Red Cage Suggestions.....

[Alexander Nikishin]

This is definitely last minute so forgive me for being late with these thoughts, but this is something that has been on my mind since the day I saw the original cage design.

The Red Cage is meant to:

-Create mounting points
-Give it's operators/handlers a place to grab onto

But in its practicality, it only works for mounting points, and added protection at the cost of added weight.

With all due respect to Matt Tremblay, I think he has it all wrong with his statement on wanting to, "evolve the way cinematographer's ineract with their camera".

He explains that there are two ways to handle a camera being the top handle and the pan/tilt bar of the head. Further he explains that you can also pan and tilt with the Red Cage handles, and they allow for an operator to operate from the front of the camera as well.

Well, the only way a camera op. operates a camera when on sticks & head is with the one and only pan/tilt bar. There is no reason to operate the camera with the cage handles, nor will there be a reason to in the future.

The pan and tilt bar is the direct connection to the tripod head and allows for the most control and manageability of any handling option. So for controlling the camera when on a tripod head, the cage handles are useless.

Are the cage handles usefull for handheld work? No, that's what the front end grip handles are for.

The thing that the cage handles do well though is first off, they create mounting points for the EVF/LCD, which I love, and secondly, give the camera a bit more protection when being handled by AC's and Grips.

If your AC or Grips are handling the camera so poorly that they need a roll cage on the camera, that is just plain sad and they don't deserve their job. Considering that the cage handles add a couple lbs. of weight to the cage, they are in my opinion, (in their current state of design) dead weight.

Now for the solution.....

Let's take the cage's strong points and build on that modularity and flexibility.

Create cage handles that add an abundace of mounting points, give the camera a bit of protection, and cut down on weight in comparison with the current design.

The new handles could be as simple and practical as flat aluminum bent to a half-moon shape with 1/4 20 holes. This will not only cut down on weight drastiacally, but still retain the mounting points, act as handles and add a sort of roll cage like protection for the Red One.

As for the new handgrip cage handles, they do even less than the old handles and once again add weight with little to no useability.

The good thing about the new handle is the top mounts. But, thinking modular and flexible once again, let's sepserare that top mount and have it be independent of all other pieces. Save weight, save space and allow for more flexibilty.

[Clayton Harper]

Semi-agree. I had planned on taking off those silly cage handles but there are advantages to them.

In the youtube video with Matt he shows the handles being a barrier to the camera resting on the ground/floor etc. I think there maybe other applications/uses/benefits we don't perceive yet. I am willing to give them a chance.

That being said, I would LOVE to see some quarter 20 mounting holes on a side bar that attaches to the top/bottom red rails. Mebbe, this could be a part we buy in the future.

I think we have more flexibility to add parts going forward than it currently may seem like. This design is pretty damn open and as long as it doesn't weigh a shitload, the skys the limit.

[Alexander Nikishin]

In the youtube video with Matt he shows the handles being a barrier to the camera resting on the ground/floor etc. I think there maybe other applications/uses/benefits we don't perceive yet. I am willing to give them a chance.

An additional 4 or so lbs. isn't worth having the ability to rest the camera on the ground.



That being said, I would LOVE to see some quarter 20 mounting holes on a side bar that attaches to the top/bottom red rails. Mebbe, this could be a part we buy in the future.

Why not just do away with the current handles then? I've yet to find a real reason to use the handles besides mounting points.



I think we have more flexibility to add parts going forward than it currently may seem like. This design is pretty damn open and as long as it doesn't weigh a shitload, the skys the limit.

I think that's the whole problem, it does way a considerable amount more than I along with many people expected. Hence the need for weight reduction.

The one comment that I continue to remember about Matt's demo of the cage system at NAB is, "why don't you just use the pan handle?"

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I only agree with some of Alexander's points... I was excited over the cage handles. I can think of oddball situations where they could really come in useful. Most of the time they wouldn't be on the camera and the configuration would probably be very light -- similar to this latest update render. I also liked the older cage concept where the handles were curved metal with multiple mount points. As far as I can tell, this is what Alexander is suggesting when he speaks of bending them to a half-moon shape with 1/4 20 HOLES. And the top mount holes are not new.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I also liked the older cage concept where the handles were curved metal with multiple mount points. As far as I can tell, this is what Alexander is suggesting when he speaks of bending them to a half-moon shape with 1/4 20 HOLES. And the top mount holes are not new.

The original design had those curved aluminum pieces with mount points didn't it? That was perfect, it wasn't as pretty, but from a practical standpoint, that design was very efficient.

The top mount isn't new but I think it's a mistake adding them onto the handle vs. them being an independent part.

[Alexander Nikishin]

This is a very old rendering from the DVXuser days so please disregard everything aside from the cage handles themselves. These handles take on a much lighter and versatile design. BTW, the rendering is courtesy of CVB, thanks Curt. :biggrin:

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4215/red4mn9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Here is a picture of the old cage design (http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/24/big-red-one-digicam-that-is-debuts-at-nab/). (Via engadget / FXguide has the same pic in their archives) Somewhere I had some pics or link to some more of the stuff from NAB '06, but I don't know what I did with it at the moment.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Thanks Jeff, that's the one I was looking for.

[Brook Willard]

- I liked the old 4 handle cage ala "X-fighter" better

You can still do that with new handles that attach to the rods.

It sounds to me like they already have 19mm "cage" handles like in Curt's old render.

