Display readout placement

[Jiri Bakala]

Aaaah, since everybody is coming up with all these great ideas, I will share a thought that I've had for a while:

I have been wondering about why the LCD display readout is at the back of the camera, as opposed to the more traditional left side, where it is found on most pro cameras. I think that in this case, sticking to a convention would be better, since it would allow an easier access to the display and its controls, as well as attaching of the Red drive and/or battery directly to the body of the camera. Here are my reasons:

1. As many who shoot mostly documentaries I often work alone or only with a small crew and the ability to check the display during shooting is a nice option. I guess most of that info could be probably superimposed in the VF but things could also get crowded there quickly.

2. The second reason for this is the overall rigidity of the camera, the way it is, two fairly heavy items (the drive and the battery) are not directly attached to the body. This provides for a flexible counterbalance but adds more wires (as opposed to a built-in V mount) and also creates more possibilities for catching things while operating handheld and the drive and batteries coming loose.

3. And third, when there is the need to operate the buttons around the display, isn't the space little too small for a hand to get in between the drive and the back of the camera?

Okay, I do realize that this design inquiry is late in coming and surely won't be implemented, at least not in the near future, but I wanted to share my thoughts on this and hear other people's opinions.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

The additional LCD might be able to solve this issue via the zillions of mounting options available, at least viewing wise, not so sure about the buttons. Future touch screens??

[Ralph Oshiro]

I have been wondering about why the LCD display readout is at the back of the camera, as opposed to the more traditional left side, where it is found on most pro cameras. I think that in this case, sticking to a convention would be better, since it would allow an easier access to the display and its controls, as well as attaching of the Red drive and/or battery directly to the body of the camera.
Yeah, I agree. I too wish the display were on the more-traditional (for ENG/EFP, anyway) left-side. It's probably far too late in the development cycle to change something this significant, however. Remember the first Anton Bauer digital batteries with the fuel gauges on the back of the brick? Then they finally moved the gauges to the left side of the brick, where the operator didn't have to completely up-end the camera to check the gauge. But, given the myriad of design contraints that the RED team must have had to consider, I trust that the designers had some tough decisions, and that this was the best overall solution.

[Finner]

There was a big thread on this a long time ago as a smart side lcd window is something I pushed for. Engineering restraints with the flash memory modules did not allow for it. There is however 2 buttons on the smart side that you can control most of the features with but to view these option windows you would have to look in the evf or the lcd or the lcd on the back of the camera. So in the end RED said this is what they had to do.

[Häakon]

All of the real estate on the right side of the camera is dedicated to the various inputs and outputs of the RED ONE, and the left side is the only place big enough to mount the interchangable flash module / RAW port unit. I think having the status display in the back won't be too big a deal and we'll all get used to it fairly quickly; when the camera is on sticks it's a non-issue, and even when you're operating handheld all of the crucial data will be displayed on the LCD/EVF anyway. I like the design, I think it's rather functional.

[Alexander Nikishin]

After seeing the setup at NAB, this a non-issue for me, there was plenty of elbow room to get in there and work the back lcd even with the RED battery and drive mounted in the rear.

[dalemccready]

I'm going to use the EVF mostly but let the cam assists use the LCD as their side viewable display...Unless I need it of course...Or those pesky directors!

[Stuart English]

Its been discussed before, but the summary of all of this is that the LCD display and joystick are where they are for a reason. Especially when you consider all the various styles of shooting, and the development of wide dynamic range recording options such as 12 bit RAW and 24 bit audio, much of what is "known" about EFP camera design is not relevant, including that LCD / control group placement.

On a film camera the controls and displays are much better located, but with the combination of the same data being shown on the RED-LCD, plus programmable keys on the camera body in that location, I think we have addressed that issue.

So back to EFP work - which is primarily single user, shoulder mount and EVF based. Most of the stuff at the traditional display / control location is Timecode and Audio related. So with RED, as for monitoring that stuff, its in the EVF. As for controlling that stuff its either in the menu system or we can use alternative input surfaces on the camera body or on accessories such as the SuperGrip to give you a better operational experience.

That is the design rational, but your comments are always welcome....

[Michael Hastings]

2. The second reason for this is the overall rigidity of the camera, the way it is, two fairly heavy items (the drive and the battery) are not directly attached to the body.


Its been discussed before, but the summary of all of this is that the LCD display and joystick are where they are for a reason.

