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

Fluoro said:
I totally agree with this. What was BMD thinking? Was the plan to stop people buying other cameras while they wait for the BMC? Is it about finding out how much demand there is so BMD can order the right number of parts? Is it to make sure they are not beaten to punch or looking to be following another company that announces something similar? Any way you look at it it doesn't make sense to me and seems to be born of fear. Image if they'd have just waited and announced at next years NAB and where the BMC would be by then.
Click to expand...

This is what really turned me off on the BMCC and ultimately the entire current pre-order paradigm/wankage. I think its meant to be a marketing strategy but (as demonstrated in the BMCC debacle) it can end up biting them in the ass. I love the imagery I see from the camera, and I'm certain that some day they will become generally available and make BMD a pile of money.

Ikonoskop is mentioned often in this thread, a camera I admit lust for. I am a hairbreadths away from buying one just because I like the idea, the underlying philosophy and the fact that it was designed and executed by film makers. I don't think any of those things apply to the DB, which does not inspire confidence. One place they (DB) could steal a march on the Ikonoskop is by designing a workaround for the current DNGraw bottleneck with a useable 1080 SDI out.
 
LyleGorch said:
This is what really turned me off on the BMCC and ultimately the entire current pre-order paradigm/wankage. I think its meant to be a marketing strategy but (as demonstrated in the BMCC debacle) it can end up biting them in the ass. I love the imagery I see from the camera, and I'm certain that some day they will become generally available and make BMD a pile of money.

Ikonoskop is mentioned often in this thread, a camera I admit lust for. I am a hairbreadths away from buying one just because I like the idea, the underlying philosophy and the fact that it was designed and executed by film makers. I don't think any of those things apply to the DB, which does not inspire confidence. One place they (DB) could steal a march on the Ikonoskop is by designing a workaround for the current DNGraw bottleneck with a useable 1080 SDI out.
Click to expand...

There eventually will be an add on module that connects to the bottom of the D16 to provide full hi quality debayer processing and encoding to uncompressed HDSDI output. No external cabling needed between module and camera. That will put the total price of the camera in the Ikonskop ball park, around $7k+. (the Ikonoskop does have an HDSDI monitor output)
Another space saving option being considered is in camera Cineform raw compression, not nearly as processing intensive. But that has to be licensed from Cineform/GoPro so there would have to be at least a firmware upcharge for that too for the licensing fees.
Joe and Elle are both experienced film makers as are a couple of members of their engineering team.
 
LyleGorch said:
This is what really turned me off on the BMCC and ultimately the entire current pre-order paradigm/wankage. I think its meant to be a marketing strategy but (as demonstrated in the BMCC debacle) it can end up biting them in the ass. I love the imagery I see from the camera, and I'm certain that some day they will become generally available and make BMD a pile of money.
Click to expand...
Not to be funny but how is it going to bite them in the ass. BH reported 700+ cameras on back order...2.1+ million in sales from one retailer. The thought that they intended to stop people from buying other cameras is ridiculous. Then again the same argument was brought up when the Scarlet was announced. The camera has been delivered to some customers and BMC even exchanged a faulty camera bought in a person to person exchange. They had a quality control issue that they have fixed and the world keeps turning sheesh.
 
LyleGorch said:
One place they (DB) could steal a march on the Ikonoskop is by designing a workaround for the current DNGraw bottleneck with a useable 1080 SDI out.
Click to expand...

I hear that pretty often.
Why lust for a raw camera if you ain't the nerves/time/computing power/disc-space for it?
For those folks there are a ton of other cameras like a C100/300 andwhatnot (and you even can go in a shop and actually buy them now)
But buying a raw camera and than hooking up an external recorder is beyond me.
 
Postmaster said:
I hear that pretty often.
Why lust for a raw camera if you ain't the nerves/time/computing power/disc-space for it?
For those folks there are a ton of other cameras like a C100/300 andwhatnot (and you even can go in a shop and actually buy them now)
But buying a raw camera and than hooking up an external recorder is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Don't bend over backwards to make a simple low cost raw motion camera into something it was specifically designed not to be.
 
