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

Leica uses this same series of Kodak CCD sensors in their M8 and M9 DRF cameras. If you want a better idea of the DR and image quality the D16 should be capable of within its resolution limits search out some Leica still samples. Or take a look a some of the Ikonscop footage, as it is the same sensor series one model down limited to 1080p only.
"Cinematic" ,whatever that term means, is not a camera or hardware characteristic but a style of shooting.
The D16 will have the resolution and aesthetic characteristics of a super 16mm film camera. That is its design objective.
I can tell you from playing around with some Ikonoskop DNG raw clips that this camera will easily outperform video from existing DSLR's for aliasing artifacts, rolling shutter artifacts, highlight retention and shadow detail. In all of those respects it will certainly be more film like.
Some people think raw cameras look "soft" compared to video cameras, but to me the hard edged look of digital video, especially from low end AVC codecs, leaves a lot to be desired and little room for manipulation. I like the difference in feel and texture of raw footage. There is so much more to work with.
Whether it looks "cinematic" or not is up to the filmmaker.
Is Black Swan cinematic?
Is Hurt Locker cinematic?
Is Benjamin Button cinematic?
Is Slumdog Millionaire cinematic?
These were all shot with S16mm film or 16mm film sized format digital cameras

The existing samples have been shot with lab prototypes and early development software.
I'm looking forward to new footage shot with the finished camera and processed with their custom software package.
 
Last edited:
Razz16mm said:
Leica uses this same series of Kodak CCD sensors in their M8 and M9 DRF cameras. If you want a better idea of the DR and image quality the D16 should be capable of within its resolution limits search out some Leica still samples. Or take a look a some of the Ikonscop footage, as it is the same sensor series one model down limited to 1080p only.
Click to expand...

There is much more to the final image of the camera than the sensor it uses.

"Cinematic" ,whatever that term means, is not a camera or hardware characteristic but a style of shooting.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Take any of the small sensor camcorders from the last ten years. You can hit all the right beats with shooting style, lightening, ect. But it's never going to look quite right as far as fictional narrative filmmaking goes.
 
Yes and no. Take any of the small sensor camcorders from the last ten years. You can hit all the right beats with shooting style, lightening, ect. But it's never going to look quite right as far as fictional narrative filmmaking goes.
Click to expand...

I usually agree with you on many points Gary, But not this. There's no reason you cant make a 1/3rd inch sensor cam look cinematic if you set it up to do so. I used an xha1 mixed with a t3i on a production, There's not been one person that can tell the difference in shots or what cam did what. It all boils down to shot composition, blocking, lighting,ect... I do agree, there's many folk that cant make a 1/3rds inch ccd cam look filmic or cinematic, whatever you want to call it.
 
maran, I think you might have missed my point somewhat (or I didn't exactly make it clear). I wasn't talking about comparing it to a T2i, I was talking about comparing it to the kind of fictional narrative stuff that you see on DVD, television, theaters, ect. And I base that on my continuing frustration during those 1/3" sensor times to get something that I felt started to approximate that look. I've never seen anything shot on a naked XHA1 or HPX-170 or EX1 that I felt looked close to that.
 
there something special with that KODAK sensor and its not DR...samples from IKONOSKOP has best skin tones than any other camera ....
problem is postproduction , there is no right way to color correct DNG files ...many systems clip highlights and mess with a color ...
but i think that resolve fix that problem ...
 
Gary Huff said:
There is much more to the final image of the camera than the sensor it uses.



Yes and no. Take any of the small sensor camcorders from the last ten years. You can hit all the right beats with shooting style, lightening, ect. But it's never going to look quite right as far as fictional narrative filmmaking goes.
Click to expand...

28 days?
Crank?
Crank 2?

