Digital Bolex D16 Lenses

Barry_Green said:
David ... come on. Seriously? Do you think the market will accept a lens that is fixed focus from 1 meter to infinity, and two others that can't focus past six and a half feet? At all?

There's only one word for this whole scheme: ridiculous.

Every ounce of effort they expend on this project, is a wasted ounce that could have rather been spent to make the DBolex a viable design. Every penny they torch on this project, is a wasted penny that could have been used to make the DBolex a better camera. And if they actually release these lenses and actual customers receive them -- the complaints will bury the company under a mountain of ill will that no company will be able to survive.

Ask yourself -- who's going to buy a $200 lens? Is this really going to go to Roger Deakins, who might have some idea of how to employ it? Or is it going to IndyFilmPhreak2013, who can't afford anything else, and then they're going to find that they've got a lens that they can neither focus with or expose with?

This is a terrible idea. Terrible.

They should kill this idea, before it kills them.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the electronic focusing mount that can be used with them for full normal focus function, follow focus with the crank, program and repeat for mocap or animation work, and possibly auto focus too. No external rigging or accessories required other than an EVF or monitor if you want one, plus sound gear.

The fixed focus idea is based on how classic dialog scenes are often shot and working distances typical for camera placement shooting single camera film style under controlled lighting conditions. Place the camera for closeup focus with the 38mm lens and you have medium and wide shots from the same position at the flick of a wrist. No need to move camera, adjust focus, or change exposure. Light for your exposure.

I admit it is a radically unusual approach but they are not building the D16 or these lenses for high volume mass market consumption. It is an interesting and not too expensive experiment, if they can't sell enough to justify production costs, then they won't make any more.

I'm more of a zoom lens kind of guy myself, but I would consider a set of these and a focusing mount for less than the price of one used premium quality S16mm prime lens like an Arri / Zeiss ultra-prime If they are of equal or better optical quality. That is the point of the excercise, highest optical quality at lowest possible cost.

Shooters who routinely use ND faders or up to 9 stops of ND filters to modify exposure shouldn't have much problem with these lenses.
 
Gary Huff said:
Wow, ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The practice of mounting an electronically controlled lens on one brand of camera to set iris then switching to another brand of camera that can't control it to shoot is ludicrous, but I have seen that solution posted here a few times. The solution of just shooting the uncontrolled lens wide open and using ND, shutter and lighting controls for exposure has been talked about too.
 
Seems like a foolish idea to me. Barry's post is on the money IMO. Seems like the developers are too in love with the old Bolex cameras. This lens "solution" is in need of a problem. Oh, wait. They want the lenses on a turret. There's that old Bolex love thing again.

carrots.jpg
 
keylight said:
Seems like a foolish idea to me. Barry's post is on the money IMO. Seems like the developers are too in love with the old Bolex cameras. This lens "solution" is in need of a problem. Oh, wait. They want the lenses on a turret. There's that old Bolex love thing again.

View attachment 66788
Click to expand...

Ever shot a camera with a set of primes mounted on a turret? It was a pretty standard solution for 16mm cameras for decades, Bolexes, Bell & Howells. Arri 16S and 35IIA/B/C, Eclair, Aaton all had them. Same was true of studio broadcast TV cameras. Forget the oddity of the lenses, the turret is extremely practical in its own right. No time lost changing lenses, no exposure of the lens rear elements or the camera sensor/film gate to dirt and moisture.
Turrets gradually disappeared with the availability of high quality zoom lenses, but if you like to shoot with primes it is still a good solution if it is well designed and mechanically stable like the Arri S was.
For the D16, a turret was one feature that many requested as an option. Since mounts are interchangable, it is a relatively easy thing to provide as an accessory.

Kubric_Shooting_Clockwork.jpg Kubrick shooting Clockwork Orange scene "Singin in the Rain"
SK_w_35IIA_KillersKiss.jpg Kubrick shooting his first feature with an Arri 35IIA, matte box with a lens shroud over the turret.

Arriflex_35IIB_small.jpg
 
Last edited:
D16 feel confident they can spit out a film like image similar to Ikonoskop/Alexa. So..is it possible to do that for $3k? Blackmagic is doing its thing and we all know the infamous $3k for 3k...but what costs the most in these cameras? I am assuming it's the sensor/chips. As the days move forward, certain technology gets better and cheaper. Are big companies making cameras for $5k and selling them for $50k?

