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

kylevant said:
It's going to be tough for us non-film guys to get decent exposure and colour (color) without any on-board waveforms and vectorscopes. Many more light-meters being sold...
Click to expand...
That is my prediction, yes, that this is a camera that you will have to use with a light meter (or just memorize the Sunny-16 rule!)

It's possible they will surprise us and it will have features like zebras, but frankly I am not expecting it and I don't see any indication on their site that such things are planned. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the guy in the comments who's asking about "more features in firmware updates", because that will really tell us which way they're headed. Either it's a simplistic tool that just dumps data (which is what I think it is) or they're really under-marketing it and it'll have a lot more capabilities than I think it will. Which would be really cool since I figured it was already worth the price, so any additional features would be a bonus! But as of now, I'm planning on using my Sekonic light meter with it...
 
We could argue color resolution 'til the cows come home, but I guess with regard to a low cost raw camera like the Digital Bolex, it should easily be capable of resolving color at least as well as any available native 1920x1080p single chip or 3-chip video camera under $10k and provide much more creative grading flexibility in post than any of them.

Adobe Lightroom 4 for example supports motion DNG files and would allow a range of creative image control not possible with any encoded video camera. For instance, one could create and save image profiles for particular lenses that corrected CA, geometric distortion, and vignetting. Also the range of control over highlight and shadow details, white balance, creative color balance, sharpening, gamma, etc. is far more flexible than the tools available in camera for conventional video cameras.
The downside of course is that like its original film counterpart, the Digital Bolex will do none of this for you in camera, so significant time and effort for post processing is required. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea. But I personally like a workflow where all you have to worry about in the field is image composition, DOF and focus, and optimum exposure, not whether the image you see on your monitor or viewfinder under less than ideal field conditions is exactly or nearly what you want in the finished product.

I used to shoot a good bit of 16mm film for video transfer and post production before Betacam killed the market. It will be a real joy to practice a similar kind of work flow with a digital raw 16mm equivalent.
 
Last edited:
S. Matthews said:
new prototype pic...

View attachment 49933

this is their current prototype, they say the GX was used to test the sensor, basically proof of concept and they liked it so much they shot the short on it. the source is the comment section of the kickstarter page.

P.s. could someone post the turret idea for me, not on kickstarter yet, does it take pay pal? not fond of amazon as I've had a few issues dealing with them being from Canada.
Click to expand...

Lol. Busted... but since the camera is so "electronically" basic I'd expect the fact that they replaced the Prosilica's sensor and processing unit with their own means that it closely represents their actual prototype. I mean, their camera is mostly just the sensor and storage anyway...
 
kylevant said:
It's going to be tough for us non-film guys to get decent exposure and colour (color) without any on-board waveforms and vectorscopes. Many more light-meters being sold...
Click to expand...
Let me revisit this though. Getting exposure with a light meter and all that -- it's different from what you're used to, but is it harder? No, it's infinitely simpler. Video has given us many powerful tools, but it has required them because of how complex everything is. Whereas with a raw camera, there's not really anything you *can* do to the image. You point the camera, you set the iris, you pull the trigger, and you hope and pray you've got what you need to make it look like you want it in post. That's the way you shoot film, that's the way you'd shoot raw with a DBolex. You don't have to stress about the exposure because you've got 12 stops of DR spread across 12 bits of information, so as long as you profile the camera and learn how the sensor reacts (i.e., it holds 4 stops over exposure and 8 stops under, or whatever) then you meter the scene with your meter to make sure what you want stays within that range, and then you shoot. And then you work it all out in post. Same as we do with film.

As for color -- that's all done in post. Use your three-way color corrector instead of adjusting your R/G/B gain in camera, etc. The adjustability is all there, it's just moved out of the camera and on to the desktop.

