Bolex D16: RAW, 16/Super 16 sensor size, costs less than MkIII
- Thread starter underpressure
- Start date
combatentropy
Veteran
Cameras due early November. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects...the-1st-affordable-digital-cinem/posts/286035
Last edited:
That's a very interesting update. I like a lot of it, some of it I'm not so sure about. I get the concept with the fixed focus fixed aperature lens, just don't know how well that works in practice. Fixed focus I can live with. I know if I need a deep focus or shallow focus, so that's fine. But fixed aperature, even if I have a half stop of lattitude seems tough. It means I have to play with the lights more instead of the camera, and I'd rather just adjust the camera than the lights since it's easier and faster. Or I have to swap lenses which is also going to change my focal length...I don't know.
Looks like people will be rigging this up a lot more than expected. NDs in a matte box will be necessary with those lenses. And when there's a mattebox, then there's rods, and then, and then...
Yes, this doesn't seem to be well thought out. The use of the crank is very problematic too. I really fail to see what the point of it is when it's all going to be metadata, meaning you won't get to see what the effect is going to be on set, and then you have to load the footage into software later on which makes it happen? That seems ridiculous to me. If I want to add grain, I don't need a crank, I can put it in After Effects, pick exactly how I want it to be, and render it out from there. Same goes for any other effect. This also seems ill-thought out.
How is this different from what most people do with their cameras to some extent or another already? Anybody out their that absolutely never uses ND's to modify or control exposure?
How many times has someone said you need to rig your DSLR with rails and a mattebox to look "professional" to the client?
Matte boxes and filters are standard tools for cinematographers. So are screw on filters and lens hoods.
These are certainly not the only lens options out there either. If you can get an ultra sharp wide angle lens comparable to a $1500 Illumina for $150 preset to its optimum focus and aperture is that not a useful alternative? The whole intent of the Digital Bolex project is to provide unique alternatives that don't currently exist in the market. Whether it works for you or not is a personal choice.
Last edited:
It's incredibly different. Why do you think people pay to have their lenses declicked just to have a smooth aperture change? This is like going in the complete opposite direction of that and I cannot imagine not having control over my aperture.
The approach is different yes. But the tools are not. It is not uncommon for cinematographers to light, filter, and expose for the aperture sweet spot of a lens, typically a very narrow range of maybe one stop under or over the optimum aperture. Learn a new skill set.
Losing a level of control does not equate with having to learn a new skill set, so better luck next time you attempt to malign someone.
Following your logic, why do all cinema lenses have a wide range aperture on a smooth ring if it's common for a cinematographer to work with one f-/t- stop? Can one name one fixed aperture lens that is in wide use in professional circles?
Not maligning anyone. The lenses are a trade off. If you can afford good cine primes, no problem.
I can get a good Nikon F lens and have it de-clicked for a few hundred dollars. Why would I buy a fixed aperture lens? Why does this seem like a good idea?
Joe Rubenstein's comment on the lens design:
"You are exactly right, there is already a great selection of lenses out there for 16mm, so how do we do something unique and different? One of my history of film professors once said a beautifully shot movie is one with a dozen amazing shots in it, if every shot is amazing it's a music video. I think that goes for unique shots too. Meaning that if you watch a movie and count the number of unique shots vs standard shots(medium, OTS, two shot, establishing) you will find that the number of standard shots far out weighs the unique shots, and that most films shoot with similar depth lenses at roughly the same angle, and roughly the same distance from the subject for a large majority of their shots. This is because we are comfortable with a certain film language at this point that communicates based on these choices. So if we develop lenses that are easy to use, super sharp, and are very cheap you can easily fill your quota for standard shots and concentrate more on your creative coverage. What if you're going to shoot a standard OTS sequence even once in just about every film you make, and I can give you a lens that you already know how to light for and use much faster and easier than any other lens and it gives you the sharpness, and more importantly the color clarity of a $1200 lens for $125? That doesn't sound interesting to you? I'm not trying to say films are generic, or make everyone's films similar, I'm just trying to say standard coverage is important and probably a good place for us to start concerning lenses. These, hopefully, aren't the only lenses we will make, we have lots of ideas for lenses with moving parts
but they will be the cheapest lenses we make probably, and they will give you unprecedented quality for price. "
"You are exactly right, there is already a great selection of lenses out there for 16mm, so how do we do something unique and different? One of my history of film professors once said a beautifully shot movie is one with a dozen amazing shots in it, if every shot is amazing it's a music video. I think that goes for unique shots too. Meaning that if you watch a movie and count the number of unique shots vs standard shots(medium, OTS, two shot, establishing) you will find that the number of standard shots far out weighs the unique shots, and that most films shoot with similar depth lenses at roughly the same angle, and roughly the same distance from the subject for a large majority of their shots. This is because we are comfortable with a certain film language at this point that communicates based on these choices. So if we develop lenses that are easy to use, super sharp, and are very cheap you can easily fill your quota for standard shots and concentrate more on your creative coverage. What if you're going to shoot a standard OTS sequence even once in just about every film you make, and I can give you a lens that you already know how to light for and use much faster and easier than any other lens and it gives you the sharpness, and more importantly the color clarity of a $1200 lens for $125? That doesn't sound interesting to you? I'm not trying to say films are generic, or make everyone's films similar, I'm just trying to say standard coverage is important and probably a good place for us to start concerning lenses. These, hopefully, aren't the only lenses we will make, we have lots of ideas for lenses with moving parts
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
What the what>?!
