Not even close in my book. Coarse aliased images, lower resolution, thinner color gamut. Not a third of the cost if you equip it for equivalent functionality to what the D16 does out of the box.
Digital Bolex weeks away
- Thread starter combatentropy
- Start date
Not even close in my book. Coarse aliased images, lower resolution, thinner color gamut. Not a third of the cost if you equip it for equivalent functionality to what the D16 does out of the box.
Brian Morgan posted a few D16 stills from Thailand. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153908375805191&set=pcb.1550512438506530&type=1&theater
pulpfiction007
Veteran
You can pre order for the next run. It is in production, of course with the backers getting their cameras first.
snowblindfilm
Carbonite Member
Razz, we know you invested in D-16, and were even involved with the development of the camera. DB team did a great job developing this camera from scratch- no doubt about it. But honestly you are turning into a D-16 fan boy, the same way like RED fanboy club. As far as resolution- it's not everything. Following your thinking D-16 is crap, because it's not 4K. Second, there are plenty capable cameras out there shooting at 1080p- like C300, which is fantastic and a pleasure to work with. The fact is, still 2 years after it's release it's one of the best renting cameras, and the price did not really drop as well. To my eye the colors from BMD cameras are far more pleasing in comparison to D-16. CCD is also plagued with it's own issues- like vertical light streak. And yes, CCD is crap in low light, which is one of the biggest draw backs for independent productions.
You keep saying all these things, but yet you have never produced a single frame with charts. Like the claimed 12 stops DR, and the superior resolution. If you produce adequate such footage and frame grabs showing the superiority of D-16 then the topic ends. But for now there is a lot of spray produced by D-16 fanboys, without any actual proof.
Out of the box BMDCC needs a battery, an EVF and a sound recorder. D-16 need a battery, plus probably CF cards, so set up cost for both will be within $200-400. Considering D-16 costs more then 3 times to start with, BMDCC is still far cheaper, even taking into consideration additional costs of extras.
Ok, IQ aside, matching functional capabilities between the two. You will need an external battery adapter and something like the Switronix or you will need 12 of the internal batteries to equal the run time of the D16's built in battery, 3-4 hours of run time. Both cameras need an external monitor or viewfinder to be practical. Adjusting for compression, you will need 200GB+ of the most expensive fastest SD cards to shoot raw on the BMPCC to match the D16's internal 512GB SSD. If not shooting raw what's the point? You will need to add an external double system sound recorder with very good preamps to get anything like the audio quality built into the D16. Lastly you will need to assemble a rig to accommodate all of this on camera in a fashion to make it convenient to operate for a solo shooter. You will need all of that to equal this:
CF cards are not required for the D16, you can off load directly via USB3. You can use inexpensive slower CF cards since their performance has no effect on the camera's performance, just slows off load times.
C300 is a lovely $15k video camera. No question. Even a C100 is $2k+ more with media batteries and accessories. Not including lenses. If I were still shooting commerical/industrial work , a C100 would be the logical choice. Easy and convenient. But I'm not interested in shooting compressed video in any form for personal creative work. The D16 is a hobby camera for me.
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
Razz16mm has thicker skin than me for all the razzing he gets here. While he clearly prefers the Digital Bolex to other cameras, I would not classify him as a fanboy, since his arguments are generally well-reasoned and without extravagant emotion. Come to think of it, I have a harder time figuring out some of the people who decidedly don't want the Bolex, why they're still here. When I don't want a camera, I turn my attention elsewhere. Yet there are those here who won't be happy until we're not happy.
Joe Rubinstein responded to Philip Bloom's review, and he reminded me of why the Digital Bolex is a stand-out camera. And I will quote:
You can compare the Digital Bolex against other cameras for one of these features, but what other camera has all of these features?
Joe Rubinstein responded to Philip Bloom's review, and he reminded me of why the Digital Bolex is a stand-out camera. And I will quote:
You can compare the Digital Bolex against other cameras for one of these features, but what other camera has all of these features?
Joe says that one of the image requirements they came up with was "6. 2K resolution".
And this camera simply can not manage that. Not with the sensor it uses. If you don't believe me, then just look at the EBU documentation for tiering cameras intended for broadcast (R118) - https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r118.pdf . In particular, to meet HD Tier 1, amongst the requirements are:
Once you start talking about a 1920x1080 sensor, the highest it can be rated is Tier 3. (See section 2.7) And that is classified as "Small, high quality semi-professional or similar with broadcast audio capability. Broadcasters will usually limit the amount of Tier 3 material allowed in an HD programme to around 33% and may restrict the type of scene the cameras are used to acquire."
Another post describes the IQ as "excellent". But really, isn't the question then "compared to what"? Which is why I personally dislike such sweeping all or nothing comments - that anything has to be 100% good or 100% bad - apart from anything else, "excellent" IQ in a cheap camera may mean something very different to "excellent" in a much more expensive one.
