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 :)

October 30th Announcement Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you connect the camera to Internet to upgrade.. could you build in a theft-protection?

If a cameras serialnumber is registred as stolen... it wouldn't upgrade the firmware, but instead lock the camera.

/carl
 
Jarred Land said:
Brains have internet connectivity built in. Firmware upgrades will be incredibly easy.. no matter what brain you have.

For Traditional upgrades via CF cards, they will be brain specific.
Click to expand...

I try to save my expletives for when it really matters.

THAT IS FUCKING AWESOME.

oooo, I think I just morphed from a soccer mom into a fanboy. Need a moustache and a cigar!
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
Im not speaking for myself either Jim, Jarred, Graeme, Deanan, et al... Ill be tattoo (if the kit gets that far) because we can test the hell out of it with how busy we are...
...
BUT Stage 3 seems like a raw deal to early adopters, who are afraid to say it for fear of being banned...or put on the C List... etc... so Ill take the fire I guess.


I hope I have asked these questions in a respectable manner, because they are intended that way... and there are rumblings offline you guys should be aware of.
Because I know you DO care.

May I suggest you combine Stage 2 and 3? Make it a "Keep it or Trade it" option without compromising peoples places in line... ? That just seems a lot more fair to people who bought cameras before me. (We jumped the line and paid the transfer fees specifically to upgrade to EPIC early) so we are VERY happy.

Many of my RED friends, with less resources, are not happy. Cool? Cool.
Click to expand...

I wanted to thank Tim for posting this. Like Tim I want to be considered for stage 1 and hope RED will recognize that my comments/suggestions are made and intended with the same respectful manner he expressed. With that in mind I would like to take minor exception to part of Jarred's response and offer a possible compromise solution.

Jarred Land said:
Remember, those Stage 2 people are early adopters as well.. it really has nothing to do with what your place is in line.
Click to expand...

Place in line does matter. Many of the real early adopters (say sub-500/1000 - I'm 206) made our deposits truly in blind faith a year and half (NAB 2006) before there were cameras shipped (or even a prototype). And we sent our full payment (in my case Dec 2007) while R1 was still in an alpha/beta stage. We lived through substantial issues and growing pains.

It was a totally different experience for those in the 750 or 1000 up group - by then firmware was much more developed and there were months of public experience with the camera that they could use to decide whether to complete the purchase.

But there were (and still are) some things with R1 - heat, power draw, bootup, lens mounts, ergonomic/configuration, issues etc. that can make it difficult/risky to use in a number of applications and caused many owners to use R1 much less often than was expected.

While I understand the "obsolescence obsolete" aspect of the trade-in (and as a manufacturer myself for 25 years, I think I have a fairly good understanding of the business aspects as well), I, and others, thought that the trade-in was also a tacit recognition of some of those issues and that a new platform was the best way to get there . Thus the Epic-X trade-in program and I/we were very happy. But now have the feeling that the deal has been changed a bit. I know you would like us to see it differently, but I don't think any of us thought that the full trade in meant pay $8K or $9K extra and keep the R1 if we wanted to keep our place in line.

I'd like to be considered for the BETA program and probably can make sense out of the financial hit for the benefits. But if not selected my preference is to NOT keep the R1, get Epic-X now and save that money toward getting an epic 645 down the road. And I can't help feeling that the current stage 2 and 3 setup IS a penalty for those who really did take the early leap of faith. (And also hung in there when we could have sold out at a profit.)

If you can't combine 2 and 3 at the same time, let me suggest a compromise that I think more accurately reflects the reality and is more fair while still helping the business aspects:

Do the stage 2/3 decision commitments in steps. For example, instead of taking all 7000 owners that commit to stage 2 before allowing stage 3, require the first 500 to commit (I'd say 250 but that might appear self-serving.:biggrin:) and any of those that choose to keep their R1 get their epic-x first (in order) and then the full trade get theirs (in order). So SN500 might get theirs before SN60 or 206, which is still a bit of a bonus, but but SN6500 won't. Then move to the next 500 or 1000 and repeat as needed.


PS. Epic-X with all of the new features, really does look amazing. Love the Nikon/Canon implementation with the locking bayonets.
 
Jannard said:
Tattoo cameras have the exact same boards as production. They will always be updated to match production if there are changes. No long term downside. Probably will be the coolest RED cameras ever produced... except for "Frankie", "Boris" and "Natasha".

Jim
Click to expand...

Never a doubt in my mind that would be the case though not everyone would see it that way. I just started a thread to discuss this point so rather than take things off topic here, those interested can jump over here:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37184
 
Harry Lipnick said:
Hehehe... Are we there yet? :blush:
Click to expand...

We get there when we get there!

C_Skaff said:
If you connect the camera to Internet to upgrade.. could you build in a theft-protection?

If a cameras serialnumber is registred as stolen... it wouldn't upgrade the firmware, but instead lock the camera.
Click to expand...

Would be kinda hard for a camera to upgrade if the user can't log-in to download the update, even via the camera. Or at least I hope it's that way, I don't like it when rental customers start changing around firmware on my camera.
 
Could the update of firmware perhaps also lead to higher resolution in the future? More K's would be nice, even though there's already a lot of K's...
 
Steven,

Yes, I think you are correct about it being the front of the side handgrip. That image makes it clearer. Not a mount at all. Nice catch!

-Grant

Steven Caesare said:
I don't think that is a lens support post. I originally thought so too when looking at the "angles" render of the gunner.

But when looking closely, and also consulting this picture, I think we are seeing htre front portion of hte side handgrip thru the gap between lens and gunner:

MonsterGUNNER.jpg


-sc
Click to expand...
 
Grant_Wood said:
Steven,

Yes, I think you are correct about it being the front of the side handgrip. That image makes it clearer. Not a mount at all. Nice catch!

-Grant
Click to expand...

If you read my post #535, on Page 54 of this thread (three days ago) I suggested the use of the handle on the far side, and the top end of it probably connecting as a lens servozoom unit to power zooming of the lens. I believe the servozoom connecting portion of the handle is what's visible on the far side, through the gap between the Gunner and the lens. As Jarred later pointed out in this thread, parts of the Gunner, and I would assume the handle, are on adjustable tracks. It may be that if its a powered handle/servozoom combo on a track, that it could be connected to a choice of either the zoom ring or focus ring, depending on whether you're using an electronic zoom (2 gear options) or an electronic prime (1 gear option).

The above, and what's in my post #535 are mere guesses on my part. If they aren't accurate guesses for what's in the render, and what the actual functionality of the parts pictured is, they're still very good suggestions to RED which would significantly broaden the style and genre utility of the DSMC line of cameras. For a few years now I've made suggestions here on RED User, and elsewhere, for a powered servozoom unit, and EFP zoom functionality in lenses which could be used as 3-Way electronic zooms (stills, hybrid/EFP, cine) depending on how the lenses are setup and accessorized.
 
Is it just me going insane over this amazing technology?

Does anyone really comprehend how advanced this stuff is? It is really beyond belief.

Congrats to RED. Truly amazing.
 
Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock said:
That gunner config looks extremely cool. Nice weight reduction - no rods.....
But what about filters? Behind the lens? Or screw-ons?
Click to expand...

Personally I would use screw on filters to maintain the light weight and mobility of the setup - that's assuming that the RE lenses will be threaded for screw ons. I think it would be a major mistake by RED not to have screw-on filter threading on the new RE Lenses.

RED has already confirmed their intention of having a 3-filter ND wheel on the fixed lens Scarlet. I'd be a real happy camper if an internal 3-filter wheel was an option on all the DSMC cameras.

Then if someone still wanted to (or needed to) load the camera up with accessories like a matte box, stage filters, FF, etc., they'd obviously have those options.

The whole concept of these DSMC cameras is for their modularity and flexibility to create broad utility across a number of shooting styles, industries, and genres - and a lot of styles and genres simply don't call for a big, heavy, accessory-laden rig, or a big crew either.
 
Hi David,

For motion filming you're probably right.

But for stills, I can tell you that the lens I use most is a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR. My wife uses one constantly for her headshot work with actors because the proportions it gives to the subjects facial features are flattering. I also know shooters that use massive fixed 300mm for natural light portraits because of the proportions and speed of the glass. Its all taste.

Also, I'm thinking that mounting bulky ring lights with the Gunner seems like a great way to keep things stable with any length lens, at least for stills.

-Grant

David Battistella said:
One thing about the gunner rig.

Would you really have a 200mm lens on there? I mean wouldn't it be better suited for something wider, say from 18mm to 50mm.

Hand held with a 200mm lens seems a bit of a stretch, unless that is a zoom lens.

Also, is there a weight estimate for the gunner rig?

David
Click to expand...
 
Eric Ulbrich said:
Sorry for the stupid question, being out of town during these announcements sucks, but whats the difference between the pro IO module and the basic?
Click to expand...

For one thing, the Pro I/O module has digital audio input (AES/EBU). The Base I/O module only has analog audio input.
 
Curran Giddens said:
For one thing, the Pro I/O module has digital audio input (AES/EBU). The Base I/O module only has analog audio input.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many tracks of audio could be sent into epic via the AES/EBU port?

What field mixers support this format?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top