Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

IMS news please

That's probably because, like many others, they (P+S Technik) tend to see the RED PL mount assembly design as an exchangeable accessory and not as an OEM/3rd Party product "demarcator". Clearly, demarcating at the outward end of the OEM PL mount limits the RED One camera's utility for advanced professional applications (ie. creative, scientific, industrial, blackbox, etc.).
Click to expand...
Tico,
absolutely correct.
It seems strange to me,that if this is the problem,why they should draw the line here,it clearly limits the ability of any multi-mount design to function effectively and makes nonsense of the adaptability/expandability claim for the camera.
I wonder if Red are developing their own multi-mount system.That would seem to me to be sensible,and a prerequisite for the new products they are working on,and would partly explain their reluctance to sanction the P+S Technik product. Unless of course they are going to develop their own independent fixed mount standard and go into glass production in a major way.
I know Jannard has stated that "glass is easy",I don't think Zeiss,Leica,Cooke etc would entirely agree with him.Sure with today's advanced algorithm's used in optical design, many manufacturers are producing very good useable glass at very modest prices,but as we all know, a great lens isn't just about the numbers.
The problem is,as I see it at the moment, Red is a relatively small company with very big ideas,and it's obvious that Jannard has a much bigger picture in his head. The products are,visionary and excellent,but so far as a company,they haven't been able to deliver a complete solution on their own,and to limit other manufacturer's ability to help provide these solutions only makes commercial sense if Red are able to offer an alternative. It's very frustrating for those of us that need these options now.
In the absence of any other useable solution I'll certainly go ahead with the IMS mount,but not until we have a European service centre,it's not the warranty,it's the hassle and down time of sending the camera to the US to have it fixed if anything goes wrong.
Sorry to ramble,too much time on my hands at the moment,waiting to hear final confirmation of a major advertising job which should keep me busy for the next six months and will involve a lot of work with my Red's when they finally get here.
Tom.
 
Red have never been a company to keep development a secret. Even smaller products like the matte box were announced very early. If there were an exchangeable mount system being developed, I think they would just come out and tell us, not sabotage the competition.

I choose to believe what Red have told us, that the IMS endangers the camera.

I just wish we had more information about what's going on as what we currently know doesn't paint a complete picture...
 
All I have heard is that the IMS is supposed to damage the iCable. But a) P+S has adressed it (as Sanjib has shown in the documents he published here a while ago) b) the iCable is now no longer loose with the new board upgrades.

So I really do wish RED could tell us how the IMS endangers our beloved Red One species.
 
jimhare said:
Red have never been a company to keep development a secret. Even smaller products like the matte box were announced very early. If there were an exchangeable mount system being developed, I think they would just come out and tell us, not sabotage the competition.

I choose to believe what Red have told us, that the IMS endangers the camera.

I just wish we had more information about what's going on as what we currently know doesn't paint a complete picture...
Click to expand...

You're very probably correct,it's just the old cynic in me.
Tom.
 
It sounds like PS sent the original mount to Red which Red saw as unfit, then PS changed it but only sent drawings, twice. Surely a new mount should have been sent over not just drawings. This is what I gather from all the info filtering through this forum.
Maybe P+S have other things more important/lucrative to do before fixing IMS on red.
 
Its clearly a subject that generates a lot of interest,given the number of views this thread has had. Although I'm not sure if that's an indication of the potential volume of sales such a system would have if the problems were solved.
I personally think the uptake would be very large, especially if the system was developed to include iris control on the Canon and Nikon lenses.
If even just 20% of camera owners bought into this,it would generate well over $1 million dollars in sales,that's not just 'beer' money by anybody's standards,and I'll bet it would have very high margins.
Tom.
 
Same as what I've heard. Seems strange doesn't it. Seems like P&S would have sent the revised version over, or that RED would have let them know photos weren't enough.

Anyway, we've speculated for a while now.
 
I agree. I started a list of names of committed buyers who were just waiting for the communication to resume and warranty issue to be resolved. Only got 6 names which obviously isn't enough to motivate P&S to move... I thought if I could get 50 they might see dollar signs and get things moving again.

I guess we just wait and see, or find other mounting options.


Thomas Dobbie said:
Its clearly a subject that generates a lot of interest,given the number of views this thread has had. Although I'm not sure if that's an indication of the potential volume of sales such a system would have if the problems were solved.
I personally think the uptake would be very large, especially if the system was developed to include iris control on the Canon and Nikon lenses.
If even just 20% of camera owners bought into this,it would generate well over $1 million dollars in sales,that's not just 'beer' money by anybody's standards,and I'll bet it would have very high margins.
Tom.
Click to expand...
 
From what I understand, people have been purchasing the IMS. Perhaps they just don't visit or post on REDuser. Or would rather remain anonymous pending the resolution of the warranty impasse.
 
jimhare said:
I agree. I started a list of names of committed buyers who were just waiting for the communication to resume and warranty issue to be resolved. Only got 6 names which obviously isn't enough to motivate P&S to move... I thought if I could get 50 they might see dollar signs and get things moving again.

I guess we just wait and see, or find other mounting options.
Click to expand...

I would by 4 of them but not for RED - I'm waiting for Epic and at that point I want to get it.
 
I truly hope that it's not a clash of ego's.A mechanical problem is relatively easy to overcome,but ego's,that's another story.
Enough speculation for the moment,time for some hard facts,how about it Red.
Tom.
 
RED needs IMS, its own design or from P+S Technik, anyway for upcoming Scarlet especially that (Scarlet) doesn't look like

a sort of very advanced Casio EXILIM PRO EX-F1 camera that also has FIXED lens and specs are

F2.7 (W) – 4.6 (T), f = 7.3 (W) – 87.6 mm (T) (corresponds to approx. 36 mm to 432 mm with 35 mm small picture camera).

RED needs IMS like of mount for RED sooner or later.

RED needs IMS like of mount for upcoming DSMC to be the most lens versatile DSLR/Cine camera on the planet.

RED needs IMS like of mount for EPIC because of a sensor size that means more lenses more options to cover that kind of sized (5K) CMOS sensor.

Anyway IMS sort of mount is a future for digital acquisition, cine or photo.
 
Tico said:
From what I understand, people have been purchasing the IMS. Perhaps they just don't visit or post on REDuser. Or would rather remain anonymous pending the resolution of the warranty impasse.
Click to expand...

they definitely are, no question. But I believe they have to sign a declaration that they know it voids their warranty. How many want it but aren't willing under the current circumstances? Me for one.
 
I am really upset of this question.
Like us of cause we normally used PL mount glass. But sometimes we use REDONE for special situation like dome ulra wide angle we need to go on other mounts even optical relay.
And I am very worry after changing 20 times PL to Birger or red mount I will destroy the mechanical structur of the RED. And that will easy seen destry the warrenty.
At the other side I worked with Red I see IMS and as an engeneer I dont see how a propper mounted IMS will able to destroy the warrenty.
From my talking IMS send sample drawigs comunicate and even mett RED ( last time on the IBC)
Theoretical most additional gear can effect the One. Even element techica break out box or third party remote control or battery. Even a wrong HDMI mointor.
But on the IMS we simple hear it will be a danger for the camrea, but no further comments WHY
How I wish a statement from RED

Why Red think it can harm the RED ONE?
Or a simple statement like: We do not want that P&S fiddle arrount the REDONE.

I do not take any interest who do a bad communication.
Red is the shooting star for 4k and IMS over decades a propper supplier for camera and mechanic cinema gear, not only for SI also for ARRI, Sony, Weiss Panavision ...
I do not like wishi washi statement. I simple want to have it clear.
 
At the other side I worked with Red I see IMS and as an engeneer I dont see how a propper mounted IMS...
Click to expand...

Actually there is no technical reason.
It's a RED warranty policy.
The use of the IMS on the RedOne body void the warranty.

It's almost standard in all warranty contracts.
The use in combination with non certified parts voids the warranty.

The point is why IMS is not certified.

Maybe RED is developping its own interchangeable system? Don't think so.
Thay are pretty happy with the standard solution.

Personally I feel that thay don't really spend to much time supporting more practical still lenses mounts solutions.
RED produces its mounts becasue this makes the camera even more affordable but don't really think that a still lens can perform with that precision that a 4K resolution requires.
It's not a glass quality issue... just a mechanical limitation for focus pulling.

I've some doubt too and a proper test footage is already to be shown here on the forum at that resolution.

If I've missed the post where a 4K/2K footage involving the use of still lenses with moving talents/camera and shallow DOF is shown please post the link.
 
Just to keep the record complied in this thread:


Jarred Land said:
We are open and willing to work with 3rd parties... if someone makes a mount, we will look at it and make the determination if it voids the camera's warranty or not. Some companies are willing to work with us to do modifications ( I.E. Birger ) to abide by the restrictions, and some companies prefer not to.

We have seen some very interesting Canon mounts in the process of development lately, some that not only pass the warranty check, but that we may openly certify as they require no deep modification at all to the camera.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top