Wesley Byram
Well-known member
HMC40 is the same (3-chip CMOS vs 1 chip with Bayer filter). I've never seen aliasing in any footage from mine.
Bolex D16: RAW, 16/Super 16 sensor size, costs less than MkIII
- Thread starter underpressure
- Start date
HMC40 is the same (3-chip CMOS vs 1 chip with Bayer filter). I've never seen aliasing in any footage from mine.
I like the Canons a lot. It is easy to see why the C300s are so popular currently. My comments are strictly about the BMCC vs Ikonoskop from posted examples and playing with grading DNG raw files from both. I'm a firm believer in the value of a properly matched OLPF for motion cameras. The C300 is also oversampling for 1080p output as are the Sony F series which makes a difference.
But there is definitely a difference in image texture between CCD's and CMOS especially on fast moving objects within a frame. The CMOS images take on a translucent ghostly quality as if incompletely exposed. Those expensive 3 CCD broadcast cameras are still popular for good reason, especially for action sports.
But there is definitely a difference in image texture between CCD's and CMOS especially on fast moving objects within a frame. The CMOS images take on a translucent ghostly quality as if incompletely exposed. Those expensive 3 CCD broadcast cameras are still popular for good reason, especially for action sports.
Last edited:
dustwaterwindfire
Active member
a good CCD based video. I think it has its own look, something organic about it.
https://vimeo.com/62963674
https://vimeo.com/62963674
Wesley Byram
Well-known member
That does look pretty nice. Whether that is because of the CCD or just good cinematography is perhaps debatable, but whichever, it shows what the Ikonoskop can do. All of the movement really shows off the global shutter as well. It would be a rubbery mess if shot the same way with a DSLR or BMC. If the D16 can match the Ikonoskop's image (similar specs, so it should) for $3,000, then it could still prove to be viable, even against Blackmagic's offerings.
combatentropy
Veteran
indiawilds
Veteran
I come from a electronic manufacturing background and have understanding of the production line, various types of assembly modules in cells etc, QC and testing among others.
A smaller company may not have all the necessary testing equipment. Remember the cost of setting up a good test lab can eat up all the money Bolex has raised via kickstarter. I would be more harsh on BMC as it is a much larger organisation, and still took ages to understand the problem. Fanboys may buy their stories, however, for people with electronic manufacturing backgrounds this is simply not acceptable.
The word production lines has got many meanings, especially in a relatively low volume world of camera manufacturing. Bolex need not set up very long production lines, as that is not required for a niche product. Production lines give us more consistency. However, in a production cell, when everything is assembled starting from Printed circuit board stage, they need to individually test each camera for tolerances and calibrate accordingly. Calling it handcrafted gives a very different impression to people who don't belong to the electronic manufacturing industry, and hence some of them may get frightened. However, this would be the right approach for Bolex. They need some good and experienced engineers who can understand and do trouble shooting.
If they are into R&D for incorporating suggestions, then the delay is understandable. However, I won't agree that one can't predict to a reasonable degree of certainty about the timelines. Again it boils down to how resource availability - resource includes money as well as knowledgeable people who can be in short supply in a particular locality. If you don't have good people to man all the areas then obviously you won't be able to predict. Being part of setting up a green field project which later turned out to be one of the worlds largest manufacturing facility, I saying this out of experience and not just bashing up a company.
In my previous comment, I had said BMC version 1 was delayed by a long long time. I never said that the camera is now not available in limited quantities.
If someone says that the Bolex is not meant to be sold beyond the 90 odd people would had pledged to buy their camera, then it is fair enough not to provide information in other forums and restrict themselves to their own forum. If this is a case of creating 100 cameras and selling it, then this looks more like a passion project. In that case I won't use the word DoA. You can use it as a proof of concept/proof of capability for some other project if Bolex guys have the vision. In that case, even if this product doesn't find more buyers beyond the original backers, then still they can utilise the learnings somewhere. (I have taken a hope pill today morning, so am incredibly positive
)
As far as I am concerned, I don't want to be an early adopter or worse just pay the deposit and get into the waiting line for BMC to deliver a camera after a year. If someone does that then it is his/her decision. We are all adults, so no point in trying to prove that the other has done wrong.
A smaller company may not have all the necessary testing equipment. Remember the cost of setting up a good test lab can eat up all the money Bolex has raised via kickstarter. I would be more harsh on BMC as it is a much larger organisation, and still took ages to understand the problem. Fanboys may buy their stories, however, for people with electronic manufacturing backgrounds this is simply not acceptable.
The word production lines has got many meanings, especially in a relatively low volume world of camera manufacturing. Bolex need not set up very long production lines, as that is not required for a niche product. Production lines give us more consistency. However, in a production cell, when everything is assembled starting from Printed circuit board stage, they need to individually test each camera for tolerances and calibrate accordingly. Calling it handcrafted gives a very different impression to people who don't belong to the electronic manufacturing industry, and hence some of them may get frightened. However, this would be the right approach for Bolex. They need some good and experienced engineers who can understand and do trouble shooting.