In this case, then I ask you look very closely at your own screenshots - post 142 for the lower res version, post 147 for the full resolution framegrab. If the camera was giving 2K resolution, you'd expect the latter to be streets ahead of the former, wouldn't you? Given that the former is downrezzed by a factor of 2? But it's not the case. The latter is better - but nowhere near as much as would be expected. It's also nowhere near as sharp as framegrabs I've compared it to from an EX1.
Does it matter? I'm not making out such resolution is the end of the world for the price, and the market aimed at. But it needs to be thought of as a 720 camera, it's just totally wrong to market it with a "2K resolution" tag. (As opposed to "with a 2K chip".) It may still be the right buy for some users, but don't let anyone be under any illusion they are getting a top quality camera at a bargain price. In the EBU tiering system it's HD Tier 3.
But maybe you still think Digital Bolex have performed magic, and got moire free 2K resolution out of that sensor? That's the trouble with "real life" test shots, even more so when not side by side comparisons, they can be very subjective, and conclusions drawn more on lighting or photography than the camera under test. Well, let's just see how it performs on charts, shall we? If it manages substantially more than 700lpph without aliasing, I owe you an apology - and only a chart will prove such definitively.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, but -- doesn't the inherent design philosophy and the goals behind it, already automatically "limit the amount of footage" and "restrict the type of scene the cameras are used to acquire"? Seems to me that the designers, and Razz, and Bloom, are all pretty much in agreement on that. The D16 is a niche product, not intended for mainstream broadcast...
In general I agree with your points about the limits of overall quality, the limit of resolution that can be extracted from a single-sensor chip, the limitations of Bayer, and the silliness of thinking that it will be moire-free without at least some concrete testing to prove that... I would like to see products sold in a responsible manner and expectations kept in line for what a product is, and what it actually can do. And the old saying of "there's no free lunch" still holds true; it held very very true for the DSLRs, it is holding quite true for the BMC, and it will undoubtedly also hold true for the D16 and GH4.
In general I agree with your points about the limits of overall quality, the limit of resolution that can be extracted from a single-sensor chip, the limitations of Bayer, and the silliness of thinking that it will be moire-free without at least some concrete testing to prove that... I would like to see products sold in a responsible manner and expectations kept in line for what a product is, and what it actually can do. And the old saying of "there's no free lunch" still holds true; it held very very true for the DSLRs, it is holding quite true for the BMC, and it will undoubtedly also hold true for the D16 and GH4.
Big reason I'm mostly shooting the 4K Blackmagic camera is just that... moire/aliasing on the 2.5K. Over time it became really hard to put up with, and Mosaic's still not done with an OLPF yet.
Although the 4K camera doesn't have an OLPF, it's actually quite good in this department.
Charts Courtesy of Rexbron over on the other forum. They aren't moire-free, it's close enough in comparison to cameras with OLPFs
Darren Levine posted a comparison, not sure if he's following this thread but here it is:
https://vimeo.com/87285279
Although the 4K camera doesn't have an OLPF, it's actually quite good in this department.
Charts Courtesy of Rexbron over on the other forum. They aren't moire-free, it's close enough in comparison to cameras with OLPFs
Darren Levine posted a comparison, not sure if he's following this thread but here it is:
https://vimeo.com/87285279
Last edited:
pulpfiction007
Veteran
This is my feeling as well.
I think anything in this $5,000 and below price range is bound to have multiple limitations, it's just a matter of where they will be on a given camera.
The C100 - Great sensor, great low light, good picture and physical controls on board, good dynamic range, good audio and a nice layout for many shooters.
But...no slow motion without using 60i, limited to 8 bit 4:2:0 AVCHD on board, not such a hot vf, and a screen that doesn't articulate fully, No HD-SDi
The AF100A - Good VF, good screen, good picture and physical controls on board, good slow motion options and resolution choices, good IQ and audio, decent DR.
But...Not as sensitive as some competition, not super sharp, limited to 8 bit 4:2:0 AVCHD on board
Sony FS 100 - Good slow motion options, good IQ, decent controls, good in low light, good audio, good DR a tad better than the AF100 but below the C100.
But...No ND filters, not the greatest screen and VF design, limited to 8 bit 4:2:0 AVCHD on board
Black Magic 4K - Good DR, great on board recording options like Pro Res and Raw, high resolution, global shutter.
But... Highly reflective screen, no VF, no ND filter, must add cost of external battery solution, firmware limitations that don't allow formatting and clip deletion, bad audio, no ergonomics for hand held shooting, a bit of moire/aliasing, limited frame rates.
Digital Bolex D16 - Good DR, good IQ, good audio, good internal battery, raw recording, CF cards for offloading, global shutter, good ergonomics for hand held.
