FEW things to consider for RED team

[Jason Sinclair]

Ask 20 people, get 20 answers...

Jim

And you designed the camera, so from a designers perspective what considerations did you go through in order to contemplate the design?

 

[reality]

If you put the control panel on the side, then it's always on the wrong side. Put it on the back, then it's wrong also. There is no right place for a control panel because everyone wants something different.

Designing an electronic camera to look like a 235 is not necessarily a good thing either. It locks you into one design and you have to mold your electronics around an irregular shape that it not ideal for electronics. having a detachable and bendable system adds additional cost and complexity to a design where simplicity is usually the best solution.

If the box design means that you can build your camera the way you want it, then it really is the best solution. IMHO.

 

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

HI everyone.

1) what is REAL DR of RED based on U field tests ( not done by others, done by U, RED team)

2) Are u gonna improve IR blocking ( i have IR filters form TIFFEN but it should be improve in sensor side anyway)

Best regards
MARTIN

If you have read all posts carefully, you should know by now this is a work in progress. I dont have my red yet but I have read that with every build a new camera is born. It seems that the new build 16 improves DR so whatever tech spec one reads changes and improves depending on the build the firmware is working on. Regarding the IR, all lenses have IR coatings, specially high end film lenses. But, as a photographer myself, I know sensors must have an IR filter in front to avoid unwanted effects. I am sure, as I have seen on many posts, this company is making every effort to put the best digital cinema camera available in the market. I also know they read this posts! And I am absolutely sure they take into account what their customers are saying and requesting for the camera to be. That being said, I am pretty sure they are improving not only the IR filter but the whole package contained by the camera its accessories and the post workflow.

Still patiently waiting...

 

[Matt Uhry]

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.

Sorry you felt attacked, I'm not sure what you are suggesting for Epic's design. Perhaps you could post a sketch ?

I'm not sure how you would make a good hand held camera that's lacking a shoulder cut out. The lens / mattebox / follow focus represent lots of your payload and getting those items lower makes all the difference.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry

 

[Jason Sinclair]

Sorry you felt attacked, I'm not sure what you are suggesting for Epic's design. Perhaps you could post a sketch ?

I'm not sure how you would make a good hand held camera that's lacking a shoulder cut out. The lens / mattebox / follow focus represent lots of your payload and getting those items lower makes all the difference.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry

Well i'm not sure i'm suggesting anything to the epic design. For my purposes it would be better to have it a little shorter, and the distribution to go to the width and length and the lens set lower. I'm not sure how that affects rod use. If possible I would like the design so that the dimensions and balance are aligned or in other words if you balanced it on your finger then the middle would be also directly below the centre of gravity.

The thinking behind this is for control heads, crane, motion control etc.. for if you can align two axis and a true centre of balance then you only need smaller motors (along with the 8 pound +) and that opens up a massive advantage to the camera owners as you could achieve nice 4k motion control for very very litle money.There are many other advantages here and are only limited to the imagination.

The compromise is in hand held but it's not much of a compromise because the only real way to get a shoulder mount on an epic, (from my perspective and i'm very eager to hear suggestions of how this could be done otherwise) is to make the camera longer and put a shoulder mount right under it or actually make the camera larger than it needs to be (god forbid)
But how much can you make it longer??? and then you start affecting the dynamic balance too much if it's too long as the width and/or height gets smaller. The compromise on motion control, car rigs etc .. is lost

I don't pretend to have easy answers but i would imagine that with clip on matte box, VF FF and a nice lightweight prime would in most cases be the choice in handheld situations bringing the centre of gravity closer to the front of the camera. I would then imagine that this is best counterbalanced on a nice shoulder mount with battery and additional weights (or two batteries and weights for those that are shooting doco etc..)

For me there is no need to forgo dynamic balance for the sake of hand held when so many other aspects of camera use become limited when you do so looking at the bigger picture. For me, it is much much better to have a shoulder mount specifically designed for the camera that can be added and the modularity aspect kept intact.

 

[10s]

Years ago in grad school I played around with many ideas while pursuing my design degree.

Here's one idea: The camera could be modular blocks of functions (audio, power, etc...) underneath a sleek skin, kind of like an automobile (an auto w/o a body is how many cameras currently appear)

Think LEGOS underneath a molded surface. These blocks can be moved around to fit different needs, balance, cranes, steadicam, etc.

If an interface surface (skin) is needed then they can be attached. Different skins can be made to suit the various configurations. Everyone can configure their own LEGO camera and wrap it as they please in a sleek ergonomic design of their choosing.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

can you mock up a prototype by next week?

 

[David Wyatt]

IMO the design and ergonomics of Epic is poor at best and even worse then red. The shape and design of red make it difficult for handheld work and having the controls and information LCD screen on the back is terrible. I was suprised at NAB when I saw the Epic was actually a step back in design from the red. The balance and centre of gravity of the Epic is worse, its hand held ability will be a beast and all the controls are still on the back when they clearly need to be on the assistants smart side of the camera.

Actually, thinking about it, having the status display on the back makes a lot of sense to me - what makes it ANNOYING is that the cradle, the Red Drive and the battery are in the way (but as we've seen from various companies these parts can be arranged elsewhere like on the top rails or the dumb side). Having the status screen on the operator's side of the camera always REALLY annoyed me as an AC (I've only just realised this!) - if you wanted to read some vital info or check a setting as you were filming you'd always have an operator's sweaty head in the way (even worse with hand-held). With the status screen on the back (as long as you can tidy the other parts elsewhere on the camera) it's pretty easy for an AC to check or change the settings without having to disturb the operator from doing what he's doing.

Having said all that you're right the Epic does look epically front-heavy...especially with a short zoom or a Master Prime handheld...ouch!! :-(