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

Razz16mm said:
Same drill you did with the raw files. Shoot a full frame version encoded to 1080 AVC in camera and an ETC version encoded to 1080 AVC in camera. Be interesting to see how the color resolution holds up compared to the raw to RGB versions
Click to expand...
Hmm, after thinking about it for a while I came up with a sort of way to do what you're asking. I put the scaled 1080p from the original raw 4K file on the timeline in Vegas, and rendered it out as a blu-ray. Blu-ray and AVCHD are basically the same codec, so this should be basically what you're asking for. It looks really harsh and crunchy with rough edges, so I don't think it worked quite out how it should have, but ... hey, here it is for what it's worth. I uploaded the raw file previously if someone else wants to take a better stab at it.

Revised four-layer PSD: http://www.mediafire.com/?sx6uixvapwqjemf
 
Barry_Green said:
Hmm, after thinking about it for a while I came up with a sort of way to do what you're asking. I put the scaled 1080p from the original raw 4K file on the timeline in Vegas, and rendered it out as a blu-ray. Blu-ray and AVCHD are basically the same codec, so this should be basically what you're asking for. It looks really harsh and crunchy with rough edges, so I don't think it worked quite out how it should have, but ... hey, here it is for what it's worth. I uploaded the raw file previously if someone else wants to take a better stab at it.

Revised four-layer PSD: http://www.mediafire.com/?sx6uixvapwqjemf
Click to expand...

Barry, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge on this thread. What I've learn from you on this tread alone is nothing short of outstanding.

Thank you.
 
My problem in this thread came up when HHL was all excited because the DBolex was claiming it was going to be delivering "2k 12-bit 4:4:4", and ... that's just not possible from a single Bayer sensor. That's the same problem I had with Red when they advertised the same thing; it just can't be done.
Click to expand...

Pfffft! That freaking HHL! :evil:

(He gets excited about EVERYTHING if you haven't noticed!!!) Awwww Shucks....

All those cold hard facts....geez! What kind of forum is this anyway?
 
Barry_Green said:
Glad you folks are finding it useful. Now let's just get a DBolex done so we can start using it!
Click to expand...

Amen! I just want a true raw output camera to play with at a reasonably affordable price for a hobby cam. For me it is about having the most creative lattitude possible with the image.

I can't find the quote now, but Joe talked about the difference between the photographer having total creative control over the image vs the camera maker determining to a large degree what that image is going to look like.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone who wants raw used a camera that records 10-bit 4:2:2 to something like S-log?

I've used neither, but looking at what people are doing with the F3, I'm beginning to doubt that raw is any more flexible in post. (Just an innocent question, not trying to start a flame war.)

Raw is expensive. For 10-bit, 1920x1080, 24fps, raw is 474 megabits per second, 213 GB per hour. Meanwhile, ProRes is less than half that, at 220 megabits per second and 99 GB per hour. AVC Intra is less than half that again, at 100 megabits per second, 45 GB per hour. And finally, AVC Ultra is half that again, at 50 megabits per second, 22.5 GB per hour. And since AVC Ultra uses interframe compression, it probably is more than twice as efficient as AVC Intra. So I would expect AVC Ultra to look better than Intra.


raw: 474 Mbps, 213 GB/hr.
AVC-Ultra: 50 Mbps, 22.5 GB/hr

Bear in mind that even a Class 10 SD card could handle AVC-Ultra (50 Mbps = 6.25 MB/sec.), but for raw you have to go with hard drives or solid-state drives, or the Digital Bolex's buffer approach. So, not only are you paying ten times as much for storage, but the whole storage is less convenient, to some degree. Either you're buying specially encased hard drives from the camera maker (RED) or screwing together your own (Atomos) or waiting several minutes for the CF cards to catch up to the internal SSD (Digital Bolex).

Now before you disagree, make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about not only 10-bit 4:2:2, but 10-bit 4:2:2 recorded in log space, like S-log. S-log is just as much a part of the equation as 4:2:2.

And don't get me wrong, I think raw is interesting. I'm just not sure, if there were a 10-bit, 4:2:2 camera at the same price, if it's worth the added pain.
 
Last edited:
I am so looking forward to using a camera where the field shooting decisions boil down to composition, manual focus, and manual exposure. No worries about in camera color balance, gain, gamma curves, codec issues or whether your monitor really gives an accurate indication of your final image quality because that is the best shot you will get at it.

Cinema DNG is Adobe's native raw "digital negative" format and is supported directly in Premiere, AE, Photoshop, and Lightroom. The incredible range of available aftermarket plug ins and software used by still photographers for raw image processing boggles the mind. The potential for creative image manipulation through the "development" process is endless. This is what excites me most about the DBolex and other potential upcoming raw motion cameras. Regardless of the codec, no encoded video format offers the creative potential of working directly from the raw sensor data. It may not be the practical choice for most shooters, certainly not for those who want the camera to do everything for them. But for me it is a most fascinating option.
 
combatentropy said:
Has anyone who wants raw used a camera that records 10-bit 4:2:2 to something like S-log?

I've used neither, but looking at what people are doing with the F3, I'm beginning to doubt that raw is any more flexible in post. (Just an innocent question, not trying to start a flame war.)

Raw is expensive. For 10-bit, 1920x1080, 24fps, raw is 474 megabits per second, 213 GB per hour. Meanwhile, ProRes is less than half that, at 220 megabits per second and 99 GB per hour. AVC Intra is less than half that again, at 100 megabits per second, 45 GB per hour. And finally, AVC Ultra is half that again, at 50 megabits per second, 22.5 GB per hour. And since AVC Ultra uses interframe compression, it probably is more than twice as efficient as AVC Intra. So I would expect AVC Ultra to look better than Intra.


raw: 474 Mbps, 213 GB/hr.
AVC-Ultra: 50 Mbps, 22.5 GB/hr

Bear in mind that even a Class 10 SD card could handle AVC-Ultra (50 Mbps = 6.25 MB/sec.), but for raw you have to go with hard drives or solid-state drives, or the Digital Bolex's buffer approach. So, not only are you paying ten times as much for storage, but the whole storage is less convenient, to some degree. Either you're buying specially encased hard drives from the camera maker (RED) or screwing together your own (Atomos) or waiting several minutes for the CF cards to catch up to the internal SSD (Digital Bolex).

Now before you disagree, make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about not only 10-bit 4:2:2, but 10-bit 4:2:2 recorded in log space, like S-log. S-log is just as much a part of the equation as 4:2:2.

And don't get me wrong, I think raw is interesting. I'm just not sure, if they offered an AVC-Ultra camera with the same features, if it's worth the added pain.

Of course, the question is purely academic at this point. Because there is no AVC-Ultra or even -Intra camera for $3,300 with a 2/3" size sensor or bigger. But if there was..
Click to expand...

Properly manipulating the most RAW image possible from a sensor will always yield the best results. S-log's advantages are similar but not quite the same. But even doing a comparison to RAW vs S-log is besides the point. The D16 is about keeping it inexpensive and simple. Adding internal processing to create compression within the camera is against the business model. It seems to be that they will use the advantage of RAW and the simplicity of RAW to their benefit.

The minute they start going down the road Panasonic, Sony, and others go, (adding internal codec compression or sensor processing) is the minute the project becomes exponentially more complicated and they don't have the resources to make a Panasonic like video camera. They are 'keeping it simple, stupid'. :)
 
camlove said:
I'd rather buy from a large corporation that over engineers then dumbs down the product...
Click to expand...

And I would rather buy from engineers who "dumb down" the product.

Their implementation may be imperfect, but it won't be because they left off white balance, gamma curves, and several other redundancies with your NLE, things that are better done in the luxury of time you have during post.

There are a million things you must do right on set, which can't be corrected in post:

1. Lens choice, which affects depth of field and perspective
2. Angle and framing
3. Focus
4. Frame rate
5. Shutter speed
6. Lighting
7. Exposure
8. Actors' performance, or nature's revelation, or interviewee's answers, depending on subject matter
9. Audio levels

Okay, a few of the above can be massaged in post, like framing or frame rate. But it's always easier and usually still looks better if you got it originally.

And these other things can be tweaked to your hearts' content in the cozy chair, air-conditioning, and quiet (or music) of your editing room, without actors or crew or interview subjects or weather or nature waiting on you (or simply not waiting on you):

1. Debayering algorithm
2. Gain
3. Contrast curves
4. Color balance

In my mind, these controls shouldn't be on a camera. Even a news shooter could build common presets into some kind of NLE "effects filter" that they just drag over their footage on the timeline. On set, they are just distractions. They're really shouldn't be people on set, either, asking to see a polished live image on a monitor somewhere. They should know that as long as you don't (A) Clip your highlights or (B) Crush your blacks (which is nearly impossible with RAW, by the way. Just don't clip your highlights.) then you will have multitudinous possibilities of looks at the leisure of your editing lounge.
 
