Let's talk ergonomics...

[Brook Willard]

Alright, let's talk about ergonomics here. The Epic has a long way to go. Get ready for another giant Brook post.

As usual, the place to start is with the RED ONE.

The RED ONE, while obviously an amazing camera in many ways, will always be plagued by a few serious and irreparable design oversights. With EPIC on the horizon, RED has the perfect opportunity to start from scratch and "get it right."

Some of this post may come off a little abrasive, but I think everybody knows that my heart's in the right place.

Before we jump into the RED ONE, let's think of film cameras for a moment. As camera technology progressed and experience began to take its toll, film camera body designs changed from blocky, awkward contraptions to sleek, balanced precision tools. While RED may only have two years of experience in making cameras, they can and should draw from a hundred years of tweaked and perfected designs in the film industry.

At this point, unfortunately, EPIC's body design can be most closely equated to that of a 1970s Bolex. Sure there may be a few more 1/4-20 taps... but ultimately the only thing that could be done to that camera to make it more awkward would be the addition of a hand crank. As excited as I was at NAB to see the camera, the first thought I had when I laid eyes on the body was "holy crap, they made it worse."

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215163354.jpg

I know RED says they've been talking with ACs from the beginning about the design of the camera... and that's great. There is one point to consider, as broad as this statement may seem. While the stereotypical "AC" has tremendous experience with proper film cameras, he or she likely has zero experience designing proper film cameras. It's a different eye. They know what works on an Arri because it's always worked. I've met only a few ACs who have ever been presented with a clean slate upon which to design a camera.

Advice should come from all sides, but those that have been following RED from day one [with a film background of their own] have developed an eye for these things beyond what a director or short-term user may be able to say. A famous director of photography who's used the camera once may have some feelings on the camera... but they may have only used the camera for a few days. While they may have tons of experience in the film industry and they may be a very influential person, I think it's important to pay attention to those of us on this forum who live, breathe and sleep RED. There are lots of you guys on here... let's let the people make the camera! Not necessarily just the IMDB credits. :) :wink:

With all that fun out of the way, there are a few key points about the RED ONE's body that should be taken into serious consideration when designing EPIC. Here they are in no particular order.

Lens mount location.

Most of the ergonomic problems with the RED can be attributed to the location of the lens mount. There are two primary problems: the lens mount is too high and the throat is too long. Another way to phrase it would be to comment on the lack of a shoulder cutout in the bottom of the camera. Ultimately, both are the same. If there was a shoulder cutout, it would lower the effective position of the lens mount.

EPIC needs both: a shoulder cutout and a lower optical axis. Interestingly, it seems that the optical axis on the EPIC has actually been raised when compared with the RED ONE. The lens throat also appears to be longer. Both need to go.

Examining the logic behind the lens throat to begin with, I can only come up with two factors: the interchangeable lens mount and the adjustable flange focal distance. Film cameras are obviously constrained by the presence of a mirror shutter and accordingly cannot and do not have a long lens throat.

At $40,000, the EPIC is no RED ONE. I don’t see a lot of people investing this kind of money into a camera only to put a Nikon mount on it. While some Nikon mounts will certainly get made for the camera [and that's fine...], it should not affect other [more important] decisions. As it is a more professional camera with a more professional price, it may be time to pick priorities. While the different lens mounts shouldn’t have much to do with the throat length of the lens mount [the FFDs are so similar on different lens types that it’s not a significant concern], the adjustable collimation mount does.

The adjustable lens mount has a lot of problems that – ironically – the original lens mount did not. I'm not saying I preferred the old lens mount... but it did have a few upsides.

Having put the camera on a collimator, the lens mount is a little disappointing. At least the old mount would keep the lens square to the sensor when shimmed properly. What I’m saying is that the throat needs to go. If the adjustable lens mount necessitates a long throat… get rid of the adjustable lens mount. The long throat is the source of several problems beyond this section – most notably would be the location of the controls [see way below]. Give me shims!

Moving on.

[Brook Willard]

Shoulder Cutout.

Rather than blathering on more and more, here are a few diagrams I built. These diagrams are to scale. The optical axis of the cameras have been lined up.

First, the Arricam LT.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215163374.jpg

As you can see, the lens mount location is the major problem here. The height of the mount puts the flat bottom of the camera lower than the lowest point of the LT’s body. Once you take the shoulder cutout at the magazine throat into consideration, the problem is pretty obvious.

Obviously the LT is larger than the RED and much larger than the EPIC. It’s the best handheld sound camera out there, but the RED’s size is closer to that of the 235. Honestly, the 235 should be the design goal for the EPIC.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215163392.jpg

Look at that. The shoulder cutout on the 235 is so dramatic that it eats up about half of the RED ONE body. The total height of the 235 is also significantly shorter than my diagram shows – the lower blue block under the mirror shutter is removable. That means that the distance from the optical axis to the bottom of the actual body is only 83mm – 2mm shorter than the distance required for 15mm video rods. You can mount 15mm video rod channels on the bottom of the 235 without rear interference. Add on the riser block [which I have in my diagram] and the 15mm or 19mm studio channels and you can imagine how much clearance there is from the lowest point of the body to the highest point of the shoulder cutout.

The bigger and deeper the shoulder cutout, the thicker the pad can be. The thicker the pad is, the happier the operator is. Just a quick note: the shoulder pad should be thicker on the outside than on the inside… and it should be adjustable in two directions. Either way, there should be a handful of mounting points in the shoulder cutout on the body... there is always room for 3rd party solutions.

Another benefit: the deeper the shoulder cutout is, the higher the viewfinder can be. As it stands, the EVF is a monster. In hindsight, it should’ve had a 90˚ prism… but that’s another story. If the shoulder cutout is deeper, the EVF can be higher. If it’s high enough, its butt can clear the matte box, allowing it to be positioned far enough forward to prevent the interference issues that plague it today. The LEMO on the EVF should also be keyed vertically, to solve the cable clearance issues that it suffers from today.

So… lens mount height and shoulder cutout. Both are extremely important and both are the solution. One will not cut it without the other. As it stands, the RED ONE’s body is essentially upside-down. I can’t stress enough how important this is. I really hope RED decides to just copy the 235. :)

Next.

[Brook Willard]

Interface Location.

The reason I was blathering on about the lens mount throat has to do with the location of the interface controls on the camera. Simply put, the interface controls cannot remain on the back of the camera. Not only are they a serious pain in the butt to access for the camera assistant, the display is out of the AC’s sight, the tally light is out of sight and the buttons are easily hit by accident.

Furthermore, there are many times when an operator wants to put his hands directly on the butt/magazine of the camera. There are other times when the entire weight of the camera is rested on the rear – be it on a sandbag or on the operator’s lap. Also, when shooting in tight spaces, the interface can bounce against a wall and activate buttons by accident. Even if it’s not activated by accident, the rear interface is impossible to access when in a tight space. Further still, based on the design of the RED ONE and its accessories, the best place to put the hard drive and battery is directly over the display and interface controls. Simply put, it would be downright stupid to put the interface on the back of the camera again. I can't stress this enough.

So where to put it?

With the current RED ONE and EPIC body design, there is no other place. The normal answer would be to put the interface on the smart side of the camera… but with the length of the lens throat, it just isn’t possible.

With the lens throat as long as it is, the RED ONE’s smart side controls are too far back to be of any significant use. It puts the three buttons next to the operator’s face. On film cameras, the controls are far forward enough to prevent the operator’s face from interfering. If the lens throat was shortened significantly [or thrown out altogether], the interface could be moved to a little countersunk panel on the smart side of the camera. It would but the display where it needs to be, the buttons where we need them and the butt free and clear.

This image will help explain why I think shortening the lens throat is so necessary.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215163581.jpg

Compare the interface controls on the RED ONE versus where they are on the LT. They’re about three inches farther back on the RED ONE… right where the operator’s nose wants to be.

Also consider that with the lens throat gone, the interface can reach as far up or down the side of the body as needed. Even better, since the Epic won't have a mirror shutter to contend with, one can actually have the controls reach out in front of the camera body below the lens without a problem! I don’t recommend that personally, but it’s possible. They could go right where the mirror shutter is on a film camera. There is enough space to do it and it will not interfere with the operator if positioned and countersunk properly.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, there is one camera out there that has the interface controls on the butt and kind of gets away with it. That camera is the Arri D-20 [err, D-21]. Its interface control knob is on the back of the camera. So why does that one almost work?

One little advantage is that their knob is countersunk. The camera can be rested on its butt without tapping the button. There is also no display back there to reference. The main huge advantage is that there is an interface control knob on the LCD itself. The D-21’s smart side display only controls the frame rate and shutter. All of the rest of the control lives in the camera’s menu system… which is controlled by the knob on the LCD about 95% of the time. If RED introduces a new LCD with Epic, I'd hope it has more interface controls on it.

Beyond location, there are other problems with the RED ONE’s [and, in turn, EPIC’s] controls that need to be addressed. The buttons on the RED ONE are plastic with weak springs. They also stick out beyond the face of the camera.

Check out the buttons on an Arri. They are generally [but not always] countersunk, they are metal and they have strong springs holding them taut. They don’t rattle around, they don’t feel weak under pressure and they have a long throw. It is very obvious when you push them… and it isn’t often that you push them by accident.

One other little feature? And this one’s just as important as anything… LOCK SWITCHES. Arricams have individual lock switches for each of their control surfaces. There’s a run/stop button on each side of the camera… and each one has a switch to prevent accidental input. RED really should put run/stop buttons on each side [but not the back] of the camera and have an individual lock switch on each side. The lock switch should only lock the interface that it’s right next to.

Please move the interface screen and controls to the smart side of the camera. Please change the button design to be more like Arri. Please add lock switches… and please add a little speaker so it beeps when it rolls and stops. Please! :)

This is fun. Next.

[Brook Willard]

Port Location.

Choosing port location on a digital camera is tricky. No matter where they go… they’ll interfere with something. Obviously the ports either need to be on the dumb side or butt of the camera. The RED ONE isn’t bad, but it could be better.

Before I get into the main event, lets talk about accessory ports. As much as I wish RED would go to 11-pin and 3-pin Fisher connectors, I know they're going to stay with those little four-pin LEMOs. I can't help but ask for them, though. If it’s technically possible… they should wire the accessory ports on the EPIC to support more than .5A of current… preferably closer to 2A [to properly power lens motors without making the breakers nervous].

But that’s just a tangent. Those accessory ports [4-pin LEMOs, I’m guessing] should be everywhere. Put a few on the back, one on each side and one on the top. You never know when or where you’ll need to hook an accessory… you can’t have too many accessory ports. Even if most of the ports are dumb… no worries. Just put ‘em everywhere.

Back to port position. Like I said, the RED ONE isn’t bad. That said, keying the ports incorrectly on the back to prevent use of 90˚ connectors was a bummer move. Having ports on the back [particularly important ones that stick way out] is a bummer in general... particularly when most of the weight of the camera wants to rest on those ports when it's set down.

Obviously if the ports end up on the back they should be keyed properly. If they end up on the side… same thing. But no matter what, the “best” position for ports is the way it is on modern Arri cameras [noticing a trend? :)] – at about a 30˚ angle out the dumb side of the camera. This way they don’t stick out the back where they can get broken off… they don’t stick out the side where they can get broken off… and they’re sort of “contained” within the shape of the body.

Case in point:

http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/235top.jpg

Rather than making the camera square, making it an “L” shape like an Arricam will result in a logical place on the side to hide the lifeline cables without putting them in the way.

Now I can’t make a section on port location without referencing the D-21 again. It’s a digital camera and it’s chock-full of boards… yet they still managed to place the ports in a “proper” location.

They also managed to put a proper shoulder cutout and placed the lens mount at the right height. That’s not a shot at RED, just a reminder that it is possible with circuit boards. The D-21 has problems of its own – if they're going to copy a camera, it’s not the right camera to copy.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215164193.jpg

The ports on the back of the D-21 are countersunk and protected. It’s not perfect [I’d rather there be no ports back there], but it’s a somewhat decent solution. Either way, just look at all that port real estate they’ve created on the “L” portion of the body. Obviously the EPIC will be way smaller, but the same concept is still possible. Just put all the ports in the crotch of the "L".

[Brook Willard]

Modularity.

Modularity is a funny thing. It’s pure genius in so many ways… but is so difficult in others. By now, we all know the benefits to modularity, and that should never go away. Being able to strip down the camera body to a smooth shape free of snag points rocks... particularly for skydiving footage. :) Adding only the accessories you need is marvelous. I love being able to rig and re-rig the camera until it’s perfect for a given situation.

But that said, there are some unfortunate downsides. If there’s no wrong way to rig something, it often means that there’s no right way either. That’s one bummer about the RED ONE – there’s no universal shape to adopt. There’s no “right” way to build it for handheld, there’s no “right” way to build it for sticks, etc. I love being able to rearrange the body, but there are many times that I wish there was just a “right” way to do it to balance the camera. I've learned my own ways, but it's never 100% there.

Sometimes having everything adjustable means that nothing ever locks down quite right… it means that sometimes parts will interfere with each other… it just means that there isn’t always a perfect solution.

Panavision cameras have "zero" modularity. You get their body and it comes with exactly the right accessories. The follow focus mounts to the body, the cables are all the right length and port configuration, etc. So you rent certain lenses: those lenses will have the perfect length rods, perfect bellows and a proper matte box. Obviously the Panavision cameras are modular within themselves [they can be re-rigged to different configurations and third party accessories can be added]... but it's always guaranteed to fit. You get my point. Some people love it, some don't. I'm not a huge fan.