But the point is, once you've lit the scene properly, you pull the trigger and then you sort it all out in post. Very, very, very different (in fact, pretty much diametrically opposite) way of how we work with video cameras, where you optimize menus and tweak settings and build scene files so that when you shoot footage, it looks the way you want it to. Exact opposite way of working.

That's probably why a device like this is appealing to film shooters, but may prove frustrating to those who have been weaned on something like a GH2. I mean, the GH2's manual is huge and intimidating, whereas on a Bolex the manual was maybe 16 pages (I'm guessing) and probably half that was spent on how to load the film in.

Ahh, it was a different world...

I wonder if they'll put in a behind-the-lens filter slot?
 
Razz16mm said:
but I guess with regard to a low cost raw camera like the Digital Bolex, it should easily be capable of resolving color at least as well as any available native 1920x1080p single chip or 3-chip video camera under $10k and provide much more creative grading flexibility in post than any of them.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with the manipulation-in-post part, but I definitely disagree with the color part. I think a three-chip 1920x1080 HPX250 or HPX370, recording to AVC-Intra, will definitely handily out-resolve a Bayer 2K single chip (in terms of both color and composite detail). And I think an EX1/EX3 or AC160/AC130 will definitely do it too out its SDI port, but not to their onboard recording.


The downside of course is that like its original film counterpart, the Digital Bolex will do none of this for you in camera, so significant time and effort for post processing is required. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea. But I personally like a workflow where all you have to worry about in the field is image composition, DOF and focus, and optimum exposure, not whether the image you see on your monitor or viewfinder under less than ideal field conditions is exactly or nearly what you want in the finished product.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you understand (and appreciate) the DBolex for exactly what it is. Is this, then, the dream cam for you that you always wished Scarlet 3K would have been?
 
Okay, I gotta go crawl back in my Stratos-induced dark cave, but it's sure been fun to come out in the light and engage in lively debate, so thanks to all.

As for the color-res debate, we can certainly drop it, because I just figured out the way to test it -- when I get mine, I'll just shoot a res chart through an optical blue and optical red and optical green filter, and we'll see what it really delivers instead of worrying about what it mathematically delivers.
 
Barry_Green said:
Sounds like you understand (and appreciate) the DBolex for exactly what it is. Is this, then, the dream cam for you that you always wished Scarlet 3K would have been?
Click to expand...

Well, the original Scarlet 3k would have been a superior camera, even at twice the price. But compared to any conventional video camera, yes something like this is definitely a preferred choice. Also interested in the possibilities of the Kineraw S16 too, though it will likely be more expensive.
 
kylevant said:
Lol. Busted... but since the camera is so "electronically" basic I'd expect the fact that they replaced the Prosilica's sensor and processing unit with their own means that it closely represents their actual prototype. I mean, their camera is mostly just the sensor and storage anyway...
Click to expand...

they didn't replace anything....
prosilica use same sensor ... i wish that ugly box don't hide gx 2300 inside.... :)
god i hope im wrong ...
 
Last edited:
There are several machine vision camera companies that produce what is essentially a sensor, shutter control, power supply, and raw data bus interface in a box. Many give you a choice of off the shelf sensors of different makes and types that can be tailored to specific applications. What you connect it to and how you process the raw frame data is up to you.
 
vladszp said:
prosilica use same sensor ... i wish that ugly box don't hide gx 2300 inside
Click to expand...

The GX2300 retails for about $4,000. I doubt they're buying GX2300's, even at wholesale prices, and just adding on their own XLRs, viewscreen, and body. Kodak sells the sensor for a few hundred.

This camera (2/3-type sensor, raw recording) is old:
- Jeff Kreines said he was making it in 2004. He called it the Kinetta. It never happened.
- Otis Grapsas said he was making it a couple years ago. It hasn't happened.
- Ikonoskop made it. All the pixel-peepers sweating what the image quality calculates out to should just watch some Ikonoskop footage and take a vacation.

