So, let's say ACs prefer D21 over R1, what would you like to see in the Epic?

[Gunleik Groven]

There are quite a few ACs that don't like the R1, but rather would have a "proper" cam like the D21.
This is very much actualised with the current Epic v Alexa debacle.

I am not so much interested in the excuses and workarounds we know are possible, more like:

What do we need to see in an Epic setup to make ACs comfortable?
(Nope, this is not an "image quality discussion" but more like "what makes a really nice tool usefull" discussion...)

I know some complaints, but curious about what people really need, to make them happy with the Epic system.

Cheers!

Gunleik

[Matthew Rogers]

Why does it matter for an AC? 99% of their job is to switch lenses and pull focus. Not sure how the RED really changes that for them?

Matthew

[Gunleik Groven]

I just hear it a lot. Not from DPs or post people, but ACs.

[A. Clint Litton]

A large portion of an AC's job prior to swapping lenses and pulling focus is building the camera, integrating it into a production in an efficient, straightforward way. Granted, some of the complaints I've heard about the Red from various ACs over the past 1.5 years have seemed nit-picky, but there have been plenty of issues stemming from an overall lack of integration with already existing industry standards that has forced a number of workarounds to be implemented. Sometimes you get to a point where you ask, "why did they choose to do it this way?"

As AC's, they're arguably handling the camera more than anyone else on set, so they are in a good position to know what works well, what doesn't work at all, and what works, well, sort-of...

That Arri has been around for the better part of a century doesn't necessarily make them the definitive source on how to build cameras, but you have to admit, they've managed to integrate their camera systems and support items fairly well...no need to reinvent the wheel every time.

All that said, for a young company doing this for the first time, they did a pretty damn fine job, and I think the DSMC system will blow the competition from multiple categories out of the water. Making that DSMC fit into existing workflows and support setups more easily and efficiently will only help to champion the cause...

[Erik Franzén]

I've never seen RED be unclear about why they chose to go with a particular system though, so in the end I wonder how many did any actual any research on the camera they were going to be an AC for? And exactly what was so bad about it?

I seriously want to know where RED is going against the stream -- is the XLR inputs I've been hearing no end about? Inputs? Outputs? RAW recording?
It's the kind of thing you need to know if you're the guy who has been touting RED on your own production long enough to make everyone else laugh and resign to the fact that we're shooting on the RED M-X and nothing else.
(P.S. Yeah, that was me )

[PaulClements]

Perhaps it's a question of many of these AC's being brought up on Film with the intention of going on to be cinematographers at some point of their career and are now witnessing a sea change towards digital that means they will no longer get to be a DoP on features shot using film? The D21 didn't really change the market. It just gave another option. Red on the other hand did because it put professional quality imaging in the hands of those who hadn't necessarily worked for 15 years getting up the ladder. That's the main reason people dislike it. Because it represents change that many didn't want to be changed and represents a shift in skill sets and the amount of people that in the next few years would be capable at competing with them for work. That and the fact the Red's so bloody sharp and high resolution that out of focus shots stand out more!!!

I could be wrong. I often am ;)

Paul

[David Mullen ASC]

As Clint mentioned, the AC's spend more time using the camera than anyone else, so of course their input and opinion matters, even though they are often brought onboard after the decision has been made by the DP, director, producers as to which camera to use. But they have to bear the brunt of that decision.

The design of the camera affects an AC's speed and efficiency, and since time is money on a movie set, that's no insignificant matter.

However, as I am not an AC, I can't speak for one and tell you the specifics of one camera over another... but I'm sure Brook Willard can...

As a DP, one of things I've noticed is the need for an awful lot of add-ons to the Red One, breakout boxes for video and power mainly, plus all the stuff that every AC wants or needs to slap on the camera. I hope some of that stuff can be integrated into the EPIC. I mean, on my last Red show, we had a small box made by Fletcher attached whose only function was to power the lens light I think. So I would think an AC would like more power output options in the right spots, and regular BNC outs for monitors, etc.

Though this may be one of the downsides to modularity, the need to use more accessories. You design more options and outputs into the camera body, and it gets bigger and less re-configurable. You design less into the camera, and it gets smaller but you end up with so many attachments that it gets bigger again, takes more time to set-up, and looks like a Radio Shack threw up on your camera...

The sharpness of the monitor image is just an issue with all digital cinema cameras, and the shallower depth of field of 35mm sensors only makes focusing harder and misfocus more obvious, I don't think that is a Red issue, AC's have dealt with that on Genesis, F35, etc. shows.

And I don't think it's an issue of AC's have to deal more often with inexperienced DP's because of the Red, that's sort of a different issue entirely. The issue is really the camera and whether it is efficiently designed and robust enough for production.

I think there are two sides of this though: one is that AC's are used to ARRI and Panavision designs (and now Sony) so there is the issue of familiarity. The other though are legitimate questions as to whether the Red One could have been designed better for an AC's needs. So half the complaints are unwarranted but some should be listened to.

[Jay Gannon]

I think if your an AC these days you should be well versed in anything the DP could choose to work with.

[Drew Suppa]

Iit's the AC who's touching and manipulating the camera the most, and I have to agree with Clint and David with their respective stances: the lines have been blurred for IATSE cameramen as to who can do what to the camera and image and when, so this confusion has lead to 1st ACs having to learn the menu operations for cameras on certain shoots.

This gets especially confusing when you are a traditional Focus Puller with the majority of your experience being with film; in the past, such an AC may have had to calibrate or swap a video assist unit or set a wireless follow focus, where as today they are expected to that plus much more before even delving into the menu functions of the camera itself.

RED's menu interface is not the easiest to understand to a beginner, and if one has more experience with Sony/Panavision's Operations and Paint settings, I can see where complaints may arise.

Then again, this could simply be the case of the "old timer versus youngster", but the technology in the new age of this business is constantly changing, and can become confusing even to those more experienced than most.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I agree that you must listen to AC's, but I feel a lot of the noise on RED is just noise. People who don't see value in their core competency and are afraid that some technologist will displace them.

I'm not an AC anymore, but I've AC'd my RED (with my AC as operator) and I've had to do the one man band thing on RED. I've also worked with film cameras (Mostly ARRI) and other dcinema cameras. (I'm definitely a digital guy, my film experience is more limited than I'd like)

RED is not more or less complicated than the other cameras. Yes you may well end up with the RED looking like "Radio Shack threw up on it" (and thank you for that stunningly accurate image David). You can end up with the same spaghetti mess on a 435 though.

That said RED is not a complicated camera to work with. Its very easy. They all are - provided you have not learned your job by rote. If you are an AC that understands the system properly- be it film or digital- you have very little trouble moving from one camera to the next. Any camera you work with that is new, to you at any rate, has its annoyances. Every time I work on a new camera system I get ticked off at something, and I find something else interesting or cool.

I don't think much of the technical aspects of the 1AC's job. There is a lot of material, but its easy material. Its not what I value. A good 1AC on film will be a good 1AC on digital- the camera matters very little to the core competency.

What I value in 1AC is the ability to pull focus and learn complicated moves and cues quickly. I value their ability to contribute creatively and to make the operator better at their job. I see the result of that as ultimately enabling me, as DP, able to turn in better work. What I expect them to learn is composition and camera operation. I expect them to learn, by observation, lighting and crew management. In other words they should learn to be a DP. I expect them to teach the 2AC the 1AC job, and make sure the 2AC is teaching their juniors the 2AC job.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but I find that makes the kind of people I like to hire happy. It keeps them sane, focused and efficient.

As a disclaimer, I was an actual rocket scientist... so maybe I'm not the best person to judge what's easy.