I understand that it has been determined that rear is the best place for it, but I wonder if there could be a few hardmount points on the rear below the LCD - i.e. threaded posts or ridges that would extend farther back than the LCD (say four 1/2" or 5/8" diameter posts sticking out an inch or so, with 1/4"-20 threads and it would be nice if they flared out at the base for extra strength and aesthetics) for hard mounting of a battery plate or reddrive or whatever - without having to use the rails. This could also be say two 1/2 wide by an inch and a half or two inches long ridges running vertically below the LCD sticking out an inch or so with 1/4-20s in the face.

The option of the rails is nice but not necessarily all the time, the hard points would be useful and maybe more solid. Think of running with the camera and how unsecure the reddrive and battery would feel on rails. I think I could make a hard mount that would be more solid but would need some place to attach it and would rather not have to drill into the backplate myself.

I could draw this if necessary.

[Finner]

Think of running with the camera and how unsecure the reddrive and battery would feel on rails.

I have had lenses that weigh over 50 pounds alone (pannavision 3 to 1 or hubble as it has been dubbed) that have 95% or more of there weight supported on very long rods. A little battery and reddrive are nothing on a pair of short rods and will be rock solid.



I think I could make a hard mount that would be more solid but would need some place to attach it and would rather not have to drill into the backplate myself.


I think this is the craziest statement I have ever seen on this site.

[Priyesh P.]

I would rather prefer to be able to take the display completely off ( if there is be any possibility to do so ) and just have a little alphanumeric display like on the 435or 16SR3 ( i.e. over the little buttons on the left side of the Red one). The current battery placement looks too extemporanous to me, that could be changed if there would be an optional, cable-connected display, so there is some free space to lock the battery to.

My reference concept is the Arricam system, where you have modular blocks that extends the camera into the "direction" you want to use it (i.e. light mode, studio mode etc.).

If things won´t change, I´ll have to go the old way and operate like I did with the 435 - with a belt pack. The irony btw is that now the latest filmcameras ( xtera, penelope, 235 and 416 ) have a directly attached, compact onboard battery.

[Jiri Bakala]

Just about every camera has a directly attached battery. Yes, I agree, I'd rather not have the display if it's not necessary and have all the assential info in the VF and have tha battery (and) the HD attached directly to the camera.

[Michael Hastings]

Kalone and bakalaj:

You make some good points, look at the train of my last posts on the "NEW design to chew on..." thread.

I don't think we are going to get them to change the LCD position/design but I have been asking for some screw posts attachment points which would at least facilitate the battery mount situation that you mention - but I am getting a fair amount of resistance.


I would rather prefer to be able to take the display completely off ( if there is be any possibility to do so ) and just have a little alphanumeric display like on the 435or 16SR3 ( i.e. over the little buttons on the left side of the Red one). The current battery placement looks too extemporanous to me, that could be changed if there would be an optional, cable-connected display, so there is some free space to lock the battery to.

My reference concept is the Arricam system, where you have modular blocks that extends the camera into the "direction" you want to use it (i.e. light mode, studio mode etc.).

If things won´t change, I´ll have to go the old way and operate like I did with the 435 - with a belt pack. The irony btw is that now the latest filmcameras ( xtera, penelope, 235 and 416 ) have a directly attached, compact onboard battery.

[Priyesh P.]

Kalone and bakalaj:

You make some good points, look at the train of my last posts on the "NEW design to chew on..." thread.

I don't think we are going to get them to change the LCD position/design but I have been asking for some screw posts attachment points which would at least facilitate the battery mount situation that you mention - but I am getting a fair amount of resistance.

Of course you´re right, I wanted to reinforce your statement with mine.
But I think stability issues with the rails won´t be much of a problem, usually they´re really sturdy, just like finner mentioned.
Quite a lot operators in the U.S. even violently guide the camera with their hands on the mattebox, which is connected to the rods(rails). But I still don´t like that idea of a rails based system for those items. Rails/rods are good for several purposes, be it mbs, ff, grips - but not batteries - just look how far that thing stick out when Matt Trembley or Brook used the camera in handheld mode.
I fear we´ll see some Red-related knockouts in the future...

[Paul Hazlett]

hey stuart,

what if the mount for the batteries and drive could swing out or down if you need to get at the lcd better? maybe you thought of that but I thought I would throw it out there anyways.

[Brook Willard]

hey stuart,

what if the mount for the batteries and drive could swing out or down if you need to get at the lcd better? maybe you thought of that but I thought I would throw it out there anyways.

They already can! That little piece that the drive and battery are mounted on has two hinges... to swing out, down, whatever you please. I believe it'll be tightened with thumbscrews.