Why are they even making lenses?! Seems that is putting effort and attention away from the primary focus... no pun intended.
Why are they even making lenses?! Seems that is putting effort and attention away from the primary focus... no pun intended.
Everything about this company and the people running it reminds me of that lame uncle who can't get it together. Always on about this idea and that idea but never really falling through on anything. Borrowing money to pay for everything, digging and digging himself deeper into situations that are impossible to come out of. I mean, starting a camera company and expecting to produce a solid product on your VERY FIRST attempt; not an accessory item, not even service within the industry you hope to get a foothold in, but a straight up camera, with absolute ZERO experience.
Not saying it can't be done, there have been companies that have produced amazing introductory products. But who started those companies? I'm sure it wasn't anybody already versed in their craft and had many years of experience behind them to finally give them the appropriate insight into entrepreneurship. Even talking about producing lenses at this point is just head-scratchingly strange. If this camera ends up producing an image even half as good as a hacked GH2 before 2013 I will be a very impressed bystander / critic. Forget raw or 16mm; the color, motion cadence and general look of the footage are not even close to what a cheap DSLR like the GH2 is capable of, let alone the BMCC. To even compare the 2 is almost embarrassing at this point.
Not saying it can't be done, there have been companies that have produced amazing introductory products. But who started those companies? I'm sure it wasn't anybody already versed in their craft and had many years of experience behind them to finally give them the appropriate insight into entrepreneurship. Even talking about producing lenses at this point is just head-scratchingly strange. If this camera ends up producing an image even half as good as a hacked GH2 before 2013 I will be a very impressed bystander / critic. Forget raw or 16mm; the color, motion cadence and general look of the footage are not even close to what a cheap DSLR like the GH2 is capable of, let alone the BMCC. To even compare the 2 is almost embarrassing at this point.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Read the update again - they already DID make that announcement! The lenses they're discussing are fixed-focus. No focus ring.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
This is slowly turning into an artsy fartsy funny camera.
If you can't get something right, you can still call it art.
Can't wait till they tell us:
1. get a new skill set
2. you gonna love it, you (and the audience) just needs to get used to it
3. you have to think outside of the box
4. new experience ...blah - totally new way to tell a story...blah
yolk
Member
hmm...all i read were some interesting stories about the history of this camera so far and some future plans. every entrepreneur has an interesting story to tell. what i wanted to see was the actual CAD engineering drawings/models of the camera body adapted to manufacturing constraints and some cnc machined parts, not that old rhino3d screenshot and the foam mockup they showed around for months :/
they are so in love with the retro look of this camera (that also spikes manufacturing cost for no reason other than style and is not really based on function and ergonomics) that they desperately try to find useful functions to the hand crank - a feature that should have been dropped a long time ago.
what they don't realize is, they'll burn the bridge for other indie/startup cameras in development for quite a while if they don't succeed...and i now highly doubt they will.
they are so in love with the retro look of this camera (that also spikes manufacturing cost for no reason other than style and is not really based on function and ergonomics) that they desperately try to find useful functions to the hand crank - a feature that should have been dropped a long time ago.
what they don't realize is, they'll burn the bridge for other indie/startup cameras in development for quite a while if they don't succeed...and i now highly doubt they will.
Last edited: