RED ONE render (newer)...
- Thread starter Jannard
- Start date
- Status
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
is it my impression or this is more bulky?.. and cine-style looks?.. i hope there won't be a post landon's thread syndrome..
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
more compact?.. i like it.. but are you sure?.. it doesn't look more compact or is it me?..WarrenS said:
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
"It just "feels" tighter to me but who knows? The handles seem closer to the body and seem to provide more functional access than the former cage brackets. If we could see a couple of hands in the picture we'd get a better scale."
"I sure hope all attachments use one size allen key for simplicity in the field."
yeah..
"I sure hope all attachments use one size allen key for simplicity in the field."
yeah..
Last edited:
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
"Looks Great
Love the color"
those bars, too much blacky cine-style.. i'd prefer the futurist oakley look.. :thumbup: this is a postmodern camera..
Love the color"
those bars, too much blacky cine-style.. i'd prefer the futurist oakley look.. :thumbup: this is a postmodern camera..
filmmaker1977 said:
Sometimes black cine-style is very useful for being less visable from windows and polished new cars. So the look for me seems very functional. I also like the idea that if its going to take on the big leading cameras in the industry this "more typical" camera look will help it gain popularity quicker.
Just my preference though.
Zig_Zigman
Well-known member
The black on black is making it look tighter and more together, and less Robby the Robot.
Good stuff.
Good stuff.
insanityfw
Ban Me Please!
Yummy.
the more cine-style-black the better.
Thanks for sharing as always.
the more cine-style-black the better.
Thanks for sharing as always.
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
Looking at the physical protos in the lab, I think this new one is a touch smaller, but Jim can tell you for certain.
Graeme
Graeme
Brook Willard
Well-known member
This is a great photo to illustrate the way that the cage breaks down into parts. The four vertical cage parts [I'll call them "arms"] can be removed while still leaving the bottom mount and low mount [on the top] on the camera, keeping rods and mounting points galore without growing the camera.
It also clearly shows [for the first time] the sled. It appears that the body will be fixed within the cage [good] but there is a clear dovetail on the bottom of the cage for interfacing with some sort of plate that I don't believe we've been introduced to. I was beginning to worry, as as I had not seen this in previous renders. I did not want to have to mount a 3rd party plate to the camera, raising the lens considerably.
This render also gives a better look at the proper PL mount.
One question I have is regarding rods on the bottom plate of the camera. There are clearly mounts for rods on the front and back of the camera, but there appears to be a block of metal that prevents one rod from passing all the way through from the front to the back. I understand this from a modularity perspective - with different rods up front and in back, a user can adjust the front rods and back rods individually. My concern is regarding the strength/security of the mount. Will just mounting the rods in the front of the plate be enough to support some epic 25-250 Zeiss zoom from the 70s? If one considers the apparent strength of the top rods [four quick locks on each rod, holy cow], you can see where my curiosity comes from.
At the very least this will require many rods of varying lengths depending on the lens setup. Generally I'll have one set of long rods and one set of short rods [one for zooms, one for primes]. Because I can cram the rods as far back as necessary [with the excess sticking out the back of the plate], I could rig up my shortest prime with my longest rods if I was so inclined [read: lazy]. Limiting the rod adjustability to about four inches could potentially force the operator to own a comprehensive set of rods... particularly considering the grab-bag lens collection that many will be working with.
That said, rods are cheap and CF is light. I'd find space in my case.
Another question: does the rubber portion of the cage "arms" get removed for more mounting points, or do the entire pieces get swapped out for those with holes? That is, is the grip part [the vertical section of the "arm"] interchangeable or is it the whole "arm" that gets swapped out?
[edit: I started posting this before the 2nd render went up, many of my questions have been addressed]
Jim: what's going on on the underside of the cage? I see something in the shadows there...
It also clearly shows [for the first time] the sled. It appears that the body will be fixed within the cage [good] but there is a clear dovetail on the bottom of the cage for interfacing with some sort of plate that I don't believe we've been introduced to. I was beginning to worry, as as I had not seen this in previous renders. I did not want to have to mount a 3rd party plate to the camera, raising the lens considerably.
This render also gives a better look at the proper PL mount.
One question I have is regarding rods on the bottom plate of the camera. There are clearly mounts for rods on the front and back of the camera, but there appears to be a block of metal that prevents one rod from passing all the way through from the front to the back. I understand this from a modularity perspective - with different rods up front and in back, a user can adjust the front rods and back rods individually. My concern is regarding the strength/security of the mount. Will just mounting the rods in the front of the plate be enough to support some epic 25-250 Zeiss zoom from the 70s? If one considers the apparent strength of the top rods [four quick locks on each rod, holy cow], you can see where my curiosity comes from.
At the very least this will require many rods of varying lengths depending on the lens setup. Generally I'll have one set of long rods and one set of short rods [one for zooms, one for primes]. Because I can cram the rods as far back as necessary [with the excess sticking out the back of the plate], I could rig up my shortest prime with my longest rods if I was so inclined [read: lazy]. Limiting the rod adjustability to about four inches could potentially force the operator to own a comprehensive set of rods... particularly considering the grab-bag lens collection that many will be working with.
That said, rods are cheap and CF is light. I'd find space in my case.
Another question: does the rubber portion of the cage "arms" get removed for more mounting points, or do the entire pieces get swapped out for those with holes? That is, is the grip part [the vertical section of the "arm"] interchangeable or is it the whole "arm" that gets swapped out?
[edit: I started posting this before the 2nd render went up, many of my questions have been addressed]
Jim: what's going on on the underside of the cage? I see something in the shadows there...
Last edited:
Brook Willard
Well-known member
Also, which port on the back connects to the mini RAID? The one on the very lower-right with all of the pins?
Bro Anansi
Member
Hardcore Jim.
Love the carbon fiber look; sure helps on the overall system weight too.
Love the carbon fiber look; sure helps on the overall system weight too.
- Status