Remember, that battery/drive mount doesn't have to be mounted on the back. If you find it inconvenient, just move it to wherever it works best for you! In the renders it's generally mounted to a little 19mm bridge plate.

I've attached a picture where the drive/battery are slung a bit lower. Obviously this is just one of an infinite number of locations for these parts... using the old rail design.

[Paul Hazlett]

well see that!! great minds think alike!..hehe

there is your answer for access to the lcd.

I think the batteries need to be back there for counter balance and the
abillity to swing away is very handy.

Thanks for the pic Brook!

[Michael Hastings]

Hear's my response to finner on the other thread:

Before I get started let me quote from another user:



But I think stability issues with the rails won´t be much of a problem, usually they´re really sturdy, just like finner mentioned.
Quite a lot operators in the U.S. even violently guide the camera with their hands on the mattebox, which is connected to the rods(rails). But I still don´t like that idea of a rails based system for those items. Rails/rods are good for several purposes, be it mbs, ff, grips - but not batteries - just look how far that thing stuck out when Matt Trembley or Brook used the camera in handheld mode.

I fear we´ll see some Red-related knockouts in the future...

So let me say upfront: I already said I will definitely be getting the rails as well, but I think there is some use to other configurations. Besides the points I will get to, I also feel the way kalone does: that the rails with battery and drive are a bit klugey for some situations. I've shot a lot of different things such as shooting in the confined areas of a bus, airplane, or boat; underneath the basket at NBA games; in large crowds; climbing the near vertical steps at Chitzen Itza (try getting in there with a cine-kitted RED without permits and major bribes); etc. where it would be a major hassle to have all that hanging behind you. I don't have the perfect answer, I just know that there are a number of things that would be facilitated by having four threaded screw mount points - I'll call them nubs - on the back just like they have on both sides.

Let me respond to your post point by point - and remember, I appreciate all of your input - so this is just friendly conversation among REDlovers.





Yes, and the lens was hardmount attached to the camera at the PL mount - a 3 point attachment which means the rods can't flex unless you pull the mount loose. Look maybe the rods are plenty solid, but that isn't an example that should convince anyone.


Yes it should convince everyone as a PL mount holds very little weight. The key here is the rods are very long and don't miss the point that the lense weighs over 50 (five, zero) pounds. Also there is a 6x6 matte box at the end of the end of the very long rods rods often with filters in them and weighs a lot. Simple point here "Rods are bomber".

My real point there was you have 3 point attachment which is generally more solid and secure than two points. (see my ebay ad for the twopod I bought that never seemed to work right. :biggrin:) Second, OK, I'm convinced the rods are strong and solid for everything up to hooking up the trailer hitch for the boat. But one of the things I really like about the RED is that you can strip it down to be very compact (unlike say an F900) without the baseplate, shoulder pad, etc. And I would just like the same kind of screw mount holes on the back as on the sides - I think they would be useful for some things.



But what specifically is so crazy - that I might be able to make a more solid hard mount or that I would consider drilling and tapping into the backplate?





What is crazy is that you would drill into your brand new camera and void the warranty to do something that is completely unnessasary.

That is exactly what I am trying to avoid by requesting simple built up mount holes on the back like on the sides that would add maybe 1/2 an ounce to the weight and another 90 seconds or so on the CNC machine.



virtually every ENG/EFP style broadcast camera has a V-mount or Anton Bauer mount plate screwed - i.e. hardmounted - to the back chassis of the camera and it is very solid.


Virtually every eng/efp camera including varicams and f900's are built like fisher price kids toys in comparison to cine cameras (I am not saying that HD cameras do a bad job but they are built with plastic that wobbles and bends and breaks 10x easier then a film camera.). I am not sure if you were at NAB but I assume not by what you are concerned with. Trust me this camera is built around a structure and cassing that is rock solid and that goes for the way all the accessories attatch as well.

I was at NAB and spent at least two hours on 2 separate days going through it, got my picture taken with Jim, spent an hour (just listening mostly) in the conversation with Jim and Vince Pace about 3D and with the DP from the Peter Jackson film, etc. so I am pretty dialed in on what it is.

Although I think most of the better broadcast cameras have diecast metal chassis, you are right that they are flimsy compared to the solidity of RED, but, in addition to the 4 pin XLR power input, they do also have a way to mount the battery in a very solid and fairly compact way. I think the threaded screw "nubs" might allow some options for the same.

One possibility for shoulder use would be to simply have a flat plate say 3" wide by 10 inches long attached to those nubs with the V Plate mounted at the bottom (maybe bent outward slightly) so the battery was below the level of the camera sticking out only 2 inches from the back of your shoulder blade so my NBA/crowd/plane cam doesn't do the RED knockout everytime I turn. Just one example of something that would be a lot easier to implement with my backplate "REDNUBS" - even if you were using front rails for lens motors, matte box, etc.



