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

Jade Lane said:
...and you know whats coming next, otherwise ****.
Click to expand...

So being a backer of the camera gives one the right to spread misinformation about it or the way the industry works, and nobody (even somebody who knows better) is allowed to question or correct that? Wow, just wow.

I do believe I've already made a positive contribution to this discussion by pointing out some glaring inaccuracies and BS excuses for the camera's inadequacies. Again, sorry for my subsequent overreaction there, but to say I have nothing to contribute here is just more BS ;)
 
Last edited:
Stay on subject ?

Are you really condemning something before its scheduled to arrive, try and be more positive and think of the possibilities...

Again, go away and come back when the camera(s) arrive, then lets compare their strengths and weaknesses, nothing in life is perfect.
 
What here was off subject?

I am not condemning anything, I am seeking information just like anybody else and trying to assure that what is posted here is accurate - I happen to know a thing or two (or a million) about movie cameras.

And no, I will not go away :)
 
wow, great link. I had no idea there was no contract to guarantee you anything. So these guys building the camera could essentially blow all the money traveling around promoting it, then say to the people that kicked in, " well sorry guys, your not going to recieve a camera we spent all the money in the marketing phase" And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Is this correct? Or did I miss interpret something?
 
Kickstarter is a relatively new company. Exciting things are happening there all the time, but I'm starting to wonder how long this whole "ex gratia" thing will continue without some serious legal ramifications. I'm not saying that suing the proprietor of the campaign will work, I'm saying that it's just a matter of time till someone tries. And when that happens then it may become evident that Kickstarter needs a series of contracts for certain types of projects (such as the ones that involve "pre-orders"). Otherwise, how long will people continue to give to un-proven products (I'm not throwing a hit at the DBolex here, just generally)? As with anything new and anything that depends on an honor system, there are those that take advantage of it and ruin it for the rest of us honest folks. Just a matter of time.

Possibly a bit off topic, but I've been checking these Video Game High School guys out (Freddie Wong's crowd). They raised $273k for their project. I've noticed extensive amounts of adverts on their web series and I don't feel that such a thing is entirely ethical. Get people to provide funds for a series and then make money from the series. That is profit, since the project was well funded via kickstarter. Making profit without any expensive (effectively free in their case) sources of capital (such as bank loans) could be frowned upon...
 
kylevant said:
Kickstarter is a relatively new company. Exciting things are happening there all the time, but I'm starting to wonder how long this whole "ex gratia" thing will continue without some serious legal ramifications. I'm not saying that suing the proprietor of the campaign will work, I'm saying that it's just a matter of time till someone tries. And when that happens then it may become evident that Kickstarter needs a series of contracts for certain types of projects (such as the ones that involve "pre-orders"). Otherwise, how long will people continue to give to un-proven products (I'm not throwing a hit at the DBolex here, just generally)? As with anything new and anything that depends on an honor system, there are those that take advantage of it and ruin it for the rest of us honest folks. Just a matter of time.

Possibly a bit off topic, but I've been checking these Video Game High School guys out (Freddie Wong's crowd). They raised $273k for their project. I've noticed extensive amounts of adverts on their web series and I don't feel that such a thing is entirely ethical. Get people to provide funds for a series and then make money from the series. That is profit, since the project was well funded via kickstarter. Making profit without any expensive (effectively free in their case) sources of capital (such as bank loans) could be frowned upon...
Click to expand...

Well if groupon.com wasn't enough case and point with their multi-million dollar class action law suit.....
 
maranfilms said:
wow, great link. I had no idea there was no contract to guarantee you anything. So these guys building the camera could essentially blow all the money traveling around promoting it, then say to the people that kicked in, " well sorry guys, your not going to recieve a camera we spent all the money in the marketing phase" And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Is this correct? Or did I miss interpret something?
Click to expand...

That's not technically correct, but it may be practically correct.

The Kickstarter is a contract between you the investor and the person promising to provide you with a product. It's a legally binding contract and there is no "sorry we're just gonna keep the money and not give you anything" clause.

So you can sue people if they don't give you the product or service for your money back. It says this in the kickstarter agreement.

Are you gonna sue someone for 14.99 if they don't send you a DVD of music they promised? Probably not worth the trouble.

For a 3K camera? Yea, I can see some people taking the time to file a law suit in small claims for that kinda money.

But even if you win you can't get blood from a stone. If they spent all the money on development and are broke now but havent' made a camera, you'll have a judgement against them, but no way to enforce it.

It's all in the Kickstarter agreement if you wish to read it.
 
kylevant said:
Kickstarter is a relatively new company. Exciting things are happening there all the time, but I'm starting to wonder how long this whole "ex gratia" thing will continue without some serious legal ramifications. I'm not saying that suing the proprietor of the campaign will work, I'm saying that it's just a matter of time till someone tries. And when that happens then it may become evident that Kickstarter needs a series of contracts for certain types of projects (such as the ones that involve "pre-orders"). Otherwise, how long will people continue to give to un-proven products (I'm not throwing a hit at the DBolex here, just generally)? As with anything new and anything that depends on an honor system, there are those that take advantage of it and ruin it for the rest of us honest folks. Just a matter of time.

Possibly a bit off topic, but I've been checking these Video Game High School guys out (Freddie Wong's crowd). They raised $273k for their project. I've noticed extensive amounts of adverts on their web series and I don't feel that such a thing is entirely ethical. Get people to provide funds for a series and then make money from the series. That is profit, since the project was well funded via kickstarter. Making profit without any expensive (effectively free in their case) sources of capital (such as bank loans) could be frowned upon...
Click to expand...

It already says in the Kickstarter agreement, which apparently no one has bothered to read, that your donors can sue you if you don't provide them with the products you promise them.

Kickstarter is not "non-profit".

You agree to contribute money. In return you get something that is clearly stated. It might be a post card, a DVD, a weekly email update with a link to behind the scenes footage, etc.

Nothing in the Kickstarter says "but you can't make any profit".

You're SUPPOSED to make a profit. That's why you can't give away things that cost MORE than people are paying for.

It tells you that in the Kickstarter agreement. If you're giving away a DVD adn it costs you 5 bucks to make it and mail it, DON"T GIVE IT AWAY FOR 4 dollars, you will go broke and not be able to do your project!!!!!

If you sell it for 5 dollars you will make ZERO money, and won't get the money you need for studio time, etc.

So yes, you're SUPPOSED to make a profit with Kickstarters. That's the whole point of doing it.

Let's say you're making a DVD and want money for studio time. So you "pre-sell" the DVD for 14.99 each.

Hopefully you get enough kickstarter money that you pay for studio time, AND make a profit.

After that, you can sell the DVD anywhere you want to. The kickstarter paid for the DVD to be produced, but your donors are hoping you make millions selling it after that. They aren't hoping you never make a penny because your DVD sucks.
 
Last edited:
nothing said:
So being a backer of the camera gives one the right to spread misinformation about it or the way the industry works, and nobody (even somebody who knows better) is allowed to question or correct that? Wow, just wow.

I do believe I've already made a positive contribution to this discussion by pointing out some glaring inaccuracies and BS excuses for the camera's inadequacies. Again, sorry for my subsequent overreaction there, but to say I have nothing to contribute here is just more BS ;)
Click to expand...

Valid criticisms, I have no problem with what you posted. The other side of that coin is that those of us who have shot 16mm film with Bolex class cameras have never had the luxury of onset shot review. I have run many thousands of feet of 16 through cameras with no onset review. For some people and productions not having that capability is a show stopper, for others it isn't. There are reasonable alternative solutions if one requires that capability. Use an external recorder off of one of the monitor ports, or carry a laptop and a card reader for reviewing off loaded media.
For the base version of the Bolex, as indicated by the development and inclusion of a custom software package based on Pomfort's media management tools,the intended workflow is the latter, media logging and review on a computer. It is a minimalist camera functionally very similar to its 16mm film counterpart. Set exposure, compose the shot, focus, shoot.
 
Last edited:
So I inquired on the digitalbolex website yesterday about future availability, price, etc.. and have not heard back from anyone.

Have they left town or what?

