Chinese 2K RAW S35 Cinema Camera, 8000 dollars

This is the first time I hear about no one caring about design. Ever since I got into video even it's been 'ergonomic nightmare this ergonomic nightmare that ugly camera here ugly camera there'. This is heartwarming. Indeed, as long as it delivers.
 
kittykatro said:
Design is very important....Were would Apple be today without it's products with astonishing design? There will come one day when camera manufacturers will focus on design more than functionality(just like Apple).
Click to expand...

Apple produces consumer products for the highly image conscious mass market. A large sensor digital video camera is a tool for a very small market where function, features and value are more important then just the design elements.
 
daveswan said:
Or even Bang and Olufsen


Design before substance

I don't care if a cam looks like a a breeze block with a bottle on the front so long as it delivers.

Dave
Click to expand...

I disagree if you think that both Apple and B&O have no substance, both companies create excellent products. Apple has consistently developed pioneering user-interactive products, look at the iPod, iPhone, iMac and iPad. As well as making people realise that there's more than just the functionality of a beige box in the spare room or your desk.
B&O have hit a market in that people genuinely care about what they have sitting pride of place in their homes, yes they may not sound as good as a Naim or Cyrus system but the people who can afford these products will go after one aesthetic over another.

Another point being is the debate of the FS100 over AF101, every review or debate I've read has brought up the 'modular' design of the FS100 being a bit of a love it/hate it type thing. At the end of the day - simple ergononics, functionality and styling has to come into play with every product we use and depend upon. Whether we recoginse that as 'design' or not is another thing.
 
Don't have an i-anything, except BBC i-player (Bet that really pi$$ed off Steve Jobs).

I tend to follow Ferdinand Porsch's dictum that form follows function, so it really doesn't matter if it looks like a brick, if that's how it has to look to do its job, so long as all the controls are well placed and work as expected.

Oh, and I come from the "hair-shirt" school of Hi-Fi, my amp is still a Musical Fidelity "Synthesis", input switches, volume, and that's it!

Dave
 
It's a little sad to me that so many people apparently think of design as just "the way it looks" or "how expensive the case is" when design goes so much deeper than that - I'm talking about User Interface design.

Take, for example, the car. Before Cadillac came along with our current setup, there were many variations on how to drive the car, few of which were nearly as intuitive. Before the GUI came along we all lived in text-only screens. And we all know that the GUI has evolved significantly over the last decade to become something far more powerful than was initially imagined. Phones, too, have changed. And its apparent that we think there is certainly a model to follow for touch-based devices.

My point here is the "I don't care, just throw a sensor in it and have a slot for media so its as cheap as possible" approach could end up killing this camera because it might be such a design nightmare that very few people would consider using it.

Look at the acclaim the Alexa received when it launched - half of the press was "What an amazing image!" and the other half was "What a great interface! It's so easy to use!". Release of the Epic has had a similar impact with people praising and recognizing the achievement of both the function (i.e., it makes pretty pictures) and the form (i.e., it's small, lightweight, and has a unique touchscreen interface with wireless controls and so on built in). For more proof look at the AF-100 - fully featured to be a traditional video camera. Then look at the FS-100 - built more as a cinema camera. There are many people who won't touch the FS-100 because it doesn't have built in filters as a part of its design. Yes, you can use a mattebox, yes you can use screw-ins, yes you can stop down. But they don't care; they want the other design.

So I believe this camera has to have at least a modicum of intelligent design applied before it becomes successful, not accounting for simple luck. I sincerely hope that the team is consulting with some people on the experience of using the camera. I imagine the average videographer or cinematographer does things a bit differently than an astrophotographer and, hence, needs different things out of his camera both in terms of function and form.
 
Michael Olsen said:
It's a little sad to me that so many people apparently think of design as just "the way it looks" or "how expensive the case is" when design goes so much deeper than that - I'm talking about User Interface design.

Take, for example, the car. Before Cadillac came along with our current setup, there were many variations on how to drive the car, few of which were nearly as intuitive. Before the GUI came along we all lived in text-only screens. And we all know that the GUI has evolved significantly over the last decade to become something far more powerful than was initially imagined. Phones, too, have changed. And its apparent that we think there is certainly a model to follow for touch-based devices.

