D16 Bolex

The design suggests its for holding near armpit height while you look down onto the screen. I would have just done away with the XLR inputs as they are just going to be getting in the way of a pretty simple design. The nostalgia crowd are the only ones that are going to appreciate this thing and for quick home movie style of shooting, less is more.
 
I'd rather it didn't have the handle sticking straight down from the middle of it. That makes mounting it on a tripod (or anything else) at best awkward. Perhaps it's detachable?
 
arniepix said:
I'd rather it didn't have the handle sticking straight down from the middle of it. That makes mounting it on a tripod (or anything else) at best awkward. Perhaps it's detachable?
Click to expand...

Yep, they've stated the handle is detachable.

I won't be getting one of these, but it's cool to see a project from Kickstarter's vaporware days nearing fruition (and reality).
 
Design wise I love the IKONOSCOP way more.

http://www.ikonoskop.com

image_db.php
 
Yep the ikonskop looks like a professional tool. The D16 on the other hand looks like something you find buried under other junk at a flea market. I wish they could have gone with the original look they conveyed.
 
It's just too wacky to have a crank on a digital camera. I applaud the project should it succeed, which of course it will as Torontonians are building it, but that crank is a drag on their credibility. I lost track of its current use...audio levels, manual frame advance, metadata entry, camera shake effect, coffee grinder?!?
 
bgundu said:
Design wise I love the IKONOSCOP way more.

http://www.ikonoskop.com

image_db.php
Click to expand...

. . .wait a minute, what thread is this?

Seriously, I love pretty much everything about the Ikonoskop, but its in a tough place right now. An Ikonoskop for $6k (basically C100 cost) would still appeal to a lot of people.

I think the DB mock-up/prototype has a very retro soviet aesthetic, doesn't say Bolex or Swiss to me in any way.
 
Personally I think they might have thought harder at marketing this kind of camera to a consumer or prosumer market, not just raw finatics. I bet they'd sell a heck of a lot more at a consumer/prosumer level. I know my dad who use to shoot 8mm and go to the store every week to pick up his developed film reels would have enjoyed something like this. But for that it'd need a more consumer/prosumer codec not raw.
 
Any body see the footage yet?
http://vimeo.com/41309513

I love the incredible sharpness of the sensor. Not too crazy about the highlights though.... either looks blown out or harsh.... little globs of whilte that sticks out..... a bit too videoy? Wonder if that can be dialed down in post?

Would love to hear Barry's comments.
 
berylium said:
Any body see the footage yet?
http://vimeo.com/41309513

I love the incredible sharpness of the sensor. Not too crazy about the highlights though.... either looks blown out or harsh.... little globs of whilte that sticks out..... a bit too videoy? Wonder if that can be dialed down in post?

Would love to hear Barry's comments.
Click to expand...

That film was not shot on the D16. It was shot on an industrial style camera with the sensor that the d16 is using.(as proof of concept) Still, it is not D16 footage....that will come in a couple of weeks or so (hopefully)

I know it says "prototype" in the description, but this has all been hashed out before. It was more of a "test" cam....basically a modified proscilla camera.
 
Also...Elle Schneider said that they (Joe) sharpened lots of the clips to push the camera..so the images are tweaked and not natural from the proto
 
I find it laughable. Thank god I was never intersted in this silly looking camera. I would go as far to say that the reason we haven't seen this body style in about forty years is because it sucked then and it still sucks today. How absurd is the crank on the side? I can't think of one practicle use for this thing. I wouldn't even bother taking this cam on vacation. lol
 
maranfilms said:
How absurd is the crank on the side? I can't think of one practical use for this thing.
Click to expand...

From another thread:

The crank is an encoder that records direction, acceleration, angle and speed of rotation as metadata. Among other potential applications are hand cranked frame ramps or exposure ramps for special FX.
Click to expand...

The crank is for live encoding of keyframes, so its all good! Haven't you always wanted to record keyframes LIVE!

Ok I'll eat my words if someone figures out a really creative use for such a capability. But to me it seems like form dictating function, i.e. the original Bolex had a crank, therefore we must dream up a reason to include it on our version.
 
starcentral said:
Personally I think they might have thought harder at marketing this kind of camera to a consumer or prosumer market, not just raw finatics. I bet they'd sell a heck of a lot more at a consumer/prosumer level. I know my dad who use to shoot 8mm and go to the store every week to pick up his developed film reels would have enjoyed something like this. But for that it'd need a more consumer/prosumer codec not raw.
Click to expand...

The whole reason for the existence of the D16 is to get away from mediocre marketing bullet feature laden prosumer video cameras and crappy low end codecs. It is intentionally not another me too mass market consumer camera.

It joins a very small group of digital raw cameras capable of shooting S16/16mm format and built for optimal use of 16mm format manual cine lenses: Ikonoskop, SI2K, D16, and Reds in 2k format.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top