interesting doubt: user interchangeable lens mounts

[filmmaker1977]

ex. PL mount to nikon mount and vice versa..

a guy called dale mccready posted it..

greg lowry properly asked at

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=543413&postcount=25

jim? red team?

[evinsky]

They will be available, how easy they interchange is another issue.

[Beatrice Palicka]

I've been thinking about this issue for some time now. The PL mount has a flange focal distance of 52 mm. The Aaton 35mm handholdable camera's ff distance is 40 mm. Panavision, Arri PL or Aaton mounted lenses can be installed. The Aaton mount, because it has the shortest flange focal distance, can receive almost all the best still lenses, like the Leica R, Nicon and Canon. The newer Aaton cameras come with exchaneable lens mounts, but the co. recommends those be done at a service facility as lens seating errors of as little as 0.01 mm will cause focus problems. I'm hoping that Red will come up with an user friendly interchangeable lens mount system that would ensure a proper lens seating and would be durable enough for frequent use.

[Anders Holck]

Here is the most popular mounts:
http://www.andersholck.com/Picture1.png

From the pictures it seems that changing mounts comes down to unscrewing 8 long hex screws:
http://www.andersholck.com/Picture2.png

Regarding the precision, I can't really see why there should be a difference between mounting the flange in a PL mount and changing the mount. Same problem with the precision and tolerances, and lenses are mounted many times a day.

[Jannard]

They will be available, how easy they interchange is another issue.

Very easy. The Trick is to have the base to intermediate mount distance set at the factory and leave enough room for all possible mounts. More details pretty soon.

jim

[Beatrice Palicka]

Jim, I'm glad to hear that. Congratulations on the IBC screening. I'm hope you've enjoyed your stay in Prague, the city where I was born. I'm looking forward to the Red screening in the LA area.

Bea

[razamalik]

way to go... excellent news

[Lowkus]

Seems like 8 screws is overkill for the mount. Any chance it could be whittled down to only 4 or 6 screws?

[mike the beginner]

Seems like 8 screws is overkill for the mount. Any chance it could be whittled down to only 4 or 6 screws?


Ah the engineer in me says no. When you deal with fine tolerences such as a base plate flange (as an example) having four screws would probably be fine until one of those screws lets you down. When that happens your screwed so to speak. Red are becoming incredibly skilful at some of these finer points that make anything you build last longer than others. Eight screws might be a pain if you have to change mounts but if in your rush to change you crossthread one of the screws you have plenty to keep things tight and secure.

Michael

[Jarred Land]

Seems like 8 screws is overkill for the mount. Any chance it could be whittled down to only 4 or 6 screws?

ill take 8 thank you very much :) A lens mount needs to be completely solid, there can be a tremendous amount of pressure on that mount as well, along with temperature bulging etc. Since its not cast.. i dont want it to move around. at all.

Plus.. i dont expect to change my mount really that much anyways.

[filmmaker1977]

good advice jarred..

but i don't follow..



first, jim said
Very easy. The Trick is to have the base to intermediate mount distance set at the factory and leave enough room for all possible mounts. More details pretty soon.

jim..it's easy.



however, lowkus returns back to the screws..
Seems like 8 screws is overkill for the mount. Any chance it could be whittled down to only 4 or 6 screws?..are they important in order to change the mounts?.. isn't there any other suitable method to the job during a shooting?.. easier?.. isn't it what jim is speaking about?



and both of you mike
Ah the engineer in me says no. When you deal with fine tolerences such as a base plate flange (as an example) having four screws would probably be fine until one of those screws lets you down. When that happens your screwed so to speak. Red are becoming incredibly skilful at some of these finer points that make anything you build last longer than others. Eight screws might be a pain if you have to change mounts but if in your rush to change you crossthread one of the screws you have plenty to keep things tight and secure.

Michaeland jarred
ill take 8 thank you very much :) A lens mount needs to be completely solid, there can be a tremendous amount of pressure on that mount as well, along with temperature bulging etc. Since its not cast.. i dont want it to move around. at all.

Plus.. i dont expect to change my mount really that much anyways...are you talking about like jim didn't post what he posted?



this is a sensitive point that we should enlight.. is it or not viable to change mounts between shots?




thx

[Anders Holck]

I think this says it all:
http://red.com/images/gallery/video.jpg
Might be 8 screws, might be some sort of universal bayonet.
Both are technically possible, but the latter much more expensive, and needs much more testing to prove it really is durable enough.
As soon as something like a bayonet is introduced more users will change mounts much more frequently and therefore accellerate the wear of the connection.