My point here is the "I don't care, just throw a sensor in it and have a slot for media so its as cheap as possible" approach could end up killing this camera because it might be such a design nightmare that very few people would consider using it.

Look at the acclaim the Alexa received when it launched - half of the press was "What an amazing image!" and the other half was "What a great interface! It's so easy to use!". Release of the Epic has had a similar impact with people praising and recognizing the achievement of both the function (i.e., it makes pretty pictures) and the form (i.e., it's small, lightweight, and has a unique touchscreen interface with wireless controls and so on built in). For more proof look at the AF-100 - fully featured to be a traditional video camera. Then look at the FS-100 - built more as a cinema camera. There are many people who won't touch the FS-100 because it doesn't have built in filters as a part of its design. Yes, you can use a mattebox, yes you can use screw-ins, yes you can stop down. But they don't care; they want the other design.

So I believe this camera has to have at least a modicum of intelligent design applied before it becomes successful, not accounting for simple luck. I sincerely hope that the team is consulting with some people on the experience of using the camera. I imagine the average videographer or cinematographer does things a bit differently than an astrophotographer and, hence, needs different things out of his camera both in terms of function and form.
Click to expand...

At this stage of the discussion about this camera we do not know what its user interface or layout is. It very well may suck, Then again, it might not.
 
I hear you. I just wanted to put out the voice for people who want more than a sensor in a box, assuming they are taking what we say here into consideration. And I figured it would be important to get that out there before the process gets going, rather than after.
 
But isn't the "sensor in a box" approach the new thing? I mean, manufactures call those designs modular, right. We are inundated by niche builders, born of the dof adapter era, who seem to be particularly adept at creating accessories that transform the sensor in a box into something else. Red even has the brain approach with their new cams, as we all know very well, so it begs the question what is form and function when I can recreate the form to fit my vision of function. That is unprecedented!

We worry too much about the aesthetics of the box sometimes, in my opinion.

Today, in 2011, I can kit out a dslr to look just as impressive as film cam... can freak it out with cages and cabling and monitors and rails, and get just as awesome picture out of it as I can other prettier dedicated video cams.

Significant is an understatement.
 
pharpsied said:
But isn't the "sensor in a box" approach the new thing? I mean, manufactures call those designs modular, right. We are inundated by niche builders, born of the dof adapter era, who seem to be particularly adept at creating accessories that transform the sensor in a box into something else.
Click to expand...

And I suppose my point is that - ideas of modularity and aesthetics aside - I feel like the idea of buying a poorly designed sensor in a box for $1,000, then having to spend $2,000 buying the bits and pieces to make it work as we need it to is far less desirable than buying a well designed sensor in a box for $3,000 that was built from the ground up to work properly. I mean, that's a big part of what's driving the AF-100. No longer do you have buy a DSLR...and a cage from one manufacturer...and rails from another...and the EVF from someone else...and then the EVF mount to get it in the right place...and then the monitor. You just drop the $5000, and walk away with pretty much all of that in one package, made to work together with far fewer compromises in the first place. Better design.

Now, if that $5,000 had included the price of modularity, so that the monitor wasn't fixed to the camera and could be repositioned, and the control interface was detachable, and there were different power and battery mounting options...all the better.

pharpsied said:
Red even has the brain approach with their new cams, as we all know very well, so it begs the question what is form and function when I can recreate the form to fit my vision of function. That is unprecedented!
Click to expand...

And this is the crux - RED has designed a modular system. They knew they wanted to build one from the outset, and made a number of design decisions to get there, from the placement of I/O interfaces on the cameras to the actual production of different modules. I think that is smart. And they work very closely with third-party vendors to ensure both the future-proof nature of third-party accessories and that they function properly and reliably with the camera.