Last edited:
camlove said:
That 400 ISO seems pretty tame. Especially when some of the DSLR's look decent at 1600. What gives? Does anybody know why it couldn't be higher?
Click to expand...

Just because you can't set the ISO higher in the camera doesn't mean I'd write off the fact that it can 'only' do 400 iso.

The RedMX was native 320iso but you could push it to 800-1000 with good results. I'm sure the DSLR's you are referencing are not native 1600 iso chips. They are likely much less with good results at high ISO's.

Pushing a camera is simply boosting the signal (a simplised description). If you have ever worked with RED and their 'Raw' files you'll see that you can set the iso in post just as you can in camera, and this is because it's simply a signal boost. Thus, I would not say that the D-16 can't be pushed or boosted in post processing past 400iso with good results until proven otherwise.

If it can be pushed past 400iso, that simply means you can't previsualize it in camera, but will have to push it in processing... much like film... hmmmm.... I see a trend here. :)
 
Last edited:
There is nothing lazy about shooting raw. You still have to expose it correctly, like film, and all of the image modifying tools you use for film such as lighting and filters you would use for a raw camera. But like film you make your decisions about the final look and color balance of the footage in post where you have better tools and monitors in controlled viewing conditions. Since you are working with raw sensor data, many things that you have to nail on set with a video camera to get your best footage are just meta data that can be manipulated at will as you process your footage without changing or degrading the original file. It is the difference of shooting with a film mentality vs shooting with a video mentality and the camera is just a data capturing device not a finished image making device. You are less occupied with finished image decisions like white balance, gain and gamma while shooting which frees you to concentrate on composition, lighting, and exposure. You still have to know and stay within the useable native sensitivity and DR of the camera to get best results. But you end up with a lot more image data to work with and this greatly expands your range of creative choices without the image falling apart in post.
To me the people who expect the camera to do everything for them automatically so they don't have to learn or practice the craft of photography are the lazy ones. Shooting raw is the exact opposite of this mentality, you have to know and use photographic skills. In this respect it is much more like shooting film.
I used to shoot a lot of 16mm for video finish. You processed the negative or positive original, then determined how it was going to look during the film scan and DI process. Shooting raw works the same way.
 
Last edited:
For best DR, the gain applied between sensor and ADC should be just enough to calibrate the full well voltage of the sensor to the maximum digital value output of the ADC.
The native light sensitivity of silicon is physically limited to around 400 ISO equivalent. High ISO speeds result from adding some kind of gain, which increases noise and reduces DR so most cameras also do in camera noise reduction. Low exposure limits are more about better signal to noise ratios with new electronics and sophisticated noise reduction techniques than any real increase in the native sensitivity of sensors.
Since the DBolex does not apparently do in camera gain or processing, the ISO ratings would be the range that reflect the true native sensitivity of the sensor itself.
To me a true 400 ISO is fast. The only film stocks I ever worked with that were that fast were black and white. Color neg fell mostly in the 50 to 200 ISO range.
 
camlove said:
Great detective work! That square box in front of that is simply a lens mount adapter to make it play nice. From the factory the GX2300 can be fitted with a Nikon or Canon EF lens mount.

And these hustlers are simply going to repackage that in a pretty box and re-sell it.

http://www.alliedvisiontec.com/emea/products/cameras/gigabit-ethernet/prosilica-gx/gx2300.html

Nice catch vladszp.

Okay. When are they going to apologize to all of us for this obvious hustle????
Click to expand...

There are dozens of industrial brick cameras out there. They are nothing but a sensor and an ADC processor dumping the raw sensor data to a bus connector. They will not even produce an image until you buy or create a computer and software package to control the hardware and process the data. There is still a lot of development involved to tailor the hardware for the kind of image output you are looking for, and as with any digital camera, the software is what really determines what the final image looks like.
 
I released my preorder. Not for any reason other than another camera-gear investment opportunity came about in which I had to seize, and the extra $2,500 was useful. Oh well. I will surely be buying one of these cameras when they come out, and if all goes to plan, the money spent now will surely make that very possible. I'm only saying this here to perhaps get another DVXuser who wanted the pre-order to get it.

I can't wait to see what they come up with, and I guess I'll be number #101, instead of the 40-something I was before.

-ryan
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top