Not another lens mount

[combatentropy]

Red Mini Mount. Please don't.

Already:

- PL
- B4
- C
- BNCR
- Canon
- Nikon

[Stuart English]

Add to that the RED mount.

We reserve the right to improve camera systems, not be stuck in the past.

[combatentropy]

What's wrong the PL or C?

[K. Møller]

Maybe the question should rather be, "what's the RED mount bringing to the plate?"

Me thinks, many a wonderful thing :biggrin:

[Alexander Christ]

What's wrong the PL or C?

Nothing's wrong with PL Mount, just missing autofocus and control of zoom, iris, focus.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Maybe the question should rather be, "what's the RED mount bringing to the plate?"

Exactly.

This already came up in a couple other threads. I'm all for the new mount if it improves on other designs. I think the mini RED mount or whatever for the 2/3" Scarlet is a great option. Especially if it offers full electronic communication -- something C mount and PL don't have. It should be a lot more compact than PL. Most B4 "HD" glass is optimized for 3-chip cameras and requires special optical correction to be used with a single-chip CMOS censor like we see in the RED One or Scarlet / EPIC. That's why the B4 to PL adapter is so expensive and it adds unnecessary bulk to what should be a compact camera system.

Additionally, I hope that RED's new lens designs for the mini primes and FF35, etc.. will improve on what is wrong with current lens designs for non-cinema uses. Better handling of tracking, breathing, etc.. Longer throw distances for focus and zoom, continuous and smooth iris operation, calibrated markings. Also bringing to the table many benefits of still systems lenses to the cinema market like vibration reduction and electronic stabilization right in the lens itself.

If approached right, the new RED mount and RED lenses will be a good thing.

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

the new mini RED mount for 2/3" scarlet is really cool thing.. I've dreamed of such a thing since long time ago .. price was a main factor in my dream since DigiPrimes costs around $20K per unit.. say 5 or 6 units for around $100K... i thought the SI-2K's offer of the Fujinon C-mount 5MP lenses was cool... the whole set costed around $2K.. one problem against them that a DP once told me "no no no I won't ever use these security camera lenses"

the two problems I'm thinking of about that great lens format is:

one: the price... they (the whole set) should not exceed the price of the brain.. I know I'm dreaming.. but, I wish for that..

two: there is no zoom lens in the spectrum... so, if you can't get the whole prime set now.. get a zoom then add some primes..

what I thought about RED thoughts is that they wouldn't do that.. coz this would stop selling their 2/3" scarlet with fixed 8x lens..
when scarlet was in the process of change I wrote about making scarlet interchangable lens with the offer to buy that 8X zoom that was optimized for it...
just split the zoom from the body and get the prime options as add-ins...
or Just add some zoom ranges (two or three ranges) so one could get the camera with a zoom then add... as stated above..

having extra options in the lens system such as AutoFocus, Lens Control and most hoped for with CineLenses which is Stabilization.... would be a real rocking thing in such a camera/lens system...

I know that all these extra options would add a lot to the price of the lenses,, but, hoping for a cool technology as ones used for Still DSLR lenses Canon and Nikon... you get zooms with all these options for around $500 per lens...

thanks ,, and hope someone is reading my text...

[combatentropy]

Nothing's wrong with PL Mount, just missing autofocus and control of zoom, iris, focus.

Motor-powered focus and iris are an anathema (motor-powered zoom, however, is useful for smooth zooms).

The added cost and reduced interoperability, to me, far outweigh any benefit of autofocus or autoiris. In fact, there is no benefit, because autofocus and autoiris are always wrong. The first thing I do when I turn on my camera is turn off autofocus and autoiris. It is very frustrating to me that within my budget ($2000-3000), half of the cost of any camera I can afford goes to things I don't need (autofocus, special effects buttons, titling, etc.). They aren't just unnecessary, they're deleterious, because they clutter the interface, making it harder to reliably find the control I do want.

When people talk bluetooth remote, timecode genlock white balance autofocus fancy schmanciness, I can see how deceivingly attractive and cool in a James Bond aesthetic that may seem.

But the fact of the matter is, when work has to be done, to get the shot in the can, all I want and need are three rings on the lens, and on the camera: frame rate and shutter speed. The rest can be done in post. And when you leave off the rest, the three rings are so simple you need not augment them with any fancy schmancy ... oh I'm finished already.

[Jaime Vallés]

The RED mini-primes do indeed look tasty. I can't wait to see what they can do.

[Charles Angus]

But the fact of the matter is, when work has to be done, to get the shot in the can, all I want and need are three rings on the lens, and on the camera: frame rate and shutter speed. The rest can be done in post. And when you leave off the rest, the three rings are so simple you need not augment them with any fancy schmancy ... oh I'm finished already.


Exactly - the one feature film has that I love more than anything is no features. Give me an electronic camera with no features, please. Shutter angle, white balance, frame rate, iso (white balance and iso are optional). Is there anything else a camera needs? Because if there is, I don't know what it is.

edit: sorry to derail, got carried away