NEW design to chew on...

[wshultz]

nope...

Jim

Jim probably has all these guys insured for millions. And locked up...

 

[Jarred Land]

Two chances (per handle) for that handle with it's 15lb payload to spin out of my hand, onto the ground and on the plane back to the Red factory for repair.

how do you think we plan to make money heh heh heh

kidding aside... those side handles lock down tight. and the good thing is that if they are loose, you will know it pretty quickly, because it will move around pretty easily.

That said.. if you do something stupid and forget to tighten some bolts... bad stuff is gonna happen. Just like if you forget to tighten the nuts on your car's wheels..

 

[roryhinds]

Hi Jarred

Do you know why RED are marking their lenses with F stops and not T stops found on other Cinema lenses?

Regards
Rory

 

[Jarred Land]

way to take things way off topic Rory.

Our lenses have really accurate F stops, and all of our lenses are calibrated to the sensor and the loss from the front through to the back plane is minimized as much as possible. Your not loosing a full stop between F and T stops like some older lenses.

 

[RED-Tank]

Thank you Jim & Jarred, this compact design just hook my heart even further .

 

[goldyprog]

Reminds me of a Lumiere concoction from the 1910s... very retro

 

[roryhinds]

Hey Jarred sorry of taking the topic way off.. another thread has been going for sometime now with no response from RED.

It does seem strange to go F stop when the industry uses T stops so having a mix of RED lenses on set will cause a problem.

Why not make RED lenses industry standard for Cinema lenses and having them in T stops?

 

[Michael Hastings]

I like the new design, seems cleaner and more solid. I have an issue. I posted this on the display readout placement thread but maybe belongs here too.

2. The second reason for this is the overall rigidity of the camera, the way it is, two fairly heavy items (the drive and the battery) are not directly attached to the body.

Its been discussed before, but the summary of all of this is that the LCD display and joystick are where they are for a reason.

I understand that it has been determined that rear is the best place for it, but I wonder if there could be a few hardmount points on the rear below the LCD - i.e. threaded posts or ridges that would extend farther back than the LCD (say four 1/2" or 5/8" diameter posts sticking out an inch or so, with 1/4"-20 threads and it would be nice if they flared out at the base for extra strength and aesthetics) for hard mounting of a battery plate or reddrive or whatever - without having to use the rails. This could also be say two 1/2 wide by an inch and a half or two inches long ridges running vertically below the LCD sticking out an inch or so with 1/4-20s in the face.

The option of the rails is nice but not necessarily all the time, the hard points would be useful and maybe more solid. Think of running with the camera and how unsecure the reddrive and battery would feel on rails. I think I could make a hard mount that would be more solid but would need some place to attach it and would rather not have to drill into the backplate myself.

I could draw this if necessary.

 

[Finner]

Originally Posted by AquaVideoRed206
Think of running with the camera and how unsecure the reddrive and battery would feel on rails.

I have had lenses that weigh over 50 pounds alone (pannavision 3 to 1 or hubble as it has been dubbed) that have 95% or more of there weight supported on very long rods. A little battery and reddrive are nothing on a pair of short rods and will be rock solid.

I think I could make a hard mount that would be more solid but would need some place to attach it and would rather not have to drill into the backplate myself.

I think this is the craziest statement I have ever seen on this site.

 

[Michael Hastings]

the craziest statement on this site.

the craziest statement on this site.

I have had lenses that weigh over 50 pounds alone (pannavision 3 to 1 or hubble as it has been dubbed) that have 95% or more of there weight supported on very long rods. A little battery and reddrive are nothing on a pair of short rods and will be rock solid.

Yes, and the lens was hardmount attached to the camera at the PL mount - a 3 point attachment which means the rods can't flex unless you pull the mount loose. Look maybe the rods are plenty solid, but that isn't an example that should convince anyone.

I think I could make a hard mount that would be more solid but would need some place to attach it and would rather not have to drill into the backplate myself.

I think this is the craziest statement I have ever seen on this site.

Well, I guess I should be proud that I have achieved the craziest statement on this site. But what specifically is so crazy - that I might be able to make a more solid hard mount or that I would consider drilling and tapping into the backplate?

Look my point and the earlier post's point that I was piggybacking on is that, for example virtually every ENG/EFP style broadcast camera has a V-mount or Anton Bauer mount plate screwed - i.e. hardmounted - to the back chassis of the camera and it is very solid. It isn't uncommon to have multiple battery boxes, wireless transmitters, receivers, etc. hanging back there either and because of those hard attachment points they are pretty solid. Yes, the rails would work OK, but maybe not as nicely. Also, most of the rail attachments use squeeze/friction fittings to hold stuff on which is okay and easy to adjust and also easier to come loose - some situations work better with nice solid screws.

Not to mention there are some applications where it would be nice not to have the additional base plate that the rods are attached to - for example an underwater housing - and it would be nice to have hard attachment points at the rear for those situations.

The upshot is what I described might be useful and wouldn't be hard to machine or diecast. I think Jim's Solidworks guy could add what I am talking about in about 10 minutes - maybe just additional material and threaded holes around where the screws attach the backplate to the main body - it wouldn't even be adding - it would just mean machining a little less away on the CNC. The RED has supposedly been all about being easily configured in multiple ways. (The RED cage is just an add on with about a hundred of these attachment points.) All I'm saying is a couple of mount points on the back of the camera as well might be a good thing and is easy to do at this stage.

Lovingly, Psychotically yours,
Mike

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

nope...

Jim

Dammit. You can't blaim a guy for trying, huh :whistling:

 

[Ace]

Once you guys physically have this thing in your hands, these renders are going right out the window.. There will be crazy shit that people will be doing with the configurations that not even RED has thought of yet.

 

[Michael Hastings]

too late

too late

Once you guys physically have this thing in your hands, these renders are going right out the window.. There will be crazy shit that people will be doing with the configurations that not even RED has thought of yet.

Once it gets into our hands it will be too late to make the minor change I've suggested.

PS while I am at it, considering the attachment points I've requested, they may also want to consider whether it is the best design idea, particularly with regard to handling and shipping, to have the little joystick be the part that sticks out the farthest on the back of the base camera.

 

[Ace]

I personally think that the rods will be strong enough to withstand the problem you speak of.. As long as they are long enough to be cantilevered from the back.

 

[Jannard]

I understand that it has been determined that rear is the best place for it, but I wonder if there could be a few hardmount points on the rear below the LCD - i.e. threaded posts or ridges that would extend farther back than the LCD (say four 1/2" or 5/8" diameter posts sticking out an inch or so, with 1/4"-20 threads and it would be nice if they flared out at the base for extra strength and aesthetics) for hard mounting of a battery plate or reddrive or whatever - without having to use the rails. This could also be say two 1/2 wide by an inch and a half or two inches long ridges running vertically below the LCD sticking out an inch or so with 1/4-20s in the face.

The option of the rails is nice but not necessarily all the time, the hard points would be useful and maybe more solid. Think of running with the camera and how unsecure the reddrive and battery would feel on rails. I think I could make a hard mount that would be more solid but would need some place to attach it and would rather not have to drill into the backplate myself.

I could draw this if necessary.

The rails are much more stable than we could ever make the rear of the camera.

Jim

 

[Greg Voevodsky]

Any chance on mounting the handle directly to the camera without the rails or mounting bracket?

Less is more for me!
If not how about a handle with mount that mounts directly.

Also for fun,
How about putting a Mag flashlight into the camera handle and WA LA - you're eye light is ready for your close up!

 

[Ace]

Its about being smart with structure. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantilever

The cameras rail and body lend itself to creating incredibly strong and rigid structures due to the unique ability to position components and the numerous joints.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Last try

Last try

I personally think that the rods will be strong enough to withstand the problem you speak of.. As long as they are long enough to be cantilevered from the back.

The rails are much more stable than we could ever make the rear of the camera.

Jim

It still doesn't address the issue of operating in stripped down mode without baseplate/rails but if adding a little extra meat and 4 1/4-20 tapped holes on the rear (similar to what exists on both left and right sides) is too much to add then I guess we will have to make do with a KLUGECAGE extended from the rear top/bottom side holes.

PS. I really would like some of these mountholes, but don't take the tone too negatively - I'm trying to have some fun here too. The engineering delay may have pushed my mind into Rube Goldberg mode - I think these mountholes would also greatly facilitate the installation of a gimbaled coffee cup holder, and again the rails would get in the way.

Hey, Sharkguy - little help here?

Again, Lovingly, Psychotically,
Rube ... I mean Mike

 

[Antoine Fabi]

way way way WAAAYYYY better for my typical usage. LIGHTWEIGHT.

he hee looks like a modern S16 ...NICE.

I appreciate the effort to constantly improve all aspects of this camera.

Now...euh...where will i fix my battery and drive ?

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

. . . virtually every ENG/EFP style broadcast camera has a V-mount or Anton Bauer mount plate screwed - i.e. hardmounted - to the back chassis of the camera and it is very solid. It isn't uncommon to have multiple battery boxes, wireless transmitters, receivers, etc.

It still doesn't address the issue of operating in stripped down mode without baseplate/rails . . .

I actually agree with a lot of what Aqua is trying to say. I don't know why all of you are jumping on him just because the rails don't fit his needs.