Arri's system is great. Create a camera body and certain accessories, but make a universal "SDK" for accessories: rod standards. Go to any rental house in LA and you'll find different setups. Every camera will have slightly different accessories. Every lens will have a slightly different support. Everybody has a slightly different matte box collection of a slightly different vintage. It doesn't matter... because it's all based on standards. It's a nice bit of modularity.

RED went above and beyond. There are certain standards [screw sizes and thread pitches, certain arrangements of screw holes that match across all accessories, etc.], but all of the accessories are freeform. You can mount anything anywhere and that's awesome... to a point.

Now I’m not saying to abandon modularity. Not in the least. That’s part of the genius of the RED ONE to begin with. But at the very least, there should be some well thought-out “proper” solutions for different situations. Furthermore, there should be some built-in permanent mounts for things that the camera will always need.

I personally think that Epic should have a magazine slot. Like the CF cards, just bigger. It may not snap into place with a custom connector like a film magazine does, but the location should be fixed and well thought out for balance and security. No cables, no funny mounting options, just a slot where I can slide a RED DRIVE-shaped magazine [one of the new, fancy high speed magazines for that 100MB/s goodness], plug it in, close a door and forget about it. Internal to the body, shock mounted and put far enough to the rear of the camera to balance it for handheld.

The same applies to the CF card slots: make them in a logical location and put a door over them that snaps shut.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215164016.jpg

RED knows the power of marketing more than anybody. This picture is downright awesome marketing. The camera looks badass, the lighting is sick and the rig looks impressive at a glance. I know the purpose of this image was to demonstrate all of the accessories built together in one possible arrangement and I know that there are a million ways to build the camera.

That said, those that didn’t follow the camera’s development like a rabid monkey might look at this picture and assume that it’s the “right” way to rig the camera. They buy the accessories they see in this picture and build the camera in exactly this way. Just think about how many MB-20s this picture sold. People are quick to assume that the presented way is the proper “right” way.

So a few months later when people get all their accessories and build the camera for the first time, they build this option [complete with handheld grips on the tripod] and realize that it weighs 45lbs, is unbalanced and doesn’t leave a space for your head.

This is a perfect example of modularity showing its ugly side. All of these accessories have different purposes and different ways to be rigged… so there’s no “right” way to do it. Unfortunately, ten months after this picture was released, disappointingly few people know how to rig the camera properly for handheld using the production pack [or 3rd party] accessories.

That’s how it starts to get ugly: it snowballs. Think of the shoulder pad versus the RED cheese plate. Each accessory is designed for one purpose only. It’s a great idea on paper – have a specific handheld accessory and a specific tripod accessory. Unfortunately, switching between the two requires about five minutes of rigging with six screws and one tool. That’s just a touch too modular.

It’s a bummer sometimes when I have to add two 12” rods to the top of a camera just to hold on my battery. I love that I can mount the battery anywhere, but if it requires too many accessories, the weight has gone up and the concept has failed. Hell, when I’m not even sure where to put the battery to balance my rig, it’s just a headache. If there were a more simple solution that was thought out for clearance and balance… it’d save the day.

So if RED does seriously consider the 235-esque design that I’m wholeheartedly recommending here… I hope they give a few specific “fixed” options for where to mount the accessories. Put the magazine slots near the back in a fixed location built into the body to balance it and protect the media. Put the battery mount high on the dumb side of the camera [like the onboard battery for the 235] - up and out of the way of the ports but not in a place where it'll likely get bumped off of the camera.

Making more specific options doesn't mean killing modularity... it just means that the modularity is more mature and thought out. Design it based on balance and clearance… not just extreme modularity. Sometimes three screw holes are better than twenty. :)

[Brook Willard]

AKS.

This is where my mind is. I could make this essay twice as long with all of my little ideas, but I'm not designing this camera. I want to hear some feedback!

If there were a few key points to the whole shebang I want to emphasize, I suppose they'd be as follows:

1. Balance, low center of gravity and ergonomics trump how badass the camera looks. I love the design aesthetic that RED has come up with, but in order to get a useful design out of the camera, one must forget about the word “badass” and everything that it entails.

Think about the LMB-5 versus the clip-on RED was working on. There’s a design where they took a great ergonomic solution and sprinkled badass all over it. There were a few places where they went a little far with the badass on that design [the circles over the filter tray spring catches come to mind], but overall it was solid. It’s clear that the physical usefulness of the matte box was paramount and the awesome was added later. I’d rather have a moderately ugly product that works than a bitchin’ paperweight.

2. Low, equal rotational mass and parts where they need to be. A low CG will be easier on the operator. Making the body itself balanced will make life easier for everybody. The RED ONE is pretty balanced as it stands, but it’s basically upside-down and too short from front to back.

Consider the cooling system in the camera. The vents are on the bottom of the camera. I’m sure there’s some technical reason for that that I just don’t understand having never been inside of a RED before, but to my eyes, I see a problem. One, it raises the rest of the camera body too high. Two, it puts the vents right where I want to wrap a shoulder pad [which might block the vents]. Three, it’ll absorb heat from the operator’s neck. Four, heat goes up!!! It just doesn’t make sense for any ergonomic or obvious technical reason.

Next, consider the lens mount throat again. I guess it adds some clearance, but it’s clearance we don’t need! I think the mount should be flush with the front of the camera body. Remember, we’re used to having a mirror shutter that actually reaches out in front of and below the lens mount. It’s solving a problem that never existed… and it’s creating more problems of its own [balance, control placement, etc].

3. Low optical axis. As Matt Uhry put it, “lenses and matte boxes and rods are heavy. If you lower the optical axis, this helps lower the CG. Also, a lower optical axis makes handheld shots more nodal, and helps the operator keep a good horizon. This also helps get the lens and matte box clear of the EVF and gives the operator a better view over the matte box with his left eye when looking for other compositions.”

Don’t forget about that shoulder cutout. :)

4. Last but not least, remember the market of this camera. At $40,000, this is a professional camera that should be specifically geared towards the market that it’s obviously designed for: filmmaking. It doesn’t need a Nikon mount or a Canon mount [since they are easy to add to normal PL mounts], it doesn’t need to work as an ENG/EFP camera and it doesn’t need to have as many “hand-holding” features for those stepping up from an HVX. It’s a professional camera with a professional price. If adding more ports, using higher quality materials or reshaping the internal circuit boards to fit into a proper body costs more… charge more. I understand why RED did a lot of what they did with the RED ONE. But with EPIC, it’s time to pull out the stops. :)

RED's certainly proven themselves with the RED ONE. Now it's time for them to rock the house with EPIC. All of my recommendations will cost money to implement. They should just pass the costs onto the buyers. I doubt there's one potential EPIC customer out there who would prefer a little cube with a lens mount on it for $35,000 when they could have a digital 235 for $45,000.

This post is way too long. I could write 50 pages about this... but I'll start here. These are just a few broad ideas to get a discussion started. This stuff's been weighing on me since NAB - I wrote most of it down in April. Now that the thoughts have fermented for a while, I've only come up with more ideas.

So what do you guys think?

[4Kcuts.com]

I think too that the cable configurations and keying was poorly planned, why the power cable sticks so far out the rear is a challenge. In the wind, all these cables can cause vibration. I have spent much time redesigning the layout of my red. I cut my power / drive cradle in half, reconfigured some universal mounts with a band saw, and now hang the battery on one side and the drive on the other, tight to the camera body, unlike the Red side rail plate accessory that hangs to far off the sides.

Moving things to the sides, makes the camera short and stubby, instead of tall and thin, better IMHO in the wind. I also added quick release plates, to add the battery and drive fast, and to not have to mess with the rods. This all makes it one solid beast. But my favorite configuration is the battery belt clip, and a compact flash card. Tight and light(er).

I also wish Red offered other cable plug designs, searching for lemos and putting them together is a bit of a challenge

What are others preferred configurations and modifications?

[Andreas Fernbrant]

I think you are absolutly correct. The design is not where it sould be, I haven't seen it in real life but I think they need to rethink the design.

Arri 235 is a good choice to model from.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Brook.

Great thoughts and tread.

[Pawel Achtel]

Shoulder Cutout.


Great post, Brook.

One point I respectfully disagree with is that some of the ergonomics that you suggest would make it very hard or impossible to put the camera in an underwater housing. I am not aware of anyone shooting F24 or F35 underwater. That thing just doesn't fit into anything usable. While some of those shapes may be comfortable to balance on the shoulder, the camera is also used for aerial and underwater work where often hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent just to adapt the housing or the mount for a specific camera. I think the shape of Epic is perfect. What may need to be considered is that some of the accessories can be assembled in such a way that it is also perfect for shoulder operation, but don't make it curved or stick controls at some strange angles just because it is better for shoulder operation only.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I suggested a shoulder cut out in another post long ago so I'm all up for it Brook. I think that the ARRI 235 is the closest in streamline but LT would do.

I also suggested that you should somehow designed the battery's and the cradle section, as the mags of the 235 or LT so you continue that streamlined ergonomics.
It's important that the control LCD is not in the back. It doesn't work if you want to make this kind of design. It needs to be on the side.

They're talking wifi control so maybe a clip on module that can be on either side? As an option for the AC?

(PS make it hotswap as well)

Fredrik Callinggard

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

At last, a thread that has a real target... To make Epic look and feel professionally designed. Probably I have to put only feel... the looks are for Prada bags...

Brook, my congratulation for starting this thread !

First...

I really hope that the molding of the housing hasn't being finalized...

Second...

I'm wishing Jim to read carefully this thread...
Jim is about making a X10 your success in the industry!

IT IS TREMENDOUSLY BIG TO REALIZE AND PERCEIVE THESE SUGGESTIONS

IT IS BIGGER THAN THE SENSOR DESIGN THAT YOU ANNOUNCED

Excuse me for writing loudly... but my feelings was the same like Brooks "Oh god they made it worse..." and that is a very bad signal...

So I want to be very clear, am not your father to tell you what to do, am not even a client of yours... (yet), am probably a tiny ant in front of you... but you have to hear the calling of your client base and interact in an open discussion about that subject. You replying for all shorts of things, you are open to people, you have the balls to confront them...

You are having the once in a lifetime opportunity to interactively design your next camera in public, with the help of your clients. This has never happened before and you have this unique opportunity, to exploit the collective perception, and ideas, of thousand users, to design the best ever designed camera in the world. And all that for free.

So use your 3D design team to show ideas to your forum members and discuss them for a certain period of time with all of us...

Make your decision, what to keep and what to throw, and thats it...

Its simple... just thing differently... its perfect.

If you want, I can help you on that, just drop me a PM... I hope the sleep was that good...

[Brent J. Craig]

Jim, time to put Brook on the payroll (if he isn't already). He speaks for a lot of us here!

[Noah Kadner]

Wanted to add- very nice diagrams. :) Also good points.

-Noah

[David Mullen ASC]

We all have our different priorities... but your average narrative feature movie has a lot more handheld shots than aerial and underwater shots. I've shot over 30 features and have almost no aerial or underwater shots in any of them. The meat & potatoes of narrative feature filmmaking is shooting actors moving around on sets and in locations, using a camera assistant for focus pulling.

That said, if a camera is small enough, then you have more flexibility in configuring it for handheld with accessories even if it adds more weight.

Again, if you do other types of shooting, your priorities will be completely different. A Steadicam Operator or a Technocrane operator, for example, may prefer a smaller box-shape over a kidney shape, assuming they don't also have to do some handheld shooting themselves.

Aaton, with its Penelope design, has gone with the attitude that camera assistants should stand on the "dummy" side of the camera, BTW.

Great work, Brook.

The other day, one of my AC's was complaining about the lack of a tally light in front because when the camera is high in the air on a remote crane, pointed downwards, you can't tell if it is running or not from the ground. Unless there is one there and we missed it. He was also complaining about the lack of a lock button so that the menu buttons can't be accidentally pushed once things are set.

[Bruce Allen]

What a wonderful thread, Brook. So nice to see everything summed up in one place here and so much well-thought-through advice. Great explanatory graphics.

Red should also look at the Aaton line - Penelope, etc... it's no coincidence that their cameras also fit the above ergonomic guidelines.
EDIT: David beat me to it

I'm amazed Matt Uhry hasn't added his voice already - he has been saying the same thing and would be 100% behind this.

Hey, quite a lot of this applies to Scarlet too (currently it looks like an Epic chopped in half)... but that is for another thread.

Why don't Red just use the P+S interchangeable mount system for the Epic? It doesn't have a big throat. They wouldn't have to waste time redesigning mounts again then, and since P+S are well-known among their potential Epic customers, it would result in more camera sales since they would have no doubts about the mount. That move would probably would pay for itself handsomely.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Paul Hazlett]

AKS.

At $40,000, this is a professional camera that should be specifically geared towards the market that it’s obviously designed for: filmmaking. It doesn’t need a Nikon mount or a Canon mount [since they are easy to add to normal PL mounts], it doesn’t need to work as an ENG/EFP camera


I disagree with the Idea that the ENG/EFP market should be shoved to the
side. There are many enhancements and refinements we also are looking for that will be delivered on the EPIC.

Let's not turn this back into an elitist "film only" thing....Please

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Awesome thread, Brook!

I have to agree with phaz on his post above mine. The lines are often blurred between "filmmaking" and ENG/EFP, especially as far as equipment is concerned. IMO, EPIC seems to better fit the ENG/EFP paradigm than the RED One.

