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

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Any camera that ends the DSLR ridiculousness is a friend of mine. ;)
Click to expand...

I know it's (partially) in good fun, but I'm unbelievably excited by where something like the 1DC can go. If I could get Epic/Alexa/F55-like imagery out of something in a DSLR formfactor with a raw codec then I'd be over the moon. Shooting off the shoulder with a Red One, Alexa, or even a fully kitted Epic is a chore that I wouldn't miss. DSLRs provide so much freedom and intimacy for the operator if you play to their strengths, and I'm much more interested in fixes to the issues that plague DSLRs than I am in losing them all together. My AC would be pissed at the thought of shooting a whole feature on a 1DC, but having it around as a B camera is going to enable us to get some shots that just wouldn't have been possible with a bigger camera on our budget.

The BMCC pocket cam is looking veeeeeery interesting, and at that price is a must buy. Maybe we'll see more manufacturers developing tiny lightweight B cameras for their flagships.
 
Ha yeah! I noticed that in the 'making of'. I'll have to try that on the next shoot I DP where somebody wants a handheld tracking shot. Having an AC pull focus on a shot like that gets pretty tiresome.

Especially when you don't have a remote or any of that fancy boy gear.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
So what is the news with this camera? We are on post #1,164, 88,500+ views and still no working camera, huh?
Click to expand...

That's the $3000 question. Currently, DB has working prototypes, but they are having some IQ issues with the sensor. They are thus reluctant to release footage at the moment. Hopefully, we'll see something tangible soon.
 
vladszp said:
maybe we should go back to celluloid ...
looks like that digital makes people lazy...
"good enough" is new mantra...
Click to expand...

New? This industry was built on "good enough". IIRC 24fps was chosen because it was slowest frame rate that would get the job done and I don't think 35mm was used more than 65mm or 70mm because it looked the best.

Schedules and budgets make everyone settle for "good enough" at some point.


-Andrew
 
adkimery said:
New? This industry was built on "good enough". IIRC 24fps was chosen because it was slowest frame rate that would get the job done and I don't think 35mm was used more than 65mm or 70mm because it looked the best.

Schedules and budgets make everyone settle for "good enough" at some point.
Click to expand...

That made me chuckle. How true.
 
u miss a point ...
i didnt talk about technology ...
its a craft that starts to fade away...
celluloid makes u think more and shoot less ...
 
Jade Lane said:
Many more great ones, unless you're now disputing that.
Click to expand...


Hold the door. Although this is terribly off topic; I don't think it is arguable to say most films made by man kind are mediocre or average at best. Before digital, there were plenty of horribly made films. I think it has been true from the beginning of cinema, and continues to this very day with digital. It seems the amazing films/stories which withstand the test of time are always a minority of the films made of the time. Maybe I've missed the point completely, but let's just say for every year of cinema, there have been X amount of stories told and likely under 10% of those films successfully capture our imagination and survive the test of time. The general public may not know this, but there are scores upon scores of feature films you will never know exist... Among those are even some big budget studio features that didn't pass QC and have been shelved forever; we'll never see them. Many are shamefully leaked to VoD or some other film graveyard to slowly recoup losses and those are typically just the bigger films, with some exceptions. Go to AFM and you'll see where all these and mid-level budget films go as well as the low-budget films that turned out simply 'ok'. I feel I am wasting my breath, but unless you work in this industry, it can be a very grave misunderstanding of the percentage of films made versus the ones we get to actually see in theaters, or even on VOD for that matter. When I went to work 'in the industry' my parents were soon surprised to see how many films (almost all of them in my first four years) I worked on that were never possible to watch. They'd ask me, "What have you been working on Ryan?" and I'd say, "I just AC'd two feature films and shot a feature Documentary as a DP." They'd reply, "Oh wonderful, when can I see it?".... silence. "Well, I have no idea," I'd say. I've yet to see some of them, and I'm supposed to get a copy!

That is how it works. To them, they did not realize the number of feature films that are made versus the percentage which actually go to theaters. They likely think theatrical release films are maybe 50% of films made, more or less, the better half. In reality it's likely under 5%. However the odds are greatly higher if the budget is much higher, and for obvious reasons. The percentage of feature films financed and made by WB, for example, that end up in theaters is going to be astronomically more successful than the percentage of all feature films made in the USA that go to theaters. This is complexly a result of talent, budget and distribution stronghold on theaters. If we are going to count every attempt of a feature film made in America, big or small, the percentage of theater distribution, or any large distribution for that matter, is very small.

On the other topic of discussion, film DOES generally make the filmmaker consider decisions more carefully, but not because of the nature of quality or visual aesthetics, but rather by reason of economy. This becomes increasingly valid as budget inversely shrinks. On a big budget production, film is nothing. The entirety of film stock is probably 15% of what you are paying your lead male role, or probably around the entirety of craft service. I'm not a line producer, but you get the point. I'm positively sure Micheal Bay isn't terribly concerned with conserving his film stock as he is making his day in general. Making his day is the financial issue of concern to him, as they likely spend more per day on all of production as they do for the entirety of the film stock budget.

