FEW things to consider for RED team

[Rocco Schult]

I disagree. The camera is a forward thinking camera. As far as i can see there are two ways forward, conform to an outdated system that was born from clunky machinery or recreate the technology from the ground up that allows for current manufacturing standards.
...

The system maybe old, but thats not necessarily outdated.
There are sometimes reasons why things remain in a certain fashion and that doesn't mean established, but proven.

 

[Rocco Schult]

Finner, did you check that for termites before you bought it? Actually when I first saw the Epic I thought "My God, they've brought back the Arri III". Chiropractors of the world: Rejoice!.

I hope that was just something for the show and the real thing is going to be more like an Arri 235 or an Aaton. Shoulder cut out, low center of gravity, intrinsically balanced. More of a Lotus Elise, than a Smart Car.

The 235 has an awesome design and I remember cameramen saying that the 235 is the most lovely, ergonomic camera.

 

[Mike Prevette]

I pray that the Epic render, is just that. A render, and nothing like the final product.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I disagree. The camera is a forward thinking camera. As far as i can see there are two ways forward, conform to an outdated system that was born from clunky machinery or recreate the technology from the ground up that allows for current manufacturing standards.

A square box is an innovative design? Wow, it doesn't take much to impress some people...

Even older than movie cameras is the shape of a human shoulder and the distance from the shoulder to the eye -- now you may think of the human body as an "outdated" design, but for better or worse, it's what we have to work around when shooting handheld. Perfectly designed handheld cameras, unless so tiny as to be held in the palm, need to be well-balanced on the shoulder. I don't think of a square box as the perfect shape to sit on the shoulder. And even for tripod work, you have to figure that modern lens optics are actually larger than ever, so the center of gravity keeps shifting forward.

A movie camera, digital or not, still needs a lens in front, the camera behind it. Generally it needs a battery, and in this case, a recording unit (unless you just use the CF cards).

A century of movie camera design has moved us away from boxiness towards something ergonomically shaped, cameras like the Arri-235 and 416. A move back to a square box shape is hardly a step forward, unless it is a really, really tiny box. Then you're into the ergonomics of palmcorders and pistol-grip cameras. But even then, you have to deal with the size and weight of modern optics like Zeiss Master Primes.

Telling people who shoot everyday with cameras on their shoulders that they are wrong, old-fashioned, outdated, etc. to find something physically uncomfortable to handhold is not particularly helpful -- these are the people that camera designers should be talking to, not telling them what they should or shouldn't find ergonomic! Your shoulder and back doesn't care how modern or old a design is, only how comfortable it feels and how smoothly you can operate with it. If the best design dates back to the Middle Ages, it doesn't matter as long as it works the best. You can redesign pencils or spoons all you want, but at some point, human hands still have to use them. You can make chairs in all sorts of shapes, but you still have to be able to sit on them. In my household, we still use old fashioned things like pencils and spoons and chairs... I guess we're not being very modern or innovative...

 

[craigc]

Yeah ,,, what David said

 

[D Namir]

Macdonald make the big profits not from hamburgers but coke and french fries, movie theatre make the profit from pop corn... Red like any other commercial company follow this system... top mounts and some other physical accessories for the Red one will fit the Epic...environment "al apata".

 

[laguun]

The red one camera is replacing 35mm film in most productions here. That quite something. Most DoPs here dont want to go back, even many of the former "digital is evil" crowd.

The resolution is so high that it is impossible to show it to the audience via classical 35mm mechanical film projection - even a 2K DCI wont resolve all.

The dynamic range is fine in the hand of a skilled person, daylight/cold light is what the red loves, lowlight/warmlight could be better but is good as well.

We now run sony hdcam/red one/arri 35mm - and the 35mm film is used the least. In fact, we only have our old IIb/cs remaining as for almost anything we needed film before (overcranking mainly) better or comparable digital solution are there.