Regardless of one's use for the EPIC, multiple lens options are a good idea. Not everyone has a need for cine lenses, even if their budget would allow. For many others, it's a budget issue or simply a desire to use tools (lenses) they may already own. I have a pretty good selection of Nikon glass. I haven't bought the RED Nikon mount, kinda waiting to see how the whole Birger mount ordeal plays out and what happens with their Nikon solution. I would buy the Birger mount system and go through the hassle of installing it on a RED just to use my 105mm Nikkor macro. .

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm afraid the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind when thinking of a camera that tries to be all things to all people.

It's sort of the nature of industrial design for things to either become more universal or more job specific over time, and back again.

Obviously a 35mm Panaflex is not really well-designed for ENG work, just as the F900 was not really well-designed for cinema work. The RED tries to straddle both worlds, and does it fairly well, but the compromise is, well, compromise. There will then be aspects that don't work as well for one group over the other.

The question is whether EPIC and Scarlet are intended to be just as broad-based in usability as the RED ONE, or if they will be designed for targeted markets. Does the EPIC lean more towards mainstream feature and TV production? Does the Scarlet lean more towards the prosumer crowd?

In production in general, we have become comfortable with the notion of specialized cameras. We have lots of options to choose from. I think it is more in the people who want to buy and own only one or two cameras where the interest in having something that does a broader range of jobs becomes more important, compared to the person (like me) who may rent a high-speed camera once a year to shoot something over 100 fps, for example, versus rent an Eyemo to stick into a crash housing once a year. But obviously if I were forming a production company that wanted to shoot both stock footage, ENG stuff, and narrative, I'd be looking for a camera that could serve the widest range in types of shots.

But if you are someone who just shoots narrative indie work (mostly people talking in rooms, driving around, walking through landscapes, and more talking...) then your needs are different. You're more likely to want to shoot handheld than put the camera into a helicopter and shoot aerials. You are more likely to shoot a take that lasts one to three minutes rather than an interview that lasts one hour, etc.

[Brook Willard]

I'll agree that the digging into ENG/EFP may be harsh, but my logic is this:

Imagine if the camera had audio pots on the smart side next to the operator's head, a rocker zoom switch, a giant top handle and no modularity. Those may make it work "better" in an ENG/EFP environment because it's what people in that world are used to... but it would make it function much more poorly in a real cinema-style environment.

My point isn't to abandon ENG/EFP/etc. for the sake of it... but to make sure that cine-style shooting comes first. If a feature for another style of shooting detracts from the cine-style aspects of the camera, well... time to rethink that one. If it adds to it or doesn't affect it... go for it!

Thinks like the Nikon mount option won't detract from the design of the camera, since many a Nikon mount has been added to many a film camera. The adjustable collimation lens throat, however, does detract from the functionality of the camera. No worries, just kill that idea.

That's what I meant.


Great post, Brook.

One point I respectfully disagree with is that some of the ergonomics that you suggest would make it very hard or impossible to put the camera in an underwater housing. I am not aware of anyone shooting F24 or F35 underwater.

Agreed, I think it should avoid the F23/35 design altogether. But the 235 fits nicely into an underwater housing. Adding things like shoulder cutouts and removing the lens throat doesn't have to make it dysfunctional in other environments. It'll still be small enough when stripped to fit into a tube. It'll also still be large enough when built to balance out the Hubble telescope BFZ.

If modularity sticks around in an intelligent sense, there's no reason why this design couldn't be stripped to the bone for situations like yours.

[E.J. Sadler]

As to the location of the controls, the 'WiFi Control' bullet in the announcement may mean the controls would be placeable wired/wireless wherever it makes the most sense for the build you're using.

[Tim Lüdin]

Damn Brook, these posts are in RED term "badass".
Great ideas. Makes me think very hard to bring some new ones.
It's good to talk about that kinda stuff now, because I think Jim and the team are all over it allready.
Let me think a bit, I'll come up with some stuff too.

Greets
Tim

[Michael Hastings]

Brook:

Truly excellent, well thought out work.

You also write very well, and I hope as things settle in a bit with the REDONE that you will write a book. Many of us coming from the video world - TV, corporate, doco, travel, nature, etc. don't always know the intricacies of "film-style" shooting. I'm sure we could get a lot from cinematography books, but it would be nice to have one geared specifically toward REDONE and future digital cinema cameras rather than film as that is probably all many of us will ever use. A collaboration with David Mullen might be a bestseller.

I do agree with Jeff that other lens mounts are pretty important - and I don't think necessarily incompatible with your desire to reduce the throat protrusion. Birger never had a problem with the hard mounted pl, so with a little bit of cooperation it shouldn't be hard to do.

Of course if we could ever get Birger and RED in bed together all sorts of cool stuff is possible. You could easily build the electronics right onto RED circuit boards - for literally a few dollars - and then you would just hook up the physical front part of the birger to the front of the camera. One or two extra 4 pin lemos would allow direct hookup of follow focus and iris knobs and of course -whisper- (since I know it is anathema to many) future software-only upgrades could allow autoiris and autofocus. I'm working on the matchmaking on another thread.:biggrin:

I really thought the REDONE might be my last camera - then I went to NAB and EPIC and the trade in deal has me thinking about replacing it in just a year!! If we could only get Jim to understand the tax value of buying products in December rather than January for those of us working on our first billion!!:biggrin:

[Arnaud Paris]

Brook is on crack! Writing more than 1000 lines in the last two days.
Keep it coming brave man!

[Joel Kaye]

At $40,000, the EPIC is no RED ONE. I don’t see a lot of people investing this kind of money into a camera only to put a Nikon mount on it.

Not sure I agree here. EPIC is smaller and lighter than RED. Paired with a Birger mount (especially if IS works) EPIC becomes even better handheld camera and therefore worth more than RED to some people. What PL lens has image stabilization? The highest end Canon glass might be the best glass because it's being made for a higher res CMOS camera already.

I think you have to have the SLR option to offer the highest quality, lightest weight high resolution handheld camera in existence.

[Michael Hastings]

I agree with Joelnet and I forgot about IS, but I can tell you it definitely works. I was playing with IS on my 17-55 IS and my 70-200 2.8L on the birger mount 2 weeks ago, before I swapped backed to a 12mm zeiss for a rental job and it definitely works.

I also think EOS/NIKON/SLR smart mount future proofs us as large sums of money are spent each year on these lenses providing large economies of scale for both manufacturing and research. In addition, it leaves open the ability to change sensor sizes or even have multiple sensor options since the SLR lenses cover up to 36x24mm in size.

[Meryem Ersoz]

My point isn't to abandon ENG/EFP/etc. for the sake of it... but to make sure that cine-style shooting comes first. If a feature for another style of shooting detracts from the cine-style aspects of the camera, well... time to rethink that one. If it adds to it or doesn't affect it... go for it!



I'd be a little careful about assuming that the majority of work that the majority of RED owners are doing is cine style shooting. Do we know this?

Has RED ever surveyed its actual user base to ascertain what percentages of its actual owners are using the camera for cine-style work? Or what percent of their work is cine-style, as opposed to other forms? I know that RED is drawn this direction because it gets them all the best press and the street cred. But is it what the majority of owners are using the cameras for? And then there are all the rentals, hard to account for.

But we really have no hard data on how the camera is being used, do we?

Because of its weight reduction, EPIC is actually much more appealing than RED ONE for faster environments and portability/mobility -- which usually indicates EFP style shooting. EPIC and a dSLR mount are a dangerously attractive combination for EFP -- dangerous because I can feel the tugging at my wallet already.

A four-pound weight reduction, plus what sounds like it will be vastly improved onboard audio, maybe even pots?? And the option to use a light lens? Sounds like an EFP dream machine, especially compared to RED ONE with some of the compromises and adjustments that need to be made for EFP environments.

Not that I think EFP and cine-style design decisions are always mutually exclusive, but I'm just sayin'--

A very interesting discussion, indeed.

[Charles Papert]

A Steadicam Operator or a Technocrane operator, for example, may prefer a smaller box-shape over a kidney shape, assuming they don't also have to do some handheld shooting themselves.

Any camera that is designed well for handheld should be compatible with Steadicam (and will be small enough that it will fit comfortably on a Techno or similar). Steadicam-wise, we like low and not too long. I personally like wide also, and had put in my desire to Jim and the gang before the One came out that it should have been rotated 90 degrees (i.e. wider rather than taller)--this is good for handheld also as it gets the center of gravity lower.

Connectors on the "dumb" side are not good for Steadicam as many of us fly with the rig on the left; right angles can be used as long as they don't interfere with the plug below. The breakout boxes that have emerged for the One that point the connectors to the rear are the right idea of course (too bad you need an outboard box to do this though).

[Joel Kaye]

SLR lenses cover up to 36x24mm in size.

That's a good point too. SLR lenses cover a much bigger sensor than PL lenses. So EPIC could be an IMAX camera... but only IF SLR lenses are used to cover a larger sensor.

Yeah - you wanna turn the industry on it's head? RED should design CINE styles lenses to cover a full SLR sized sensor. Hell, buy Canon lenses and rehouse them with cinema mechanics. Face it, no one's buying RED lenses to put on a film camera so why not make EPIC a camera that requires RED lenses (or SLR lenses) to take advantage of the huge sensor? I think it's a more profitable strategy. A lot of people would buy those lenses.

[roryhinds]

you're right on the money Brook.

[Mitch Gross]

Brook, excellent posts -- very much on similar points to what we dealt with when consulting on the Phantom HD camera body design. We're still working on it (various accessories on the way) but I'd love to hear your opinions.

[Brook Willard]

You just let me know, Mitch. I'd love to see how it's coming.

Anybody from RED have any thoughts on these ideas? I'd love to see a current rendering of the Epic body.

[Harry Clark]

Brook,
Well said.
I think that the Red Team would be well-served to try to narrow the focus of this camera's design based on its market; and as you have pointed out, it seems to be priced more as a digital cinema camera than a "straddle" product like Red One.
I would love to see them conduct a few focus groups with DPs, ACs, operators, and rental house technicians and REALLY tailor this thing before they build in unforseen limitations. I would certainly love to participate.
Besides ergonomics, control and connector placement, and other physical design considerations, we need to be free from the rolling shutter artifacts, have a near-instant boot up time, and a more rock-solid recording scheme (both in terms of being "codec error"-free and robust physically) Also, as discussed in Brook's other Epic post (although somewhat hijacked) the sensor could be a tad bigger to really match the S35mm optical standard.
And I second the notion that I, and others, would rather pay $45,000 for a digital 235 than $35,000 for a camera that's not quite there.
Cheers,
Harry

[Michael Ragen]

Ergonomics are definitely one of the big deciding factors for me in my decision to upgrade or not.

Based on how I've been using my Red, and it already being front heavy, I'm worried about the shorter and lighter Epic being even more front heavy, and I'm not looking forward to putting it on my shoulder.

Pretty pretty please move the controls off the back. I love shooting hand held, but not always off my shoulder, and with the button placement on the Red One, it is easy for me to accidently bump something on the back.

Brook, I really appreciate the time you have taken in putting this post together, and I hope some of your ideas get taken under heavy consideration.

[Corrado Silveri]

Great thread, Brook. As usual.
Please, make this a sticky.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Should be a sticky.

Brooks posts are a lot of work, and a great contribution. Hopfully Red is listening.

The Arri 235's design is second to none - if we talk about ergonomics. And if Arri would have been so innovative in terms of digital cinematography as Red is I would have never purchased a RedOne.

RedOnes design flaws are obvious to everyone who wants to shoot handheld. As Jim pointed out several times that Epic will be dsigned off a white paper I'm sure that there is hope that it won't become a 5K Bolex.

The more I shoot with the RedOne the more I like the pictures but not the ergonomics.

Hans

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Brilliant posts Brook :-)

I'm not sure how to universally define "Badass" but I reckon the 235 looks and feels much more badass than the RED 1. My big concern with RED 1 was it's ergonomics and easy of use for a single operator. A 235 like design with two quality audio ports would work great in most EFP/ENG situations.

[Brook Willard]

Glad to hear that - with a few exceptions on specific points - everybody is universally agreeing with me. Hopefully RED has noticed.

[Matt Uhry]

Best Post Ever...

I've sent emails and PM's to RED with similar ( but much less well presented ) content and not received any response, which was not encouraging.

I hope Red is listening to this.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Michael Ragen]

I wouldn't mind waiting an extra 6-8 months if it means we would get a killer handheld design.

Besides, I have this sweet little Red camera (and hopefully a Scarlet or two) to tide me over until Epic is ready. And of course the whole computer world would have a chance to catch up so we can deal with 5k on our laptops.

[Jaime Vallés]

Fantastic post, Brook. I really hope RED is paying heed to the suggestions presented here. With EPIC, they have the chance to not only correct the RED ONE's ergonomics issues, but to truly make the ultimate Hollywood camera.

[Brook Willard]

Well it's been 5 days and 1,500 views... has anybody from RED read this? Just want to make sure the ball landed in the right court...

[Craig Ryan]

I think you've rattled the cages...in a good way.

[Mark Pedersen]

Right on Brook!

Awesome post. Dead on. Red PLEASE incorporate this valuable feedback from your loyal community!

And please incorporate lens data systems - both i/ and LDS.

Thanks,

M

[Matt Uhry]

I find it strange that no one from Red has voiced an opinion on this thoughtful and informative post. It would be helpful to hear the rationale for some of the design decisions made on the Epic as shown at NAB.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Charles Angus]

Haven't used the 235, but have used the 416, and can't agree more about ergonomics. Much better than the SR's I was used to, and leaps and bounds above HD cameras.

Haven't used RED yet, but it looks ungainly. There's a reason why film camera's are built the way they are: the design has been refined for more than a century. By this point, they've got it right.