In the grand scheme of things, with the right experience, how difficult is it to make a camera? Lenses aside, who here is confident the D16 team can make a camera that turns the industry upside down and actually produces a beautiful, organic film-like image? I'm bouncing around here, but you know..
 
I've owned and used several turret cameras. I think there's value to a turret, although it hasn't been seen or used since the invention of a usable zoom lens. But even so, a turret's viability is unrelated to focus-free and, even worse, iris-free lenses. I've used many lenses on turrets. But I have never used a fixed-iris lens on any turret. In fact, I can't think of any lens I've ever used that didn't have an iris, with the only exception being the Lumix 3-D lens, which is fixed-focus, fixed-iris at F/12.5. But it is also a gimmick lens.

Which is the only summary I can come to with these proposed lenses: gimmicks. Or bizarre experiments. But certainly not mainstream, general-purpose, go-to lenses. Novelties, not necessities.

If they want to make novelty lenses, hey, go ahead. Just please don't let this ill-advised sideshow distract from the real job, okay? :)
 
Depends on the purpose... HPX250, AF100, and GoPro Hero3 Black are what I use most, but I've also been eyeing the new Sony F55, just trying to justify a reason to spend that much... :) Had a kickstarter reservation in for the Digital Bolex but I dropped that when it looked like they had no idea what they were doing and weren't going to put in an OLPF; had a pre-order in on the BMC but dropped that when they in fact didn't include an OLPF and it looks to me like their second version has so much room for improvement that I didn't want to deal with the first...

So I keep looking, but my go-to cams that keep getting the jobs done are the AF100 and HPX250.
 
I could maybe....MAYBE...see these lenses being useful in a handful of cases, IF the optics are truly, absolutely top-tier. If you are doing green-screen or other VFX work, it makes things easier if you can resolve as much detail as possible with a minimum of chromatic aberration or other distortions. In that case, under controlled lighting, it's plausible that someone might be willing to deal with the limitations of a fixed-focus, fixed-iris lens if it could give you a pristine, technically perfect image for next-to-no money, especially when you combine them with the D16's global shutter. That could be an interesting solution for low budget VFX.

But for regular, day-to-day shooting?.....naaaah. Too much hassle, especially outdoors. I'd rather see a good quality, reasonably fast, and affordable zoom or two. A wide to medium zoom for around $1000 would cover 75% of my own needs. Add in a telephoto and a normal prime for beauty shots and that would probably be enough for remaining 25%. But that's just me.
 
Wesley Byram said:
I'd rather see a good quality, reasonably fast, and affordable zoom or two. A wide to medium zoom for around $1000 would cover 75% of my own needs. Add in a telephoto and a normal prime for beauty shots and that would probably be enough for remaining 25%. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Dream on. A decent used S16mm zoom will set you back a lot more than that.

Joe estimated they could produce decent full function S16mm primes for around $1k each, though there would be some optical performance compromises compared to the fixed versions.
 
Last edited:
My Angeniuex 17.5-70 cost $799, brand new (old stock).

Modern glass costs a lot more, obviously, but if one shops around there are definitely bargains to be had.
 
Wow, that guy selling that Angenieux is claiming it's good for a 5D or a 7D? That's outrageous. That lens won't cover 1/5th of the 5D's frame...
 
The Angie 17.5-70 is actually a very good S16mm zoom at modest prices. Whitehouse AV and Visual Products apparently found a cache of old new stock of these lenses and sold a bunch of them for less than $900.
Can't classify it as wide however. It is more like normal to medium tele, about like a 50mm-200mm range on an FF35 camera.
The Computar primes are fast but relatively soft, standard def TV lenses. Well made. I have a couple I look forward to trying on the D16, but don't expect much of them. The ones made for 1" format video cameras will cover S16, but the ones made for 2/3" format typically won't.

Primo C-mount lenses have been pretty well picked over by the m4/3 crowd over the last few years. You can find better lenses and better buys among the older Arri mount Cooke Kinetals and Zeisses that can be easily adapted to PL mount.

If you want to see some examples of m4/3 stills using old C-mount 16mm glass, check out www.oldlens.com. Scroll to the bottom of the main page for the C-mount section. Some of them produce very nice high quality images and have sort of an old lens organic film look to them that can be very pleasant.
 
