Suggestion for "Universal Birger Mount" - comments please

[David Nardini]

Hmmm ...

Hmmm ...

I find it interesting that RED adopted the Nikon mount designed by Doug U (and dropped their own design), but for some reason the Birger mount is facing a few hurdles ?

Why not RED 'certify' each mount and ship it with CLEAR instructions ? ie: Birger is just a supplier to RED just like any other supplier involved in the RED manufacturing line ? This would ensure the two parties have clearer line of communication (and pre-design) rather than having 11th hour surprises.

Not knowing the exact nature of the problem, it's difficult to try and make any suggestion(s) ! (is it really 'just' the i-cable, and as already pointed out, the Nikon mount could potentially also lead to the same shorting ? so why is the Nik ok and the other not ? ... hence why I sense there is more ...).

I guess we'll have to (again) wait and see what RED have to say following their meeting ...

Disappointed ? YES VERY; surprised ? NO

 

[J.Burger]

... 'Red Burgers' ....

yummy

Unfortunately, when we engineered the solution, we were thinking of SLR lenses, and making it as small as possible. So a PL mount for this system is just not that feasible. The quantity and size of screws, as well as overall diameter of the mounts, just won't support it. It was never a consideration in our existing markets to use PL lenses, as they have no motors in them.

Erik, sorry to ask, and please correct me if I’m wrong: Wasn’t the difficult part to develop the electronics to work for focus and iris control? While you have done this now – how long would it take you to develop a new mount which would support also PL lenses? Is this really no option to think of ?





it really must be a frustrating situation for you… keep on rocking





.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I find it interesting that RED adopted the Nikon mount designed by Doug U (and dropped their own design), but for some reason the Birger mount is facing a few hurdles ?

Just a little history tidbit here. Some of you may recall that Birger actually made and posted photos of a dumb nikon mount (strangely similar to the later Underdahl & RED Nikon mounts) and for a day or so offered it for sale as an interim solution.

02-08-2008, 08:19 PM birgerEngineer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe
"Birger will be a ways off - especially for Nikon I think. [...] My bet is the RED mount ships before Birger."

Birger:
"Just a little something that we threw together on a Friday afternoon... take the front off of the RED PL mount (left front) and replace with the "dumb" birger mount shown on right. Use the PL threaded mechanism.

We only consider this a temporary mount to use/test your nikon glass until the smart Nikon mounts are shipping. Trade it in (minus shipping) on a smart mount... shop could start cutting metal in a few days... any interest?
Attached Thumbnails
Erik Widding
www.birger.com


Later Doug mentioned his thoughts about doing one himself with this comment:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=153761&highlight=nikon+mount+doug#post153761

Douglas Underdahl
02-10-2008, 08:44 AM
Thor - yes, it looks like you can swap the front of the existing RED mount out from PL to Nikon and still retain the adjusting part. This is definitely the way to go, and the photo from Birger shows that this is possible. I think that RED had some difficulty in mounting their sensor/filter set up precisely from camera to camera and solved it with the adjusting mount, so it makes perfect sense to keep this function.

Look familiar? Not taking anything away from Doug, but Erik designed the RED Nikon mount - the design and prototype are right there in the photo - and Erik doesn't seem to get any credit.

And a further note, Erik went to great trouble and expense to incorporate an adjusting mechanism for the Birger Smart mounts to accommodate the situation Doug mentions. It is as slick as RED's adjuster and I believe even incorporates a greater adjustment range so it can handle smart Nikon, sigma, and other mounts as well.

As I mentioned in other posts, it is actually easier and quicker to go from RED PL to Birger Canon or Nikon than it is to go from RED PL to RED Nikon because with RED the nikon doesn't have it's own backfocus mechanism so you HAVE to readjust every time. And a further goody with Birger: remember that Canon EF is the shortest Flange focal distance so you can use Nikon, Leica, contax/yashica zeiss, M42, etc. in "dumb" mode with inexpensive adapters. You can't do that with Nikon because it has the longest FFD so you can't use adapters for those other lenses.

