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 :)

SCARLET strip-down

C

Craig_H

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi All,

I am really keen on the idea of shedding a few pounds off the SCARLET by stripping it down. Need to get it down to about 4lb. One idea would be to take the shell off it but not sure if this can be done whilst retaining integrity. Basically want to put it on a flying machine of types and it needs to be a certain weight for max flight time.

Thanks all... Any help much appreciated.

C
 
Use a GoPro or get a better flying machine...!

Mike
 
I agree with Mike and Mathew; what you should be concerned about is finding a better flying machine; don't mess with the physical integrity your camera.
 
Certainly void warranty !!! Dont even have to ask red about that !!!

I'm sure there are many seals and tightly fitted parts. is losing barely a pound off the camera worth the risk of ruining a ten thousand dollar piece of equipment?!!!
Guess not..
 
Trust me on this one...your camera as it sits is as light as it is going to get and still function.
 
Yeah, just take all the metal housing off and wrap it in plastic wrap. It'll totally be fine!
 
What a bunch of derisive, mocking nonsense folks are posting.

For me, light = good.

And... RED did make carbon-fiber RED ONE cams for David Fincher for Social Network.

Personally, yes: I would like less thick modular metal plates in my camera... and more lightweight materials. Even at the expense of more fragility.

I treat equipment with care and none of my "plastic cameras" have ever broken. In fact, since I fly internationally... I appreciate the fact that they are light weight!

I also don't have the psyche that equates my own penis size with the fact that my camera can be used to bludgeon someone's head.

Besides... it's an electronic device. It WILL be out of date in several years. Even if the components are upgraded. Sorry if this makes people upset. Scarlet 4 or Epic 5 or whatever will likely not need the same cooling fan setup and will be either smaller and lighter... or some monstro sensor that doesn't fit either. Anyway, I'd rather carry around a lightweight cam for 5 years and have it break at the end than lug around a heavy one. It should have paid for itself by then... by allowing me to get shots that the heavier cam never would have.

If a 3rd party wanted to modify an Epic by putting it inside a lightweight shell and wants to offer their own warranty, more power to them.

What's bad with having options?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Doesn't Scarlet come in @ 3lbs or 3.5lbs with side handle. Not sure if thats with a redvolt?

If it does then I reckon your biggest weight issue is lenses. Leica lenses are tiny & should weight under .5 lbs. Maybe getting in under 4 lbs.

Shedding weight from the camera is a terrible idea. I think this is case for another camera, maybe a 7D?

But heck if you wanna try I'd pay for a ticket to watch the whole exercise on its maiden flight.
 
I agree with you, Bruce. He should contact Red and make them an offer to build a carbon fiber one.

That said, it will surely cost more than a better flying machine, And he is trying to take one pound off, which is a lot of metal...

Maybe most people aren't being derisive, just pragmatic. I am guessing he is not in a "Money is no concern" position.
 
Maybe people are being derisive Bruce but most are offering a real alternative. Yeah, a plastic bodied Scarlet is a good idea IMHO but that's not about to help the guy fly his current camera. As my dad would say, "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs; If we had some eggs".

Buy a GoPro or get a bigger UAV. Either way, a pretty cheap alternative to killing a $10,000 camera that has no warranty.
 
A heavier camera means a bigger multicopter, which means a heavier one, which equals more dangerous. There is nothing wrong with trying to lighten a camera. If any of these guys making stupid remarks had any knowledge of cinema history, they would know about cine SL, and guys who milled away every mm of unneeded metal from Eyemos and what a GZAP is etc.

I would track down the FCC tear down pictures as they give you a good idea of what is attached to what. You could certainly take the SSD module off, and remove the cover, just have the board connected to the card and to the camera by the wires. I would put velcro on the SSD and attach it to maybe the top. I don't think there is a whole lot of fat on the camera, but thats a good start. There should be no problem running the camera off of a 3s lipo of it's own, that would be lighter than a redvolt if you got a nice small one. Match run times on the camera battery to flight time, so you are carrying only as much battery as you need.

Another thing to do, replace all the mild steel fasteners on the camera with titanium hardware. If you want to get stupid, you can drill out the centers of bigger bolts. All of those little things together add up.

That being said, Red would probably discourage everything I said ;-) But it's a good thought exercise and a fun challenge.

Nick
 
I think everybody is having a bit of fun here. A heavier camera in general = a more stable camera. Especially on sticks.

However, this is special application work and I could see a carbon fiber or even acrylic housing being developed for this need.

However, I will say, the bulk of the weight on the Scarlet X is not in the housing itself. There's a lot of "robot guts" in there that make up the most of the weight.

So, with that in mind, is it worth the expense and difficulty to shave a very small % (I'm estimating <= 15% ) of the total cam weight?
 
I would have been happy if my 2 camera setup had magnesium bodies .
 
@ Richard

Thanks, not sure were I got 3.5 lbs. from, in my defense it's friday in Australia & it's pub time. However the weight issue for lenses would be critical with a RC rig so still reckon Leica lenses would be the way to go. Is there anything lighter out there lens wise?

P.S. what the original poster has asked then is that much harder ! You would need to loose at least 30%- 40% of weight allowing for batteries, lens etc. Have you seen whats inside a Scarlet, its packed. I don't know if you would get there even junking the external casing & running nude. Interesting exercise though.

Is this to get this RC rig below the new regulations? Because from what I read at present flying anything RC with onboard camera for commercial gain is now illegal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top