It lures business- or engineering-minded filmmakers for its simplicity.
- Since the industrial camera market (security, factory floor, etc.) uses 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 chips, you can buy these for a few hundred dollars a pop. (If only the industrial market liked S35 :-).
- Since hard drives, and now flash drives and even flash cards, have sped up enough to handle the tsunami of uncompressed data off a 2K chip, you don't have to mess with complicated intermediate electronics.

But it is deceptively simple. Otis Grapsas taught us that even to read raw from a CCD, you have to add a lot of your own electronics. I think the old 80-20 rule plays out here. It takes 20% of the time to do the first 80% of the work, and 80% of the time to finish the last 20%.

The Digital Bolex guy says he has spent two years developing this camera. He has a bulky prototype and "just" needs to put it in a nice body with all the trimmings. That's just it, this last part can take a whole 'nother year, because of the 80-20 rule, the devil is in the details --- pick your metaphor. From watching others tackle even simple hardware projects --- and in my own experience making software --- you feel like you're almost there, just a few more months, once you're 80% done. But really, you need to wait until you feel about 97% done. Then you only have a few months left. Please don't ask him to add a lens turret.
 
Last edited:
concerning their use of the machine vision camera for their tests, that's absolutely normal to start there. we did the same. unlike red or arri, garage start-ups usually don't have the funds to design their own cmos or ccd chip. so either you can use existing sensors and the evaluation boards that most sensor manufacturers offer for their various cmos/ccd chips or you go with a machine vision company that already integrated these sensors in a more compact design with standard interfaces like gigE, cameralink etc. then comes all the work making the machine vision camera work with your the FPGA or embedded pc and your software - i think they already did that.

but going from a proof of concept frankenstein camera to a small series of well integrated cameras is no small task, even if all the electronic boards are already designed. we burned through a s*%tload of money (much more than they already raised) going from frankenstein to real product (allthough i have to say ours was more complex).

i wish they'd post a pic of the construction of the camera, like this

View attachment 49938

not just the exterior 3d model they've shown..that i can model in solidworks in half a day.

no one can steal anything from that dense screenshot anyway (plus we hid a few things), but it would show they thought out the manufacturing side of their camera. the pic of the shoebox they posted is rather frightening :D

their curvy retro design is quite lovely, but not easy to manufacture and doing it in china might bring up a ton of other problems.

but luckily they will be over-funded by quite a lot, so they'll have that money to iron out the kinks.
they have a good shot at succeeding if they work together with experienced engineers and mold makers.
 
Last edited:
For those who don't know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule

I had a prof in film school who could set exposure without a lightmeter because he was so used to shooting film... Weird to watch him be within half a stop or dead on when asked. The most I saw him be off was 2 stops. I imagine that most people who shoot with this cam will just use their dslr to help set it's exposure by finding out how far apart in exposure the two cams run, ie: If my gh2 is set at 320 iso with 1/50th shutter then my Dbolex should be set at 200 iso with 1/48th shutter *Hypothetically speaking of course*.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Is this, then, the dream cam for you that you always wished Scarlet 3K would have been?
Click to expand...
This is a tough question to answer for anyone trying to compare the Digital Bolex with the promise of the original Scarlet (not what it "evolved" into before it was killed). First of all, Scarlet was 3K, not 2K, so in effect it oversampled for 2K. Second, for the money, it had a sophisticated fly-by-wire integrated zoom, not those horribly archaic, old manual zooms. ;) More importantly, though, was the fact that it was originally envisioned as a raw Volkskamera -- a camera that would record raw but let anyone (including soccer moms) get a usable image out of it. At NAB 2008 Ted Schilowitz said that Red was working a simplified workflow that would yield good results with the default presets but would permit extensive manipulation. Sadly, the original concept was flawed from the beginning, as Red seriously misjudged Scarlet's intended market.
 
@yolk @combatentropy
my point exactly ...
they still playing with machine vision cameras but promise full production camera in august ...
 
