starcentral
Veteran
Guys the bolex conversion DSLR kit is already out - where have you all been?
Bolex D16: RAW, 16/Super 16 sensor size, costs less than MkIII
- Thread starter underpressure
- Start date
Guys the bolex conversion DSLR kit is already out - where have you all been?
Doesn't improve the video.
I watched all the videos here:
http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/13/digitalbolex/
And I do not see anything that would make me decide away from the Blackmagic cam. The video with the clouds includes some blown the bleep out whites when the sun hits them, and it's real ugly then. The colors of the film shoot video seems poor, and nothing you couldn't get from a DSLR.
They claim 12 stops of DR, but that's just a claim at this point. I can see with my own eyes the BM has more DR, right from the first frames on the beach from John Brawley. The BM sensor just seems superior. To me, there is no other consideration -- unless the CCD thing if you're strapping it to a race car or snowboard. Perhaps the Bolex would be a good B cam for harsh action, but the color, the flesh tones, the DR are better on the BM in my opinion, and I have scrutinized every frame available.
http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/13/digitalbolex/
And I do not see anything that would make me decide away from the Blackmagic cam. The video with the clouds includes some blown the bleep out whites when the sun hits them, and it's real ugly then. The colors of the film shoot video seems poor, and nothing you couldn't get from a DSLR.
They claim 12 stops of DR, but that's just a claim at this point. I can see with my own eyes the BM has more DR, right from the first frames on the beach from John Brawley. The BM sensor just seems superior. To me, there is no other consideration -- unless the CCD thing if you're strapping it to a race car or snowboard. Perhaps the Bolex would be a good B cam for harsh action, but the color, the flesh tones, the DR are better on the BM in my opinion, and I have scrutinized every frame available.
So far all of the D16 footage is from a proof of concept lab prototype. There has been no footage from a production camera, or even a finished production prototype, and supporting firmware/software. The Bolex at this stage is a few months behind the BMCC in development.
Quite frankly until we have actual raw footage samples from production cameras to play with and grade I don't think you can make any valid comparisons between any of the new raw cameras.
if the Bolex people are going to show any footage at all (pre-production or proof of concept) then i feel its entirely fair to compare. if they thought the footage was so sub par to what the production one will be then why would they be showing it. they have to take full responsibility and ownership of any footage out there with the Bolex name to this point.
if the IQ gets better with the final product then good for them.
from what ive seen so far they have a long way to go and i also feel the BMC is the camera to get at this point. BM is also a proven and solid company with a track record which makes it much more of a sure thing.
david
Compare highly compressed vimeo clips of particular grading choices from prototypes all you want. But don't assume they reflect fixed characteristics of the cameras. These are not video cameras with characteristic looks predetermined by their manufacturers, they are raw digital cinema cameras.
But so is the BMD footage. You seem to be trying to step in and speak for DB when the footage speaks for itself I think. And it's simply not impressive.
I agree, the BMD footage looks better as far as what we have seen. But you are comparing and criticizing particular grades and compressions of originals from both prototypes, neither of which are finished cameras at this point. Until we have access to DNG raw clips to grade ourselves, we don't have any idea of what either camera is really like.
Which makes it all the more telling. BMD is constantly being refined and the footage had already looked better than DB. We have seen nothing else of the DB except this footage shot from a prototype camera (that's not even really a prototype...that camera already exists and you can buy it today) and an empty body being carried around.
I'll reserve judgement on IQ until production cameras are released. Raw has no look until it is processed and graded.
The BMCC is not very practical to me. All the ergonomic awkwardness of DSLR's and smallish sensor, but none of the advantages in compact fast high quality optics that a true 16mm format camera can provide.
The BMCC is not very practical to me. All the ergonomic awkwardness of DSLR's and smallish sensor, but none of the advantages in compact fast high quality optics that a true 16mm format camera can provide.
That's pretty long sentence to essentially say, "I'd rather have CCD than CMOS."
I'd rather have a true S16 format camera that I can stick a 2lb 12-120 f1.9 constant speed parfocal zoom on, hold and operate with one hand and run the lens with the other. That and Bayer raw.
This. When you go to the movies today the "film", and I mean real 35mm film, has a "film look" that was created by color grading and color correcting a digital intermediate.
the post production is what creates teh "film" look now. All you need is a good acquisition media, in other words it's properly exposed and the lighting has a cinematic style to it, and the rest is done in post.
That's why Transformers and Underworld:Awakening have the same orange and teal blockbuster look. One is shot on film, one is shot on Red, but they look the same because of post production color grading.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends-that-make-every-movie-look-same.html
You need a good sensor, or film. Either way, the look is going to be created in post.
No, we still need to know how to shoot good looking stuff.
The difference with raw is that you exercise creative control over the full range of sensor data the camera can capture. With video the camera manufacturer has made a lot of decisions for you and given you a much narrower range of possible choices. The rest of the sensor data is essentially thrown away.
For example you don't have nearly as fine control over exactly how you handle detail vs noise in deep shadows or at what point highlights are allowed to clip with video. You are given a limited choice of fixed gamma curves instead of infinite control over the shape of that curve. The lower the quality of the video codec, the less you have to work with.
4:2:0 H.264 AVC is a good example of the worst kind of codec for acquisition if you want fine control over your footage in post. It falls apart very quickly when you push it around.
Barry_Green
Moderator
All this is true.
But it's almost equally true to say "the difference with lumber is that you exercise creative control over the full range of house-building options. With a pre-made house, the manufacturer has made a lot of decisions for you and given you a much narrower range of possible choices." So should you buy a pile of lumber instead of an existing house? Not every situation is equally applicable for every shooter, after all.
Raw is more powerful, definitely, no argument from me or anyone. But it is aptly named -- it is RAW. It needs work. All video cameras shoot raw, and all video needs to be processed before it looks good and is ready for viewing. The question is whether you want the camera to do it for you, or you want to do all that work yourself. Both start with raw data off the sensor, both quantize and de-bayer and process and apply curves and color accentuation. All that work gets done both ways. With raw, you have the responsibility of doing it all yourself -- and you have the rawest image to work on. With conventional video, all that work is done for you.
Factory camera engineers generally make very good choices about how they process camera data for the video codecs they write to. For a lot of conventional video production work a video camera is for most shooters a more sensible choice.
IMO the BMCC will wind up being used for its high quality video codecs more than for its raw capabilities by most shooters. With the processing power and storage options available today there is no reason for good quality prosumer price range cameras to be stuck with low end web streaming codecs for acquisition. Maybe the BMCC will start a revolution in acquisition video codec options too. Somebody needs to.