There is a reason many of us believe Birger is a brilliant alternative to PL and why the Birger thread has more posts and more viewers than any other thread. (try buying a PL lens with image stabilization for any price, much less $1000). I love all of the goodies from ET, CVB, and a bunch of others - but in reality they are all knick-knacks by comparison. Birger opens the door to all of the optical, mechanical, etc. expertise and cost effectiveness that Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Olympus, Leica, etc. have through the economies of scale achieved by selling many millions of SLR lenses. And if you think that cine lenses are dramatically better in terms of resolution, contrast, coatings, etc. than the top end Canon L and Nikon glass then you haven't seen these lenses. Mechanically - yes, big difference for feature/commercial work - but even that is mitigated somewhat through remote control of the motorized iris/focus in SLR lenses.

 

[ericyoung]

If shorting the I-cable results in severe damage to the camera's electrical system then a lens with a short would also short the I - cable and would most likely cause the same severe damage. So the question is: is this something Red should fix? Red could modify the cable and or add a circuit to protect the camera from damage in the event of a short. I would be willing to pay for this to safeguard my camera and allow for less risky mount swaps.

Mark, no one has yet confirmed that shorting the i-cable is the actual problem. Considering that you run that same risk when adding a nikon mount, I'm not sure what is going on here. Erik and Aqua can you guys confirm what actually happened that required your cameras to go back to RED? Can we confirm that the 8 other mounts out there are running ok?

Sorry to leave you in that cloud of confusion, but I would rather not speculate on that publicly and prefer that it come from RED.

But I am confident that the latest version of the Birger mount can be installed safely by any professional-level camera person.

Definitely need to know the exact nature of the failure/damage mode to make an informed decision whether we want to risk DIY installation, and void the warranty.

Red, over to you?

 

[Paris Remillard]

Our RED camera adapter serves as a secondary front surface of the camera. It is basically an interchangeable mount. Remove four screws, to detach the lens mount from the camera adapter. Adjust collimation number to the one you wrote down. Place other mount and same four screws.

Unfortunately, when we engineered the solution, we were thinking of SLR lenses, and making it as small as possible. So a PL mount for this system is just not that feasible. The quantity and size of screws, as well as overall diameter of the mounts, just won't support it. It was never a consideration in our existing markets to use PL lenses, as they have no motors in them.

There's no reason why it shouldn't be possible to make a Canon EF to PL mount adapter. Male EF mount (from a scrap lens or extension tube, etc...) 8mm spacer (or whatever it actually ends up being based on the components used), female PL Mount. Both mounts have the same internal diameter, 54mm, and the EF mount's FFD is 44mm, 8mm less than the 52mm PL mount. What's the problem with making this type of adapter?

 

[Paris Remillard]

Also, in addition to the internal diameter of the EF and PL mounts being the same, the outer diameter of the Birger mount is the same as the Red mount, isn't it? It sits in exactly the same place as the Red PL mount. I don't mean the EF part of the mount, but the outer base mount. So it makes no sense that a PL mount could not be attached to the Birger base mount if the EF mount were removed. Maybe some more holes would need to be tapped, but there appears to be plenty of real estate for a PL mount. There's a good 1/2" or more empty facing around the EF mount, it seems. What am I missing?

 

[Clint Johnson]

Bodhi is right, and I have a feeling it would add MORE than 6 months. Red just needs to suck it up and cover the Birger mount under their warranty so that we can switch back and forth between the Birger and the PL. As far as I can tell, that's the only viable option.

They say this could cost them a lot of money, but haven't they made hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to Birger reservation holders?

I don't think that is a reasonable request at all. The customer is going to do something that Red has already seen do damage to a camera... when it was done by the manufacturer. The only reasonable conclusion they can come to is that a large percentage of the end users will damage the camera to the same extent or worse.

And the fact that they may have grossed $3.5 million off those Red sales doesn't really mean anything if the net was a wholly reasonable 5%... and if they then have to replace half of those Reds because of damage done while installing the Birger mount, they suddenly have a net loss of $1,575,000 dollars. I won't ask Red to go in the red to make my life easier.

If the Red engineers could accurately predict exactly what damage the mounting can do, I think that a "partial voiding" of the warranty would be an reasonable resolution to this problem- from my end of the equation.