Learn from film cameras.

[Lawrence Karman]

Brook, nice post.
Haven't used the Red One in hand held mode yet, but if you find the lens port is way too high for your taste could you not turn the camera upside down, invert and flip your EVF or monitor to the other side and then invert the image in post?

[Brent J. Craig]

I find it strange that no one from Red has voiced an opinion on this thoughtful and informative post.


...uh oh! Does this mean that many aspects of the Epic are already carved in stone?

It certainly is strange to have such a well presented thread where almost everyone is agreeing completely! Maybe Team Red only responds to the controversial ones.

[Finner]

..........

[Finner]

Maybe Team Red only responds to the controversial ones.

Well if controversy will get their attention...

Keep this under your hat but word on the street is Lindsay Lohan is having Jarreds (giant) baby. Keep that on the down low though okay CrewPix.


By the way I have talked with Brook about all his suggestions here quite a while ago and am in 110% agreement. Please Red hear these cry's.

[Matt Uhry]

Brook, nice post.
Haven't used the Red One in hand held mode yet, but if you find the lens port is way too high for your taste could you not turn the camera upside down, invert and flip your EVF or monitor to the other side and then invert the image in post?

Yes in theory, but not really a practical solution if you think about where the cables, buttons and other controls would end up.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[zak forrest]

This is the best thread I've ever read on these boards.

I'm looking for right angle mini-xlr connectors so those tiny things don't break off my Red. Something that keeps them tucked along the body like Brook said is the only way to go. Cables sticking out just sucks. I remember the first few months I had my Reds I was obsessed with getting right angle power cables, eventually I just forgot about this issue but it's still the worst. What ever happened with this anyway, is it just not possible due to the keying of the ports? I hate how I cringe whenever I tilt the camera back and the powercable gets crunched a bit. Totally unacceptable. I feel bad nit picking like this but it's only because I love this camera so much and want Epic to rule like it should.

Right angle mini-xlr adapters anyone? I recently got my right angle HDMI on and it's nice. After reading this thread I realize I shouldn't have to be buying this stuff anyway...

It would be great to see more renders and more development of Epic/Scarlet, even more discussion and refining of the body using the forums. I can see why that doesn't happen though too

[Brook Willard]

Thanks for the kind words, Zak.

It's worth noting again that it's not just some crazy idea... it's something everybody universally agrees with. Not just the people on the board... but every professional I've worked with [and trust me, since I wrote this post months ago... lots of people have seen it].

[Sanjin Jukic]

Two more things:

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/arri235mm.jpg
EPIC+battery+red-drive should be light and ergonomic something that is closer to ARRIFLEX 235.

Also P+S Technik's IMS on EPIC with PL optical viewfinder of course.

And you'll get the most ergonomic and mount versatile cine digital camera in the industry for the next 5 years.

[Ariana]

There's nothing ergonomic about a film mag. It shifts the weight back but that's about it. I don't see why epic has to be like a film camera when it doesn't need a big mag stuck on it. There are functional reasons why film cameras are shaped in certain ways. It's because they have constraints to work with like movement, motor, spinning shutter etc. The rest is just molded around that to make it reasonably ergonomic. Why do you think the D20 is practically a box? Because electronics fits to box better and doesn't need to have funky shapes inside it.

I like EPIC because it's small and it's a black slate to mold the camera into what you want with accessories. Hard to believe you all want a more restrictive form factor than one that's more customizable.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Ariana,

instead of a film magazine on EPIC back you get RED drive+Battery.

That's a balance between lens+matte-box+viewfiner in front to RED Drive+battery on back.

I a middle is EPIC body.

Hope this help to imagine.

[Ariana]

My point is that the battery/drive can go anywhere. Why overdesign it so that's the ONLY place you could put it.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Why do you think the D20 is practically a box? Because electronics fits to box better and doesn't need to have funky shapes inside it.

Actually the D20&21 comes pretty close to the 535 the only difference is that the back is not as rounded as a mag is, but pretty close.

And yes the EPIC will have a battery and drive in the back and if that can be designed ergonomically for handheld balance, just like mags for the 235 well.... we don't need to say more.

Edit: And I think it should be like the normal mag design not the steadicam mag as shown in third mans pic


Fredrik Callinggard

[RayFrisby]

Ariana ! Without supposing what Brook was saying my take on his design is that it allows for the most comfortable and ergonomical use of the Epic.
It does not follow that the mag/battery/red drive must be the same size mag on a 235, it just must be balanced and proportional. Personally I like Brooks idea. Sure the Red One is modular but this does not mean it is the optimal design for ergonimical use. Good but not as natural a feel as the 235.
One reservation I would have is that whatever design form the Epic takes please make sure the old fashioned tripod configuration is rock solid.
I think Red is a lucky company to have so many dedicated supporters helping them develop and improve their products. keep up the good work !!!

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I'd like to ad that if it's done cleverly it can still be modular. Now ARRI has the same with the possibilities for normal, steadi and 435 mags. So all it needs is to be slightly shoulder "cut out' to match a shoulder cut out on Epic. Then it can always be placed elsewhere. Maybe there can be a shoulder pad solution for when you want to go handheld and have it in the back.

Lets say it's "underslunged" on top rods for shoulder cut out and top mounted for an 435 mag feel. When it's underslunged there's a solution for "sliding in" a shoulder pad for handheld (just an example), as a soft cushion.

If you want it "top" mounted on base rods you could do so as well. It's possible if it's all "click on" based, like V or goldmount.

Just throwing ideas out there.


Fredrik

[Harry Clark]

This is a great thread.
I hope the boys on the Red Team are watching from the sidelines...
;)
Cheers,
Harry

[ericyoung]

Haven't got time to wade in at the moment - while film style ergonomics as described are good, they aren't necessarily perfect. Still think there's room to incorporate other ideas too.

How can we keep it very modular, yet improve the fit to the body when handholding or in other non-tripod mounted configurations?

Haven't seen Gibby's input on this yet! :-)

[Brook Willard]

There's nothing ergonomic about a film mag. It shifts the weight back but that's about it. I don't see why epic has to be like a film camera when it doesn't need a big mag stuck on it. There are functional reasons why film cameras are shaped in certain ways. It's because they have constraints to work with like movement, motor, spinning shutter etc. The rest is just molded around that to make it reasonably ergonomic. Why do you think the D20 is practically a box? Because electronics fits to box better and doesn't need to have funky shapes inside it.

I like EPIC because it's small and it's a black slate to mold the camera into what you want with accessories. Hard to believe you all want a more restrictive form factor than one that's more customizable.

My point isn't so much that it needs to match a film body shape to the letter... just that it should match the balanced, nodal, low-CG design concept. I focused on the 235 with a 200' shoulder mag as it is the lowest-profile and most integrated magazine I've used. The 400' may balance better in the real world, but the 200' shoulder mag is definitely a great design place to dream about.

As for ENG/EFP guys... they already have 10 cameras to choose from. If the Epic was an ENG camera, that design would be paramount. But it's not. We cinema guys have one camera... and it's not the right shape.

I definitely don't want a big honkin' mag stuck on the back. I want the battery/storage far back enough to create a counterbalance for the lens/matte box/follow focus up front... but that doesn't mean the butt of the camera has to be gigantic.

Modularity should still be a key concern, but as I stated in the original post... it needs to be modularity with a goal in mind. Specific setups.

I'm in Texas on a shoot now, but when I get back in town I'll head to a rental house and build a 235 into a few configurations just for the sake of argument. When built with the 200' shoulder mag you're left with a very balanced/low-profile handheld camera that is just as rock-solid on sticks, in an underwater housing, on a helicopter mount or on a Steadicam. There are certainly "better" configurations for that particular camera for certain setups [a 200' mag is too short of a run time, for example. Also, most Steadicam operators would prefer the 400' Steadicam mag]. The thing is, the 235 is ultimately stuck with a film magazine that has to go somewhere... and that somewhere is on the back.

In the same way that an ArriCam ST doesn't work in every configuration with a 1,000' magazine stuck on the top, the 235 doesn't always work perfectly with a 200' shoulder mag on the back. For the Epic, we're talking about circuit boards and hard-drives. If a proper shape is adopted that is not too long, too short, too tall or too short [...], the problem is solved. Because the Epic's design is not tethered by a film magazine and movement, it can be whatever shape it needs to be.

That shape can be a terrible awkward little box... or it can be a smooth, ergonomic, balanced, thoughtful camera that is just right. Boards can be shaped to fit, electronics can be relocated to function properly... all to fit into whatever shape box is necessary.

To me, handheld is paramount. Any camera can fit on sticks well. Any camera [if it's short enough] can work well on a Steadicam. Any camera [if it's short enough] can fit into an underwater housing. Any camera can fit on a hot head. If it works well as a handheld camera, it will work well in all of these other situations by default.

And that should be the primary design goal.

[David Mullen ASC]

The relative placement of the human eye and shoulder isn't going to change in the near future, so it isn't "old fashioned" to at least consider this physical relationship when designing any camera, digital or film. Unless the camera is so tiny & lightweight that it fits into your palm...

And it's probably going to get a PL-mount lens on the front of it, and most of the modern ones are fairly large.

So a good handheld camera would have the center of gravity, with a lens and typical accessories, over the top of the shoulder and have the eyepiece forward enough for the eye. That's just a simple reality that someone is going to have to address in a camera design, and it's not going to go away by wishing or talking about "thinking out of the box".

Whether it is done with accessories or body design or modularity, I don't know, but if you want to keep the square shape of the EPIC and pile batteries and drives on the back end to counterbalance, fine, but perhaps that's not the best place for the LCD menu then.

Maybe the LCD menu screen and controls should be on a detachable little flat box that can be snapped into a port on either the back or on either side, etc.

[Rob Sweeney]

"Handheld is paramount". Well said, Brook. Congratulations on a well-thought out, beautifully illustrated thread.

The Red Team will have succeeded when we can grab the camera with a Prime, Drive, Battery and an EVF and drop it on the shoulder without any special "handheld package". An ergonomic shoulder cutout should be an imperative for the Epic. Holding a front heavy lunch box for hours on end is just too awkward.

The Epic designers should also try to protect the operator side of the lens so the focus puller has a clear view. An EVF 2, lighter and more compact than the first, could help alleviate the problem of the finder sliding so far forward for balance that it obscures the lens barrel.

The French New Wave changed our cinematic vocabulary. Arriflex and Panavision responded with the 35BL and the Panaflex. They built those workhorse cameras from a foundation of handhold-ability. Both cameras are great hand-held but equally at home on a gear head. The Epic should have the same design goal.

The RED ONE is such an auspicious debut. The fact that it incorporated a PL mount was sheer genius, enabling a host of optical choices. The Epic can be just as audacious by not compromising and not trying to be all things for all users. Start with a camera with a fantastic sensor and great optics that in its basic form rests comfortably on the shoulder, and build from there.

I've waited almost a year for my RED ONE. I am wiling to wait an extra year or two for the EPIC to be the all around brilliant next generation movie camera that it can and should be.

Nice work, Brook. Go EPIC team!

Rob Sweeney

[CJ Roy]

Great work, Brook. Agree 100%. I hope RED is listening.

-CJ

[P Andersson]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215163392.jpg

this image says it all, good work brook,

let the shape evolve, just like oakley shades follows the ergonomic needs of a face, RED can mold itself to the human body

looks like you could almost flip the RED upside down

[Steve Sanacore]

Excellent evaluation Brook. The diagrams are terrific. I never did understand why the lens mount was on the top rather than the bottom (front) of the body, that way making room for various viewfinder placement on top and in front of the hand held operator.

[James Brundige]

The relative placement of the human eye and shoulder isn't going to change in the near future, so it isn't "old fashioned" to at least consider this physical relationship when designing any camera, digital or film.

So a good handheld camera would have the center of gravity, with a lens and typical accessories, over the top of the shoulder and have the eyepiece forward enough for the eye.

Maybe the LCD menu screen and controls should be on a detachable little flat box that can be snapped into a port on either the back or on either side, etc.

Thats the key - the relationship of shoulder and eyecup. If the Epic is small and light enough, we might be able to accomplish this with accessories. The new ET EVF mount can put the eyepiece about anywhere, and I've found a good set up for hand held. You need to counterbalance the EVF with battery on the dumb side. (Pix of my home made set up later)

But the controls! Get them off the back. I love David's idea of a moveable box. Integrate the full controls with the LCD, with a cable connection to camera, that can be mounted anywhere. Just leave on-off and start-stop on the camera.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

My point is that the battery/drive can go anywhere. Why overdesign it so that's the ONLY place you could put it.

But I think that while the modularity of the RED One and current Epic design are a great strength they are also a great weakness. When nothing is built into the design of the body we end up having to add a lot of extra ungainly and ergonomically uncomfortable bulk and weight to the camera:

the EVF is long and heavy.. so it needs a big strong arm to attach it to heavy metal fixings on the camera body..

the camera is just a box so to mount it onto your shoulder you need to attach another big and heavy padded shoulder mount, which may be great for shoulder work but will create new problems when you want to mount it on a tripod, or sling it in a bag.

