every lens zoom and focus that you had to slide in to the outer rings of a housing that was only there because the camera threw so much noise out the front of the camera that you couldn't shoot sync sound in a studio without it.

It took ARRI 80 years to make film cameras that you like. I don't know how well the digital side of the company is going.

If you are dealing with people that have lots of old fart experience, I guess like me, they really like - even the current version of the camera. I just wanted to inject some real history into this discussion.

I totally agree with you on everything you are saying. I use to be an AC and have worked with just about every Arri camera ever made past 1940. And it took Arri a long, long time to get to where they are and a longer time to go ergonomic. I use to have an Aaton which really is like having a cat on your shoulder and that was light years ahead of Arri's ergonomics until recently.

Red has done an amazing job at integrating feedback into their camera design and accessories, satisfying a huge range of tastes and needs. Making the EPIC is a great solution to those who want to get a faster, lighter, more powerful camera.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This may have been said elsewhere, but I'd love to see a RAM buffer in the camera, such that Red Drive jostles that temporarily suspend writing (parking of the head?) can be ridden out - when heads parked, data to buffer, write speed would be sufficient to catch up with "real time" for a few seconds.

I like the idea, but... Seems to me this would require continuous write verification to know which data bits need to be re-written from the cache. That can really soak up resources / bandwidth. The drive reporting parked heads, isn't going to be a good enough indicator of what to re-attempt. There will be times the drive can't park in time or the jostling of the camera is subtle enough where the drive doesn't react, but it still may cause data loss. Also, current RED Drives are not fast enough for EPIC's advertised 100MB/s.

I'm thinking that the RED RAM / Solid State drives will be the way to go and probably the standard mag type used on EPIC.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

This may have been said elsewhere, but I'd love to see a RAM buffer in the camera, such that Red Drive jostles that temporarily suspend writing (parking of the head?) can be ridden out - when heads parked, data to buffer, write speed would be sufficient to catch up with "real time" for a few seconds.

You mean... there's no buffer at all in the camera's IO scheme? Do you know that for sure? There's got to be some kind of buffer somewhere along the pipe. Perhaps it's just not as large or efficient as you'd like.

Hmmmm... Stuart?

:umm:

 

[Casey Green]

This may have been said elsewhere, but I'd love to see a RAM buffer in the camera, such that Red Drive jostles that temporarily suspend writing (parking of the head?) can be ridden out - when heads parked, data to buffer, write speed would be sufficient to catch up with "real time" for a few seconds.

heheh - yep... I was thinking the same thing a while back...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=138441#post138441

Like they say. "Great minds..."

I'm sure there are many others out there that were thinking similar ideas.

 

[P Andersson]

I use to have an Aaton which really is like having a cat on your shoulder...

 

[roryhinds]

The last 100 years have seen many advances and non are greater than the last 10 years in just about every industry.

The first video cameras where a camera and separate recording deck. Camera being handheld while the record is on your back or waist or your assistance carried it.

We have all advanced as a species and technologies has followed.

All we are asking for are comfortable tools to do the job.

Modular design is great but there is such a strong case for having a solid design on how things should work most of the time and having the option to pull it apart and have bits where you want them.

I don't see why the camera can't have a de-facto setup for the battery and drive thats ergonomically for shooting hand held and it can still have ports for running cable too if you want to move things about and take them apart.

The Drive and Battery are heavy items and you can't shoot without them so why not have a place for them in the camera body design thats comfortable.

Or is the thinking that most working DP's / Operators will be using a Dolly, Jib, Crane, Tripod, Hi Hat etc to mount and operate the camera from so working handheld is not an issue.