:D
 
kylevant said:
Possibly a bit off topic, but I've been checking these Video Game High School guys out (Freddie Wong's crowd). They raised $273k for their project. I've noticed extensive amounts of adverts on their web series and I don't feel that such a thing is entirely ethical. Get people to provide funds for a series and then make money from the series. That is profit, since the project was well funded via kickstarter. Making profit without any expensive (effectively free in their case) sources of capital (such as bank loans) could be frowned upon...
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense to me. One, we don't know how much profit they are actually making and two what's wrong with making profit? Profit allows them to pay themselves, which means they can afford to pay rent as well as make videos, and profit allows them to reinvest that money into future projects so that they might not have to rely on crowd sourcing every time they want to do a project. Isn't the point of Kickstart to kick-start a project so that it can hopefully become self-sustaining? That's my take on it at least. I mean, if a band or filmmaker uses Kickstarter I don't expect them to give away their album or movie for free.

Recently a new law went into effect to make crowding sourcing easier. This is a little different than what Kickstarter or Indie GoGo offers because this law deals w/people that are actual investors in a company/business.
 
starcentral said:
So I inquired on the digitalbolex website yesterday about future availability, price, etc.. and have not heard back from anyone.

Have they left town or what?

:D
Click to expand...

Based on how they have been communicating, I don't expect to hear much beyond what is posted on the site already until they have the first production run proof cameras in hand. Maybe early August? They have committed to delivering the Kickstarter production run by end of August and taking preorders for a second run around end of September. No word of any change to the schedule yet, nor final pricing and specs for production cameras. JR is well aware of the fiasco with the Red Scarlet and seemed determined to meet the schedule even if some software features aren't fully implemented.
 
adkimery said:
That doesn't make sense to me. One, we don't know how much profit they are actually making and two what's wrong with making profit? Profit allows them to pay themselves, which means they can afford to pay rent as well as make videos, and profit allows them to reinvest that money into future projects so that they might not have to rely on crowd sourcing every time they want to do a project. Isn't the point of Kickstart to kick-start a project so that it can hopefully become self-sustaining? That's my take on it at least. I mean, if a band or filmmaker uses Kickstarter I don't expect them to give away their album or movie for free.

Recently a new law went into effect to make crowding sourcing easier. This is a little different than what Kickstarter or Indie GoGo offers because this law deals w/people that are actual investors in a company/business.
Click to expand...

People invest in projects for many reasons, but I think most expect to get something back, return on investment in the form of shared profits, new gear, or emotional satisfaction or whatever. It is not supposed to be a one way street. The new law looks like a great boon to small businesses who have been shut out of crowd funding until now.
 
starcentral said:
So I inquired on the digitalbolex website yesterday about future availability, price, etc.. and have not heard back from anyone.


Have they left town or what?

:D
Click to expand...

Oh man, you sent them an email with a bunch of questions that are already answered on their website and you haven't heard back? And it's almost been a whole day already with no response? Golly! The whole thing must be a scam. Sorry if I sound annoyed, but I think we should just see if they deliver in August and then judge from there.
:violin:
 
adkimery said:
That doesn't make sense to me. One, we don't know how much profit they are actually making and two what's wrong with making profit? Profit allows them to pay themselves, which means they can afford to pay rent as well as make videos, and profit allows them to reinvest that money into future projects so that they might not have to rely on crowd sourcing every time they want to do a project. Isn't the point of Kickstart to kick-start a project so that it can hopefully become self-sustaining? That's my take on it at least. I mean, if a band or filmmaker uses Kickstarter I don't expect them to give away their album or movie for free.
Click to expand...

Razz16mm said:
People invest in projects for many reasons, but I think most expect to get something back, return on investment in the form of shared profits, new gear, or emotional satisfaction or whatever. It is not supposed to be a one way street. The new law looks like a great boon to small businesses who have been shut out of crowd funding until now.
Click to expand...

I suppose it makes more sense with the whole pre-order thing, but this isn't pocket money we're talking about. These guys are making some serious cash. If they ask for funding for the second season then some big questions are going to be raised considering the extra $200k they raised for the first season as well as the excessive advertising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top