The weight is very far forward so to balance it you need to mount the battery far back, hanging off rails which are attached to heavy metal mounts .. etc

Also, I know this is an Epic thread, but the same philosophy applies to Scarlet.. the design we have seen so far looks great before you have to attach a million things to actually make it work. Then it becomes heavy, quite large, and curiously resembling a piece of military hardware :blink:


Every ounce and millimetre counts! And I am looking for a camera that I can just pull out of a bag, switch on and start filming with; not because I'm lazy.. lol, but because, often, as you all well know, getting the shot is as much about perfect timing as advanced microchip design

I think Brook is quite right in insisting that Epic should make no compromises for EFP use, but I suspect that a camera that is beautifully designed to sit balanced on your shoulder and is ready to go the minute you pick it up would work great for EFP/ENG anyway :biggrin:

[Brook Willard]

There will never be a way to eliminate the rods, lenses, follow focus, matte boxes, battery, body-mounted storage, etc. There will always be some level of "modularity," no matter how you look at it. Yes, you can have a case built to keep all of those accessories on your camera if you'd like... but having the ability to pull it out of the case and shoot [like a video camera] is not high on my list.

I expect the same level of camera build time as I have with a film camera. Put the camera body on sticks and start attaching accessories. That said, I should never need a tool to build the camera in the morning... and I shouldn't need one to adjust between setups [from handheld on primes to living on a BFZ].

Don't give me a video camera and don't give me an erector set. Give me a 235. :)

That said, fergus, your concept is good. Building the RED is too much of a tool-enabled chore. People will eventually build a very nice personal system that may not require tools... but when every accessory needs two other accessories to mount, things get too heavy.

No matter how many accessories you bolt to the RED, the lens mount, control interface and lack of a shoulder cutout will always be wrong. It's irreparable. That is the sort of stuff that needs to be prevented with Epic. Even if RED screws the pooch on Epic's accessories, other companies will pick up the slack. Nobody will ever be able to properly fix a poorly designed body, though... and that cube-with-a-lens-mount thing won't work.

[Aron Cohen]

This thing about shoulder-mounting...

I think element technica is about to introduce a new, small shoulder mount for the RED ONE. With a pad, a dovetail attachment, like their oconnor dovetails (so you don't have to take off the arri-style baseplate to go from sticks to handheld) and the thing has two forward stretching handles.

I think you can find pictures on the REDmodz site.

I think not having things built into the body can be frustrating because of all the extras you need, but it also allows for many different configuration options which in my opinion is the most important feature of a camera - comfortable modularity. But this can only be achieved if the extras aren't compromises. For instance I agree that the battery and drive/SSD shouldn't be so uneasily attached. We need a better way to do those.

I also think that the moveable control panel would be quite useful and a solution for different opinions about where to have the controls. I wrote about this in a different post (reasonable requests for the EPIC) but I think I made up my mind. It IS better if you don't move around both the controls and the cable connectors. Just move the controls. It would be amazing if RED could implement this idea into EPIC.

But the idea of EPIC being very similar to the arri 235 is sort of frightening to me. I think it should be more like a small box unit that you can configure for use LIKE the 235 shoulder setup or anything else. I'm saying you should be able to do almost ANYTHING with the small box. Make it into a 235 or an LT or a camera optimized for tripod use/car or helicopter mounted use/steadicam use/jib use. Of course, this needs configuration modules that are a lot bigger than current accessories, but finish the job of many of the rest.

Oh, and yes. The viewfinder...
Just a bit too... enormous.

[Mitch Gross]

So has anybody tried shooting with a RED upside down for handheld? Used to do it all the time in 16mm on the old Arri S with a 400' mag (I'm showing my age).

Just askin'. Have fun with that extra render step in post.

[David Mullen ASC]

I've heard all the heat radiates from the top, so I don't know what operating it upside-down would do for air flow / cooling.

[Bob Gruen]

I think I might be out in left field here but the answer to the shoulder mount ergonomics seems to be the modularity.

The camera is pretty short, so why would it be so hard to position a shoulder mount such that the mount positions the camera just in front of the operator's shoulder? Hang the battery and drive off of the back for counter balance. Getting to the setup buttons might be tough, so the shoulder mount should swing away or clip off easily.

Is having the film plane an additional 5" forward of the panning rotational axis an issue for shoulder mount work?

Bob

[Mitch Gross]

Is having the film plane an additional 5" forward of the panning rotational axis an issue for shoulder mount work?


No, but shoving all that weight up there will be. When rigged out the camera is already significantly front heavy. Why push it forward even more? You'd need a monster battery block in back to balance it this way.

[Brook Willard]

This thing about shoulder-mounting...

I think element technica is about to introduce a new, small shoulder mount for the RED ONE. With a pad, a dovetail attachment, like their oconnor dovetails (so you don't have to take off the arri-style baseplate to go from sticks to handheld) and the thing has two forward stretching handles.

I think you can find pictures on the REDmodz site.

I think not having things built into the body can be frustrating because of all the extras you need, but it also allows for many different configuration options which in my opinion is the most important feature of a camera - comfortable modularity. But this can only be achieved if the extras aren't compromises. For instance I agree that the battery and drive/SSD shouldn't be so uneasily attached. We need a better way to do those.

I also think that the moveable control panel would be quite useful and a solution for different opinions about where to have the controls. I wrote about this in a different post (reasonable requests for the EPIC) but I think I made up my mind. It IS better if you don't move around both the controls and the cable connectors. Just move the controls. It would be amazing if RED could implement this idea into EPIC.

But the idea of EPIC being very similar to the arri 235 is sort of frightening to me. I think it should be more like a small box unit that you can configure for use LIKE the 235 shoulder setup or anything else. I'm saying you should be able to do almost ANYTHING with the small box. Make it into a 235 or an LT or a camera optimized for tripod use/car or helicopter mounted use/steadicam use/jib use. Of course, this needs configuration modules that are a lot bigger than current accessories, but finish the job of many of the rest.

Oh, and yes. The viewfinder...
Just a bit too... enormous.

Even if you mount the ET handheld system onto the RED, the optical axis will be roughly 6" higher than it should be... and the camera will still be out of balance. Because the optical axis is so high, the EVF will interfere with the follow focus and mattebox... etc.

I disagree with your thoughts that it should be a small box, particularly since the 235 shape and size is already proven for tripods, cars, helicopters, steadicams and jibs]. If the camera is the current "box" shape, the optical axis will be too high and the weight distribution will be too far forwards to ever balance out with any lens... be it a small prime for handheld or a gigantic zoom.

On a point unrelated to your post, there is one very important thing to note here. While people have come up with solutions for the RED [the ET handheld system, for example], that doesn't mean the problem is gone. People will always find a way to make something work in the way it needs to work... we're natural problem solvers.

I just think that pre-planning accessories to make up for dramatic engineering flaws that can still be fixed is nonsense. If we're already trying to come up with solutions for problems we see with the design... the design needs to go. Sure, we could shift the camera forward and throw a bunch of weight out back. Sure we could make guards for the plugs to keep them from snapping off. Sure we could put a cap over the controls to make up for the lack of a lock switch... but why? If we see the problems now - when the camera is still in development and the problems can still be fixed - why not bloody fix them?

[shrug]

That's where I stand. I'll gladly pay more for my Epic to make it a well designed camera.

[Mike Prevette]

I can't second what Brook is saying here enough. Don't fix the problem, design it out from the beginning. There is no disadvantage to a well designed camera.

[reality]

Everything in something as complex as camera design is a compromise or trade off. The perfect thing for one problem causes problems for another problem. What one person thinks is a good design is another person's bad design. I've seen happen with every camera I've used for the last 30 years.

Great, they finally put the X in the right place.
Arrgh, why did they move X, I hate it.

[Lachlan Ward]

Leave the BOLEX OUT OF THIS! What did it ever do to you, Brook!


AKS....a digital 235 for $45,000...


I'm in total agreement. Get CG lower and get the sensor down and back. I always wind up doing hand held shots, lots of them. So for me hand hold-ability is 100% importanto! In film school I had to suffer under the pain of BL16 a big old noisy Vietnam era monster (that coped a bullet and then got put together, which I find kind of amazing). When you put on of those bricks on your shoulder it tells you were to go and not the other way around. And its that point, that the Epic looks like it may will be a hinderer in hand held that concerns me.

I also want to reiterate the point about lockable bays for the HDDs and CF port. Also will Epic be striping to multiple CF cards?

It would be fantastic (and I'm going to go out on a very sturdy limb and assume Jim & the Red Team have already thought of this) if the Wifi control deck could connect up to any Epic you point it at and that you could save a setting and walk from camera to camera just pushing a button and making that camera change its settings to match camera A. Its not amazingly useful but it would have its benefits. (oh oh oh and that it was like an Iphone with a touch screen and internet access, and GPS :>)

[Charles Papert]

I thought about this issue yesterday as I ran through an abandoned hospital being shot at by stunt men wielding full-load blanks, myself wielding a 235 with Ultraprime onboard (it wasn't exactly a fair battle). This was like a mini-"Children of Men" type shot, complete with blood hit being squirted at the lens (requiring me to don a plastic garbage bag for the shot, very sexy). As little and lovely as the 235 is, it's still front heavy, and a little off balance from side to side to boot. Being such a small mass it's not as hard to compensate for this than a typical sound camera, but I have always maintained that a camera that requires brute force to hold level will always produce less smooth results.

Brook brings up a good point about the confluence of the EVF and the mattebox--building in a hump does allow the finder to have a chance to ride above the mattebox giving you a shot at a truly balanced camera, or one that is even close (given a "sensible" lens on board, there's nothing one can do about balancing out a 15lb zoom short of adding sandbags to the rear, oy vey!) Is it possible to invert the image in the viewfinder? If so, could a 90 degree mirror module be designed to attach to the front element of the viewfinder so that it mounts vertically? In which case it could be driven forward substantially...

[Mark Pedersen]

Sure hope the Red team is paying close attention. If Reduser is their tool for community feedback, then they should go out of their way to incorporate this design feedback and make Epic just that... a giant step forward not just in technology and modularity, but in ergonomics as well. Make it a modern camera in every sense of the word.

I just got my EVF and once you bolt that on, even a basic rig gets quite heavy.. and it takes the ET support to make it workable, and that adds weight, etc... An ET breakout box, a little Zacutto quick release spud, the LCD for the AC, top rails to bolt everything on... etc.. And it all sits high on your shoulder.

Collin Fletcher in his book, "The Complete Walker" (a book on backpacking) wisely stated... "pare away the ounces and the pounds will take care of themselves."

When it comes to slinging a camera around all day, those are words to live by. The less stuff we have to bolt on to build a basic system the better.

Let's think of the entire camera system as an integrated whole. Not an Erector set.

M

[Brook Willard]

Charles brings up an interesting point about the EVF. The funny thing is that the EVF already has a 90˚ mirror/prism inside. The actual LCD in the EVF is on the top of the EVF facing down into a mirror in the body. The LCD is roughly 3/4" past the diopter portion of the camera.

The rest of the EVF is just four boards in a cube shape with one board "capping" them on the panel with the LEMO connector. The metal of the EVF is so heavy to make up for the ~1.5lb optical assembly.

So it would be rather simple to shorten the EVF by 3-4" by moving the boards into a 90 degree orientation like an optical viewfinder.

I know nobody wants to buy a new EVF, but what if RED introduced another EVF to go with the Epic? The EVF is great, but I can think of a list of shortcomings that would be nice to see eliminated. It'd certainly help with making the overall ergonomic statement of the camera a little more logical.

Another good point is that the 235 - being full of motors and a mechanical movement - is not perfectly symmetrical from side to side. Furthermore, the 200' shoulder mags are not really heavy enough to properly balance out a larger lens [I prefer the 400' shoulder mags for balance]. The weight distribution of the camera could be better, but since Epic will just be full of boards... that's something that's very doable.

Great feedback.

[Matt Uhry]

Where is Red on this thread ? This is an incredibly lucid discussion of camera design, they should be checking in...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Bob Gruen]

No, but shoving all that weight up there will be. When rigged out the camera is already significantly front heavy. Why push it forward even more? You'd need a monster battery block in back to balance it this way.

...or a longer leverage arm.

Placing mass away from the axis of rotation also adds to the polar moment of momentum around that axis, making the panning movement more difficult. To me this is a huge plus, as I HATE shoulder mount footage due to the use of long lenses and unintended small panning movements. The slight panning movements make me (and others in the audience) nauseous, so anything that calms those undesired movements down is a welcome addition.

Bob

[Jaime Vallés]

Where is Red on this thread ? This is an incredibly lucid discussion of camera design, they should be checking in...

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com (http://www.mattuhry.com)
I hope they're just reading it very carefully, and taking notes. Their silence may be because of working on a complete redesign of Epic based on this thread... :matrix:

[Casey Green]

I would agree that I expected RED to be more involved in this discussion.

I hope they chime in soon. The RED ONE design wouldn't be what it is today without the great feedback from the community during it's inception.

There are some great ideas here, and many that really make sense.

But sometimes success has a tendency to blind one from the process that garnered it in the first place. Let's not let that happen here.

I hope to see RED keep the RED philosophy alive throughout each new product development cycle and keep the community closely involved.

[Brook Willard]

Anybody home, RED?

[zak forrest]

Seriously..


I know they are reading it though..

[Craig Ryan]

Eventually we'll either get an ominous Jim "RED is listening..." post, or the more evocative Jarred, "Heh heh heh..."

[Nova Invicta]

If Red are not listening then you can bet your life that their competitors are so comments on this thread are likely to be seen in a number of products. Ergonomic are hugely important and Red know this as Oakley sunglasses would never of grown the way it did without great industrial design.
Arri have good ergonomic designers as do Panavision (Al Mayer Snr & Jnr are both legend)

[Brook Willard]

Shoot, I gave away my million-dollar idea for free...

