Barry_Green
Moderator
Precisely.
Digital Bolex D16 Lenses
- Thread starter NorBro
- Start date
oneonetwothree
Member
There's a lot of boring, chest-puffing nonsense going on with this discussion (already we have the classic "fanboy" insult, I guess applying to anyone who's interested in the camera).
I know Joe. I've talked with him about his business model and the technical challenges of the camera, and he (and Elle & co.) are doing something the camera industry needs, even if a chunk of the users here think they're wasting their time. People don't go around smearing GoPro because of their limitations, the limitations are what liberates it and allows it to excel as a niche device. The footage is awesome, it's fun to use, and it speaks for itself. The D16 will sink or float on the same test.
In short, the D16 is a niche device, and there are far more filmmakers capable of using it (assuming it works as advertised) than most people in this thread are allowing. It allows customization, it embraces open-source, and it gives us access to far higher quality imagery than other cameras in its price range. Where's the controversy there?
Stop whining, and go shoot a movie.
I know Joe. I've talked with him about his business model and the technical challenges of the camera, and he (and Elle & co.) are doing something the camera industry needs, even if a chunk of the users here think they're wasting their time. People don't go around smearing GoPro because of their limitations, the limitations are what liberates it and allows it to excel as a niche device. The footage is awesome, it's fun to use, and it speaks for itself. The D16 will sink or float on the same test.
In short, the D16 is a niche device, and there are far more filmmakers capable of using it (assuming it works as advertised) than most people in this thread are allowing. It allows customization, it embraces open-source, and it gives us access to far higher quality imagery than other cameras in its price range. Where's the controversy there?
Stop whining, and go shoot a movie.
keylight
Veteran
Another person who hasn't read this thread? This thread is about the lenses, and the detour they seem to be making to do something "innovative" rather than focusing their time and energy on getting the (long delayed?) core product into the hands of filmmakers who want to use it to "go shoot a movie" instead of "whining."
Frankly, the "boring, chest-puffing" people are those who have tried (and failed) to hijack a legitimate discussion about the lens by claiming others are merely using the lens as a proxy to criticize the camera and it's makers. That's not the case. Of course, to the extent that people can't understand the bewildering decision to work on such a perplexing and risky side project, it is only natural for people to raise questions and discuss the company more generally.
oneonetwothree
Member
1) Relax, I've followed the thread (and others on the subject) from the beginning.
2) The lens and the camera have two different manufacturers.
3) The lens announcement doesn't impact the release date of the camera.
4) These lenses were announced from the very beginning of the D16 project.
5) If I had a nickel for everyone here who insisted it's "better business" for the D16 team to release a crappy, half-baked version of their camera to market for the sake of satiating a little buzz, rather than take the time to do it right, I'd have at least a dollar. Maybe several dollars. This position is nonsensical, bad for their company, and counter-intuitive for anyone who wants the camera to be something worth using.
6) The lenses sound incredible. If they don't suit you, you can still use other lenses with the D16!
keylight
Veteran
Thanks! I am. Quite.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't deliberately trying to confuse the issue with this, and you're just not understanding the role of manufacturers. Manufacturers don't spend the time or money doing the R&D. They don't face the risks bringing this to market.... All that is on Digital Bolex. It's their time, their money (or their investor's money) that's spent developing the lens. It's possible they are partnering with others, but they're the ones behind the lens.
"Joe, Elle, Kish, and the entire Digital Bolex team." That's how the post was signed discussing the lens. They didn't sign it "Not Digital Bolex" or "Different Manufacturer".
So, when IS that release date? And when was it originally? And how many times has it slipped (or will it slip again) because of the lens?
Really? Don't remember that in their announcement. What I remember is that they said they would use a standard C-mount, and a turret was in development. In fact, their strange deviation into this question lens wasn't announced until their post that caused the creation of this thread (emphasis added):
A nickel for everyone here who said, it is better "for the D16 team to release a crappy, half-baked version of their camera to market for the sake of satiating a little buzz, rather than take the time to do it right," then you wouldn't have any nickels. What people are saying (IMO) is that a a crappy, half-baked lens will take away time and resources they should be spending on the camera. They're saying, DO THE CAMERA RIGHT.
