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 :)

New Rod standards

Jason Sinclair

Jason Sinclair

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
827
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Lawrence, Kansas
I know the thought will give quite a few of you headaches but reality is persistent.

It seems to me the current rod standards are not ideal in a number of ways.

For the sake of dreaming and forgetting trying to keep your value on arri merchandise that has been purchased, i'd like input on the following:

If you were to design a rod system specifically for the epic and had the ability to forget all previous designs how would you do it?

Equipment is getting smaller, namely the camera but also the accessories. Rods on traditional systems have been designed for cameras which have been all different shapes.

Considering the modular shape of the epic brain and the ability to put rods just about anywhere (not just on a bridge plate) and considering you wanted to design a system with less materials (with the aim of a lighter load) and stronger connection point, where would you place the rails?

Are round rails even suited? Would it be better to have dovetail rails which might have better sliding and clamping abilities as well as being more slimline?

How would you design the most lightweight, strong, versatile rail system standard just for dsmc's and why?
 
I think there may be some confusion as that may be a support bracket at the bottom for bi pods, mono pods etc.. I'm talking about current 15 and 19mm rods in particular for follow focus, mattebox, etc... Picatinny is good but i haven't seen any really good quick release systems which would give it a comparison to rod setups or potential similar dual rail systems.
 
The currant system has been refined through over ninety years of film making. It has the beauty of simplicity in design; the perfect combination of function and reliability. It is the very root for a modular system that every single respected product manufacturers has adapted. It is the pinnacle of tried and true. Why would you change it?
 
All I know is unless it comes from Arri, then its not a good idea. They are the GOLD standard for this stuff and not one manufacturer has come close to matching the buikd quality and reliability. Not even O'Connors latest foray into FF.

If it aint broke, dont fix it. Im actually going back to the OLD school 15mm offset, it just makes sense.
 
I agree with Tim, but for one exception -- 15mm offset is starting to make less sense moving into the digital era. It's the long-standing preference for Hollywood and in many markets, but it makes a lot more sense to keep the rods equally spaced in relation to the optical axis. Hence the newer Arriflex 19mm standard. I think the 19mm standard is the way to go on the RED One -- unless you're in a market that is dominated by 15mm offset or have tons of existing 15mm offset gear to support.

For the Epic/Scarlet, the 15mm light-weight spec makes the most sense. Reserve the 19mm rods for using larger lenses and mattebox configurations. It seems as if 15mm lightweight will be just perfect for most uses and the preferred choice for a lot of EPIC/Scarlet shooters.
 
what makes them not ideal?
Click to expand...

Well, the rods, their sizing and the distance from the lens are all a result of being modular for dinosaur cameras. It is appearing quickly that Epic and dsmc's in general are leading a new benchmark. It is just smart engineering that when you drop the camera weight by 70% you also follow through with everything else.

#1 do we really need 19mm poles anymore? In this day and age of manufacturing, they don't need to carry the tons of weight they use to.
The weight in the poles are dead weight which in reality, in film, unnecessary weight in camera set ups that does not need to be there is IMHO just not thinking straight. Can we even consider now 12mm poles?

which goes onto:

#2 The distance from the poles to the lens just means you add more weight in the support bracket. Why not bring the poles closer to the lens now we have a modular system? By having the poles closer to the lens also means a lot stronger connection. So you get less weight and a stronger connection. The accessory will also slide better because it matches the center of gravity. To me that is more ideal.

I personally think 15mm even spaced or 12mm even spaced to the side of the lens is good. (similar to the red gunner setup)

The reason dovetails are used in tripod plates is because they slide better than poles. Also they are a lot more slim line and they are sturdier mating. I think poles for their weight are stronger all round (excuse the pun) because of the nature of the geometry. This is obviously important when extending poles and having weights dangling off them.

I just think there are room for improvements and if a few industry people got together and talked about the possibilities, they would create a pretty good system, even if for a steadicam/portable rig set up.

The currant system has been refined through over ninety years of film making. It has the beauty of simplicity in design
Click to expand...

Just think of it as further refinement.
 
Support rods are to support the lens. The weight of the camera is somewhat irrelevant. Large lens requires large support.

But it is not just the weight. It is the wind and vibrations. Have you shot with a 300+mm lens outdoors?

I have recently gone 19mm solid titanium rods to support large, long lenses. It's pretty solid :)
 
This business about "dinosaur cameras" makes no sense.

Rods aren't for supporting CAMERAS.

They are for supporting LENSES and other camera accessories.

Last I checked an Angeniuex 24-290 is the same weight. I still have to attach a follow focus, mattebox, monitors and other stuff.

I suppose the biggest difference is that with an EPIC you can just support the lens and hang the camera off the back of the lens in some configurations.

Anyway, as said already... its a system that's evolved for this specific task over time. I agree, centering the rods on the lens makes more sense now, so 15mm offset makes no sense.
 
So lets say we are talking for steadi, crane and 3d kind of work, also eng... where light weight, compactness, dynamic stability are all king. Maybe have an adapter for those times you need those really large lenses or have an extra bridge plate in your kit? or rent it out with the lens.

I have recently gone 19mm solid titanium rods to support large, long lenses. It's pretty solid :)
Click to expand...

One thing i can honestly say about you Pawel, is you never do anything by halves.
 
Really....

I work a bit with heavy optics...
And they look beautifull.
And I need the rods to support the optics, mattebox, filters etc.
Actually the Optics easilly make the MX look like a miniature camera... -:)
 
ok.. i get the picture. You guys have big rods...

But, what if we could design something that was even stronger, more compact and weighed less?

Would you buy it?

Also what is the benchmark lens with the largest diameter?
 
I guess not, because it would mean buying everything that attaches to them, too...

And that's a bit more of an issue, than new rods...
 
Jason Sinclair said:
ok.. i get the picture. You guys have big rods...

But, what if we could design something that was even stronger, more compact and weighed less?

Would you buy it?
Click to expand...

Start designing. If you come up with something truly better, I'm sure people will take notice. Good luck. You're going to have a tough time coming up with anything stronger than what's out there now. More compact? Sure, maybe, but it still has to be large enough to provide stability to lenses and matteboxes. You're not using these rods to support most primes or SLR lenses anyway. A great many compact configurations for these camera will not need rods at all...
 
In a word: no.

Nobody would buy it.

If you find metal rods too heavy, you use CF rods. A pair of CF rods weighs almost nothing.

If you find 19mm too bulky and don't need the strength, go 15mm lightweight. Even 19mm rods aren't really very bulky.

It's hard to imagined something stronger and easier to use than a pair of hollow tubes.

The roundness has nce properties that you would lose by going to a different shape. You can rotate accessories around. You don't have to worry about which way it goes into the hole. Things can easily snap on and off (this would be possible with some other shapes, too, but not more so). It's equally strong in all directions.
 
Well the main thing i am interested in is primes, carrying mattebox and follow focus. However if something could be adapted so it also takes large lenses that would be good.

But really, i am interested in primes both dslr and smaller PL mounts like red primes specifically for crane , motion control, steadi cam, car mounts etc... and the like where weight and compactness are important and where something super strong needs to keep those accessories in place because of the forces acting upon them.

For really large lenses you should consider using a dovetail plate with solid steel base to support the lens rather than rods as this is structurally stronger than rods, especially if you are anal about micron deflection. For large lenses you need a specialized solution and that solution should include specialized equipment for support but i think your everyday kit should not suffer because of this IMHO.

rkdcw8.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top