Razz16mm said:
Joe and Elle are both experienced film makers as are a couple of members of their engineering team.
Click to expand...

I saw what they did till now, and calling them "experienced filmmakers" is pretty much an euphemism IMHO.
Let alone their DB promo flick - most first year film students do more sophisticated work.
 
Postmaster said:
I hear that pretty often.
Why lust for a raw camera if you ain't the nerves/time/computing power/disc-space for it?
For those folks there are a ton of other cameras like a C100/300 andwhatnot (and you even can go in a shop and actually buy them now)
But buying a raw camera and than hooking up an external recorder is beyond me.
Click to expand...

The entire world knows that you are one of the chosen who actually has a BMCC and I congratulate you. I'm also certain you have adequate computing horsepower to digest the work-flow de jour, although I don't believe for a moment that raw anything is going to present a bottleneck of any kind for much longer. But also, some people recognize that raw is really really overkill for many projects, and there are some practical obstacles that can be addressed by "andwhatnot" such as an external recorder.

Options are not a bad thing.

My lust for the Ikonoskop isn't as much about raw (although I agree its a hell of a good thing) as it is about physical form factor and what I see as a rational sensor format.
 
cinebuddy said:
Not to be funny but how is it going to bite them in the ass. BH reported 700+ cameras on back order...2.1+ million in sales from one retailer.
Click to expand...

Well for one thing, cameras on backorder or pre-orders is not the same thing as selling a product. The 6 months since the original promoted delivery date, have to represent some lost opportunity and cash flow. So yes, maybe they will make up for it between January 1, 2013 and NAB when they evidently will start filling some of those backorders from last April or May. Unfortunately, some of those backorders, possibly some as much as a year old may go unfilled by the time NAB rolls around and the next-greatest-thing rears its head and some percentage of the BMCC backorder ghosts migrate over to a different preorder que.

I am actually sympathetic. I've said it before: being in the camera business has to be tough in the internet era.
 
Why do people expect something decent to come around at NAB? It baffles me...

I mean, sure if there is cool... it's being stated like it's a given that SOMEONE will announce and deliver something that's in the same bracket with the same insane offerings as Blackmagic.

Where does this come from?
 
Kholi said:
Why do people expect something decent to come around at NAB? It baffles me...

I mean, sure if there is cool... it's being stated like it's a given that SOMEONE will announce and deliver something that's in the same bracket with the same insane offerings as Blackmagic.

Where does this come from?
Click to expand...


It comes from the "disposable" tech mind set. Instead of using what we have to the fullest, we wait around for the next big thing...by the time that thing arrives at our doorstep...someone else has announced an even better new thing and we MUST have it..lol. I'm being a bit sarcastic, but go look at photography forums or other tech forums and you see it. A D90 delivers INCREDIBLE photos if you learn the system, but on these boards people complained and said "it's not good enough" then the D7000 comes out... then they say - " meh, give me affordable full frame" Nikon does so and people complain about that...it's absurd!

To add- I remember not long ago at all when people would have died for the ability to do video with 24P, interchangeable lenses, and a large sensor for $5,000. Now there are piles of cameras for that amount and less that check all those boxes (many of them of course DLSRs...but anyway...) Now it's raw, even if people don't know about raw workflow (I know enough to know it's too much for me) crazy frame rates, codecs, bits, inputs, outputs, DR, blah blah blah...!
 
Last edited:
pulpfiction007 said:
It comes from the "disposable" tech mind set. Instead of using what we have to the fullest, we wait around for the next big thing...by the time that thing arrives at our doorstep...someone else has announced an even better new thing and we MUST have it..lol. I'm being a bit sarcastic, but go look at photography forums or other tech forums and you see it. A D90 delivers INCREDIBLE photos if you learn the system, but on these boards people complained and said "it's not good enough" then the D7000 comes out... then they say - " meh, give me affordable full frame" Nikon does so and people complain about that...it's absurd!
Click to expand...
This is so true, it's comedic.
We have a SPOILED BRAT society these days, possibly by the newer ADD generation supporting the bad habits/mindsets. You would think it makes sense to wear out your hardware for as much as it has to offer until you've outgrown it to upgrade. I guess the "feed me, feed me NOW" mentality is so much more prevalent today.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
To add- I remember not long ago at all when people would have died for the ability to do video with 24P, interchangeable lenses, and a large sensor for $5,000. Now there are piles of cameras for that amount and less that check all those boxes (many of them of course DLSRs...but anyway...) Now it's raw, even if people don't know about raw workflow (I know enough to know it's too much for me) crazy frame rates, codecs, bits, inputs, outputs, DR, blah blah blah...!
Click to expand...

I feel that I should add that it wasn't that long ago at all when people would have died for the ability to shoot without the costs of film and processing, or with the convenience of LCD monitoring, or with on-board sound, or to solid-state media, or in color for that matter. When progress happens at a quicker pace, it's only natural for the market to expect more rapid innovation. Is this some magical point in time where, because your needs are met by an existing product, manufacturers should shutter their R&D departments, or dramatically scale them back? Should companies stop introducing features, refining existing technology, and lowering prices? Should they withhold new advancements artificially because there are already good products on the market? Why now? Why shouldn't they have done that after color film? Or video? Or the DVX100? Or HD? Or the Red One? When it was introduced, you could say that not long ago people would have died for the ability to do 4K raw video with a large sensor and interchangeable lenses for $30k. What about the 5DmkII? Should they have stopped then?

If it's technologically feasible and a market exists for raw video at less than $3,000, then why should we not expect that it's coming? The people that are serious about their craft (or who make their living at it) will shoot with whatever is currently available. But when it comes time to invest our own money into equipment, what is so wrong about waiting for the product that meets our needs at a price that we can afford? I'm glad that there's a camera out there that does what you want within your budget. Not so for me. Shortly ago I would have died for what the Black Magic offers at its price point. But it doesn't have everything I want. I currently can't afford anything from Red (almost a Red One, but that's still north of $10k production-ready), and the Sony/Canon/Panasonic offerings that I can afford also lack a number of features I want. Why should I buy something expensive now that doesn't meet all of my wants/needs when I know that sometime soon (within the next couple of years) there WILL be a camera with everything I want sub-$10k? Just because a camera is good enough to shoot with doesn't mean it's good enough to sink thousands of hard-earned dollars into when the market is shifting so rapidly.

Imagine a world without the automatic transmission, microwaves, laptops, smart phones, satellite navigation, cable television, or the internet. Just because we are fortunate enough to be living in a time where tools of our trade are getting better and cheaper at an exponential rate, does that mean that we shouldn't look forward to a near future with even better, less expensive tools?

KahL said:
We have a SPOILED BRAT society these days, possibly by the newer ADD generation supporting the bad habits/mindsets. You would think it makes sense to wear out your hardware for as much as it has to offer until you've outgrown it to upgrade. I guess the "feed me, feed me NOW" mentality is so much more prevalent today.
Click to expand...

Before you tell me to get off of your lawn, let me ask you a question: Is it really a generation of SPOILED BRATS who are exhibiting new behavior, or is technology just moving at a much faster pace than ever before? If new products were being released at this pace, with this level of exponential improvement, at such low prices at any other time in the history of film, don't you think people would have behaved the same? I'm glad that you're happy with the equipment that you own (or what's currently available), but I'm not. If I could afford an Epic, C500, F55, or Alexa then I would be, but I currently can't. If the Black Magic had an S35 sensor, flexible mount, and did at least 60 frames a second I would be. Am I a spoiled brat for expecting at least a somewhat similar pace of technological advancement to what has been happening for the last 25 years, and being vocal about the direction I would like to see manufacturers heading in?