Sure. IF they actually get the camera to market within some reasonable amount of time. If they waste time on the lens that nobody actually needs (as you've pointed out there are other lenses) they may just find that by the time they're ready to release the camera, it'll be out of date and they'll have to delay some more to catch up to others.
Cheers!
GibsonSteve1
Member
Color me confused, but didn't Kish Sadhvani win an Oscar in 2004 for optical design? Suffice to say the D16 lenses are in good hands. Sure the technical verbiage (relative to the lenses) on the site may be a bit wonky. Maybe the D16 team needs to spend some of that backer cash on a better publicist.
I think the lenses sound great for controlled shoots. At their current price point, it definitely won't hurt to give them a try. They might leave plenty to be desired in terms of exposure control, but situations like this beg for Welle's adage; "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." It seems the resolution race, frame rate hikes, etc. etc. etc. have just created a way for people to lazily create more technically proficient crap. A perceived step back might not be such a bad thing.
I think the lenses sound great for controlled shoots. At their current price point, it definitely won't hurt to give them a try. They might leave plenty to be desired in terms of exposure control, but situations like this beg for Welle's adage; "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." It seems the resolution race, frame rate hikes, etc. etc. etc. have just created a way for people to lazily create more technically proficient crap. A perceived step back might not be such a bad thing.
No Dof is strictly a product of focal length, aperture, and distance to the center of focus. A 50mm lens has exactly the same DOF characteristics on a 1/3" camera as it does on a full frame 35mm camera, only FOV is different. This was shot with my GL2, approx 60mm @f2.8 Only the middle of the pot is in sharp focus. It is about the size of a human head.
Attachments
Last edited:
Will Turner
Well-known member
There seems to be some confusion over how lenses and sensor size effects things so I'l use the above to illustrate..
60mm on a GL2 size sensor gives you a narrow field of view. Whereas on a 5D, 60mm is very nearly a 'normal' field of view. Because of this, to achieve the same framing, you must use a lens with a much shorter focal length on the GL2 than the 5D, or move backwards. In either scenario the 5d will render a shallower depth of field.
Lenses do not mysteriously change focal length or aperture when you change the sensor, but the way in which you use lenses changes.
With the shot of the pot, if one had used a full frame 5D and captured the same frame with the same lens by moving closer, the depth of field would be a lot shallower. As a by product of moving closer, the perspective would also change drastically. To keep the same framing and the same perspective, you would have to use a lens with an equivalent field of view to the 60mm on the GL2. This would have to be a much longer focal length lens and if the aperture was the same this would again render a considerably shallower depth of field.
I could do some calculations and test shots if anybody would find it useful?
Last edited:
One word: delegation
We who are part of the Digital Bolex committee have kicked around a lot of ideas for features and improvements to the camera over the last year. The lens discussion was an ongoing part of that. Many of the changes, and resulting delays in development, were a result of this iterative process. But that is all past now. The camera is in the hands of the camera engineering team and the optics are in the hands of Kish for engineering. Once the course of development is decided, it is off of Joe's plate and we move on to other things. What you are seeing now its the end of the development process with prototype products that are ready for production. The lenses were not talked about much outside the group because we were asked to keep new developments quiet until announced by DB.
What is a reasonable amount of time to develop and test a new camera from proof of concept lab mule to finished product including hardware, firmware, software? A year seems pretty damn fast to me.
To get back to the out of the box lens concept, how would you solve the problem of producing a low cost lens set that is optically on par with the very best S16mm primes currently available that cost around $3k or more per lens?
In the context of the Bolex the choices boiled down to:
1. Fixed focus, fixed aperture for a very simple lens design of the highest optical and mechanical quality at $200-300 each. Add an electronic focusing mount for the camera estimated to cost around $600 that can be used with any lenses.
2. Maintain optical quality with fixed focus and adjustable iris. Cost goes up to around $700 per lens.
3. Maintain optical and mechanical quality with conventional full function lens design. Cost goes up to around $1500-2000 per lens.
