FCC Guts the Red Epic M....

John Sprung · May 5, 2011

Here's the article:

http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/120140

-- J.S.

Francesco Bonomo · May 5, 2011

Here's the article:

http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/120140

-- J.S.

thanks for the link, John, though I'm pretty sure I'll understand about 0.3% of the technicalities of that... :-)

Anyway, there's a saying around here about promotion and marketing that goes something like this: "it doesn't matter how you talk about, just that you talk about it"...

Keith Walters · May 5, 2011

Here's the article:

http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/120140

-- J.S.

"Imagine buying a $58,000 camera and taking it apart piece by piece."

I can't access any of the links; all I get is a message saying I probably need to log in.

But from what I can read in the short Televisionbroadcast article, it just sounds like a pretty standard EMC evaluation.

I do those all the time.

Basically, when a manufacturer wants to sell an electronic device, he has to provide evidence that the product meets the EMC (Electomagnetic Compatibility) standards of the country where he wants to sell it.

Usually they first submit a sample product to a test lab who carry out a series of measurements to ensure it doesn't exceed local emission limits (so it doesn't cause interference to radio and TV receivers etc). Then they dismantle the sample and take photos of the circuit boards and general construction. All this then goes into a test report that is issued for that product.

When a bulk shipment is made, a specialized QC company is supposed to take a random sampling of the shipment, unpack them and take the covers off, and check that the internal construction matches what is shown in the test report. If there are visible differences, the shipment will be rejected on the basis that the test report is only applicable to the original design; if there have been changes, the manufacturer is supposed to submit a new sample to the lab and get a new test report.

The same thing applies for electrical safety reports.

Well that's the theory of it; in practice this seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance these days:-)

I don't know what the story is here though. The FCC would normally only commission a test report if there was a major complaint about interference from the camera. Maybe Sony got hold of one and did an EMC sweep :-)

Keith Walters · May 5, 2011

Interesting.

Trying to find out how you access the FCC files, I did a Google search on "id=1458509"

No luck with that, but I turned up this link to nowhere on Reduser Epic on the Table at FCC "Morgue"

If you click on the link, it says there's no such thread!

I don't know what they think anybody is going to learn from a lot of online photographs. If anybody was seriously going to try to reverse-engineer the Epic, surely they would just buy one.

Here's the original text of the google result:

Epic on the Table at FCC "Morgue"10 posts - 5 authors

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/eas/GetApp...tml?id=1458509. Mike. 'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother. ...

reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?58414-Epic-on-the-Table-at-FCC...

Stephen Williams · May 5, 2011

The pics are here:-

http://www.wirelessgoodness.com/2011/05/03/reds-60k-epic-m-camera-gets-torn-down-by-the-fcc/

http://tinyurl.com/3qa5tzv

Keith Walters · May 6, 2011

The pics are here:-

http://www.wirelessgoodness.com/2011/05/03/reds-60k-epic-m-camera-gets-torn-down-by-the-fcc/

http://tinyurl.com/3qa5tzv

This looks exactly like a series of photos copied out of a PDF of an EMC report. Apart from having 10-20 times more parts than the things I normally evaluate, it looks pretty much like something I see every day.

I don't think this is any of your Tax dollars at work.

In most countries, the manufacturer has to pay to get the EMC test report done, by a government approved Test Lab. What they have to do with it then depends on the country.

Here, if you get "audited" by the ACMA (the Australian version of the FCC) you are required to be able to produce a copy of the report, plus a signed declaration to the effect that as far as you could tell, this is a valid test report for the product you are selling. As far as I know, that simply never happens...

It looks like in the US, the FCC requires you to submit a copy of the report for filing with them.

Apart from giving us an unexpected sneak peek at what actually lives inside an Epic, this looks like a perfectly routine FCC procedure, exactly the same as it would be for a TV set or DVD player etc.

I don't know why this is all such a big secret. Even if the pictures were 5K Redcode taken with a Zeiss lens, it still wouldn't tell their competitors anything useful...

Edited to add:

Yep, it's exactly what I said it was. Here they are, fresh from the FCC website:

Test Report

Photo annexe

Edited again! Nope that doesn't work; looks like you can only access them from:

This Page (click on "Internal Photos" and "Test Report")

Anyway this is exactly the same procedure that would apply to any other electronic device that you want to legally sell in the USA.

Move along; nothing to see here....

Edited May 6, 2011 by Keith Walters

Keith Walters · May 6, 2011

Not so fast! You can also get a copy of the Epic instruction manual and ...

There's also a "Letter of Authority and Anti Drug Abuse Letter"

from Red's Regulatory Compliance manager, an extract:

"Please also accept this letter as an attestation that neither RED.com, Inc. nor any of its

officers, directors, or persons holding 5% or more of the outstanding stock or shares,

voting or non-voting, have been denied federal benefits under section 5301 of the Anti-

Drug-Abuse act of 1988,21 U.S.C. 853(a). In addition, RED.com, Inc. will notify the

Federal Communications Commission if, at any time, the situation changes causing

RED.com, Inc. to be denied federal benefits."

WTF????

You American. You so crazy....

Hello, the manual even knows about Australia:

"AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND STATEMENT

This device has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to EN 55022:2006"

Strictly speaking, they should really be stating that the device is compliant with the requirements of AS/NZSCISPR22.2008, and they can use the report to EN55022:2006 to support this, after some suitably qualified person (like me:-) has verified that there are no applicable differences between AS/NZSCISPR22.2008 and EN55022:2006. (Gotta love that bureacracy:-)

You're also supposed to have a Radiocommunications Agency Agreement with an Australian company who hold a copy of your EN report, and a special C-tick symbol on the case of the device that carries the Agency's ID number, so the ACMA's black Helicopters know which house to circle when PMT sets in....