Red and Birger know more about it and I hope they can find a solution that allows us to safely do an end user swap without voiding the warranty.

Shipping the camera out every time the mount has to be changed is not a viable a solution for me. If that is the only solution that is viable for Jim, then I guess that I am out of luck because he is the only one who can make this decision.

The only decision I would have to make is; do I buy the Birger mount and put it up on the shelf for the next seven months, or do I cancel the order?

 

[Jason Sinclair]

Look just buy a dumb mount for $500 from someone else and keep your order and sell the mount at the end of it... Or keep it as a backup. $500 is not much money. Obviously this problem needs to be sorted... More testing needs to be done.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you Clint on a couple of things and if I seem a little testy it is because I am becoming very aggravated with the situation and to be clear not with the REDUSERs and not with Birger.

But this is all getting ridiculous - as you can see in my previous post, Erik invented what became the RED nikon mount, offered to build and sell it at the time (and give a credit for it when the smart mounts became available) and then suddenly announces he's not going to do it. Why, when it would have been quick, easy, and profitable for him as well as easing some of the pressure on REdeveloping the smart mount???

And a few weeks later Doug takes it and runs with it and it becomes the RED mount. No knock on Doug, it's nice to see that at least somebody over here got the money.

But now someone on another thread is promoting a dumb EOS mount based on the Birger/Underdahl/RED mount, something Erik and his machine shop could do practically in their sleep. It is ridiculous, when the real solution is to get a fair/rational policy from RED.

I don't think that is a reasonable request at all. The customer is going to do something that Red has already seen do damage to a camera... when it was done by the manufacturer.

Clint, you don't know that. I have been refraining from getting into specifics to allow RED some time/breathing room to come around to a more reasonable policy. Erik just posted with more of the info on the Birger Lens mount thread, and since I think the idea of a universal birger mount is a non starter that after this post the moderator should consider closing this thread - it is just confusing to have a parallel thread - particularly for the thousands of viewers/posters that go over there regularly.

RED was very nice to me with my repair, and I am very appreciative, but this is a larger issue. What we do know is there is a potential problem in that circuit in front, but Birger has already moved the power to the rear aux DC output so that circuit is no longer drawing power. The only difference for us end users is if red ever implements lens data then we will have to buy an ~ $125 cable to go from the mount to the camera - the connectors and interface are already on the mount. Or we could read it from the bluetooth remote if we aren't trying to record it as metadata.

Now maybe there is still a problem with that i/data circuit, which may be why there are no i/data pins yet in the pl mount. But as I have pointed out in other posts the level of exposure of the i/cable is the same in mounting the Nikon, and therefore I think there should be no restriction.

BUT the reasonable alternative is to be able to ship the camera to RED to have the i/data cable removed, and they could authorize someone in various countries to do it to avoid some shipping. Lens data is very important to modern visual effects people - but the RED i/data is not working now and even if they do get it working it only is necessary for a very small number of users on an extremely small number of lenses and doesn't work with Arri's LDS lens data system so eliminates a lot of the market that would use it anyway.

All Canon EF lenses give full lens information, but that data would be suppllied through the separate cable I mentioned - to the RS 232 port. Or if we find out that the rs232 port is just a design flaw/danger zone (because now i'm worried if I could ever plug a B4 video lens in there as it was intended for) it could probably be fed to the USB port.

And the fact that they may have grossed $3.5 million off those Red sales doesn't really mean anything if the net was a wholly reasonable 5%... and if they then have to replace half of those Reds because of damage done while installing the Birger mount, they suddenly have a net loss of $1,575,000 dollars. I won't ask Red to go in the red to make my life easier.

Clint, normal manufacturing markup is about 4 to 1 - i.e. if it costs $100 (direct costs materials/parts/labor) you sell it for $400. This is not me telling secrets - it is taken from the formula given to me by the United States Small Business Administration at a seminar when I started my business - and over the years I have found it to be commonly true for these types of products. The reason for that is you have normal overhead as well as long term support/warranty - exactly like we have here. That factor might have been shaved to 3 to 1 on the early cameras as a form of market entry/investment and given the long deposit/build it cycle, but it is unlikely that they would go much more, and extremely unlikely that it is less than 50%. Jim's a smart guy.

So you are looking at a gross profit on those birger oriented cameras of 1.7 to 2.6 million.

And again, nobody has ever asked that the long term policy be that they warrant if we screw up the install and cause the problem. All we have asked is that they reverse the stated policy that if you remove the whole pl mount - which is no different than it was with both the original pl and the original birger design, and has no real difference in exposure of the cable - then you automatically void the warranty. It is not reasonable, particularly for a professional level video/cinema camera.

What we want is direction on a reasonable way to handle the i/cable or, if through design flaw or whatever, that is too dangerous then a reasonable way to have it removed - after all it is like an appendix - something that seems to cause problems and is easy to remove and doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose anyway.



Supernova, I agree $500 isn't much and should have been the solution for a lot of people during the birger redesign - but we are beyond that, the real solution is to get RED to be reasonable so we can move on.

 

[Teague Kennedy]

I think Birger is VERY close to something MAGNIFICENT. I wish Jim would chime in here and stand by Erik ---- a man who has made the RED even MORE accessible, even more fantastic. I would argue that the birger mount is for some the other half of the red cam. (hell if you buy a set of cine lenses (even red) it will cost you as much as the camera if not more.)

Come to our aid, Jim. Please?

 

[Michael Hastings]

request to close

request to close

Moderator: from my earlier post.

Erik just posted with more of the info on the Birger Lens mount thread, and since I think the idea of a universal birger mount is a non starter that after this post the moderator should consider closing this thread - it is just confusing to have a parallel thread - particularly for the thousands of viewers/posters that go over there regularly.

 

[Teague Kennedy]

Where is this post? I can't find it.

 

[M Hsu]

Where is this post? I can't find it.

I think it's this post he's referring to...

The mounts that damaged the cameras drew more power than the camera was speced to provide for less than 1/100,000 of a second, once per power up, and once per lens replacement. The protection device in the camera did not stop this from happening. On two cameras, this only damaged the port. On the third camera this fried a board. On all three cameras this did not immediately do damage. On my camera it took months to fry the AUX232 port, on the others, hours.

The official diagnosis that I and the two others were given by RED is that the I-Cable was pinched, causing a short. My camera may have actually had a pinched cable. One has to understand that in development "things" happen. We beat on the camera pretty hard to make sure everything was going to be okay. While the suggestion that Birger isn't even skilled enough to install it's own mounts is amusing, it certainly doesn't reflect the realities of development.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that after a few power up hours, the other two cameras suddenly pinched their cables. It is just not a plausible explanation. I am not suggesting that RED is covering anything up. I think they have simply drawn the wrong conclusion.

The fact that too much current was being drawn, for even the briefest amount of time, is Birger's fault. 100%.

We have a saying here at Birger. If I can see it I can fix it. We saw it on Monday. We fixed it on Wednesday. This did not require a circuit change. We moved to the AUX12V on the back of the camera because it provides more power and both correctly sees and protects against this fault.

I personally feel that the new PL mount on the front of the camera, while it does solve many problems, also introduces many. I find it unfortunate that RED appears to have rushed the changed mount into production, and prefers to change the boundary of what may be disassembled on the camera so late in the game, rather than fix some poorly thought out design decisions.

I found it very challenging to put the I-cable back in the track machined for it in the PL-mount. I wonder how many Nikon mounts have been assembled onto the camera and resulted in the same piched cable situation, shorting out a board in the camera. If this track were simply wider/deeper or the I-cable were detachable at the front face of the camera, there wouldn't be any problems. I also wonder how many of these cable have seen damage during the initial assembly procedure at the factory.

Personally, I think the best solution suggested to date is that a customer be allowed to pay RED to remove the I-Cable. Suddenly no more possibility of shorts. Rather than make a camera be a PL or Birger camera, how about making it a PL/I or an anything (change at will) camera?
__________________
Erik Widding
www.birger.com

 

[J.Burger]

.... after this post the moderator should consider closing this thread - it is just confusing to have a parallel thread - particularly for the thousands of viewers/posters that go over there regularly.

Now, can it be that by mistake an other thread got closed??
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15846&page=2