4. Compromise optical and mechanical quality to reduce cost. Plenty of options already exist in this market with industrial lenses. Back to $700-1k range
Last edited:
I'm amazed at the negativity that people feel compelled to toss around at others ideas and dreams.
Personally I root for entrepreneurs and wait to see the quality of their efforts before commenting on them.
And even then, I try to show courtesy and respect.
adkimery
Veteran
I most people here root for underdogs and entrepreneurs too (as many of us fall into that category) but it quickly becomes grating to hear people talk about how awesome and game changing XYZ is going to be when XYZ hasn't shipped let alone been tested out in the wild. Unfortunately this bleeds into a backlash against the company/entrepreneurs themselves.
-Andrew
pulpfiction007
Veteran
No Dof is strictly a product of focal length, aperture, and distance to the center of focus. A 50mm lens has exactly the same DOF characteristics on a 1/3" camera as it does on a full frame 35mm camera, only FOV is different. This was shot with my GL2, approx 60mm @f2.8 Only the middle of the pot is in sharp focus. It is about the size of a human head.
TECHNICALLY, you are correct...but when speaking practically, it is much easier to achieve shallow dof with larger sensors...due to the lense selection and practical fov for various shots. That's why dof adapters were so popular, that is why DSLR video was so popular...because people were tired of deep dof 1/3 camcorders. Many people grew tired of the solutions to get shallow with 1/3" (to stand back and zoom in, or to use adapters).
keylight
Veteran
Could the fact that "others ideas and dreams" aren't what backers were told they were financing and some backers may be a bit upset about apparent deviations and delays?
underpressure
Member
Lenses are not being engineered or designed in Toronto by our camera engineers. They are being designed by Kish Optics and other optics designers working separately in the US and China. Almost every accessory being developed for the camera is being developed concurrently with Toronto's work, and camera engineers work on no aspect of the project besides the camera itself.
When the KS campaign was finished in April we sent a KS survey to everyone who backed us--because many people had contacted us about accessories--and asked them if they would like us to build accessories, and which accessories they would prefer. Lenses were overwhelmingly preferred from a number of options (including lights, which would have been interesting), so the idea was a) around from the beginning b) suggested by our KS backers. Anyone who has followed the project interactively has known about the decision to build lenses for some months. If people try 'em and don't like 'em, we won't make more. Just another option out there for people who want new C mounts that are made for cinematic purposes.
Last edited:
I can't know the motivation of an on line poster. I was merely making an observation regarding the tone of some opinions.
I'll take the people doing the leg work at their word that they didn't allow their lens development to detract from their camera development.
If they deliver what they're presenting...a much improved design over the initial concept, and all in the time that they're projecting, I'd say they deserve the benefit of the doubt regarding their decisions.
Just my approach.
s16mm is capable of a broad, useful range of creative DOF control. It is nothing like small format video cameras. No it isn't 35mm , but in many shooting situations it is easier and more practical to focus, especially shooting and following action.
That is the real appeal of the D16 for me, it fills a hole in the existing market between small formats and 35mm formats that no one else other than Ikonoskop (standard 16mm format 1080p) and Silicon Imaging have addressed and it is the most affordable practical solution for a raw digital replacement for 16mm/S16mm film cameras. I simply love the format and I like the creative flexibility of uncompressed raw data over the low end codecs most cameras in the D16's price range use.
The backers and a few others of us are the ones that have driven the improvements in the camera's original design. The changes have incurred delays, but IMO are worth it. It will be a much better camera all around as a result.
It all has been a pleasant back and forth exchange of ideas. Joe runs the ideas through the engineering teams to see how much it would cost and how long it would take to implement and if it is reasonable to do it the change is made. Some have affected the hardware design, some are software features that can be added via updates later rather than delay the initial release further.
Through all of this Joe and Elle have maintained the original vision for the D16 as a simple, robust, high quality digital version of a 16mm film camera. That is exactly what many of us who share the vision want, not just another prosumer price range mediocre video camera. Not a "game changer", or a "market killer" or even a mass market product at all. Just a nice affordable alternative for those of us who want something different and whose interests have not been served at all by other manufacturers.
Last edited: