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

Hmm, so Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Pentax, Olympus, Red, Arri, have all gone to CMOS for the terible IQ....makes sense ;)

Go look at Alexa footage, or even C300 footage.... then come back and say how bad the IQ of CMOS is.
 
Wow really? When it comes to image quality the only thing CCDs have over CMOS (IMO) is the global shutter. But who am I? I'm no expert. Honestly I really don't care what direction camera makers go I just want the best possible image. If CCD cameras can make images as sharp (detailed) as CMOS and can get rid of that ugly vertical streaking that it often produces then I'm sold. But if CMOS camera makers can come out with an affordable global shutter camera....then....(just in case anyone wants to say "just get the new 4K BlackMagic camera coming out"....I'll just say..."affordable" to some is expensive to others).
 
It's my understanding (which could be mistaken) that CMOS has mostly supplanted CCD, not due to any inherent image quality advantage, but because it's easier to pack more pixels into a single imager with CMOS, the power requirements are less, and general semiconductor fabrication plants can be more easily adapted to produce CMOS chips than CCD, making them cheaper.
 
Postmaster said:
Yeah, can't exactly nail it, but something is wrong with the blacks.
Click to expand...

They left the black metadata out of the DNG files so that you could dig deeper into the image but in Resolve this resulted in a the magenta color cast. I have an A-CAM and use Speedgrade and never had problems with this. the new firmware added the black point back in and has eliminated ths problem for Resolve users.
 
Who cares? Let's hope these guys get the cameras out. It's good for everyone if they are successful and it has nothing to do with what is above them at 2.5k to 4k. The camera looks awesome and i'm sure they will work their kinks out, as they seem dedicated to it. They have long ran through their kick starter funds which tells me that someone with deep pockets believes in their vision. Don't let dustypants deter belief in this product because he's over at BMCuser doing the same crap (when did you become a troll dude? you used to have great posts? Did a raw camera kill your dog?). If you haven't had the pleasure of shooting raw yet, and you have this on order, the delivery with all it's bugs will be so worth the wait. My 5d tried to assassinate my BMCC last night :)
 
just google "cmos vs ccd image quality"
posts like "that doesnt make sense " are useless ...
how about better profit ..
CMOS cost 5x less to produce ...
and CMOS sensor have many advantages over CCD ...
but pure IQ is not one of them ...
if u want camera with high fps and 6400 iso with low battery drain in smaller body for less money u go with CMOS ...
its much more flexible technology ...
ps:go to "Just got a new camera" - Sony F35 thread in SONY section and look samples ...
not even mighty ALEXA can produce that colors and skintones...
 
Last edited:
vladszp said:
ps:go to "Just got a new camera" - Sony F35 thread in SONY section and look samples ...
not even mighty ALEXA can produce that colors and skintones...
Click to expand...

Bullshit. It was the Alexa that finally convinced notable cinematographers that they could be comfortable with digital, not the F35.
 
Sony, JVC, Panasonic use Cmos in their lower priced cameras, but their higher end 3-chip broadcast cameras are mostly still CCD. It costs more to develop a CMOS sensor, but they are far cheaper to build cameras around once in production since all the associated circuitry required to deliver digital data output is on chip. That is the primary reason for their universal use in low cost cameras. They are better suited to still cameras than motion cameras.

There are new multi-layer sensor developments coming in the next few years that will provide the benefits of both Cmos and CCD architectures by removing the processing circuitry from the light sensing layer allowing for 100% fill factor, greater sensitivity and DR, and better motion quality.

The Alexa is so successful because it shoots pretty images in Prores. Easy to use and fits currently popular workflows. It is an excellent top of the line camera no question.

But if one is shopping in the current under $5k market, or even the under $10k market, the cameras all have significant compromises and one's choice of weapon has to be tailored to personal aesthetic choices and practical functionality for the intended use. In the right hands most of the available cameras can produce decent quality results.
 
Agreed about most cameras these days being capable of producing a good enough image, just finding the one that suits an individual needs is where it's at. My point is that all the research and improvements for the newest sensors seems to be going toward CMOS, for what ever reason. I personally don't give a flying ...k what sensors camera makers use, but people saying that BECAUSE a sensor is CMOS and not CCD the image quality will be lower is false. Again, I present the ALEXA... one of the most beautiful digital images I've ever seen. Many of the others have been CCD cameras, like I said I don't care which sensor is used. I suspect 99.9999% of the population couldn't tell if a beautiful image was from CCD or CMOS, I know I couldn't.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I suspect 99.9999% of the population couldn't tell if a beautiful image was from CCD or CMOS, I know I couldn't.
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if those touting the difference here could either. Reminds me of the film vs digital thread where someone complained about how poorly the "digitally" shot Django Unchained looked...
 
Gary Huff said:
I would be very surprised if those touting the difference here could either. Reminds me of the film vs digital thread where someone complained about how poorly the "digitally" shot Django Unchained looked...
Click to expand...

It is pretty easy to tell the difference between an Ikonoskop, and specifically the Kodak series of CCD's used in both it and the D16 and just about any CMOS camera out there. They use very different color filters and render color and detail with different qualities. The Kodak sensors can emulate the color reproduction, sensitivity, and dynamic range of Kodak 16mm film stocks better than anything else I have seen. It is what they were designed to do.
But the technology per se is not the issue. The practical real world performance of different cameras under a broad range of shooting styles and conditions is. It is not about whether the casual viewer can tell anything or not. It is about whether a particular camera system in use can meet the practical, functional, and aesthetic requirements of a particular visual artist.

Just as the Alexa appeals to hard core film cinematographers more than most other digital cameras, the D16 and Ikonoskop appeal most to those of us with extensive history and experience with 16mm film and love the format. These are not video cameras in any traditional sense of the word. They are digital negative film cameras.

Forget about anything that shoots compressed 8 bit video codecs as a primary acquisition format. They don't have the creative range and ultimate control over the image that we are looking for. Uncompressed raw is ideal for us. Anything else is a compromise. We are prepared and willing to cope with the media costs and storage issues just as we accepted the costs associated with film.

Forget about any camera that has significant issues with aliasing and color moire. It severely limits our shooting styles. Nothing looks less cinematic or compromises the quality of fine detail more than rippling chroma moire in a moving image.
 
Hopefully they deliver in the camera on the principle of literally having people's cash. That's a completely different story re: BMD late shipping. Being on the side of a kickstarter that needs to deliver, I get it, it's tough (although not the same exact thing, still).

As far as Pocketcam Versus Bolex, and then Pocketcam versus Ikonoskop... let's not forget that the Pocketcam's 12-13 stops is still much more than either of those cameras will achieve, and color's still coming out tops on BMDs offerings. Someone mentioned that there was an issue with Blackmagic's color accuracy, there's only an issue with very saturated, stark Red colors. That's it, no other color is being misrepresented, so that was a misleading post.

I can personally confirm that as of now, the footage from the Pocketcam's ProRes Film mode is pretty similar in color, dr, detail to BV1 (Blackmagic Version 1) ProRes Film. Camera's not even finished yet, to boot.

Not thinking D16 is dead on arrival, I hope it isn't because that would be a sad story to hear. And having the option for a different kind of "digital stock" is always... ALWAYS welcome.

Lastly, if you guys here feel like anyone is just here to cause trouble, report it and we'll take care of it swiftly. =]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top