[Alexander Nikishin]

It sounds to me like they already have 19mm "cage" handles like in Curt's old render.

You sure? I interperted his statement as, you can take two of the new handle grips and create the same configuration as the previous one had? Hmm.

[Brook Willard]

Eh, not worth speculating about. They said that more renders are on their way.

[Jannard]

You sure? I interperted his statement as, you can take two of the new handle grips and create the same configuration as the previous one had? Hmm.

It appears that our biggest mistake is posting only one configuration. If you are unhappy after we post more... I'll be shocked.

Jim

[Moir]

Well, the only way a camera op. operates a camera when on sticks & head is with the one and only pan/tilt bar. There is no reason to operate the camera with the cage handles, nor will there be a reason to in the future.

This isn't always the case. I mostly shoot with a 300mm lens on a 1/3 inch sensor camera (with 7.2x times crop factor) and it is very difficult to use the pan/tilt bar without introducing camera shake: way too much leverage.

I typically hold the rear base of the rail assembly with my left hand and have my right hand on the underside of the lens barrel. Much more control this way.

I do, of course, acknowledge that I represent a tiny minority of users, but the point is that there are probably very few "only one way to do it" situations, and having more options rather than just one is surely a good thing.

[Alexander Nikishin]

It appears that our biggest mistake is posting only one configuration. If you are unhappy after we post more... I'll be shocked.

Jim

I look forward to seeing the others Jim, you've yet to let me down. :wink:

[Sam Druckerman]

Are the cage handles usefull for handheld work? No, that's what the front end grip handles are for.


Hey Alexander, you might consider this....

One thing about the cage at NAB that was really cool......

I just happened to see a fellow getting a demo from Matt, I believe.... Anyway the guy grabbed a Red that had the full cage, lens, lcd, evf, and the battery mounted.... maybe a MB too, I'm not sure.... He used the cage handles and pulled the camera (battery made contact) into his chest and then down near his waist doing hand held moves at his chest, lower abs, and upper legs with the top handle. He used a forward handle on one side and a rear handle on the other and it was really stable.

That was a light bulb moment for me because I hadn't made the "fig rig" connection with the cage handles until I saw this guy pulling those moves.

I think the cage really has a lot of possibilities for unconventional hand held.

That said, he was pretty big (strong) guy.... so I'm really glad to hear the cage is loosing weight.

[Paul Hazlett]

that is truly a "light bulb" moment. I had not thought of that either. those handles may well present some new ways to do handheld. especially with the
lcd mounted on top.

By the way anyone know the angle of view of the lcd. some of them have a
short range if you are not directly in front.

[tj williams]

If you drop the camera off a ladder with a cage onto a wood or carpeted floor and drop the second camera without cage then the damage will be approximately equal. First according to Williams first theorem the camera will fall lens down breaking the lens and bending the pl mount. The cage will not prevent this. Second the camera will fall at 32ft pr second per second so the impact to the floor will be the same. The High G moment of impact inside the camera will be the same since there is little or no give in the frame. If the fall is sufficient to break parts inside the camera or knock them loose then it will occur in both cameras. The only advantage of the frame is that the frame will have the scuff mark not the camera body. In summary Roll cages only work in race cars. If you want protection for the camera from drops then place the camera in a flexible outer protection like a flexible cage or maybe an air bag.

[Alexander Nikishin]

lol, thank you for the details on what not to do with your Red One TJ.

[Joe Aurili]

And that's why I don't like the idea of renting out the camera... ;)


If you drop the camera off a ladder with a cage onto a wood or carpeted floor and drop the second camera without cage then the damage will be approximately equal. First according to Williams first theorem the camera will fall lens down breaking the lens and bending the pl mount. The cage will not prevent this. Second the camera will fall at 32ft pr second per second so the impact to the floor will be the same. The High G moment of impact inside the camera will be the same since there is little or no give in the frame. If the fall is sufficient to break parts inside the camera or knock them loose then it will occur in both cameras. The only advantage of the frame is that the frame will have the scuff mark not the camera body. In summary Roll cages only work in race cars. If you want protection for the camera from drops then place the camera in a flexible outer protection like a flexible cage or maybe an air bag.

[Poi Boy]

Down with that, I won't be renting.
Aloha
-A

[dalemccready]

what if the camera gets away from you and rolls down a hill?! the cage could come in real handy then :)

Not knocking the cage, just thought it funny to consider it's crash testiness. I don't plan on dropping any camera and wouldn't employ a cam assist who did.

I'm looking forward to more renders, if only to give me something new to look at every time I open this forum.

[tj williams]

no one expects to drop a camera. yet cameras do fall if you stay at it long enough. just thought it was funny to consider the hope of the camera surviving the fall, as it seems to me they never do. Still the aluminum body is better than the Sony F900 plastic body????

[dalemccready]

Yeah totally TJ.

Some years ago on a DigiBeta series best left to obscurity the DP and other Op and I were standing around the monitors discussing the set-up.

We all started to lean a little left before realising that one of the cameras was starting to fall over. Sadly it was about 20 metres away. The lockoff on the freshly cleaned (and silicon sprayed by the new camera assist) Ronford legs had slipped on one leg.

Too late we arrived as it crashed to the ground and in the process landed on the steel 15mm rods that were sticking proud of the matte box. They took the brunt of the damage, the only other visible damage being 2 screws at the base of the camera body that fired themselves right out of the body, landing a few meters away!