However, for lower budget filmmakers, the cost of film does create a hard ceiling of how much you can afford to shoot, thus filmmakers think long and hard (as they always should) before pulling the trigger each shot. In fact the limitation will likely cause the filmmaker to question him/herself before shots they are even confident with. As mentioned previous, filmmakers should always think every shot through and be confident it is the right way to tell the story before shooting the shot, however, as a DP/AC who has been on nearly 200+ productions in the last half decade, I can tell you that I've seen some bad habits encouraged with digital. In clarity, I must say digital didn't create these bad habits; those belong squarely on the shoulders of the filmmaker who have neglected his/her role as an efficient story teller or someone who's job it is to make decisions. It seems, at times, mass shooting can be a total blessing, eliminating the need for 2000' mags for improved comedy scenes, and etc. But most of the time, this advantage of digital media is not used for the betterment, but rather as a crutch for the indecisive or the insecure. A director, in my opinion needs to have a clear vision in his head, and must make fast and economical decisions when piloting the ship. Just as the DP is expected to do so, as are most other high level creatives. However, it seems to many, that as long as the DIT can keep up, we just roll the camera non-stop. We now roll between takes, making unnecessarily long series and increasing costs in digital post. We try it both ways, three ways, four ways. Not sure of eye line? Both ways. Not sure of 'the line'? Shoot it multiple ways. Coverage is over-shot for protection in edit and very costly time is wasted.

I hope this doesn't throw us into a long off topic discussion, but then again, this entire thread is at a stalemate right now, considering this camera is currently on the table, so we can talk about what the Queen of England ate for breakfast this morning, really. Until the camera is out, I dont see the harm.
 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
Back to what exactly? There's nothing. No footage, no working camera, and mostly statements that continue to illustrate Dunning-Kruger.
Click to expand...

yeah, hahaha, nothing here. My point exactly. This thread is raised for every sneeze that comes out of D16 HQ. Waiting for something substantial.... like maybe a camera? This thread has been a camera limbo for quite some time, might as well have a good conversation about something...
smiley.gif
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Hold the door, although this is terribly off topic; I don't think it is arguable to say most films made by man kind are mediocre or average at best. Before digital, there were plenty of horribly made films. I think it has been true from the beginning of cinema, and continues to this very day with digital, that the amazing films/stories which withstand the test of time are always a minority of the films made of the time. Maybe I've missed the point completely, but let's just say, for every year of cinema, there have been X amount of stories told, and likely under 10% of those successfully capture our imagination and survive the test of time. The general public may not know this, but there are scores upon scores of feature films you will never know exist... Among those are even some huge budget studio feature films that don't pass QC are shelved forever and we'll never see them. Many are shamefully leaked to VoD or some other film graveyard to slowly recoup losses, and those are just the big films. Go to AFM and you'll see where all those mid-level budget films go as well as the low-budget films that turned out simply 'ok'. I feel I am wasting my breath, but unless you work in this industry, it can be a very grave misunderstanding of the percentage of films made versus the ones we get to actually see in theaters. When I went to work 'in the industry' my parents were soon surprised to see how many films (almost all of them in my first four years) I worked on were never possible to watch. They'd ask me, "What have you been working on Ryan?" and I'd say, "I just AC'd two feature films and shot a feature Documentary as a DP." They'd reply, "Oh wonderful, when can I see it?".... silence. "Well, I have no idea"

That's how it works. To them, they did not realize the amount of feature films that are made versus the amount which go to theaters. They likely though theatrical release films were maybe 50% of films made, the better half if you will, when in reality it's under 5%. However the odds are greatly higher if the budget is much higher, for obvious reasons. The percentage of feature films financed and made by WB that get into theaters is going to be astronomically more successful than all films versus theatrical films, but if we are going to count every attempt of an American filmmaker toward getting a feature film in theaters, that percentage is likely very optimistic!


On the other topic of discussion, film DOES generally make the filmmaker consider decisions more carefully, but not because of the nature of quality or visual aesthetics, but rather by reason of economy. This becomes increasingly valid as budget inversely shrinks. On a big budget production, film is nothing. The entirety of film stock is probably 15% of what you are paying your lead male role, or probably around the entirety of craft service. I'm not a line producer, but you get the point. I'm positively sure Micheal Bay isn't terribly concerned with conserving his film stock as he is making his day in general. Making his day is the financial issue of concern to him, as they likely spend on all of production, the entirety of the film stock budget, in one day.

However, for lower budget filmmakers, the cost of film does create a hard ceiling of how much you can afford to shoot, thus filmmakers think long and hard (as they always should) before pulling the trigger each shot. In fact the limitation will likely cause the filmmaker to question him/herself before shots they are even confident with. As mentioned previous, filmmakers should always think every shot through and be confident it is the right way to tell the story before shooting the shot, however, as a DP/AC who has been on nearly 200+ productions in the last half decade, I can tell you that I've seen some bad habits encouraged with digital. In clarity, I must say digital didn't create these bad habits; those belong squarely on the shoulders of the filmmaker who have neglected his/her role as an efficient story teller or someone who's job it is to make decisions. It seems, at times, mass shooting can be a total blessing, eliminating the need for 2000' mags for improved comedy scenes, and etc. But most of the time, this advantage of digital media is not used for the betterment, but rather as a crutch for the indecisive or the insecure. A director, in my opinion needs to have a clear vision in his head, and must make fast and economical decisions when piloting the ship. Just as the DP is expected to do so, as are most other high level creatives. However, it seems to many, that as long as the DIT can keep up, we just roll the camera non-stop. We now roll between takes, making unnecessarily long series and increasing costs in digital post. We try it both ways, three ways, four ways. Not sure of eye line? Both ways. Not sure of 'the line'? Shoot it multiple ways. Coverage is over-shot for protection in edit and very costly time is wasted.

I hope this doesn't throw us into a long off topic discussion, but then again, this entire thread is at a stalemate right now, considering this camera is currently on the table, so we can talk about what the Queen of England ate for breakfast this morning, really. Until the camera is out, I dont see the harm.
Click to expand...
great post ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top