In a practical shooting situation I really don't think I would want to be changing mounts on set.
Until the Red zoom is released I think I'll rent a Zeiss prime kit for productions with a budget and, depending on the price of the mount, use my Nikon AI primes for productions without one.

[mike the beginner]

..are they important in order to change the mounts?.. isn't there any other suitable method to the job during a shooting?.. easier?.. isn't it what jim is speaking about?


Hi Filmmaker, here is what i think, bearing in mind my very limited knowledge of cameras!

The reason we need different mounts in the first place is to do with the distance from the lens to the sensor of each different mount. A few mounts might share the same distance required for the lens to operate properly. I think the easy part Red was talking about is to make the distance between the actual red body and where the sensor is positioned a specific distance that allows as much variance in the different mounts so as they all work properly. Some of the mounts are as i understand very close indeed to the sensor. I am not sure if the lenses for that particular lens mount matter or if it is a combination of the mount and lens. Anyway as i see it red have to make sure the body relative to the sensor is set at a suitable distance that gives plenty of leeway for different mounts with different distances to the sensor all fit.

As for the mounts themselves, that is what i was refering to with the eight screws. When you deal with tolerances of .0001" you have to make sure each mount is properly aligned and seating properly as well as being tight. With just four screws if one of them gets crossthreaded you may have a problem that requires fixing. With eight screws there is plenty of leeway, we can all make mistakes when under pressure. I dont know anything about mounts myself but there are materials that should fit the bill nicely and i have no doubt red will have that sourced already.

Some mounts may have to be inverted inwards towards the sensor which could pose a problem. The optional mounts might well vary in price depending on the work involved in making them work properly. It is remarkable that red are even considering doing the mounts themselves. This is far better for all of us as the mounts will be made with the right material and machined exactly to do the job. That man Jannard does not do things in half measures, the mounts from red WILL be excellent.

I could be talking absolute rubbish, no doubt someone either from red or wherever will put me right.

Michael

[Laco]

And what about changing sensor position?

[Jarred Land]

Micheal you did a nice job of suming some points up there.. you got the right idea. Since a PL mount is in a way a bayonet itself it may be risky putting two rotating mounting systems together on the same plane.

[Jarred Land]

and filmmaker.. sorry man once again you lost me...

changing mounts is as easy as changing the screws... so you could do it on set if you really wanted too... but its not a quick release and nor do i think it should be.

[Jannard]

The front mount is a representation. Not what the finished part will be... we aren't showing anything yet that is what the finished camera is. Don't look too close to the pics. You'll get confused.

Jim

[Clint Johnson]

And what about changing sensor position?

With the sensor fixed at the point where the Aaton Universal Mount’s focal plane falls on the sensor (is that the closest?), the other adaptors simply have to vary in thickness to position the other mounts at the proper distances from the sensor depending on where the particular focal plane falls.

If it is the sensor that moves, I’d start worrying about someone accidentally changing the settings from the Mitchell BNCR to the Aaton Universal and have the sensor try and position itself 28mm inside the lens. Built in adaptor and/or proximity sensing could take most of the worry out of that but I kind of like the simplicity of an extra 28mm of solid metal holding the lens that much further out. As long as you aren’t giving up functionality, fewer parts, fewer moving parts and fewer electronics makes for a more reliable and robust product.

Then the only worry is someone trying to mount a lens with a different mount that is both smaller in diameter and deeper... I can just hear the CRACK as the rear of the lens makes contact with the sensor. A ruined sensor and a scratched rear element on the lens would make me sad.

I’m supposing that this has already been discussed and that there will be an intermediate piece of optically clear glass placed a few millimeters ahead of the sensor- so I’ll just suggest that it be easy to remove for when we need to clean the sensor and when it needs to be replaced.

[Lowkus]

Personally, I'd like to see a quick-release mount. However, if I had to build the mount and was incorporating screws, I'd take it down to just three screws. The fit and tightness would be more efficient if made by using indentations and protrusions between the body and lens mount metals, fitting together like a jigsaw (or like two gears pressed together). The only function of the screws should be to keep the lens mount pressed against the camera, and since the indentations/protrusions would provide the primary structural support for the lens, the quantity of screws becomes somewhat irrelevant; the lens mount could remain solidly affixed using just one screw. The reason for three screws... it leaves two screws as a backup in case one gets lost or stripped.

[Jarred Land]

Personally, I'd like to see a quick-release mount. However, if I had to build the mount and was incorporating screws, I'd take it down to just three screws. The fit and tightness would be more efficient if made by using indentations and protrusions between the body and lens mount metals, fitting together like a jigsaw (or like two gears pressed together). The only function of the screws should be to keep the lens mount pressed against the camera, and since the indentations/protrusions would provide the primary structural support for the lens, the quantity of screws becomes somewhat irrelevant; the lens mount could remain solidly affixed using just one screw. The reason for three screws... it leaves two screws as a backup in case one gets lost or stripped.

this actually might work lowkus..

[Jarred Land]

The front mount is a representation. Not what the finished part will be... we aren't showing anything yet that is what the finished camera is. Don't look too close to the pics. You'll get confused.

Jim

voice of reason :)

[filmmaker1977]

agreed.. i didn't lose you jarred.. :) i posted that because i agree with your words: «changing mounts is as easy as changing the screws... so you could do it on set if you really wanted too... but its not a quick release»

that's why i'm worried.. i'd like a way to go with a quick change on set if possible.. we hope jim may get this feature.. we hope..

thx all for your help including you jim.. we'll be waiting..

[Jarred Land]

thanks man.. yes, we dont know yet, and it could go either way.. It doesnt really matter to me.. if it is a quick release it better be damn good because i've seen PL mounts fail when they are locked down.. and every single quick release ive seen fail as well.. 2x the risk scares the hell out of me.

[Clint Johnson]

I’d think that it is simpler to create a match between the mount’s plane and the sensor’s plane if the base is machined flat. Any indentations and protrusions would need a more complex machining process to ensure a plane match without a commensurate benefit. At most I would look at guide rings around the screw holes with matching sockets on the mount. This is more than I would like but it would probably be worth it for guiding and holding the mount while putting it in place.

My take is that five high tensile screws would suffice to keep the mount firmly positioned even with a good sized unsupported lens hanging off the front. I would make the screw holes mildly asymmetrical so that the mount can only go on in one orientation... as well as machined in markings on the body and mount that can be visually lined up. Redundancy when it comes with no additional cost is something that I am fond of.

In the quick release vs. screwed down mount I come in on the side of screws. There will be a few times where it would be advantageous to be able to change lens systems in eight seconds rather than a minute and eight seconds but the problems that would ensue from having two quick releases behind the lens as well as the added complexity would probably induce far more problems than it would solve.

Then again, when I hand out my two cents I include a free grain of salt seein’ as how I am an unedumicated high school drop out.

[Gibby]

thanks man.. yes, we dont know yet, and it could go either way.. It doesnt really matter to me.. if it is a quick release it better be damn good because i've seen PL mounts fail when they are locked down.. and every single quick release ive seen fail as well.. 2x the risk scares the hell out of me.

I've seen mounts of various kinds fail...with disastrous results at times. I once saw another shooter's brand new Fujinon 33x ($35k USD) zoom drop right off a Digital Betacam and bounced down a cliff in what seemed like slow motion as lens elements and barrel pieces sprayed out everywhere. A sickening sight! He then looked like he was about to jump over the same cliff and end it all! I've also seen other shooter's mounting plates fail and entire camera/lens rigs drop from the tripod to concrete below. Ooooooooops!

Whenever possible I use a "lens leash", a custom safety strap, that secures the lens to the camera body, and another safety leash that secures the camera body to the tripod head. These are quick-release velcro or pull-strap 1" black nylon straps that can be bought at any hardware store.

Better safe than sorry...

Maybe RED could design a "RED Leash" accessory strap for these uses?

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[acehole111]

I've seen mounts of various kinds fail...with disastrous results at times. I once saw another shooter's brand new Fujinon 33x ($35k USD) zoom drop right off a Digital Betacam and bounced down a cliff in what seemed like slow motion as lens elements and barrel pieces sprayed out everywhere. A sickening sight! He then looked like he was about to jump over the same cliff and end it all! I've also seen other shooter's mounting plates fail and entire camera/lens rigs drop from the tripod to concrete below. Ooooooooops!

Whenever possible I use a "lens leash", a custom safety strap, that secures the lens to the camera body, and another safety leash that secures the camera body to the tripod head. These are quick-release velcro or pull-strap 1" black nylon straps that can be bought at any hardware store.