Canon has not done that. The whole "DSLR for video movement" was not designed at all. And since it has occurred, little has really happened aside from modest image quality improvements and some software - much of which required the purchase of new cameras to receive. Their side handle doesn't come off, so its not there when you don't need it. There are no different battery options. There are no audio add-on options. They don't sell a quick plate, or a top plate, or an EVF, or a monitor. Well...actually, they do sell EVFs and monitors. But neither works with the DSLRs out of the box because they are made to work with Canon's video cameras.

Simply put, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel like the DSLR market consists of a lot of jury rigging. And I'd hate to see this camera come out into the world in a similar situation where everyone has to strap ten different vendors bits and bobs to it just to get it working on set. I'd like the camera to work well from the beginning. And then if people want to go about customizing it or changing parts out for third-party accessories - which very well may be more capapble than the parts the camera comes with, if they need that ability - great!
 
Last edited:
if you have competitors, you have to worry about design, interface, usability, etc (look at AF100 vs FS100); if you are alone in your corner of the market (RAW movies from S35 sensor for $8K) people will flock in anyway (look at DSLRs) - - - plus, sensor box: that's what I thought about when I saw the sony nex-5n attached to a samyang 35mm f/1.4 lens (picture posted by philip blooim in his twitter, calling the camera "almost a lens cap") - - - plus: I guess they don't come to these forums because they're busy building a camera, or something like that... (it'd be great to read about the process too, and have them listening to your suggestions, but getting the camera out should be top priority)
 
Michael Olsen said:
And I suppose my point is that - ideas of modularity and aesthetics aside - I feel like the idea of buying a poorly designed sensor in a box for $1,000, then having to spend $2,000 buying the bits and pieces to make it work as we need it to is far less desirable than buying a well designed sensor in a box for $3,000 that was built from the ground up to work properly. I mean, that's a big part of what's driving the AF-100.
Click to expand...

I agree, but some would argue that you still may have to kit it out to make it work. The FS-100 in particular stands out with its ludicrous LCD placement... if you don't have a monitor, you're in trouble. I still agree, though- whole heartedly.

Michael Olsen said:
And this is the crux - RED has designed a modular system. They knew they wanted to build one from the outset, and made a number of design decisions to get there, from the placement of I/O interfaces on the cameras to the actual production of different modules. I think that is smart. And they work very closely with third-party vendors to ensure both the future-proof nature of third-party accessories and that they function properly and reliably with the camera.
Click to expand...

Michael Olsen said:
Simply put, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel like the DSLR market consists of a lot of jury rigging. And I'd hate to see this camera come out into the world in a similar situation where everyone has to strap ten different vendors bits and bobs to it just to get it working on set. I'd like the camera to work well from the beginning. And then if people want to go about customizing it or changing parts out for third-party accessories - which very well may be more capapble than the parts the camera comes with, if they need that ability - great!
Click to expand...

I understand your point.
I agree.
RED, however, has first party accessories that are absolutely necessary to get their cameras and footage working in both production and post. In fact, in some cases, you can't do anything with out some accessories from jump street (which adds extra cost). I'm not bashing them, I'm just reiterating the reality of the modularity situation from initial, prime camera contact and not from a studied and tested upgrading functionality position.

The fact that the body style is not solidified, and the final build has yet to be seen may be a good omen in that concerns voiced here might make it to their ears during their final push. I want what you want, a camera intentionally designed (unlike our DSLRs) from inception with either compromises in mind or without them at all (the latter rather than the former is preferable).
 
pharpsied said:
RED, however, has first party accessories that are absolutely necessary to get their cameras and footage working in both production and post.
Click to expand...


Oh sure, that's part and parcel of the "modular camera" approach. But my point was that they foresaw that need and developed solutions designed to work well with their equipment. They didn't just release the brain with an HDMI and an HD-SDI port on it and say "Have fun guys! Hope you find products you like that also work with this camera somewhere else!"
 
Michael Olsen said:
[/FONT]

Oh sure, that's part and parcel of the "modular camera" approach. But my point was that they foresaw that need and developed solutions designed to work well with their equipment. They didn't just release the brain with an HDMI and an HD-SDI port on it and say "Have fun guys! Hope you find products you like that also work with this camera somewhere else!"
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top