[shrug] I dunno, RED certainly hates me by now. :)

[tj williams]

RE Charles comment.... If you took the overlay and turned the RED upside down it would be about as tall as the Arri 235
The top would come down frm the lens axis about as much as the top of the cutout. Put a one nut tighten slide in plate on the bottom for the shoulder and the outlines would much the same top to bottom. batt and mag to the rear and the balance seems similiar also. This also allows mounting the small body in aerial mounts under water housings and crash boxes rather easily. Small and square is good if their is room to add on to achieve varied purposes.
Just the small sq body with a rod for motors and clip on for a great Steadicam running rig smaller an lighter than a 235 and sync sound blimped. The throad problem can be fixed by burying the changeable mount into the body. I hate trying to get at the arri controls though, and putting them under the lens would be truly worse. would prefer a module that attached to the bare body on the smart side or onto the top or side of the VF for sticks hand held stuff.
my two bits...
TJ

[Brook Willard]

Not a bad idea, TJ. The more feedback, the merrier.

[Lachlan Ward]

They could eliminate having to worry about the placement of the menu control for the ACs benefit, if Epic had a small WIFI control unit that let you change the settings without touching the camera. Obviously they still have to put the controls on the camera, but they could just put them on the smart side so that you can change them yourself easily under most circumstances.

[Mark Pedersen]

Hello Red!

Anyone home? A reply/comment would be encouraging.

M

[Jarred Land]

dont worry.. we are still here.

[Matt Uhry]

dont worry.. we are still here.

Hi Jarred,

Is that really all you have to say to a thorough and constructive critique of red 1's ( and Epic's in the form shown at NAB 08 ) ergonomics that has a fairly unanimous opinion form many of your most experienced users and early adopters ?

Nothing like "You'll get a shoulder cut out" or "We shot with a 235 for a day and now understand what you guys are talking about" or even "I don't get what you want, we think blocky cameras are badass." ( I hope it's not #3 )

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[I Bloom]

great work brook.

The "hold the mattebox" club thanks you for your shoulder cutout comparison.

I hope that red takes notice.

IBloom

[Andrew Benz]

The "hold the mattebox" club thanks you for your shoulder cutout comparison.

I hope that red takes notice.

IBloom

I too hope for this and watch this thread religiously (Thanks Brook). I have a tremendous amount of respect for everyone here, their divergent skill sets and the thought process behind what has been expressed in this thread. Our ability to operate this camera with precision and skill starts with the human form and how we interact with it efficiently. The ability for the camera to be broken down or built up to fit on anything that sinks, flies, glides or go fast on industry standard gear should be cake after that...

I have a strong feeling that since Red has proven to be less than vaporware, that we have lost that connection to openly contribute to a "camera in progress". Whether they are listening or not. We need the feedback as much as Red.

This would be a great excuse to create a private section for contributing Red Owners and contributing Non Owners to offer serious "from the field" feedback to get us all a much better camera system. I do not see any reason why this cannot happen for all of us with some fore thought.

Be well,

Andrew

[Emanuel A.]

Stick it! :-)

[Jarred Land]

as long as you guys keep offering suggestions, we will keep listening to them.

this might sound like another one of those bull shit responses... but its very true.

[Brook Willard]

Glad we got a response finally, even if it is a little thin.

I just fear that these posts will be the last we'll hear until it's too late. A new rendering will pop up in a few months with a handful of these suggestions heeded. We'll be happy that we got something out of it, but there will be a few things wrong and more work will need to happen. Unfortunately... it'll be too late. The design will lock down shortly thereafter and our panicked last-minute recommendations won't make it into the body design.

That would be a huge bummer.

So why not a rendering? Why not some feedback? Why not a dialog? Tell us what can be done, what can't be done and why. Talk about the logic behind the current body design so that we can understand what's going on.

This subforum isn't full of posters who will shower panicked thanks over every post that somebody in RED makes. We prefer millimeters over pop cans. :) Like you guys, this is our second trip down this road. We're all friends here... let's cut the crap and get some real feedback. :)

[Jannard]

Brook, Brook, Brook... 1st off, you have no idea what we are doing. We give out very little info while we are developing. We do listen. But it sounds like you need an instant response to every one of your suggestions. Sorry. We just don't have the time to do that for you and everyone else that has an idea.

We have listened to the "ergo-fear" of our Scarlet users. They are afraid that the camera can't be handheld easily. We know it can because we have all the pieces. The screaming of "ergonomics" finally got to me and I posted one of the accessory handles for Scarlet. All of a sudden, our customers see that we really have been paying attention and just might actually know what we are doing. Your suggestions are always welcome. So are suggestions from everyone else. But please don't ask us to comment and debate on each suggestion. Your presentation is the problem here. Sorry. We still like you and will listen to all you say. But try to temper your presentation a bit. It doesn't help your cause.

Jim

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/9_scarlethandle1.jpg

[Jannard]

Brook... I'll give you one other hint. Your premise is suspect. Lining up the lens mounts as the basis for comparison is flawed. What matters is balance, control location and viewing position. BTW... no one has seen what production Epic will actually look like. Just so you know.

And the above render of the Scarlet handle is purposely different than what will be produced.

Jim

[Matt Uhry]

Hi Jim,

I have to apologize that I'm not going to fawn over the pretty picture of the scarlet that you are not going to produce, not even sure what the point of posting that here is ?

The issue here is the ergonomics of the Epic, what you showed at NAB managed to be worse ( yes that's in my opinion ) than the already mediocre ergonomics of the Red One ( yup. also my opinion ). As excited as I am about both cameras in general it did not inspire confidence in Red's understanding of working camera peoples needs.

I'm glad you are listening to the suggestions on this post, I think Brooks ideas are correct for what the design of the Epic should be.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Brook Willard]

Jim, of course I don't have a clue what you guys are working on... for exactly the reasons you describe. You guys are very tight-lipped about your development and I respect that.

The thing is, it's very difficult to know which feedback hits home. It's also very difficult to know what kind of feedback hits home.

I tried to word my original post in the most constructive terms possible. I dug into the problems of the cameras' designs, yes, but I never did so in a kicking, screaming or disrespectful manner. While it's been roughly a month since I posted this thread, it's been just under 3 months since the feedback first landed in RED's hands.

That said - in the same period of time - the kicking and screaming of Scarlet users has resulted in a complete design overhaul and a bunch of new renderings. You said it yourself - it was the screaming of "ergonomics" that led you to post one of the Scarlet accessory handles.

It was only after I [and many others...] started complaining in this thread that you guys started to post.

If I am to temper my presentation, that's fine feedback. I'm just not sure how to go about this when constructive criticism and thoughtful feedback from dozens of REDuser's finest goes unanswered, but 24 hours of complaining results in instant replies.

Don't worry, I still like you too. But if making a stink is the only way that I can really know when things hit home... I'm gonna keep making a stink on the important points. If there's another way, show me.

I'm on your guys' side... I think everybody in here is.

[David Birdy]

OK..This is very interesting......I do not know of ANY camera Manufacturers
that have a two way dialog with customers during development...the fact that Jim & his RED team Do listen and take suggestions is very revolutionary, and benefits everyone...if they had to debate each camera rendering with each member of this forum we would never have a camera!!!!!!!!!!!!

My two cents!!!!!!!!!!

Dave

[Jannard]

Glad we got a response finally, even if it is a little thin.

... let's cut the crap and get some real feedback. :)

OK... here is your real answer. We have ignored this thread because we addressed this issue months ago. We are also under increasing pressure NOT to post what we are doing since we have confirmed evidence that our cameras are being reverse engineered in China. We are dealing with this but absolutely feel no compulsion to help anyone along with a competitive product. We are forced to walk a fine line between keeping a dialog going with our customers and "not helping" our future competitors.

Is that properly "cutting through the crap"?

Jim

[Jannard]

Hi Jim,

I have to apologize that I'm not going to fawn over the pretty picture of the scarlet that you are not going to produce, not ever sure what the point of putting that out there is ?

The issue here is the ergonomics of the Epic, what you showed at NAB managed to be worse ( yes that's in my opinion ) than the already mediocre ergonomics of the Red One. As excited as I am about both cameras in general it did not inspire confidence in Red's understanding of working camera peoples needs.

I'm glad you are listening to the suggestions on this post, I think Brooks ideas are correct for what the design of the Epic should be.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Matt... you don't have to fawn over anything. I put the render of the Scarlet handle out to show that we have, in fact, considered the ergonomics of a handheld Scarlet. What we will produce is better.

As for Epic, what we showed at NAB was akin to the "shiny RED ONE" we showed at the 1st NAB.

Believe it or not, we are actually paying attention to everything that can be done better than our 1st effort. We have gained insight here, but most of the good ideas posted here are not new to us. For us to say "great idea!" to every post seems like a hand job. And we are not into that sort of stuff.

Jim

[Peter Majtan]

Bingo...

Thanks Jim! :)

[Peter Majtan]

As You have mentioned Yourself Jim - the heart of the camera is the sensor. I would like to add that the "brain" is the firmware and the way the sensor's data is used. If You can keep those two things away from the "competition", You should be safe and always few steps ahead...

Hope they will not find out where You get Your sensors made... :)

[Brook Willard]

OK... here is your real answer. We have ignored this thread because we addressed this issue months ago. We are also under increasing pressure NOT to post what we are doing since we have confirmed evidence that our cameras are being reverse engineered in China.

Is that properly "cutting through the crap"?

Jim

Jim, you say that like it should be common knowledge to all of us. That's a bummer that people are reverse engineering your cameras - it's unfortunate to say the least.

But honestly, regardless of how little I know about whatever is going on with that... I'm guessing that most of the reverse engineering is happening from one of the thousands of RED ONE bodies that are out there, with only a sprinkle of it is coming from a solidworks rendering of an accepted camera concept. The innards of the camera are what's important to an operation like that.

Now if the original Epic body was just smoke and mirrors to prevent piracy, that is what it is. I just have a hard time understanding why the cold shoulder over here comes from preventing reverse engineering... particularly when there's tons of information and renderings on the Scarlet [which has a much larger market than Epic, I assume].

I'm not going to be made into a villain over this stuff. You guys said it at NAB - the silver bodied Epic was designed to inspire feedback. Well this is feedback at its finest.

The scary thing is that unless the Epic we saw at NAB was just to throw the pirates off your scent, that design seemed like a good idea at some point inside RED. If you guys "addressed this issue" months ago, awesome; cross it off the list. But that's a pretty big about face to make in a few weeks after NAB.

Obviously I don't know where the dollars and cents fall into place, but the fine line with the customer/company dialog was all radio silence before today. I don't need a freakin' handjob for giving you guys feedback.

[Jarred Land]

Brook.. you would be amazed if you understood how quickly and often things change in the Design department at RED....

[Paul Hazlett]

We are also under increasing pressure NOT to post what we are doing since we have confirmed evidence that our cameras are being reverse engineered in China. Jim

This is getting to be a major problem. I read one story in Business Week where
NEC had an entire line of busines reverse engineered and the culprits were so
bold as to out right piracy by setting up corporate offices with stationary and
with NEC's name on it. I don't remember how long it lasted, but I believe it was substantial. keep your cards close to the vest Mr. Jannard

[Jarred Land]

I'm not going to be made into a villain over this stuff. You guys said it at NAB - the silver bodied Epic was designed to inspire feedback. Well this is feedback at its finest.

We will never look at you ( or anyone else ) like a villain for giving feedback. We welcome it with open arms. But when you write posts like you did a few posts ago... well thats a different story.

[Jannard]

A lot has changed since NAB... where, it is true, we asked for feedback. The competitive landscape has changed significantly. I really shouldn't have mentioned our problems in China, but you need to know the truth before you get the wrong idea why so much "radio silence" and misdirection of renders. Your assumptions about what is being done by our future competitors may or may not be accurate. We have heard different info than your assumptions.

You are not the villain here... but neither are we. I don't like being called out repeatedly... We did go silent, but for a good reason.

Jim

[Josué Ignacio Saldaña]

it is entertaining and fun to see Red open their door every now and again and shower us with sonic boom news. I will never forget where I was when first heard of the Epic! It is true that Jim says that the more Red gives, the more we all want. Jim is probably wondering the day is going to come when we say: I trust what you are doing with your money. Let's face it... it is his business and no-one has the right to fuss at anyone unless your sweat is being mopped off the floor along with the sweat and tears of the RED Team

[Matt Uhry]

Believe it or not, we are actually paying attention to everything that can be done better than our 1st effort. We have gained insight here, but most of the good ideas posted here are not new to us. For us to say "great idea!" to every post seems like a hand job. And we are not into that sort of stuff.

Jim

Fair Enough, Not looking for "hand jobs" just a camera that does not suck hand held.

Surprise me at NAB 09, F**k anybody that is copying your work, as a Commercial/Music video DP I actually am very familiar with what that feels like to have your work ripped off.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Jannard]

If we can't deliver a camera (Epic) that operates well handheld, we don't deserve to stay in business. The worst product a company should ever make is their 1st one. Our 1st camera changed an industry. But it needs to improve and every camera from here forward needs to get significantly better. We get that...

Jim

[Brook Willard]

A lot has changed since NAB... where, it is true, we asked for feedback. The competitive landscape has changed significantly. I really shouldn't have mentioned our problems in China, but you need to know the truth before you get the wrong idea why so much "radio silence" and misdirection of renders. Your assumptions about what is being done by our future competitors may or may not be accurate. We have heard different info than your assumptions.

Then that's cool with me. Thanks for coming around and letting us know, even if it took me being a jerk to get the answer. Re: China, obviously my assumptions are just that. You guys ultimately hold all the information.