Better safe than sorry...

Maybe RED could design a "RED Leash" accessory strap for these uses?




I saw Strap-ons and leashes and my mind wandered elsewhere.. :D

[Jarred Land]

I once saw another shooter's brand new Fujinon 33x ($35k USD) zoom drop right off a Digital Betacam and bounced down a cliff i



Wholly crap gibby.. i would pay good money to be the bird in the tree watching that scene play out.. and i think i may of jumped down the cliff as well... back in the day when I used to race mountain bikes i remember half hazzardly chasing after my bike down a cliff a number of times.. and that was just a $3000 ride.. a $50,000 lens? forget the leash.. Red should make a Red Parachute for the poor camera assistant.

[Gibby]

Wholly crap gibby.. i would pay good money to be the bird in the tree watching that scene play out.. and i think i may of jumped down the cliff as well... back in the day when I used to race mountain bikes i remember half hazzardly chasing after my bike down a cliff a number of times.. and that was just a $3000 ride.. a $50,000 lens? forget the leash.. Red should make a Red Parachute for the poor camera assistant.

Yeah man...it would be tempting to just do a nice cannonball or one and a half and follow the lens down...bungee jumping without a bungee!!!

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Rocketeer]

We had a shooter doing a clifftop piece. Wind took the Chrosziel Sunshade and ND Grad straight off the lens and made a $4000 jigsaw puzzle.

Insurance claim wasn't a problem as the shooter caught it on tape!

[Gibby]

Ouch!!!! All these stories are a good reminder to keep your insurance up to date. It's not that expensive compared to losing your whole rig and starting over...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[filmmaker1977]

steve, how much is it?.. can you give an idea over your own?.. insurance is a good subject to our knowledge.. thx

[Gibby]

steve, how much is it?.. can you give an idea over your own?.. insurance is a good subject to our knowledge.. thx

I'm sure that the cost will vary from in different parts of the world, but in the USA, a $1,000,000 USD All-Risk liability insurance policy, with equipment replacement coverage for maybe $50,000 worth of equipment ranges from maybe $1,600 to $2,500 per year. If you're going to get permits to shoot at any public places, most government agencies require a copy of a $1,000,000 All-Rick insurance policy. If your crew or equipment injures someone, and they bring a lawsuit against you, having All-Risk insurance can mean the difference between keeping yourself in business, or going bankrupt.

I also travel with an International Carnet, where I sign my equipment into and out of each country with Customs. That way if the equipment is stolen or destroyed while you travel, I have a way to prove to the insurance company that I took it with me on the trip.

Getting into business is one thing...but staying in business may hinge on your wise choices about things like insurance and Carnet use.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Lowkus]

I’d think that it is simpler to create a match between the mount’s plane and the sensor’s plane if the base is machined flat. Any indentations and protrusions would need a more complex machining process to ensure a plane match without a commensurate benefit. At most I would look at guide rings around the screw holes with matching sockets on the mount. This is more than I would like but it would probably be worth it for guiding and holding the mount while putting it in place.

My take is that five high tensile screws would suffice to keep the mount firmly positioned even with a good sized unsupported lens hanging off the front. I would make the screw holes mildly asymmetrical so that the mount can only go on in one orientation... as well as machined in markings on the body and mount that can be visually lined up. Redundancy when it comes with no additional cost is something that I am fond of.

In the quick release vs. screwed down mount I come in on the side of screws. There will be a few times where it would be advantageous to be able to change lens systems in eight seconds rather than a minute and eight seconds but the problems that would ensue from having two quick releases behind the lens as well as the added complexity would probably induce far more problems than it would solve.

Then again, when I hand out my two cents I include a free grain of salt seein’ as how I am an unedumicated high school drop out.
Most modern machining plants use CNC milling machines and the precision involved is as high for oddly shaped parts as for flat planes.

One of the best reasons for a quick-change of lenses and lens mounts is to protect the sensor from getting dusty. One minute of exposure to environmental air can put a lot of dust particles onto the imaging chip, even in what appears to be a clean environment. You could argue that the chip could be cleaned after changing lens mounts, but many situations don't provide an easy opportunity to clean the sensor. Even with time to clean the sensor, there's always a risk when physical contact has to be with it (scratching the surface, pressing too hard on the sensor, etc). If it comes down to extra lens mount screws or a speckle-free image, I'll choose the speckle-free image.

