Bolex D16: RAW, 16/Super 16 sensor size, costs less than MkIII

Is it just me, or does Joe (in the photo on PB's site) look a tad too young to have been a DP in Hollywood for 10 years and a software/hardware engineer for 5 years? I mean, since when do people get DP jobs in Hollywood at 20? People who know me personally will say it's just my nature to be skeptical, but this is just too much to swallow, IMHO (starting with the promised price tag).

I'll give these two credit for knowing their audience though. And Kickstarter was the perfect place to launch this, BTW. The place where people will throw money to be part of "cool" or "hip" projects (yet another attempt at the next great indie drama), yet they avoid worthy, thought-provoking documentaries like the plague.

I do thiink they will eventually come up with a camera that comes close to what they are advertising, however. My predicted release date: August... 2014.
 
Oh yes....one other thing:

Here's another company "waiting in the wings". If Digital Bolex fails, here's the next option: (The footy below is their functioning S8 model...similar price range 2-3K)....coming soon, also...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260134-Chinese-2K-RAW-S35-Cinema-Camera-8000-dollars

Here's some footy from them:


My point here is this:

Canon, Sony, and Panny can only "hide" for long. (Another) One of these smaller companies (RED already did it) with "nothing to lose and everything to gain" is going to:
-Buy a quality sensor with an API
-Use existing technology to capture the data stream
-Use cutting edge technology to store the data stream
-Use OpenDNG to preserve the data and prepare it for post production
-Use Free Software like Divinci Resolve to make it look its best

EDIT: Oh ya...and they're going to do it for less than 5K BTW....

It's NOT IF....it's WHEN. Is Digital Bolex the company that's going to make that happen? I don't know for sure...but....

I've got $2500 that says they are!!!! :evil:

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Homeslice missed the memo about it being CCD.

He keeps ranting about Bayer and downsampling... doesn't 4:4:4 CCD's not need that, since each pixel will have it's own unique Red, Blue and Green channel? Me thinks he has gotten to used to CMOS.
Click to expand...

4:4:4 sampling only applies to encoded RGB video formats, like TIFF or JPEG or MPEG. As a terminology it absolutely does not apply to unprocessed Bayer raw sensor files, which record luminance values only for each pixel. It is the deBayer and encoding process that produces a color image by mathematically interpolating the pixel luminance values with algorithms that represent proportional values for the color filter matrix. This is as true of video cameras like the C300 or Alexa that perform this process in camera as it is of raw cameras that perform the process in post. The difference is not so much in what is done to produce the final color image, but where it is done and how much creative control one has over the process.

A Bayer pattern sensor is a Bayer pattern sensor whether it is CMOS or CCD and whether it is in a video camera or a raw camera. No difference. The only differences are in the processing.

Red, Acam, Kinefinity, and now DBolex. This is shaping up to be a banner year for raw motion cameras at every price level.
 
Last edited:
Zephyrnoid said:
I dunno guys. In the real world my real name is dirt just cause I shared a beer with a real scammer one time. yup! been there and still have daggers in me arse to prove it. Just seen too much hype to buy in. Besides, am i the only person that feels that all the heat that Canon & Nikon are getting for failing to deliver 4K 10Bit Uncompressed out, over 30 minutes... yada yada from a full size sensor at below $3,500 price-point, with lens seems a bit passé after this Bolex announcement?
I smell rotten mackerel. Sorry.
Philip Bloom adds no comfort I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

The world opens up to you if you just say no. In Philip Bloom's interview, the founder said the magic words, that he's trying keep it as simple as possible. Why is simplicity so hard? "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" --- Albert Einstein.

The biggest difference, electronically, between this camera and any camera by the big names is the presence of an ASIC. An ASIC is a custom processor. As you can imagine, they are very expensive to make. Sure, once the factory is stamping them out, they're just a few bucks a piece. But the R&D and skillset needed to submit an ASIC design to a factory is millions of dollars. Still, there's no other way to instaneously grade and encode MPEG-4 video. (Have you ever wondered why your PowerMac G4 took two days to encode a DVD (MPEG-2) but your camcorder only took 0.01 seconds to encode HDV (MPEG-2)? Answer: ASIC)
 
Last edited:
HHL said:
Here's another company "waiting in the wings". If Digital Bolex fails, here's the next option: (The footy below is their functioning S8 model...similar price range 2-3K)....coming soon, also...
Click to expand...
Dan Hudgins, who's done testing for Kinefinity, seems to think the 2.5K S8 KineRAW model may come in between $1,500 and $2,000 (here).
 
combatentropy said:
The world opens up to you if you just say no. In Philip Bloom's interview, the founder said the magic words, that he's trying keep it as simple as possible. Why is simplicity so hard? "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" --- Albert Einstein.

The biggest difference, electronically, between this camera and any camera by the big names is the presence of an ASIC. An ASIC is a custom processor. As you can imagine, they are very expensive to make. Sure, once the factory is stamping them out, they're just a few bucks a piece. But the R&D and skillset needed to design an ASIC for the factory are in the millions. Still, there's no other way to get instaneously encoded MPEG-4 video. (Have you ever wondered why your PowerMac G4 took two days to encode a DVD (MPEG-2) but your camcorder only took 0.01 seconds to encode HDV (MPEG-2)? Answer: ASIC)
Click to expand...

It doesn't get any simpler than no encoding and no compression. Read the frame data-write the frame data. But you can buy off the shelf real time MPEG video encoder Asics for about 25 bucks these days.
 
Razz16mm said:
But you can buy off the shelf real time MPEG video encoder Asics for about 25 bucks these days.
Click to expand...