I hope you see why we were getting a little restless in here. I'm glad to know the feedback from this thread [and others] has landed. Looking forward to IBC.

[Jannard]

Brook... sorry if I seem abrasive. We have a lot going on and this news has hit us pretty hard. We addressed the issue you brought up in this post a few months ago internally. I have not been monitoring this Epic forum or I would have said so earlier. I'm a bit edgy that we have to now be careful what we post and what we say. It is not what I had ever hoped for or thought would happen. I guess it points to a measure of success. Some say flattery. I just think it sucks and it has put me in a very bad mood. Not your fault.

Jim

[Peter Majtan]

I would not pay too much attention to it Jim. How many "copies" have been made of the iPods and iPhones? None of them lasted long and I don't think they impacted Apple in any negative way...

You keep delivering Porsches at Toyota prices and nobody will even think about buying "fake" RED's...

Just my two pesos... :)

Ask Jarred for some of that chocolate - that should make You feel better...

PS: And while You at it - ask him to check his PM & e-mail from me - I have a small cookie to cheer You guys up... :)

Also - check this thread:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17176

[Andrew Benz]

I have a strong feeling that since Red has proven to be less than vaporware, that we have lost that connection to openly contribute to a "camera in progress". Whether they are listening or not. We need the feedback as much as Red.

This would be a great excuse to create a private section for contributing Red Owners and contributing Non Owners to offer serious "from the field" feedback to get us all a much better camera system. I do not see any reason why this cannot happen for all of us with some fore thought.

Be well,

Andrew


...I'm a bit edgy that we have to now be careful what we post and what we say. It is not what I had ever hoped for or thought would happen. I guess it points to a measure of success. Some say flattery. I just think it sucks and it has put me in a very bad mood. Not your fault.

Jim

Would a private "Red Channel" of Red vetted Active Owners and Non Owners help us all to continue this mutually beneficial relationship of information gathering and receiving? Obviously even there you would have to be careful with what you reveal to us... But, I just think it would be a horrible shame to lose that connection during some stages of product development when you guys need the passion from us as well. Too me this is the fuel that drives both sides of this equation.

For most of us, it was also our first opportunity to seriously contribute suggestions to an amazing new camera system for a bold new company that not only asked the question "What if..." but then did something crazy and would actually listen. We cannot lose this...

I respectfully and strongly think that all of us have one another's best interests in mind.

Thank you,

Andrew

[Matthew Lochman]

I am very interested in seeing what this camera will have to justify the additional $22,500. Obviously the bigger connectors, lunch box body, and new sensor won't be the end all be all... Otherwise the Mysterium X's upgrade path for the RED ONE will be $22,000!!!
and I meant it. :greedy:

IBC and beyond. I know how much all this must piss you off Jim, you don't seem like the kinda guy who ENJOYS keeping secrets-
(you do however seem like the kinda guy who WILL keep a secret when it needs to be kept, and we have to respect that. You are after-all building a camera we will be INVESTING in- and who wants an unprotected investment? Isn't that partly why RED was created? Because with Sony, Panasonic, and the rest, our investments actually needed to be protected FROM the jerks who were building them...
Thanks to Jim and the gang, (planned) Obsolescence is Obsolete- (soon teehee!)

Brook you're a valued dude- I am glad you aren't a little punk bitch, and I respect your intensity. It is always good to stand up for what you believe in.

OK- back to waiting for the technological singularity...

[lumiere]

Jim,

I told you the Chinese would be pissed off when you got red.com ;)

F

[Casey Green]

Jim,

Thanks for chiming in here and being upfront with us. I realize you are in a very difficult position.

This is a sign of the times. RED is growing up, and the luxury of very open development afforded to an "unproven" company with a "vaporware" product that was a "scam" are long behind us. :)

I've been through this before when working for another Broadcast Tech company, and it's just part of what comes with success.

I don't believe that this means RED's unique company/customer relationship needs to dramatically change, but it is understandable that in certain situations, it must be understood when RED needs to play it's cards a bit closer to the vest.

Again, thanks for your explanation. I'm sorry to hear about issues you are dealing with. That is always a bummer.

But it's good to know you are still listening and highly valuing feedback within the development cycle.

Looking forward to SCARLET and EPIC and REDRAY.

[Cory Schulthies]

I'd rather be the one being copied than the ones having to copy. I'm sure you will be able to stay at least a step ahead of the copycats.

[Jason Sinclair]

I think everyone should take a few steps back... This is a chance to think outside the box. Redesign based upon other camera models is following. We have a chance here to start from the ground up. Really, there are much better options with the concept of modularity kept in place. Agree the COG should be low as possible. Disagree that shoulder mount should be included in initial design. There doesn't have to be a sacrifice between handheld/ underwater/eng. It just needs design consideration. I have actually a solution here that i am working on that is third party, and the solution also adds many many more benefits, So i know for one it is possible. And if i don't finish it someone else will. Please believe me that the modularity aspect is the best way to go. All we need is the centre of gravity to be low as possible. Red is on the right path. Any force towards standardization will take away from the usability of the cam as a more versatile unit. Versatility should be your number one object because it will help tell stories better and get the most out of your equipment. Just think:
-light weight motion control
-Light weight steadicam
-underwater
-handheld control like you have never had
-remote control helicopters
- Easier car mounting.
-Skydiving helmets

Some of you think Jim is an accidental genius. But remember redone has not even started to live up to its potential yet. I say, take one step back and rethink everything over again because tradition is ok if you are working in the parameters of what was available in technological restraints available but for those of you not aware the last 20 or so years has seen some quantum leaps in the area of technology not the least , manufacturing. Do you not think if the talking pictures was invented now that the designs would be totally different?

The object is to tell a story from a perspective. Yes, the audience is use to a certain meme'ic aesthetic, however those interested in the art of communication would be well to consider the quantum leap available at this point in time. A rethink of how we show POV and subjective experience is a human condition that works best when emulated as close to reality as possible, That is why we get the steadicam work in the shining or the excellent hand held POV work in (carpenters?) halloween taking us to new levels of experience as viewers.

What we have available here, as fat boy slim would put it is; Right here Right Now. Thats an interesting place to be in when making decisions. Surely it would be well worth going over all the available elements before jumping on bandwagons. I mean really thinking about it deeply because the design phase is hard to stop once it starts rolling...

I have watched over two years Jim get constant... I don't know what to call them... not attacks but blockages maybe is the best way to put it, yet 90%+ of his decisions have been spot on. This website has made itself open to criticism and because that has been honorably taken, sometimes it seems that this is a weakness. But nothing could be further from the truth. I see a lot of you guys talking from the perspective of your daily lives, your jobs etc... that's where you are seeing things from but just remember Jim is seeing things from another perspective and he hasn't let you down in the past. Up until now everything has been implementing a system from the ground up and we are just starting to see the benefits of that design process. Take a step back and look at everything we have as a system at this point in time... If it wasn't for the modularity aspect we wouldn't have ET, birger, etc... How many of you have benefited by it? I would bet every single person.
I think energy used best at this point in time is on dreaming...

[Peter Majtan]

Amen...

[AntonyCASAFilms]

Shoulder Cutout.

As it stands, the RED ONE’s body is essentially upside-down.

Next.

Maybe that is the solution.
Use the Red ONE upside-down, and just flip the image in post?

[Jeff Coatney]

Jim, as a manufacturing veteran, I'm sure this isn't the first time someone knocked-off one of your products. Although it's not fun when you get confirmation that it's going on, you must look at the larger picture. In fact, from where you now sit, this has to be visible only in your rear-view mirror. Surely you had to know that one of the first two or three hundred cameras was gonna get a one-way ticket "far east" to an early grave.

The threat of counterfeit Red's is practically zero, because you have perhaps the best educated customer-base of any manufacturer outside of defense contractors. No one in their right mind would be dumb enough to buy a non-sanctioned Red camera. So these knock-offs will be sold in otherwise closed markets or the third world.

Ironically, you yourself undermined this effort when you set the price so low on the real McCoy. Your pricing is so ridiculously low that ONLY a Chinese government (subsidized) factory could compete against you. In fact, I bet with a little snooping you could ferret out such a factory inside a few weeks. Whereas you have a distributed network of suppliers, your Red knock-off factory will probably keep all the required manufacturing processes in-house to avoid scrutiny. So board production, imager manufacturing, housing, integration and final assembly all happen behind the same walls. Since transportation is now at a premium ( 10 years ago you could stick a container on the water for $3000, now it costs $8000) the factory will probably be within two hours drive from either Shanghai or Hong Kong. Why? Because it would be of little use competing against Red if you couldn't do much, much better on price. Controlling transportation costs could put them in the ballgame.

Finally I come to the crux of the arguement. Many years ago, while studying at the Prado, I noted the number of young artists copying the old master paintings. My Art History professor said it was the best way to grasp the techniques of the Renaissance masters. My painting professor however, had nothing but contempt for the process, he regarded the copying of old master paintings a fool's errand. His argument against the practice was in essence this: Great works of art are created not by people who only copy the solution to a great problem, great works of art are born out of a process of solving great problems. The masters solved great problems, tackled them head-on, sometimes discovering even more great problems as they worked. The resulting painting could take months of evolution and trial and error before a "Raft of Medusa" or a "Mona Lisa" appeared on the canvas. The greatness of the painting lay not in what you see before you on the museum wall, it lay in the hard, difficult, sometimes unsuccessful journey from blank canvas to final image. What does it profit someone to copy the solution when you are blindly ignorant to the problem? In a week or two, you could have a Reubens on your wall, but it will never have the value of the original, and the artist who copied the master will never be able to tell you why.

So, even if you have a mole in your factory, feeding information to the knock-off guys in China, the best information they will have is the solution to the great puzzle you wrestle with every day. You are so far ahead of them and moving so quickly, it really won't make a dent in what you're doing because they might know when you made a change to the specs or the design, but they will never know why. They will never know the problems, the roadblocks, they will only see the solution, and how competitive can you be in the end, if all you can do is follow?

I've saved the best reason for last: what good does making a crapload of bogus Red bodies, when there won't be enough quality glass on the market to shoot anything with them? So China, pretty please, with sugar on top, start knocking off Zeiss Ultra Primes as hard and as fast as you can! That would be leadership!

[Peter Majtan]

There is a synopsis for a great movie, right there...! :)

[Tom Lowe]

Jim,

I told you the Chinese would be pissed off when you got red.com ;)

F

Haha.... best comment of the week. :)

[roryhinds]

The more I work with RED ONE the more ergonomics climbs higher up the list.
Now with Build 16 being pretty stable (have yet to break it) I'd say ergonomics is the most important thing.

[Stuart English]

The more I work with RED ONE the more ergonomics climbs higher up the list.

Now with Build 16 being pretty stable (have yet to break it) I'd say ergonomics is the most important thing.

Given the RED-ONE design can't support a shoulder cut out - there are electronics in there that would fall out :red_bandana: what aspects of RED-ONE usage do you find the most challenging?

[Guys, if you're going to reply to this post... please make a new thread in the RED ONE forum to do so. I want to keep this Epic thread on topic. ~Brook]

[roryhinds]

anything handheld or off a tripod is problematic and uncomfortable with RED ONE. The modular design is bitty and I'm still searching to find the best setup for the giving situation.
I think the RED body shape and how you plug in cables is a awkward design.

[Andrew Hewlett]

Wow...what a discussion. A lot of what Brook posted is valid, and its interesting that Red's popularity has finally broken into the world market and is now being used to push new products from other competitors (which we all knew would happen).

[Jannard]

Everything Brook posted is valid... but everything we mentioned was addressed internally a few months ago. We are not likely to post anymore real renders until we get the go-ahead from our international patent attorneys. Sorry it has come to this. We didn't vote for it.

Jim

[P Andersson]

now I am afraid of making suggestions as it may come into the wrong hands
(just kidding)

[Tom Lowe]

Jim, are you guys mulling over 4:3 aspect ratio for Epic, or has the decision been made?

[roryhinds]

I'm sure now that RED have development experience and a large cache of industry professionals to draw on who are hands on with the camera...

Epic will be just that... EPIC

Scarlet will be great for RED as its an all in one, monitor, lens, battery... so the design team need to focus on the complete camera package and how you physically have to interact with it.

RED One's main focus was how to get the sensor working and recording.
Look at Frankie (was it called Frankie?) a sensor in a bread box.
RED One is a sensor in a box and you have to add a handle, battery, drive etc

Now that the sensor and internals are all working together and RED know the system, they can concentrate on ergonomics.

The most important thing when you're working directly with the camera, holding it, caring it... etc

[Jeff Coatney]

A private pipeline to internal Red R&D is probably a good idea. I'd be a regular contributor. I don't now, because the forum is too public.

[Brook Willard]

I have deleted all Scarlet-related posts from this thread. If the posters want a copy of the contents of their posts, PM me. Either way, the place for Scarlet discussion is not in an Epic thread. Scarlet has an entire website (http://www.scarletuser.com/) dedicated to it.

[Brook Willard]

Maybe that is the solution.
Use the Red ONE upside-down, and just flip the image in post?

It was discussed in a post earlier in this thread. It'd solve one problem, but would result in a bunch more. Try operating handheld when you have 10 cables sticking into the side of your face...

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

It was discussed in a post earlier in this thread. It'd solve one problem, but would result in a bunch more. Try operating handheld when you have 10 cables sticking into the side of your face...

Would a physical sensor flip be a solution?

Of course not for existing cameras, but if well thought from the get go could be a easy solution to flip that would rule out any processing power issues.

Like a key in the body, you unlock it, turn it up/down and your sensor is flipped.

Is it a dumb idea? Wouldn't be practical?