[filmmaker1977]

I'm sure that the cost will vary from in different parts of the world, but in the USA, a $1,000,000 USD All-Risk liability insurance policy, with equipment replacement coverage for maybe $50,000 worth of equipment ranges from maybe $1,600 to $2,500 per year. If you're going to get permits to shoot at any public places, most government agencies require a copy of a $1,000,000 All-Rick insurance policy. If your crew or equipment injures someone, and they bring a lawsuit against you, having All-Risk insurance can mean the difference between keeping yourself in business, or going bankrupt.

I also travel with an International Carnet, where I sign my equipment into and out of each country with Customs. That way if the equipment is stolen or destroyed while you travel, I have a way to prove to the insurance company that I took it with me on the trip.

Getting into business is one thing...but staying in business may hinge on your wise choices about things like insurance and Carnet use.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv (http://www.cut4.tv/)
www.4umat.com (http://www.4umat.com/)thx v much..

international carnet.. how does it work?

[Gibby]

Here's a link to the ATA Carnet web site. Check it out: http://www.atacarnet.com/

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[filmmaker1977]

thx again.. you are who you are.. great.. my compliments and all respect..

[Clint Johnson]

Most modern machining plants use CNC milling machines and the precision involved is as high for oddly shaped parts as for flat planes.

One of the best reasons for a quick-change of lenses and lens mounts is to protect the sensor from getting dusty. One minute of exposure to environmental air can put a lot of dust particles onto the imaging chip, even in what appears to be a clean environment. You could argue that the chip could be cleaned after changing lens mounts, but many situations don't provide an easy opportunity to clean the sensor. Even with time to clean the sensor, there's always a risk when physical contact has to be with it (scratching the surface, pressing too hard on the sensor, etc). If it comes down to extra lens mount screws or a speckle-free image, I'll choose the speckle-free image.

Cutting edges wear and it is easier to adjust for that on simpler surfaces- but money can be spent to compensate for that... just tryin’ to save Jim some expenses.

Your reasons for wanting a quick change are sound. I have to clean the sensor on my still camera a couple times a year and that is with a nice quick bayonet mount.

But I think that the time it will take to move the mount away from the body and have the replacement mount sitting in its place, ready to be screwed down, should actually leave the sensor exposed for roughly the same amount of time as a quick release mount. Most of the extra time would be removing and installing the screws while the mount is sitting in place.

My thinking is that the view inside the camera with the mount removed will show a shallow cylinder with a protective (and optically clear) glass at the back that covers the actual sensor. This area would be tightly sealed from the rest of the camera and clear of any protrusions so that a quick blast of compressed air would clear any dust out of it and not further into it like too many other cameras.

[Lowkus]

Cutting edges wear and it is easier to adjust for that on simpler surfaces- but money can be spent to compensate for that... just tryin’ to save Jim some expenses.

Your reasons for wanting a quick change are sound. I have to clean the sensor on my still camera a couple times a year and that is with a nice quick bayonet mount.

But I think that the time it will take to move the mount away from the body and have the replacement mount sitting in its place, ready to be screwed down, should actually leave the sensor exposed for roughly the same amount of time as a quick release mount. Most of the extra time would be removing and installing the screws while the mount is sitting in place.

My thinking is that the view inside the camera with the mount removed will show a shallow cylinder with a protective (and optically clear) glass at the back that covers the actual sensor. This area would be tightly sealed from the rest of the camera and clear of any protrusions so that a quick blast of compressed air would clear any dust out of it and not further into it like too many other cameras.
I like the glass over the sensor idea, but I'm not sure about using the compressed air. I've heard it can leave a filmy substance that hurts the optical quality of the glass.

Another thing that concerns me about the screw-mount is the hassle of keeping track of the screws while trying to handle the mount. One hand for the camera, one for the mount, one for the hex-wrench, one for the screw being loosened/tightened, and another hand for the loose screws. It doesn't add up to a situation that can easily be performed by a person born with only two hands, especially in an uncontrolled environment.

[filmmaker1977]

I like the glass over the sensor ideame too


but I'm not sure about using the compressed air. I've heard it can leave a filmy substance that hurts the optical quality of the glass.careful warning


Another thing that concerns me about the screw-mount is the hassle of keeping track of the screws while trying to handle the mount. One hand for the camera, one for the mount, one for the hex-wrench, one for the screw being loosened/tightened, and another hand for the loose screws. It doesn't add up to a situation that can easily be performed by a person born with only two hands, especially in an uncontrolled environment.agreed.. the screw-mount isn't a good idea.. i hope for an easier method really run and gun.. the most part of us will be at a EFP/ENG-style environment, that's for sure.

[Nick_Shaw]

Sorry if this is repeating stuff that's already been said, or if I've misunderstood. There seems to be some confusion between changing lens mounts (which needs screws) and changing lenses (which doesn't).

Surely there woluld be very few projects for which you would use a selection of lenses all with different mounts. If you were doing an ENG style shoot, all your lenses might be B4, but for a cine style shoot you might have a set of PL mount primes. Therefore you would attach the approprate mount at the start of the shoot, not on location.

[filmmaker1977]

Sorry if this is repeating stuff that's already been said, or if I've misunderstood. There seems to be some confusion between changing lens mounts (which needs screws) and changing lenses (which doesn't).

Surely there woluld be very few projects for which you would use a selection of lenses all with different mounts. If you were doing an ENG style shoot, all your lenses might be B4, but for a cine style shoot you might have a set of PL mount primes. Therefore you would attach the approprate mount at the start of the shoot, not on location.the idea is to add possibilities and can change not just between lenses but also between different mounts on location too!

read what jim said on the subject:


Very easy. The Trick is to have the base to intermediate mount distance set at the factory and leave enough room for all possible mounts. More details pretty soon.

jim

edit
imo, avoiding (if possible, for sure.. i'm not engineer..) the screw-mount system would be gold.. if not, it won't be suitable on location, i'm afraid..

[Gibby]

I posted a suggestion for a protective glass cover over the sensor a few months ago. In mobile production I'm constantly changing the lenses on my cameras, and dust specs on the sensor are a constant risk/problem.

For my mobile EFP/ENG-style projects the shooting style is a mix of cine-style and EFP/ENG-style, thus the need to change not only lenses on location, but also to change lens mounts a few times a day. The production values of the edited shows have cine-style in-bumps, out-bumps, and creative montages in each segment, with more EFP/ENG-style content being the core of the shows. The lens needs (cine, still photo, B4), fps, and DOF vary widely depending on the style of shot and it's intended use in the show. Bottom line is that a quick way to change lens mounts would minimize the risk of dust to the sensor, if there is no glass cover for it, and would help keep the crew move fast in a mobile shooting environment.

In my productions that are 100% cine-style there will still be the need to change lens mounts quickly from PL to Nikon or canon. Shooters that do many different genres and sub-genres of production will need to change mounts with relative speed.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[acehole111]

imo, avoiding (if possible, for sure.. i'm not engineer..) the screw-mount system would be gold.. if not, it won't be suitable on location, i'm afraid..
Lets not go too far and say it wont be suitable on location.. Okay, lets say It takes about 10 seconds per nut to unscrew with a mini keychain torque wrench. Thats just over a minute in total to unscrew. You then screw the new mount on, thats another minute and a bit. Lets say 2 minutes to make sure everythings nice and tight. Screw on the new Lens, 10 seconds.

Thats just under 4 minutes to perform a pretty major operation with a standard miniture torque wrench. Gee, You might even spend more time setting up a tripod.

I dont know about how you work, but I would be very happy to perform this operation when needed on location.

[Clint Johnson]

I do think that the number of shoots that require lens mount changes on the run will be a rather small subset of all shoots and those will just have to take care while doing it. I’ll probably have the PL mount and the Nikon mount but I’ll try and plan for using one or the other on any given day. But you know what they say, the best laid plans of mice and Clint...

The aerosol based canned spray is completely unsuitable for cleaning inside the Red One but a compressed CO2 system like the one that American Recorder makes would be safe as long as you use their cartridges and not the ones sold for pellet guns since they have trace amounts of lubricant.

For those who don’t want even the small worry of CO2 then a good bulb like the Giotto Rocket Air Blaster should move enough air to do the job. Hmmmm... thinking on how much I’ll have invested in Red351... yeah, I’ll be going with the Rocket even though the compressed CO2 would be fine 99.99% of the time.

It’s that final 0.01% that’ll turn around and bite you on the butt.

[mike the beginner]

I am sure i read somewhere that the red sensor will be completely sealed so no "regular" cleaning will be necessary?

