It‘s a great camera, but... some odd quality issues on #112

[Tony Lorentzen]

No pins? Are you serious? I have been working under the assumption that my R3D files had my lens meta data and merely that RedAlert didnt' yet reveal it. Why would you remove them? From an engineering perspective, it's risky to ship things that aren't at least hardware design finished or there can easily be more, bigger, recalls.

Oh yeah - and I'm sure everyone who were thinking about doing VFX work with the RED are going to be disappointed. fxPhd guys included...

 

[Brook Willard]

Remember guys, no pins as of today. When the feature is enabled, the pins will be added. No feature was removed or delayed... it's just not enabled [both software and hardware] yet.

I don't understand the new disappointment. A feature that wasn't enabled a week ago still isn't enabled today. What's changed?

Having seen bent or snapped pins on many cameras, I'm happy to keep those suckers out of there until they're in play... better not to break a part four times before it's even enabled, eh?

 

[Jannard]

We are re-designing the pins and they will be added when they are done. /i is in the future of RED as we have stated.

All existing cameras have the provision for /i.

Jim

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

While technical testing was done, the one that sold me was Jarred hanging from the end of a 4' steel bar that was attached to the lens mount, which was attached to the camera... and swinging from it.

Now I fully understand your previous comments about "Jarred couldn't break it". Hehe.

 

[John Tissavary]

Oh yeah - and I'm sure everyone who were thinking about doing VFX work with the RED are going to be disappointed. fxPhd guys included...

I'm not sure I completely understand this post, but... I can't tell you how many vfx shots I've completed over the last nearly 20 years without any lens metadata.

Filmscans w. accompanying camera dept. notes, and when there were no notes we still managed to match.

But again, I could be misunderstanding the post.


cheers,

john t.

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

I'm not sure I completely understand this post, but... I can't tell you how many vfx shots I've completed over the last nearly 20 years without any lens metadata.

Sure - "necessity is the mother of invention", but it makes it a helluva lot easier to track footage for VFX work when you have the exact lens data available so you don't have to guess.

 

[Mark Pedersen]

We are re-designing the pins and they will be added when they are done. /i is in the future of RED as we have stated.

All existing cameras have the provision for /i.

Jim

Jim,

We appreciate the commitment to getting this done.

I know it's been stated that the /i system will be the first metadata system supported, but is there interest in and/or any effort being made by Red to potentially implement the ARRI LDS system in the future?

If not, do you know of any possible update/workaround/mod that would allow the Red camera to read the ARRI LDS system data as it exists today?

If not, are there any standards bodies in the film business that can be used as a forum to air this issue and try to influence ARRI to open it's protocols?

Personally, I plan to get in front of the ARRI folks at NAB, but I doubt I'll have much influence

Thanks,
M

 

[Sebastian Cramer]

I had initially assumed the mount would be stainless steel. But I then I changed my mind with some demonstrations....

Jim

Ok. If the decision is to go with this pairing it must be respected. But I do feel the PL mount should be a lot smoother, or let's say more Arri-like (sorry for this .

I was under the impression the whole production stop was addressing this issue and one goal was to get the mount less sticky.
I was actually quite surprised to find that the solution was an adjustable PL-mount in the end. At this point I have to say that I'm not really convinced I will love this, because it can completly be fucked up by custumers who don't know what they are doing.

The industry had been working with a fixed shimmed distance from the film plane to the PL mount of 52mm for decades. The tolerance is 2/100mm and even with sound cameras the filmgate and the PL mount was always built as one single unit to maintain this distance as good as possible (we are talking here about real tight tolerances).
Ok, from time to time you could have a lens that was off, and in this case you had to use eye focus. But everybody had something pretty solid to rely on.

The flange back of exactly 52mm seemed to be one of the very rare rock solid parameters in the film world. Now, why would you change this and open a can of worms by making it adjustable?

The only reason I see at this point is, that it might not be possible to maintain a precise distance to the mount on a digital camera and therefore it needs to be adjustable.
From what I understand about the connection between the mount and the film plane I can only hope the sensor is directly connected to the mount. Otherwise it looks like there might be a lot of use in the adjustable mount.

Please don't get me wrong. I am still a one of the biggest fans of Red and everything they have achieved sofar. I just would like to get an idea how often I do have to touch this adjustment ring.