:tongue:

[Brook Willard]

My point is that if you turn the RED body upside-down, all of the ports will stick out of the left side and the buttons will be on the right. It would mean that using the camera handheld would be impossible, as you have to have several cables plugged into the side [now the left side where your face would be] of the camera.

[Jannard]

My point is that if you turn the RED body upside-down, all of the ports will stick out of the left side and the buttons will be on the right. It would mean that using the camera handheld would be impossible, as you have to have several cables plugged into the side [now the left side where your face would be] of the camera.

That would assume that we hadn't changed the body and all the outputs were in the same place...

Jim

[Casey Green]

rock on , Jim... rock on. ;)

[Brook Willard]

That would assume that we hadn't changed the body and all the outputs were in the same place...

Jim

I was referring to flipping the body as an inappropriate solution for the RED ONE in the short term, rather than as a design note for the 5K.

I should hope you guys have done a lot more than flip the body upside-down... :wink:

[Joseph Hutson]

We are not likely to post anymore real renders until we get the go-ahead from our international patent attorneys. Sorry it has come to this. We didn't vote for it.

Jim

That is okay.

Jim, we got fed that new accessory render, and I am sure you have seen how EVERYONE drooled over it.

If you give us more fakes of different angles, we will do more of the same.:nerd:

[Jay A. Kelley]

I think this thread has served its purpose. And a wonderful purpose it has served. Well done Brook.

But it is clear to me that suggestions from users to RED may go unanswered. and good suggestions from users MUST go unanswered, less they be picked up by those we would rather keep them from.

RED has grown, it's popularity has brought with it a number of wonderful advantages, and some pretty ugly potential fights for it's future.

I don't want to insult the Chinese here, but I will say that anytime a company creates something impressive and profitable, others are going to jump into the game. We all spent hours wondering what Sony or Panasonic would do in the face of RED, but it may be companies no one has ever heard of that will bring the real threat and competition to RED's door.

I'm sure you have all noticed this, but Jim's info on these potential "thefts" plus his announcement of RED Ranch, could very well be a move to get R&D, as well as engineering and construction into a more secure enviornment.

I have paid close attention to Jim's posts and various things. My own personal belief is that RED will be a sensor technology company first, and a camera company 2nd. While the creation of the camera is paramount, it is the sensor that is the heart of the system, and also the one piece of hardware that can go into many other systems. Military applications alone can be major. And this would not be Jim's first time working with those particular clients.

Ok I've said enough. But sadly, from now on, the best compliment you can expect from RED when reading a really good idea is respecful silence, and a quiet smile.

Once again, well done Brook.

Jay Kelley

Do they make "cones of silence" for forums? :)

[Rich Schaefer]

My one Request is make the LCD & Joystick accessible once the camera is configured.

On my Red-One it is hard to get to the controls with the drive on and batterys......

It would be cool to have 2 sets of LCDs and Joysticks, one on the rear and one on the left side!

Think about it - Please :)

[I Bloom]

My one Request is make the LCD & Joystick accessible once the camera is configured.

On my Red-One it is hard to get to the controls with the drive on and batterys......

It would be cool to have 2 sets of LCDs and Joysticks, one on the rear and one on the left side!

Think about it - Please :)

I don't know man, I've gotten pretty good at reaching behind my head with my left arm and operating the joystick. Folk on set are usually pretty impressed ;)

IBloom

[Evin Grant]

The force is strong with this one...

...With the blast shield down how am I suposed to switch to 2K 120FPS?

(Sorry, I'm up late and unable to control my sci-fi geek urges:nerd:)

[Robert Guthrie]

The Red team has still not answered my request for a miniature smart missile accessory for Epic! I demand acknowledgement! I need to be able to launch an attack on the sound guy from across set when provoked!

Damnit Jim! Answer me! :p

[Deanan]

I prefer laserbeams to missiles.

[Jarred Land]

Ok... laserbeams added to the spec sheet.

anything else?

[Brook Willard]

Multiple internal monitoring pathways? A 27.5mm x 20.5mm four-perforation sensor? Industry standard accessory ports? A circuit to switch between a block battery and an onboard without powering down? A standard voltage meter? A pony? :)

[Petr Dvorak]

Ok... laserbeams added to the spec sheet.

anything else?



LMAO...

[Deanan]

Laserbeams and ponies officially on the list.

[dalen johnson]

That's a bummer that people are reverse engineering your cameras - it's unfortunate to say the least.

I suppose thats how the aliens feel about us ever since Roswell. :)
- Just trying to add some humor here - at the end of the day, all is fine. :)

Peace

dAlen

[Brook Willard]

Laserbeams and ponies officially on the list.

What about ponies with laserbeams?

And 14 stops of DR.

[Tico Llaurador]

Ok... laserbeams added to the spec sheet.

anything else?

Jarred, now that laser beams are officially on the spec sheet, can you incorporate a laser rangefinder system into the camera to assist with auto-focus functions on the Birger, Alesniak, ET and Impero/Inclino solutions?

:wink:

[Bob Torrance]

What about ponies with laserbeams?

and of course a cloaking device for those sensitive locations.

[Tico Llaurador]

The cloaking device will surely be worked on at the RED skunkworks complex in Vegas.

[LawrenceDinkins]

Well Brooke, why don't you just call Jim up and tell him all these ideas?
Why do you have to make it a public discussion?
I am sure you are good friend of Jim and he will listen to you.

[Deanan]

The cloaking device will surely be worked on at the RED skunkworks complex in Vegas.

Cloning before cloaking.

[Petr Dvorak]

hurry everybody take your pills now, its starting to take strange spin now :wacko:

[Jarred Land]

Scarlet will come with a pony.. but no laserbeam. Maybe an Echo Blaster.

[Joseph Hutson]

Jarred, are you gonna get Scarlet#10?

[I Bloom]

I now postulate IBlooms Law:

As the number of posts on a RedUsers thread increases the probability of someone saying "14 stops of DR" approaches 1.

IBloom

[Jason Murphy]

I now postulate IBlooms Law:

As the number of posts on a RedUsers thread increases the probability of someone saying "14 stops of DR" approaches 1.

IBloom

Aaaand... the Reduser space-time continuum implodes on itself as Ian uncannily manages to fulfill his own postulated law.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Multiple internal monitoring pathways? A 27.5mm x 20.5mm four-perforation sensor? Industry standard accessory ports? A circuit to switch between a block battery and an onboard without powering down? A standard voltage meter? A pony? :)

A pony hahaha.
You had me laughing with that one.

:whistling:


Scarlet will come with a pony.. but no laserbeam. Maybe an Echo Blaster.

That's just a shame...
Everyone knows laserbeams are more useful than ponies!

:)

[Ameer Azari]

Scarlet will come with a pony.. but no laserbeam. Maybe an Echo Blaster.

No problem...I can build a laser beam for the Scarlet...

Now, is there a particular colour for the pony, or do we get to choose (Can you spray paint mine black and red please:love:)

[Brook Willard]

It's too bad this thread went off the deep end...

[Nathan Garofalos]

Has a shoulder cut out in the epic body been discussed?

[Jerrod Cordell]

Scarlet will come with a pony.. but no laserbeam. Maybe an Echo Blaster.

Maybe the laserbeam will be attached to the pony's forehead...

http://www.trendwatching.com/newsletters/DEC05/drEvil.gif

[Brook Willard]

Has a shoulder cut out in the epic body been discussed?

I'd sure hope it's a given by now.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

It's too bad this thread went off the deep end...

Pony jokes have this power, to hijack threads!

:)

Ok, my last spam! :usd:

[Brook Willard]

Pony jokes have this power, to hijack threads!


It also has the power to bring a smile to people's faces when all I do is make big scary requests. :)

[Peter Majtan]

Well this whole China thing could be used to RED's advantage:

1. We come up with some awesome specs (such as 14 stops DR, 6K @ 500 FPS - uncompressed, HDRI recording, etc...)

2. RED "officially" discusses on this forum the specs as if they were actually ready...

3. Chinese spies will inform the HQ and they will re-engineer the specs...

4. China releases "copy" of RED camera with the "awesome" specs...

5. RED buys one of these - reverse engineer the HW and releases update to EPIC...

This would save tons of R&D time and money and Jim can in the meantime get some R&R with the rest of the red-team following the suit...

We, the Epic users, have the last laugh... :) :) :)

[Andrew M.]

I think whoever wants to copy RED would probably be better making copy of one of big three.

Technical challenges are not there at all and the margins are much higher.
Making copy of RED and selling it for 16K will not be a good business.
Making copy of F23 and selling it for 80K, well it looks like a good option for pirates.

[Brook Willard]

Remembered a few more: A SD/composite output and proper timecode support [so it stays jammed during battery swaps and doesn't drift all day...].

And a better cooling system.

And uncompressed output that is actually accessible and supported [not just buried on a board inside].

I'm sure I'll think of more.

[JanneJansson]

Hello, I'm new to this forum, but I have been saving to buy a Red One for more then a year now. Happy moment, I placed my order a few days ago :) I have been reading about the Epic camera and I'm very impressed. Just to handle the amount of data in 5k at 120 fps will take nothing less that a super computer. To make that super computer sit on your shoulder and run of a battery is beyond amazing!

...and as a camera geek I have more stupid feature suggestions:

- WiFi broadcast settings to all cameras in shoot. To just set one camera and then just send this to all Epic cameras on location.

- WiFi/Internet Auto lowres proxy uploading with time code. If the camera have WiFi and can connect itself to the Internet it could upload lowres files with time-code to the post house and an editor can seconds after the camera have been stopped, drop the clip on to the timeline in FinalCut. With matching time-code it would bee a simple deal just drop in the raw 5k files and up-res all later.

- Extreme windowed frame for extreme frame rates. If the camera can handle 5k @ 120 fps it it possible that with a very windowed frame (maybe just SD res) it can handle extreme high frame rates up to several thousands of fps.

- Alternative recording target drives to any connected media fw 400 drive , fw 800, usb2, usb3, esata or over network (SMB, NFS, FTP...)

- Auto fall over on recording drives. If a drive is getting full or is to slow, automatically save the frames to another drive.

- Auto fall over for power, if power adapter fail, the battery kicks in with not interruption.

- RJ45 jacket for gigabit ethernet data connection. All same functions as over WiFi, just faster.

- Lowres video streaming image over data network (for multiple lowres prewiev) Or even into the LCD / viewfinder of another camera on set. Then all from producers across town to anyone that have a need to look at the image can do so just on a computer/PDA or Iphone.

- Movement (difference in image) triggered record (Example: for nature photo, and get the darn Panda when it's sticks it head out the hole)

- Loop record mode, for endless record and auto overwrite of oldest recorded frames.

- WiFi syncro time-code for multiple cameras. All cameras in scene have same time-code and run frame synchronized with no cables.

- WiFi syncro start/stop for multiple cameras. DP can start/stop multiple camera with just one button. (or send electric shock to the operator through the viewfinder if he messed up)

- Wifi data/status telemetry to computer/Iphone where all parameters can be monitored and adjusted (color, frame rate, shutter, resolution, temp, geforce, vibration on camera etc..)

- Internal axis sensors, gyros, accelerometers, geomagnetic compass, gps, temperature, humidity, pressure and electric field sensors. (this can be good for diagnose a bad or a trouble camera) if the camera have been dragged in the dirt and been exposed to hundreds of g's in geforce it could more likely break. Most sensors are small and cost almost nothing.

- Data logging and display for camera movement (like the Nintendo Wii mote) Example. it can show the exact tilt degree in the viewfinder.

- Camera movement memory. After a shoot the camera store the move in a file so it can be used for matching CGI's, or re creating a scene later.

- Movement triggered functions. Example like if the camera should ride on a car and should start record when the car moves and stop when the car stops.

- EKG sensor in viewfinder, so if the camera operator is having a hart attack the camera dials the hospital and mail human resource department to get another guy in :) ..or just an auto power off the viewfinder if no eye is there.

- Old fart button: Minimal/partial hardware/software disable button for fast boot up time and battery saving. If you hate gadgets and need a fast booting camera that runs on minimal power and no features.

- Bluetooth for close range accessory like lens motors, then just power wires is connected and make a cleaner looking cam.

- GPS data for every frame if exact location (good for re-creating scenes or doing pickups, google earth etc..)

..

Still, if the camera "just" shoot images in 5k at 120 fps, this is nothing less than totally amazing :)
Great work!

Cheers

[Peter Majtan]

Jane, this got to be one of the funniest, yet constructive post in EPIC forum for quite a while... :)

[Tom Lowe]

Hahaha, JanneSFE, you forgot to throw in the kitchen sink!

JK, those are some great suggestions. I bet a couple of those might even be things Red Team had not thought of.

[Brent J. Craig]

Including positional sensors in the camera has been requested before, but the idea that the camera could output movement info to a remote head or motion control system is brilliant. Imagine being able to do the move with the actors live, maybe even handheld, and then have the mo-co system play back that exact move for the effects passes!

Including a GPS might seem like overkill, but it would be useful in a number of ways:
-tracking footage from lost and stolen cameras (or at least seeing where they were being used)
-location scouting
-sun positioning, triggering timelapse based on knowing when and where the sun will rise
-universal time code - remember that the GPS satellites are super-accurate atomic clocks! You could have every Epic camera in the world always in perfect sync with each other!

[JanneJansson]

Sure allot of work both hardware and software design. If there is a way to make and run custom app in the camera most of this functions can be made later by geeky guys/gals :) Not sure how the new SDK will work.

[Jannard]

Thanks for all the tips and suggestions...

Jim