Yes, actually I am not surprised. But I think Canon, et al, are still making a custom ASIC for their cameras, because the ASIC handles not only compression but also the generation of the menu screens, color-correction presets, JPEG compression of their multimegapixel stills, etc.*

* IANAEE, though :-P
 
I'm sure glad I saved that Birns and Sawyer Nikon to C mount adaptor from my old Eclair ACLII package.
Ken
 
HHL said:
Nothing like shooting 12 bit 444 RAW on the go. It's your move big 3!!!
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, this digital bolex will also be nothing like 12 bit raw 4:4:4 either. It's going to be 4:2:0 at best. That's the nature of a single sensor with a Bayer pattern.
 
HHL said:
...I bet you're as glad as I am that you passed on scarlet,yes?
Click to expand...
yeah, I just didn't want to go through that all again, and at $16k too. This is really the closest we're going to get to the original $3k for $3k tag line.

Should be a fun companion to my AF's and now I can use my S16 glass without the hassles of film.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
He keeps ranting about Bayer and downsampling... doesn't 4:4:4 CCD's not need that, since each pixel will have it's own unique Red, Blue and Green channel?
Click to expand...
Well, I haven't read his article but I presume he's ranting becaus... it's Bayer and it will have to downsample!

Im afraid that there are some folks who really don't understand what these guys have done. It is a raw sensor dump. That's all. No gamma, no curves, no noise reduction, no processing at all. It is an uncompressed dump of sensor data. A sensor in a box. Extremely easy and cheap to do, empowering for the professional colorist, but also very limiting in many ways. This unit would be a terrible replacement for a video camera, this is a dedicated cine-only unit. It expects YOU to do all the work that it doesn't have the hardware to do. No HDMI? Of course not! It doesn't have the processing hardware to do that. That's kind of the whole point.

I think there are folks here thinking this is an uber wonder am and who are going to be very disappointed. A DSLR doesn't do a tenth what a video cam does, and this won't do a tenth what a DSLR does. Don't expect any zebras or exposure aids or anything, you'll be setting exposure by a light meter. Don't expect a client monitor and all that stuff and no, before anyone asks, you won't be using a Ninja with this. And it won't have ND filters either, I bet. This will be like shooting film on a 1960s 16mm camera. If that doesn't sound like what you want, this isn't for you. If you've never shot film before, you may be shocked at how primitive it is.

And no a CCD isn't a color 4:4:4 device, it is a monochrome thing like a CMOS.
 
I hope they succeed! The more RAW options, the better, especially under $10K.

That being said, I think it's best to let others go first and see the final delivered product,
as I even still have trouble trusting Red, and the founder wasn't short of cash...

every day's like a box of "firmware" chocalates...

PS. they should send Philip Bloom a free 1st unit ASAP in thanks for his blog post...
 
Ryan, if you want a lens that can do double duty on PL and c-mount, you must not get a c-mount lens! You can put a PL lens on almost any body but you can't put a c-mount lens on ANYTHING other than c-mount (with the possible exception of m4/3, if the back of the lens is small enough diameter to seat inside the m4/3 body).
 
Barry_Green said:
Nothing, if such an option is made available. I missed any discussion of an add-on SDI module.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was just briefly touched upon in the specs:

Video out 640 x 480 B&W via 1/8” video jack
(HD-SDI available in separate unit)
Click to expand...

I don't understand it, but I also don't understand the passing reference to how the crank can be programmed to any function:

Shoot to Thrill
With a sleek body design, functional pistol grip, and Bolex’s iconic crank, the D16 is fun to use and has character to
spare. The crank can be programed to adjust just about anything in the menu, from volume to focus to fps. This fea-
ture and the start/stop trigger on the pistol grip makes for a shooting experience that’s unique to the Bolex brand.
Click to expand...

Focus? Seems that would be stepping away from the simple mantra. Are they suggesting the camera will control an external lens motor?

Barry_Green said:
Ryan, if you want a lens that can do double duty on PL and c-mount, you must not get a c-mount lens! You can put a PL lens on almost any body but you can't put a c-mount lens on ANYTHING other than c-mount (with the possible exception of m4/3, if the back of the lens is small enough diameter to seat inside the m4/3 body).
Click to expand...


Thanks Barry! I already own a Angenieux S16mm lens 12-120 f/2.2 in PL mount, so I think I'll stick with that, however, I'm not a man who passes on an opprotunity to go lens shopping so I picked up what I hope will be two well performing and matched lenses... a Zeiss Tevidon Jena DDR f/2 10mm and a Zeiss Tevidon Jena f/2 18-90mm zoom.

!C!SuGYgBmk~$(KGrHqYOKpYEy+jCzKnEBNCV0d!Vn!~~_3-1.JPGAZmU5.jpg

I have some random C-mount glass from my 16mm and 8mm camera collection. On my 8mm bolex I have some mint condition Elitar Soligor f/1.9 6.5mm and 38mm. We'll see eventually, if this camera comes out, what their image circle is made to cover.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of lenses, if they design the mount properly (interchangeable and shallow enough) then we should be able to talk Ciecio7 into making an m43 adapter, so we gh2/af100 users could use our Voigtlander lenses on it. That f/0.95 f-stop could let the Bolex approach 35mm-style DOF...
 
As for focus, I would be shocked if the crank was controlling a lens motor. Remember in c-mount there are no electronics at all. Maybe they were meaning the crank could trigger the focus assist?
 
Barry_Green said:
As for focus, I would be shocked if the crank was controlling a lens motor. Remember in c-mount there are no electronics at all. Maybe they were meaning the crank could trigger the focus assist?
Click to expand...

Yes c-mount lenses are certainly older! What I meant was the ability to communicate with an external motor, such as an M1. It was more of a statement of stating improbability than genuine contemplation. I don't see how it could be anything but what you suggested above, regarding the focus assist. An M1 or similar lens motor's torque would surely eat most c-mount lenses alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top