Our main issue is the near complete absence of direct and native postproduction support from the classical top-end as well mainstream systems (discreet smoke/fire finishing, discreet flint/combustion/flame/inferno/lustre VFX/DI, quantel Q-series, avid media composer/symphony/DS, adobe after effect and premiere, eyeon fusion, nuke, cineform, matrix chrome, filmlight baselight, nucoda filmmaster, SGO mystika, DVS clipster etc are still all locked out) as wll as the most advanced raw workflow innovators (as cineform or iridas speedgrade/venue/on set/framecycler). That would be less of an issue if there would be great one-stop solutions (there arent, no rgb/4k editing in FCP, no audio and 4k out in the assimilate etc) or reds redcine application would interface with the marketleading high-end systems via edl (and would be more stable).

However red announced since many months that a) their contract limiting the compability of their cameras to only 2 companies ended, b) they want to support the 3hrd partys asap and the only thing they are waiting for is r16.

Independent of price and the many workflow issues - the camera is excellent and red archieved quite something with it - its the talk of tout berlin for good reason (sadly including 80% of tghe post production houses explaining en detail all the shortcomings of the post pipeline).

I wouldnt have hesitated to buy the camera for much more (we spendt over 200.000 for our hdcam setup and are very happy with that as well).

 

[David Battistella]

Another option as well is to make the sensor block removable, like the SI-2K, or the T-block design of the F950's, though that's an add-on, not a detachable section.

But imagine a modular camera -- the first third is the sensor block area and is detachable for dashboard shots, etc. , the rear two-thirds is bendable. But of course, one problem will be that these designs will make it a lot easier for dust and dirt to get into the camera...

David,

I wonder how much the HEAT the sensor generates is a factor in the design. The RED's aluminum body (and internal fan system) are party the way they are to keep that "mysterium" sensor cool enough to operate effectively.

By going with a box like design and allowing user to customize I think you can satisfy the most number of users and get the correct amount of cooling and heat absorbing properties for the sensor .

With a modular design, each person can build a personalized HH rig for their RED and counter balance it according to their needs. My combo of the SIM handle and Toe piece is a great example of a lightweight HH setup with ARRI 15mm lightweight and 15mm offset capabilities.

The boxiness of the body helps this. With most "camcorder" betacam type designs the operator is locked in to where the shoulder pad sits, etc and that can be even harder to modify.

That said, I do wonder how another industrial design team (apple, porsche, audi, ducati) might create a camera body, but for now I am glad that RED went with a modular system and that so many people have created various accessories for.

David

 

[J. Eric Camp]

I believe David was referring to the taller, shorter there for more "square" design of the EPIC. Not the red one.

Either way. Modular design is the name of the game. You can even think out side of the catalog and find your own configurations.

We have come up with some very different rigs.

 

[David Battistella]

I believe David was referring to the taller, shorter there for more "square" design of the EPIC. Not the red one.

I think that heat will still be an issue for an even larger sensor, but it looks like they are going modular with the EPIC as well. I've only seen the renders, not the NAB prototypes.

Either way. Modular design is the name of the game. You can even think out side of the catalog and find your own configurations.

We have come up with some very different rigs.

True,

I've had a few great little pieces made.

David

 

[Jason Sinclair]

Maybe people should start thinking outside the box.

 

[David Battistella]

Maybe people should start thinking outside the box.

Yeah!

That's what we were all doing when we put our money down for this product.

David

 

[Jannard]

Ask 20 people, get 20 answers...

Jim

 

[David Battistella]

Ask 20 people, get 20 answers...

Jim

No shortage of opinions on reduser.net, that's for sure...

but it's because everyone knows you guys listen and actually implement idea's from this forum.

Until you use the system for a while, you really can't appreciate how forward thinking it is. That is what I am enjoying most about these early weeks with the camera. Still stunned when I open up shots in RED ALERT.

David

 

[Evin Grant]

Here are some of the more ergonomic film cameras...

And even though we all seem to agree the shoulder mount video camera form factor is not right for cinema, they do get the "shoulder mount" and lens position right.

I don't think the Red One is that bad for handheld but the control panel and connections are definitely limiting.
You really want to be able to roll the camera back on it's butt if necessary and not have to worry about cables or control surfaces.

 

[David Battistella]

Evin,

I'm still trying to get my hands on an old Aaton handle for NED. I have a few leads and ABLECINE can get me a brand new one that I was thinking about getting wired with a start stop.

Like a cat on the shoulder...


David

 

[Jason Sinclair]

It's been such a long time where i have been so misquoted, kicked in the stomache, dragged around the mud and kicked again... he he he. such fun.

I agree, a low centre of gravity is better.

Cameras are getting smaller, so something has to change. The camera itself has to be off the shoulder. Lense sizes change so there’s not much you can do there in terms of balance other than use modularity. Using a prime or small zoom and you don't have enough weight distribution to go to the shoulder within the camera. To create a lower centre of gravity you actually have to make the camera more square than it already is. Basic physics determines that weight distribution has to go somewhere. Lower centre of gravity means a wider or longer camera. If you look at the current design it's taller, so therefore it would become more square. This is considering that the camera has a certain amount of infrastructure that it needs in order to maintain its operation. For dynamic balance and balance in general it is better wider. To make it longer, it would be more like the current red one.

It appears to me that the design of shoulder apparatus has to be changed instead of the current trying to emulate 35mm camera shoulder use. That anyone has used these in the past is not a reflection and an insult upon what they have done, rather a reality check that we are entering a different set of circumstances that affect the dynamics of camera use. An 8 pound camera on the shoulder in a small size factor will not work. We have no moving film or an extra accessory that needs to hold that film. What is needed is an accessory for shoulder use that takes into account the physics of the new set up and of course the modularity, allowing the camera to be used in many different ways from crane, car, flight, steadicam and shoulder mounting etc..

So it's more the way shoulder mounts are designed rather than the camera and further, the way modularity is utilized in order to get good dynamic balance. But i agree again, that a lower centre of gravity would help everyone out and make flying a red easier.

You don't need to automatically attack someone that disagrees with you, often after a healthy discussion you may even find out you are on the same page and the attacking wastes valuable time in order to reach a common goal. I know for me that's the most important thing on set, more important than the technology or the protection of someones ego.

 

[David Battistella]

It's been such a long time where i have been so misquoted, kicked in the stomache, dragged around the mud and kicked again... he he he. such fun.

I agree, a low centre of gravity is better.

Cameras are getting smaller, so something has to change. The camera itself has to be off the shoulder. Lense sizes change so there’s not much you can do there in terms of balance other than use modularity. Using a prime or small zoom and you don't have enough weight distribution to go to the shoulder within the camera. To create a lower centre of gravity you actually have to make the camera more square than it already is. Basic physics determines that weight distribution has to go somewhere. Lower centre of gravity means a wider or longer camera. If you look at the current design it's taller, so therefore it would become more square. This is considering that the camera has a certain amount of infrastructure that it needs in order to maintain its operation. For dynamic balance and balance in general it is better wider. To make it longer, it would be more like the current red one.

It appears to me that the design of shoulder apparatus has to be changed instead of the current trying to emulate 35mm camera shoulder use. That anyone has used these in the past is not a reflection and an insult upon what they have done, rather a reality check that we are entering a different set of circumstances that affect the dynamics of camera use. An 8 pound camera on the shoulder in a small size factor will not work. We have no moving film or an extra accessory that needs to hold that film. What is needed is an accessory for shoulder use that takes into account the physics of the new set up and of course the modularity, allowing the camera to be used in many different ways from crane, car, flight, steadicam and shoulder mounting etc..

So it's more the way shoulder mounts are designed rather than the camera and further, the way modularity is utilized in order to get good dynamic balance. But i agree again, that a lower centre of gravity would help everyone out and make flying a red easier.

You don't need to automatically attack someone that disagrees with you, often after a healthy discussion you may even find out you are on the same page and the attacking wastes valuable time in order to reach a common goal. I know for me that's the most important thing on set, more important than the technology or the protection of someones ego.

Wait.

Did you think I was attacking you! I really and truly was not. If you thought I was, then I offer my sincerest apologies for any confusion.

David

 

[Jason Sinclair]

No, i didn't see you do any of those things. I was reffering to Finner and the escalating responses that arrose around his reply. Sorry for not clarifying, thought that was obvious.

 

[David Battistella]

No, i didn't see you do any of those things. I was reffering to Finner and the escalating responses that arrose around his reply. Sorry for not clarifying, thought that was obvious.

No probs...

They were just side by side in the thread. You made great points about how discussions can be constructive in your last post..


David