Barry_Green said:
Personally -- I think it's pretty ridiculous. Fixed-focus, fixed-iris lenses? Having to use an ND filter for every variation in exposure? Zero DOF control? All to save a few pennies?

It's a terrible idea, and I think that anyone buying these will quickly figure out the limitations and they'll throw these things on ebay and buy some Rokinons or other, usable lenses.

I don't know how their improvised focus system will work as a practical matter, maybe it'll have some functionality, maybe it'll be kludgey, I don't know, but ... seriously -- no iris? You guys know how I and others flipped out when the FS100 didn't have an ND filter at all, can you imagine just how inconvenient it'll be to set ALL exposure by ND? What are you supposed to do, put some crappy Fader ND in front of every lens?

Plus, statements like this don't give me a lot of hope:

That's just ill-informed wacky talk, from someone who doesn't understand optics and how lenses work.

Look, I wish the DB guys all the luck in the world, but -- they should kill this bad idea immediately, and instead work on making an actual, usable, functional camera. These lenses are a bad idea. It's like Red making a mattebox, when they weren't even able to get their cameras out. Focus on the important stuff, don't get distracted with side projects...
Click to expand...

Barry_Green said:
David ... come on. Seriously? Do you think the market will accept a lens that is fixed focus from 1 meter to infinity, and two others that can't focus past six and a half feet? At all?

There's only one word for this whole scheme: ridiculous.

Every ounce of effort they expend on this project, is a wasted ounce that could have rather been spent to make the DBolex a viable design. Every penny they torch on this project, is a wasted penny that could have been used to make the DBolex a better camera. And if they actually release these lenses and actual customers receive them -- the complaints will bury the company under a mountain of ill will that no company will be able to survive.

Ask yourself -- who's going to buy a $200 lens? Is this really going to go to Roger Deakins, who might have some idea of how to employ it? Or is it going to IndyFilmPhreak2013, who can't afford anything else, and then they're going to find that they've got a lens that they can neither focus with or expose with?

This is a terrible idea. Terrible.

They should kill this idea, before it kills them.
Click to expand...

Barry_Green said:
I've owned and used several turret cameras. I think there's value to a turret, although it hasn't been seen or used since the invention of a usable zoom lens. But even so, a turret's viability is unrelated to focus-free and, even worse, iris-free lenses. I've used many lenses on turrets. But I have never used a fixed-iris lens on any turret. In fact, I can't think of any lens I've ever used that didn't have an iris, with the only exception being the Lumix 3-D lens, which is fixed-focus, fixed-iris at F/12.5. But it is also a gimmick lens.

Which is the only summary I can come to with these proposed lenses: gimmicks. Or bizarre experiments. But certainly not mainstream, general-purpose, go-to lenses. Novelties, not necessities.

If they want to make novelty lenses, hey, go ahead. Just please don't let this ill-advised sideshow distract from the real job, okay? :)
Click to expand...

Barry_Green said:
Wow, that guy selling that Angenieux is claiming it's good for a 5D or a 7D? That's outrageous. That lens won't cover 1/5th of the 5D's frame...
Click to expand...

Holy macaroni Barry....you make me freaking smile. Nothing like a little dose of "tough-love" or "truth serum" from good-old-Barry-F'ing-Green. I sincerely mean that in the most positive way.

I also was on the VERY early list to get this camera. I got out for the same reasons as Barry, and it is a little unsettling to see misinformed statements like the ones Barry has already pointed out. I'd love nothing more than to see another viable option for under $5K.....I really do hope the best for them. Not sure if this is a wise investment of their time...but whatever. Cheers!
 
I just bought a super 16 11-165 2.5 modern canon zoom for my A-CAM DII. incredibly sharp, amazing range and not that big. New in 2002 it cost around 20k. I got it for about 17 percent of that. I would say the market for super 16 glass is down a bit. then theres the canon optex 10.5-220 selling for 4-5k that was 28k in 2002. just sayin. I also have a complete set of kern switars that are tiny, fast and sharp that were a steal.
 
The lenses, like the camera, seem more romantic than pragmatic too me but I've always been a function over form type of guy and I've never shot film so I don't have any nostalgia to fall back on either.


-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top