Sure, I'm incredibly grateful for the options that are out there today. I know that we currently benefit from unprecedented access to amazing tools, and I shoot with a variety of them. That doesn't make them perfect. That doesn't eliminate the fact that they have flaws. That doesn't change the fact that next year will be better than this year. And the year after that. I don't feel like explaining to my clients that my tools are good enough when all of my competition has moved on. I don't feel like compromising my work for the sake of good enough. Given the time and ability to refine, do you stop shooting after a take that's good enough? Do you stop refining your lighting setups after they're good enough? Do you go with the first cut that's good enough? Why then should I settle for tools that are good enough?
 
Nobody is saying changes and innovation will, or should, stop but it is funny to see people complain how Camera X isn't good enough or Camera Maker Y needs to release the same camera but at half the price when the bang-for-your-buck has never been this good. I see people, vets and rookies, lamenting over how a camera is only 8-bit and not 10-bit or 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4 and they all seem to have forgotten, or possibly never even known, that not too long ago there were a number of movies shot on DV that had theatrical runs. One called November even won best cinematography when it was at Sundance. Hell, the doc in my sig was shot on SD and this past spring it went nationwide via cable VOD and every streaming service you can think of.


stefancolson said:
Sure, I'm incredibly grateful for the options that are out there today. I know that we currently benefit from unprecedented access to amazing tools, and I shoot with a variety of them. That doesn't make them perfect. That doesn't eliminate the fact that they have flaws. That doesn't change the fact that next year will be better than this year. And the year after that. I don't feel like explaining to my clients that my tools are good enough when all of my competition has moved on.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this is going to ever change though. No piece of gear will ever be perfect, technology will never stand still, and you'll always be 6-12 months from being a generation behind and potentially explaining to clients why you are shooting with the 2013 model instead of the brand new 2014 model that the guy across the street is using. Of course, if you're clients are happy with your work I doubt they will ask detailed questions about your gear.

I don't feel like compromising my work for the sake of good enough. Given the time and ability to refine, do you stop shooting after a take that's good enough? Do you stop refining your lighting setups after they're good enough? Do you go with the first cut that's good enough? Why then should I settle for tools that are good enough?
Click to expand...
Everyone stops at 'good enough' because schedules are not infinite and everyone compromises because budgets are not bottomless. The only thing we can do is aim to do our best given the circumstances we are working in. A movie is never finished, only abandoned and a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.


-Andrew
 
I would venture a guess that most of the people that read this forum haven't used a 16mm Bolex. At the University where I worked recently they had a couple in a glass display case in the basement of the Library, which I took as an insult. They were very cool little cameras, you could shoot time lapse with them, you could throw a blanket or coat over one and actually get it as quiet as an Eclair, they were sort-of the Leica's of 16mm. There was a lively market for clean used reflex Bolex's, I think the last one I bought in the 90s for around a grand. They were for documentarians, nature photographers, and chain-smoking subversive film students.

The IDEA of a digital Bolex is actually brilliant, something compact, utilitarian, reasonably priced, capable. I would just feel better about the whole thing if it was coming from Switzerland, the land of Nagra's, Rolex's and as Harry Lime pointed out "the cuckoo clock".
 
LyleGorch said:
I would venture a guess that most of the people that read this forum haven't used a 16mm Bolex. At the University where I worked recently they had a couple in a glass display case in the basement of the Library, which I took as an insult. They were very cool little cameras, you could shoot time lapse with them, you could throw a blanket or coat over one and actually get it as quiet as an Eclair, they were sort-of the Leica's of 16mm. There was a lively market for clean used reflex Bolex's, I think the last one I bought in the 90s for around a grand. They were for documentarians, nature photographers, and chain-smoking subversive film students.

The IDEA of a digital Bolex is actually brilliant, something compact, utilitarian, reasonably priced, capable. I would just feel better about the whole thing if it was coming from Switzerland, the land of Nagra's, Rolex's and as Harry Lime pointed out "the cuckoo clock".
Click to expand...

Bolex SA is involved deeply in this project. They will be distributing and supporting the camera outside of North America. The D16 will meet their quality standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top