Ugh... I don't know why anyone is unhappy with the specs. This camera is like digital 16mm. It really is. Made to be simple, of decent quality, and cheap.

I always have felt that they were using the Bolex name very well as it was to set expectations to how the camera was to be used... similar to a bolex film camera! But apparently a never satisfied army of shooters (who likely has never used a bolex before or shot 16mm for that matter) continue to push request after request trying to push the simple film camera design toward a video camera. I just don't think they get it.

Yes. There will be no auto focus, no auto shutter, no auto iso, and no auto aperture. You can't see exactly what you are getting until post and everything rides on your intuition, experience and knowledge as a cinematographer. Scary world huh? Welcome to film.

DSLR's and video cameras have, to an extent, coddled a generation who set exposure by eye of an onboard monitor, or who let the camera make the exposure decisions for them. This may sound like a rant from a seventy-year old veteran... but it's not. It's from a 26 year old cinematographer who passionately believes in masterful command of his craft. I can't wait to have this camera in one hand via a badass pistol grip and my light meter in the other (likely a spot meter, because I roll hardcore zone system, baby).

This is the only reason I bought one, and I couldn't be more excited!
 
Last edited:
@Ryan Patrick O'Hara
that is a difference between digital cinema camera and camcorder ...
real DP vs guy who shoots his Backyard ...
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Ugh... I don't know why anyone is unhappy with the specs. This camera is like digital 16mm. It really is. Made to be simple, thus cheap.

I always have felt that they were using the Bolex name very well as it was to set expectations to how the camera was to be used... but apparently the never satisfied army of shooters who likely has never used a bolex before, or shot 16mm film for that matter, marches on with request after request trying to push the simple film camera design toward a video camera. I just don't think they get it.

Yes. There will be no auto focus, no auto shutter, no auto iso, and no auto aperture. You can't see exactly what you are getting until post and everything rides on your intuition, experience and knowledge as a cinematographer. Scary world huh? Welcome to digital film.

DSLR's and video cameras have, to an extent, coddled a generation who set exposure by eye of an onboard monitor, or who let the camera make the exposure decisions for them. This may sound like a rant from a seventy-year old veteran... but it's not. It's from a 26 year old cinematographer who passionately believes in masterful command of his craft. I can't wait to have this camera in one hand via a badass pistol grip and my light meter in the other (likely a spot meter, because I roll hardcore zone system, baby).

This is the only reason I bought one, and I couldn't be more excited!
Click to expand...

Well said. I have for many years profiled my video cameras and shot them like film: manual exposure with a light meter. Even with all the onboard doodads today, you can still get a better all around image with maximum DR doing this without having to worry so much about what the LCD or EVF looks like. Still need to nail white balance pretty closely though. I use an incident meter and zone system rather than a spot meter, but generally the same approach. I do this with my current GL2 hobby cam because the onboard EVF and LCD don't come close to showing the available DR the camera is capable of.
 
Last edited:
Is the vision for the crank to wind up a spring to make it go? Or as a menu interface? For in-shot ramping? Anything that introduces unnecessary movement to the camera body during the shot is a design flaw, not a feature.

I don't believe any "modern" Bolex was ever a hand-cranked machine.
 
Erik Olson said:
Is the vision for the crank to wind up a spring to make it go? Or as a menu interface? For in-shot ramping? Anything that introduces unnecessary movement to the camera body during the shot is a design flaw, not a feature.

I don't believe any "modern" Bolex was ever a hand-cranked machine.
Click to expand...

It's just a simple rotary encoder. Does not manually crank anything, physically. It does whatever you set it to, in regards to being a user-assigned dial. I don't care much for it, because it serves little actual function considering framerate or shutter speed will be among the very few setting which have options numberous enough to justify cranking through, literally... However this will be amazing if you can use it to change frame rate in real time by how fast and how well you crank it. Otherwise, it seems to be a glorified up, down menu button.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top