How about a hardware "SDK" from Red ?

[Nils Ruinet]

I was wondering if Red was planing to give third party manufacturers access to information that would allow them to make their own modules, smart lens mounts, wireless remotes, handles, battery mounts, LCDs and EVFs using Red's Lemo monitor ports ?

I think if that happened, I'm pretty sure a lot of companies would create some great accessories that would really integrate with Epic's modular system.

Imagine Teradek or Paralinx making a small wireless module.
Imagine Jacek's Optitron working with Red's Canon or Nikon mounts and communicating wirelessly with the Red with a small module on the back (or even none if the Redlink antennas in the camera are now good enough, range wise).
Imagine Blackmagic or Atomos making a Prores/DNxHD/H264 module.
Imagine SmallHD making a Red Lemo cable compatible Oled 7 inch monitor, with touchscreen. Powered by the camera.
Imagine Viewfactor, Action Products or WC making a battery plate that fits directly on the back of the camera without using an external cable.
Imagine someone making an audio receiver module.

And these are just the most obvious ideas.

So yes, Red is probably working on some of these as we speak, but Epics are in the wild for way more than a year now, and we're still waiting for most of them. Maybe opening the system to third parties would help here. Competition is good, I think Red has always said that. Red can't make every possible module, there will always be room for more.

Only real issue I see that Red could bring up is warranty issues, they might be scared that the modules might mess with the camera or something. But they could make a certification program, for a fair fee.

For example, I'd love the Optitron to be able to pass lens data through the port to the camera, in order to have the metadata displayed on the LCD and recorded into the files. But he can't do it because Red doesn't provide any information about the mount. I'd love to buy Red's equivalent of the Optitron, but it doesn't exist yet, and there is no sign of a Redmote Pro coming anytime soon.

So I guess my point is : Red, please don't become like Apple on this part. Please stay open and give access to trusted third party manufacturers in order to allow them to fully integrate their products into Red's modular system. I thought that was the whole point of it. In the end, your customers will win, and so will you, because there will be far more great options that perfectly fit our Epics.

Jarred, Jim, anyone ?...

Thanks

 

[Daniel Pearson]

I voted yes but don't see it happening. Red would make a decent profit from modules I'd imagine, I don't see them handing this over to third parties. Would be interesting though.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Consider the original IBM PC, and the open-standard PC bus, and what that lead to.

Consider the IBM attempt to regain control with the Microchannel bus - proprietary and only implementable if you entered into a licensing agreement with IBM.

Consider DEC and their secret proprietary buses - VAXbi & Massbus for example - never shared, published or licensed to any third party.

Who's heard of Microchannel, VAXbi, or Massbus today?

Do RED want to be pervasive, obsolete, or dead? It's a serious question.

Mike

 

[Max M.]

All the examples you are saying sound great, would love if red could do that!

 

[Rocco Schult]

Imagine the bus is not 100% perfect, possibly just because a particular use couldn't be tried yet. Possible just like in software. Think crosstalk and things like that.
Now a new manufacturer/company builds hardware based on the specs/'SDK' and it doesn't work.
Or even worse: some cameras work, some don't (just like 'some' EVFs remain having color-shifts and some don't). Or just under some circumstances. (works with batteries, but only when side handle is not connected or something weird like that).

RED can work around those issues, probably quicker, with key engineering and knowledge in-house, they might bring an update, just like what happened with the REDmote or correct for this issue in the planned module itself.
What happens when you buy a product, supposed to work, but you are one of the 27 owners that have problems with Epics between serial numbers x and y ?
And who sues who for what ?
Any idea why all these SDKs and APIs are so problematic ?
Because software manufacturer A says its Apples fault, but Apples just says nothing, or can't…whatever.
You probably get what I mean.

While I would like to see that, I doubt this will happen.
Think REDcode SDK - it is not REDraw that is documented and made open, there is an SDK for you, to exactly not have any insight or possibility to decode REDraw yourself. But that is essentially what you are asking for on the hardware side - documenting the interface and connections, plus software interfaces etc.

Just my pessimistic few cents.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Consider the original IBM PC, and the open-standard PC bus, and what that lead to.

Consider the IBM attempt to regain control with the Microchannel bus - proprietary and only implementable if you entered into a licensing agreement with IBM.

Consider DEC and their secret proprietary buses - VAXbi & Massbus for example - never shared, published or licensed to any third party.

Who's heard of Microchannel, VAXbi, or Massbus today?

Do RED want to be pervasive, obsolete, or dead? It's a serious question.

Mike

And then there's Apple. Sure, some people hate them for they way they are, but it's hard to argue with their success.