Also, most of the rail attachments use squeeze/friction fittings to hold stuff on which is okay and easy to adjust and also easier to come loose - some situations work better with nice solid screws.


The squeeze friction hold of a properly mounted rod is bomber. I would trust it far over the screw of a plastic body sony or panasonic any day.

I would trust it over a screw in plastic too, but I think there are certain things that would be better hard (screw) mounted to the REDNUBS - on the solid body of the RED. If it was a big technical or economic challenge then maybe it wouldn't be worth it, but again we are talking 90 seconds or so of CNC time. If it helps I will pay for the extra CNC time for the first 250 cameras which would get past my #206, and then either RED could absorb the future ones or make a small change to the CNC Program. (PS If necessary to control the cost they could leave the holes untapped and those of us who want it can tap it ourselves.)



I think I understand what you mainly want and that is a shorter camera for underwater housings. I have done quite a few underwater gigs and just finished an underwater music video last month. With 35mm cameras there is no direct mount for the batteries so we just velcro them to the place that helps balance the housing best. This will be an advantage of what you can do with the drive and battery and because everything moves so smooth in water the velcro holds fine..

No, actually length is the easiest thing to deal with it for the housing - side to side/up down is more critical for keeping the volume down. We are more interested in keeping to the base configuration and eliminating the base plate and rails since the mountplate of the housing takes the place of the rails/shoulder pad baseplate.

You're right, Velcro is great stuff. But it would be nice to have the option of not having multiple things mounted in multiple places which makes installation and removal much easier - particularly on a bouncing boat and in situations where you don't have an extra camera for the topside. Not a deal breaker if it wasn't possible to have the little threaded nubs on the RED but since I can't see how the nubs causes other significant problems and they are cheap why not. Let me turn it around - why not eliminate the nubs on the top corners - they aren't absolutely necessary and we could just VELCRO any knick knacks we need up there - or if you want something really solid I have some large stainless steel screw clamps that would mount the rails, handle, or anything else.


I went through the form fit and function of the camera mechanics at NAB and it is ROCK solid so don't worry.

I agree the form, fit, and function are all ROCK solid in the configurations they showed. I just think there might be situations where something could be screwed onto the nubs on the back of the camera and be useful.

The RED is supposed to be modular - presumably to allow multiple configurations and therefore greater utility. But greater utility isn't always achieved by adding stuff in multiple layers i.e. having to have the base plate or the baseplate and rear rails to get something mounted. My suggestion is that a little forethought in adding 4 more small nubs that have almost no downside could add substantial utility for a number of users, and it is even possible that they might be useful for something even if you had the rails. Again, maximize the potential with minimal downside.

New input:


Put the battery on your belt or in your cargo pants pocket for the lightest, most compact camera config...

Jim


Of course putting the battery in your pocket is a solution - but is it the only or best - I thought I gave up that style of shooting when I sold the BVU150. I am not talking only about the battery or even any one specific situation - again, it is the overall utility that I think could be enhanced with minimal cost or downside. REDNUBBERS UNITE! :biggrin:

Who is this Jannard guy anyway? :biggrin: :biggrin:




Evin: That's two biggrins. Please don't ban me.

[Brook Willard]

well see that!! great minds think alike!..hehe

there is your answer for access to the lcd.

I think the batteries need to be back there for counter balance and the
abillity to swing away is very handy.

Thanks for the pic Brook!

They don't need to be back there for counterbalance... it's just the way we set it up that day. I put the LCD on this side with the FF backwards because that's where I prefer to have my AC [I also didn't have the extra knob to allow for pulling from this side... so switching it around made the most sense]. The LCD could go anywhere... as could the EVF... and battery... drive... etc.

It's really amazing how quickly and easily the entire system can be reconfigured to suit one's own taste. It looks like the new rail system will give us even more options... with a few pounds shaved off to boot.

As far as I can tell, the display won't be something that needs to be accessed all the time. Even with the battery and drive snug against it, it's only a thumbscrew or two away from being fully accessible. As far as I can tell, the most important and commonly accessed features can be adjusted from the EVF, LCD or smart side of the camera. Remember, the EVF and LCD have interface controls on them! [I'm not sure if they're limited controls or complete controls, but there sure are buttons on them...]

Anyhoo. It's pretty nifty. I wouldn't be too concerned about the onboard screen's placement.