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

Postmaster said:
The whole thing doesn´t make sense, a GXC2300 is about §5000.

I doubt, that they take a $5000 camera, build a fancy housing around it and the electronics for buffer and card recording, plus a monitor and sell the whole shebang for just 2.5 or 3 grand.

just saying,

Frank
Click to expand...
most probably theyll just buy bulk of the sensor not the camera.
 
That's Jordyn Lucas in the lead of One Small Step, the granddaughter of one of my favorite photography clients! Her mother sent me the links to the trailer and BTS. She is super thrilled with the project. I am very happy for Jordyn and the Bolex Digital project! As exciting as it gets!
 
I can see this being a great b-cam, even or especially if your A-cam is a super35 cmos cam. Raw will mean it should be able to grade to match just about anything. CCD means you can move it without jello. You can run with a 10mm lens and know that your shot is in focus.

The old zooms with built in eye-pieces will be sure to find a home on this.

My main criticism of the proposed spec is the 320x240 screen, needs to be sharper to work without a monitor. 16mm inherently has deeper focus, which makes focus harder to nail.
 
I won't be buying one of these anytime soon for personal choice reasons, but I think it's awesome what they are trying, and that in less than three days they achieved their highest goal, as they close in on $300k. They are most definitely filling a void left by those who waited so long for Scarlet, only to see an Epic-lite with the same name and triple the price.

Only they know the answer to this: But I fear it may have been a mistake to pre-sell 80 cameras at $2500, even 20 more at $3500 for a package. The future will tell if this was too much to achieve, at too low of cost. My concern is that there is no wiggle room for mishaps or snafus, especially when they could have easily charged 20% more and likely achieved the same funding.

Still, can't wait to see it, and I really hope they succeed.
 
snowleopard said:
I won't be buying one of these anytime soon for personal choice reasons, but I think it's awesome what they are trying, and that in less than three days they achieved their highest goal, as they close in on $300k. They are most definitely filling a void left by those who waited so long for Scarlet, only to see an Epic-lite with the same name and triple the price.

Only they know the answer to this: But I fear it may have been a mistake to pre-sell 80 cameras at $2500, even 20 more at $3500 for a package. The future will tell if this was too much to achieve, at too low of cost. My concern is that there is no wiggle room for mishaps or snafus, especially when they could have easily charged 20% more and likely achieved the same funding.

Still, can't wait to see it, and I really hope they succeed.
Click to expand...

+1... If they win, we win.
 
This project smells fishy. This is supposed to be a pure RAW cam that simply passes the sensor data to the SSD, right, with no hardware/software/cost-intensive Debayering, right? How come then that this camera claims to have an LCD viewfinder?
 
Been following this from page 1.

Unfortunately I don't have $2500 (Or equivilent £) to drop on this otherwise I would. Raw and Lightmeter? No problem. Storage? No problems either, even with the recent price rises of hard-drives they're still cheap as chips.

Just wish the LCD was higher res for focusing, but apreciate teh arguments RE: tech.
 
@cantsin: so far they've used a modified machine vision camera, and what they're trying to do is mimic what that camera does, in a more film-maker-friendly way; that machine vision camera has an analog-out signal apart from the digital RAW signal, just like they're saying their camera will have; I guess the LCD will display that same analog signal
 
Domain: digitalbolex.com

Date Registered: 03/21/11
Date Modified: 03/06/12
Expiry Date: 03/21/13

Registrant ienso
Stylianos Derventzis
20 Mural Street, Unit 7
Richmond Hill, on (CA)
L4B 1K3

And the company they are referring to as their partners who make some development:

Domain: digitalcameradesign.com

Date Registered: 02/08/10
Date Modified: 01/01/12
Expiry Date: 02/08/13

Registrant
ienso
Stylianos Derventzis
20 Mural Street, Unit 7
Richmond Hill, on (CA)
L4B 1K3
 
now that's spooky... the optimist in me can still think of situations where that would make sense (e.g. old employee left company to develop awesome cinema camera instead of boring machine vision cameras, contracted company for manufacturing), but spooky indeed
 
NormanBates said:
now that's spooky... the optimist in me can still think of situations where that would make sense (e.g. old employee left company to develop awesome cinema camera instead of boring machine vision cameras, contracted company for manufacturing), but spooky indeed
Click to expand...

When Norman Bates says something's spooky, I listen...
 
NormanBates said:
now that's spooky... the optimist in me can still think of situations where that would make sense (e.g. old employee left company to develop awesome cinema camera instead of boring machine vision cameras, contracted company for manufacturing), but spooky indeed
Click to expand...
I don't find it strange at all. Ienso is, I believe, Digital Bolex's manufacturing partner.
 
Caveat Donator:

http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/20/...rfunded-kickstarter-project-fails-to-deliver/

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schuyler/lockpicks-by-open-locksport/comments

You're not pre-ordering a product. You're donating money to start a company. In response they're hopefully going to be able to reward you with a camera, but as the above listed projects (and many others) show, this isn't always the case. I just hope it works out for everyone. I'll happily pay an extra $800 for the finished camera that I know exists and I've seen reviews for.
 
what i found about Stylianos Derventzis it looks like he has patents in optics and signal processing .... he is probably head man and that two are front .... cool looking hipsters to make all this sexy ...
because i always got a feeling that they don't know anything about camera tech ...
this gives some merit to a project

http://www.google.com/patents/US6665460
 
Last edited:
(crap, I've been uncovered!! now that my alias is useless... does anybody know if/how I can change my forum name?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top