Thanks,
Sebastian

 

[Alex Wengert]

Ok. If the decision is to go with this pairing it must be respected. But I do feel the PL mount should be a lot smoother, or let's say more Arri-like (sorry for this .

I was under the impression the whole production stop was addressing this issue and one goal was to get the mount less sticky.
I was actually quite surprised to find that the solution was an adjustable PL-mount in the end. At this point I have to say that I'm not really convinced I will love this, because it can completly be fucked up by custumers who don't know what they are doing.

The industry had been working with a fixed shimmed distance from the film plane to the PL mount of 52mm for decades. The tolerance is 2/100mm and even with sound cameras the filmgate and the PL mount was always built as one single unit to maintain this distance as good as possible (we are talking here about real tight tolerances).
Ok, from time to time you could have a lens that was off, and in this case you had to use eye focus. But everybody had something pretty solid to rely on.

The flange back of exactly 52mm seemed to be one of the very rare rock solid parameters in the film world. Now, why would you change this and open a can of worms by making it adjustable?

The only reason I see at this point is, that it might not be possible to maintain a precise distance to the mount on a digital camera and therefore it needs to be adjustable.
From what I understand about the connection between the mount and the film plane I can only hope the sensor is directly connected to the mount. Otherwise it looks like there might be a lot of use in the adjustable mount.

Please don't get me wrong. I am still a one of the biggest fans of Red and everything they have achieved sofar. I just would like to get an idea how often I do have to touch this adjustment ring.

Thanks,
Sebastian

I need an answer to this as well. I share Sebastian's concern. Sorry Jim and Jared, but I don't think this new mount is a good compromise.

 

[Laco Zamba]

Hi Sebastian, did you get my PM?

 

[Phil D]

Hi Jim,

With all this talk of differing hand held operating styles (Handles vs Matte boxs) is there not a opening here for Red to take on some of this information!

If a lot of operators use the matte box as a way to hold the camera in hand held situations, maybe some sort of ergonomic grip could be included into the design of Red's own Matte Box.

Looking at the design you have released on this thread... http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6562&highlight=mattbox

...a very simple idea would be to replace one or both of the rod locking nuts with a light weight handle? In effect the handle would be a glorified locking nut.

Or am I just talking nuts?

 

[Wes Printz]

CSC is more than capable. Its pretty simple, you just remove the lockring, unscrew the front threaded piece and plug it in... you dont need to remove the whole mount and your backfocus "should" stay the same, if you put the ring back on with the same tightness as before.

Jarred, is there a torque spec on the mount screws? Your "tightness", will be different from another's idea of tight. Are the screws Stainless? Before someone does remove their mount, do you think there may be tooling and fixtures to check the "Should"?

----------------------------

12-29-2006:
The surface will be painted... and the lens mount a special metal. Jim

12-29-2006:
We are looking at Invar for much of the lens mount. Great properties for expansion (lack thereof) with heat. It is heavy so we are working out how to use it with minimal quantity and maximum efficiency.

I promise that you don't get this level of candor from the other camera companies...

Jim

As Jim has said all along.. Everything changes in life including the camera specs.
--------------------------

Several things here, There may have been problems with "Holiday Help", I.E., possibly bringing in extra staff, to get the cameras out the door as everyone wants theirs NOW, you will have issues with under experienced personnel, as Jim said it has been taken care of.

The current delivery schedule is VERY ambitious, for such a small staff doing final assembly, and the users should applaud the team for attempting to meet that schedule. I've been to assembly plants in Japan and Mexico, they pump the gear out they are making, but these have been refined over many many years. I've also seen the other end of the process, hand built precision Assembly.

On the Lens issue, just putting a sticker with either marking is NOT as simple as that. Every Cine lens ring is individually made!! No two Cine lenses have the exact same characteristics. The ring is installed, measured, marked, removed engraved, anodized, painted then re-installed, and checked again.

The wonderful thing about the world is CHOICE. No one is forcing you to buy what ever lens you are deciding to purchase. Yes some lenses are made with either Metric, or imperial, some even have both markings. This was a decision made, and being stuck to. Cooke is offering a RED set, they may have both markings, I'm not sure.

"The Customer Can Have Any Color He Wants So Long As It's Black". -- Henry Ford.

I've noticed a very diverse group of users on here, from top cinematographers, to the casual hobbyist. People want this feature and that feature, saying so and so camera has this feature, or someone else has that feature, How come RED can't have that... What prices are you paying for those cameras??? 2-5x more.. If you want those features, by all means no one is stopping you from getting those. Are you going to get a 2007 Aston Martin DB9 for the cost of a 2007 Volvo?

This project has gone from nothing to delivery in about 2-3 years, (or longer as the web site is Copyright 1999-2008) with lots of feedback and support from the team and community. I bet you all dream you had this kind of access to SONY and Panasonic, that the RED team offers.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

I personally have ventured into the land of hand-held matte box-gripped operating, but have officially decided that if your matte box is anywhere near the lens and has the chance to create a bit of push on the lens itself, I'd rather not even take the chance! Bad for the lens mount, bad for me!

Not to mention......your AC will love you for dropping that technique, it can interfere with his/her sight and pulling.

 

[Sebastian Cramer]

Ok. If the decision is to go with this pairing it must be respected. But I do feel the PL mount should be a lot smoother, or let's say more Arri-like (sorry for this .

I was under the impression the whole production stop was addressing this issue and one goal was to get the mount less sticky.
I was actually quite surprised to find that the solution was an adjustable PL-mount in the end. At this point I have to say that I'm not really convinced I will love this, because it can completly be fucked up by custumers who don't know what they are doing.

The industry had been working with a fixed shimmed distance from the film plane to the PL mount of 52mm for decades. The tolerance is 2/100mm and even with sound cameras the filmgate and the PL mount was always built as one single unit to maintain this distance as good as possible (we are talking here about real tight tolerances).
Ok, from time to time you could have a lens that was off, and in this case you had to use eye focus. But everybody had something pretty solid to rely on.

The flange back of exactly 52mm seemed to be one of the very rare rock solid parameters in the film world. Now, why would you change this and open a can of worms by making it adjustable?

The only reason I see at this point is, that it might not be possible to maintain a precise distance to the mount on a digital camera and therefore it needs to be adjustable.
From what I understand about the connection between the mount and the film plane I can only hope the sensor is directly connected to the mount. Otherwise it looks like there might be a lot of use in the adjustable mount.

Please don't get me wrong. I am still a one of the biggest fans of Red and everything they have achieved sofar. I just would like to get an idea how often I do have to touch this adjustment ring.

Thanks,
Sebastian

Thinking of this, it comes as a surprise to me that no other digital camera like D20, Dalsa, Genesis, Weisscam, SI has something like an adjustable lens mount. At the end of the day it seems it's all coming down to this one question:

IS THE SENSOR CONNECTED TO THE MOUNT?

I hope the answer to this is not related to the religious experience of the new adjustable mount...

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Thinking of this, it comes as a surprise to me that no other digital camera like D20, Dalsa, Genesis, Weisscam, SI has something like an adjustable lens mount. At the end of the day it seems it's all coming down to this one question:

IS THE SENSOR CONNECTED TO THE MOUNT?

I hope the answer to this is not related to the religious experience of the new adjustable mount...

I've removed the mount without the sensor moving, so to my knowledge, no.

 

[Deanan]

I've removed the mount without the sensor moving, so to my knowledge, no.

Not true. The sensor is connected to the mount.
Because you can remove the mount does not mean
it's not connected. How would you shim a sensor/mount unit if it
was one piece.

 

[Sebastian Cramer]

Ok, this doesn't mean a lot, the question is, is the holding device of the sensor and the flange of the mount all mechanically grouped together.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Not true. The sensor is connected to the mount.
Because you can remove the mount does not mean
it's not connected. How would you shim the mount if
was one piece.

"So to my knowledge" was my statements bumper, thanks for the clarification Deanan.

 

[Deanan]

Thinking of this, it comes as a surprise to me that no other digital camera like D20, Dalsa, Genesis, Weisscam, SI has something like an adjustable lens mount.

They all have adjustable mounts (via shims). The new mount makes
it easier and faster to adjust.

 

[Deanan]

Ok, this doesn't mean a lot, the question is, is the holding device of the sensor and the flange of the mount all mechanically grouped together.

Absolutely.