If they are into R&D for incorporating suggestions, then the delay is understandable. However, I won't agree that one can't predict to a reasonable degree of certainty about the timelines. Again it boils down to how resource availability - resource includes money as well as knowledgeable people who can be in short supply in a particular locality. If you don't have good people to man all the areas then obviously you won't be able to predict. Being part of setting up a green field project which later turned out to be one of the worlds largest manufacturing facility, I saying this out of experience and not just bashing up a company.
In my previous comment, I had said BMC version 1 was delayed by a long long time. I never said that the camera is now not available in limited quantities.
If someone says that the Bolex is not meant to be sold beyond the 90 odd people would had pledged to buy their camera, then it is fair enough not to provide information in other forums and restrict themselves to their own forum. If this is a case of creating 100 cameras and selling it, then this looks more like a passion project. In that case I won't use the word DoA. You can use it as a proof of concept/proof of capability for some other project if Bolex guys have the vision. In that case, even if this product doesn't find more buyers beyond the original backers, then still they can utilise the learnings somewhere. (I have taken a hope pill today morning, so am incredibly positive
)As far as I am concerned, I don't want to be an early adopter or worse just pay the deposit and get into the waiting line for BMC to deliver a camera after a year. If someone does that then it is his/her decision. We are all adults, so no point in trying to prove that the other has done wrong.
There is some horrible optic mismatch. Was this shot with broadcast lenses?
There is so much color fringing in the high contrast areas it's unwatchable.
Try pausing at 2:48 and look at the tree trunks with the sky background. at least 5-10 pixel wide red on the inside side and blue on the outside.
Or maybe it is supposed to be 3D haha...
I didn't see anything that looked even a little bit "unwatchable" in that. In fact it looks great, it was obviously a purposeful stylistic decision on his part. He wanted it to feel intense and gritty obviously, and he succeeded to my eye.
I think this is the exact feeling he wanted for the video, and I think it looks great.
diegocervo
Well-known member
+1
It's clearly an artistic choice. It's not a zacuto test!
It's clearly an artistic choice. It's not a zacuto test!
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Why do all A-Cam shooters put those "Instagram 70s vintage" like filters over their material?
I know it's kinda hip in the moment, but I really like to see some normal grading of a A-cam clip.
bitcrusher
Well-known member
Check out Joachim Vansteelant reel over here. It shows the cameras strengths and weakness. I am a big fan of the A-Cam and hope that they can survive to make another camera.
I also hope that the digital bolex is a success. CCD's still have a place in digital cinema.
Skin always looks like it has been airbrushed with 5DII video. No depth or texture.
I want to see some footage from the latest firmware version for the Ikonoskop. They have had a magenta cast issue that makes grading a challenge at times. I asked about this in the Raw Therapee forum and the consensus was the black level metadata was not written to the DNG file correctly. With the latest firmware that has been addressed. Should look very different now.
Yes, it's beautiful.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Yeah, can't exactly nail it, but something is wrong with the blacks.
What you mean by "depth or texture" is that there is no detail in the skin. This is because the 5D only resolves about 700 lines of resolution.
See? I didn't have to drop into marketing B.S. to describe it.
But that has nothing to do with CMOS vs CCD.
It is not about marketing BS, it is about aesthetic choices. Digital cameras are like film stocks. They each have their own distinctive aesthetic character.
CCD and CMOS are basically two very different technologies ...
image produce by CCD sensor has better texture and color than any CMOS ...
but CCD is much more expensive to produce and power hungry ...
basicly only thing i like about bolex d16 is that KODAK sensor ..
and that 5d2 video is good enough but nothing else (but that plastic skintones are part of past) ...
image produce by CCD sensor has better texture and color than any CMOS ...
but CCD is much more expensive to produce and power hungry ...
basicly only thing i like about bolex d16 is that KODAK sensor ..
and that 5d2 video is good enough but nothing else (but that plastic skintones are part of past) ...
Last edited:
I've noticed that you tend to make quite silly statements with every sentence ending with "...". Why? CCD-imagers do not have any better "texture" (whatever you consider that to be) or color than CMOS. Why do you think the quality went up very quickly when modern cameras went from CCD to CMOS? Check out the early CCD DSLR's and compare to modern CMOS imagers. The CCD's are not nearly as good.
maybe because better pixel fill factor and better noise uniformity , if u know what is that (I highly doubt that) ...
u want to compare old sensors with new ... how about 5d2 with leica s2 or pentax 645D ...
CMOS are better in many things (production price , power consumption and frame rates ) but image quality is not one of them ...there is a reason why they used CCDs in medical imaging ...
maybe u should do research before start tipping because your posts are information free ("cmos is better because i say so" doesn't cut it) ...
it's done as parody but they make good point ...
https://vimeo.com/40504149
u want to compare old sensors with new
... how about 5d2 with leica s2 or pentax 645D ...CMOS are better in many things (production price , power consumption and frame rates ) but image quality is not one of them ...there is a reason why they used CCDs in medical imaging ...
maybe u should do research before start tipping because your posts are information free ("cmos is better because i say so" doesn't cut it) ...
it's done as parody but they make good point ...
https://vimeo.com/40504149
Last edited: