New Rod standards

[Jason Sinclair]

I know the thought will give quite a few of you headaches but reality is persistent.

It seems to me the current rod standards are not ideal in a number of ways.

For the sake of dreaming and forgetting trying to keep your value on arri merchandise that has been purchased, i'd like input on the following:

If you were to design a rod system specifically for the epic and had the ability to forget all previous designs how would you do it?

Equipment is getting smaller, namely the camera but also the accessories. Rods on traditional systems have been designed for cameras which have been all different shapes.

Considering the modular shape of the epic brain and the ability to put rods just about anywhere (not just on a bridge plate) and considering you wanted to design a system with less materials (with the aim of a lighter load) and stronger connection point, where would you place the rails?

Are round rails even suited? Would it be better to have dovetail rails which might have better sliding and clamping abilities as well as being more slimline?

How would you design the most lightweight, strong, versatile rail system standard just for dsmc's and why?

[Stephen Strangways]

I think RED is already moving in this direction by adopting the NATO accessory rail standard on the RED Gunner.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Accessory_Rail

[Jason Sinclair]

I think there may be some confusion as that may be a support bracket at the bottom for bi pods, mono pods etc.. I'm talking about current 15 and 19mm rods in particular for follow focus, mattebox, etc... Picatinny is good but i haven't seen any really good quick release systems which would give it a comparison to rod setups or potential similar dual rail systems.

[Greg M]

It seems to me the current rod standards are not ideal in a number of ways.

what makes them not ideal?

[Jeff Coatney]

Dovetail plates are a good idea, but they will interfere with the larger front elements in some lenses.

[Yaque Silva-Doyle]

The currant system has been refined through over ninety years of film making. It has the beauty of simplicity in design; the perfect combination of function and reliability. It is the very root for a modular system that every single respected product manufacturers has adapted. It is the pinnacle of tried and true. Why would you change it?

[Tim Whitcomb]

All I know is unless it comes from Arri, then its not a good idea. They are the GOLD standard for this stuff and not one manufacturer has come close to matching the buikd quality and reliability. Not even O'Connors latest foray into FF.

If it aint broke, dont fix it. Im actually going back to the OLD school 15mm offset, it just makes sense.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I agree with Tim, but for one exception -- 15mm offset is starting to make less sense moving into the digital era. It's the long-standing preference for Hollywood and in many markets, but it makes a lot more sense to keep the rods equally spaced in relation to the optical axis. Hence the newer Arriflex 19mm standard. I think the 19mm standard is the way to go on the RED One -- unless you're in a market that is dominated by 15mm offset or have tons of existing 15mm offset gear to support.

For the Epic/Scarlet, the 15mm light-weight spec makes the most sense. Reserve the 19mm rods for using larger lenses and mattebox configurations. It seems as if 15mm lightweight will be just perfect for most uses and the preferred choice for a lot of EPIC/Scarlet shooters.

[Jason Sinclair]

what makes them not ideal?

Well, the rods, their sizing and the distance from the lens are all a result of being modular for dinosaur cameras. It is appearing quickly that Epic and dsmc's in general are leading a new benchmark. It is just smart engineering that when you drop the camera weight by 70% you also follow through with everything else.

#1 do we really need 19mm poles anymore? In this day and age of manufacturing, they don't need to carry the tons of weight they use to.
The weight in the poles are dead weight which in reality, in film, unnecessary weight in camera set ups that does not need to be there is IMHO just not thinking straight. Can we even consider now 12mm poles?

which goes onto:

#2 The distance from the poles to the lens just means you add more weight in the support bracket. Why not bring the poles closer to the lens now we have a modular system? By having the poles closer to the lens also means a lot stronger connection. So you get less weight and a stronger connection. The accessory will also slide better because it matches the center of gravity. To me that is more ideal.

I personally think 15mm even spaced or 12mm even spaced to the side of the lens is good. (similar to the red gunner setup)

The reason dovetails are used in tripod plates is because they slide better than poles. Also they are a lot more slim line and they are sturdier mating. I think poles for their weight are stronger all round (excuse the pun) because of the nature of the geometry. This is obviously important when extending poles and having weights dangling off them.

I just think there are room for improvements and if a few industry people got together and talked about the possibilities, they would create a pretty good system, even if for a steadicam/portable rig set up.

The currant system has been refined through over ninety years of film making. It has the beauty of simplicity in design

Just think of it as further refinement.

[Pawel Achtel]

Support rods are to support the lens. The weight of the camera is somewhat irrelevant. Large lens requires large support.

But it is not just the weight. It is the wind and vibrations. Have you shot with a 300+mm lens outdoors?

I have recently gone 19mm solid titanium rods to support large, long lenses. It's pretty solid :)