Michael

[Lowkus]

Most sensors are sealed. The problem is that sometimes the distance between the protective material and the chip are so small that slight pressure on the protective material can warp the protective material so that it makes contact with the chip, causing damage. Also, if the protective material is not replaceable, then any scratches to the protective material will become a permanent problem.

I've had some luck with the Giotto Rocket, but there's always some sticky dust that doesn't come loose just by the act of blowing more air onto the sensor... requires a physical touch, sadly.

As for lens mounts, I know a lot of you are saying you can survive with screws, that you'll never lose them or can replace them if lost. You're also saying that you'll always have the dexterity necessary to quickly change the mount, which you'll probably never do anyway because you plan on only using one lens system when you're on a shoot. That's optimistic, but it could very well fit the reality of your shooting situations. The quick release mount though, if built properly, will not only work for your situation but also the less accomodating situations facing other shooters. So why make do with an old-style screw mount when creating a solid quick-mount system is easily within the realm of possibilities? Red certainly wouldn't make a weak quick-mount system... everything they've made so far has been industrial strength. Plus the quick-mount system wouldn't cost much more to manufacture, and it might even be cheaper in the long run because they wouldn't have to mess around with the distribution of replacement screws from now until forever.

Another thing to consider... ever tried screwing/unscrewing things in a really cold climate, or at night? Good luck!

[Gibby]

I agree Lowkus. If the mounts are made rapid change it will make the camera system much more versatile. Modularity + versatility = increased utility.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Clint Johnson]

Most sensors are sealed. The problem is that sometimes the distance between the protective material and the chip are so small that slight pressure on the protective material can warp the protective material so that it makes contact with the chip, causing damage. Also, if the protective material is not replaceable, then any scratches to the protective material will become a permanent problem.

I've had some luck with the Giotto Rocket, but there's always some sticky dust that doesn't come loose just by the act of blowing more air onto the sensor... requires a physical touch, sadly.

As for lens mounts, I know a lot of you are saying you can survive with screws, that you'll never lose them or can replace them if lost. You're also saying that you'll always have the dexterity necessary to quickly change the mount, which you'll probably never do anyway because you plan on only using one lens system when you're on a shoot. That's optimistic, but it could very well fit the reality of your shooting situations. The quick release mount though, if built properly, will not only work for your situation but also the less accomodating situations facing other shooters. So why make do with an old-style screw mount when creating a solid quick-mount system is easily within the realm of possibilities? Red certainly wouldn't make a weak quick-mount system... everything they've made so far has been industrial strength. Plus the quick-mount system wouldn't cost much more to manufacture, and it might even be cheaper in the long run because they wouldn't have to mess around with the distribution of replacement screws from now until forever.

Another thing to consider... ever tried screwing/unscrewing things in a really cold climate, or at night? Good luck!

Minus forty-five Celsius in the middle of the night in the Coastal Range of British Columbia... and let me tell you, working on a diesel generator with gelling arctic grade fuel evaporating off you hands is no fun at all... but I’m guessing that freezing to death is less fun so what do you do?

The screws would be off the shelf items and a person should have a selection of replacements in your kit. A few dollars would cover it.

I’ve commented on making sure that the protective glass was a few millimeters away from the sensor and be easy to replace because it will be damaged and no matter how well sealed the camera is there will probably be the occasional need to (shudder) clean the actual sensor itself.

[Greg Voevodsky]

Why take 5 minutes when you can change it in 1 minute? Time is money, make it simple and easy or someone else will overseasl.

I'd like to see a universal RED MOUNT. Then you buy the mounts that you nee: NIKON, SUPER 16MM AND SUPER 35MM... all lock and load. I don't want to waste an hour a day spending 5 minutes changing lenses on 30+ set ups - run and gun style.

A universal RED mount to everything else should be standard. Be modular, we will buy the 'quick' mounts from RED that we want... and the slow 5 minutes is not a problem (as the sunsets) they can turn and burn... 5 minutes - Top Gun - style!


For the rest of us, let us pay to play and save money with fast, easy solutions - that save time and money in the long run.

[acehole111]

Well I agree to a certain extent. If quick release baseplates on 100k cameras are secure enough to hold it firmly inplace, then it could prove to be the same with the lens mounts.

I just never thought changing lensmounts was such an offhanded casual thing. To me its a big deal. But I think the capability of changing a lensmount may turn it into something we will take merely for granted in the future so might as well make it as easy as possible.