Large sensors and shallow DOF are not the only effective way to shoot narrative fiction. Super 16 sized formats are miles ahead of small chip camcorders for creative DOF control anyway.
If 35mm suits your style, stick with it. For me S16mm it the best all around general purpose sized format, good for anything. Since there have been no digital cameras under $10k released in this format yet, there is really nothing to directly compare to. The SI2k is the only S16 sized offering out there at the moment. It is unfortunate that this format has been lumped with 1/2" and smaller formats as it is really much more flexible while retaining the small format advantages of light compact fast high quality optics.
I applaud Joe for filling a very big hole in the affordable camera market with the D16.
 
Razz16mm said:
28 days? Crank? Crank 2?
Click to expand...

None of which look like other 35mm films at the time, and all of which also have only been shown after having been transferred onto 35mm and then scanned back in for the masters. The look works for those films, but it in no way looks like your typical narrative film.
 
I see what your saying gary, I didn't elaborate very well in my last post. I just assumed you were comparing 1/3rd inch with 35mm sensor size. And that was where my comparison stemmed from. I re-read the previous posts finished my coffee:).
 
Gary Huff said:
None of which look like other 35mm films at the time, and all of which also have only been shown after having been transferred onto 35mm and then scanned back in for the masters. The look works for those films, but it in no way looks like your typical narrative film.
Click to expand...

Imax looks like Imax
70mm looks like 70mm
35mm looks like 35mm
16mm looks like 16mm
1/3" video looks like 1/3' video. They all have their own aesthetic characteristics and what best suits any particular project or shooting style is a matter of personal creative choice and practical consideration.
 
Okay, so when people say "Cinematic" they mean the look of typical 35mm film stocks used to produce narrative shows and movies. Therefore, 1/3" video cameras do not, by and large, look "cinematic" because they look like 1/3" video, not 35mm film.
 
Gary Huff said:
Okay, so when people say "Cinematic" they mean the look of typical 35mm film stocks used to produce narrative shows and movies. Therefore, 1/3" video cameras do not, by and large, look "cinematic" because they look like 1/3" video, not 35mm film.
Click to expand...

DSLR's don't look cinematic by that definition either as the video quality bears no resemblance to film at all. They do have 35mm sized image characteristics like DOF, but that is about it.
 
Razz16mm said:
DSLR's don't look cinematic by that definition either as the video quality bears no resemblance to film at all. They do have 35mm sized image characteristics like DOF, but that is about it.
Click to expand...

I think that aside from sensor size, DSLR's have a unique way of rendering motion that seems to emulate film in a very visible way. Even though cameras like the FS100/700 C300 are obviously superior to any DSLR (5DIII and the GH2 particularly), there is something instinctively film-like about them. For a narrative, DSLR's still seem to be the best way to achieve a cinematic / film-like (whatever the hell you want to call it : ) look. The only regular video cameras / cinema cameras that pull it off well are the Alexa, BMCC (looks very much like alexa as well) and RED to a certain extent.

The D16 simply has a very traditional video camera look, like an FS100 or AF100. Nothing wrong with that at all, just not what it looks like they're trying to achieve with this camera. If you look at what few samples are out of the BMCC, and ignore the content / grading, you'll see that motion-wise combined with the incredible DR... just how amazingly film-like it appears to be.
 
From much experimenting, I have found that the look of film has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor. It's all in the grade. Specifically the gamma curve.

Electronic sensors naturally respond to light linearly. +1 photon = +1 brightness
Film naturally responds to light in an S-curve: +1 photon = it depends, but it is predictable. In the mid-tones it is high contrast. In the lows and highs, it is low contrast. That is the essence of an S-curve.

Apply an S curve to video, and you will have a filmic look. However, since changing the gamma curve is by definition stretching the image, the video from 8-bit, high-compression video typically falls apart before you can get it where you need it to be.
 
combatentropy said:
From much experimenting, I have found that the look of film has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor. It's all in the grade. Specifically the gamma curve.
Click to expand...

Examples would be nice to back up your assertion, especially screen shots showing footage from 1/3" CCD sensor cams.
 
5450392846_073253d217_b.jpg


From my GL2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top