But...bad on board screen, no VF, no ND filter, limited frame rates, some limitations for dealing with recorded footage on board, vertical streaking, not good in low light.
Pick your upsides and downsides and off you go! No perfect one in the bunch.
The reference to R118 was to try to set an independent benchmark about how good or bad the use of a single 1920x1080 chip is - not really thinking of it as a broadcast camera. It was intended to show that the answer is something like "not bad, but there's better around". But internet forums seem to thrive on sweeping all or nothing comments - anything has to be 100% good or 100% bad. Neither extreme is here how it should be, and neither is how I see this camera.
I earlier said it "needs to be thought of as a 720 camera" and that wasn't intended to be derogatory or in praise - rather to be objective. Up to a few years ago, 720p Varicams (and 960x720 at that) were state of the art - but technology moves on. Broadcast (and I'd have thought Digital Cinema?) now expects full HD as a minimum, with increasing use of 4K. But that's not to say 720 standard doesn't have any place in any market nowadays.
I've said before that I do see positives in the D16's favour, but certain statements have been demonstrably overstating it's abilities - and that is just plain wrong. It may be relatively cheap, it may offer good value for money for some - but just realise it only classes as Tier 3 in EBU grading.
Yes indeed to all of that, especially regarding expectations being kept in line.
Unfortunately...... it's an unfortunate part of human nature that people like to think they are getting the free lunch, and when they realise they're actually just getting what they paid for, feel cheated. That's the problem with raising expectations too high.
snowblindfilm
Carbonite Member
Like I said, it's incredible DB was created, and the results achieved. However it seems to me constant comparisons to BMD cameras is an attempt to make it look like a main stream camera for the masses. I simply do not see any better colors nor resolution, in comparison to BMDCC, it might have a slight edge over Pocket- but Pocket is 3 times cheaper.
The D16 shoots native 2048x1152 2k pixel resolution in 16:9 ratio in a super 16 sized format. It will produce a pixel for pixel 2k format DCI compliant cinema format image for standard wide screen and 2.39 anamorphic formats without upscaling and without the digital artifacts that plague most low cost HD video cameras including the BMC's. Will it optically fully resolve 2k on a test chart? No. Neither will a 2k cinema projector. Neither will a 35mm film release print as projected in most theaters. No pixel based image format can optically resolve its full pixel resolution either as a camera or as a display period. It is not physically possible. It is a pointless criticism.
The D16 is specifically designed as a replacement for an S16mm FILM camera. Its artifact free resolution is comparable to a 2k finish from scanned 16mm film. In other words it looks on a big screen much like the Hurt Locker, or Black Swan or Moonrise Kingdom, or Beasts of the Southern Wild, or the Wrestler or Slumdog Millionaire shot on the SI2k, another S16 2k Bayer cinema camera, when properly exposed and graded. This is what it is designed to do well for $3500.
Have you personally seen any footage from the D16 that was not compressed to low bitrate H.264 4:2:0 web streaming video?
Apparent sharpness and true resolution are two very different things. A couple of years ago a RED shooter did a comparison of HD video from his Epic that was debayered at full quality and down scaled to 1080p vs the same video debayered at half quality and downscaled. The impression for most was that the half quality sample was significantly sharper, but it was in fact a cruder less well resolved image.
The ITU specs cover video cameras encoding HD video in real time internally, not raw cameras that are post processed to whatever finish format. There is a radical difference in the quality of demosaic algorithms applied to real time encoded cameras with limited processing power and non-real time post processed demosaic algorithms on a high power workstation for both color depth and freedom from aliasing artifacts. One of Bloom's comments in his review of the D16 was that it showed no aliasing or moire artifacts, none, zilch. You guys are still thinking in terms of the limits of conventional compressed video codec cameras. Not what is ultimately possible with an uncompressed raw digital cinema camera using the highest quality state of the art processing taking seconds per frame to encode uncompressed high quality 2k DPX sequences that are still in the 2MB+ per frame range for DI work.
No disagreement with any of that.
Untrue (with caveat below) - though I suppose it may depend on the projector.......
But it can get very close. Far, far closer than you make out to be the case. For 1080p, you may hope for 1080 - practically expect 1000lpph, hopefully a bit more. As for not being physically possible, well, I've already given links in an earlier post to charts from true 1080 cameras - (post 90) http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...s-away&p=1986388997&viewfull=1#post1986388997 . I'll post again Alan Roberts report about the EX3 - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034-ADD30_rev2_Sony_PMW-EX1_and_EX3.pdf . Scroll to the end (esp Figure 3) and it is obvious that the EX3 is resolving very close to system resolution.
No disagreement there - but hasn't the world moved on from 16mm quality? If better meant a lot more money, or much bigger cameras, lenses etc (as 35mm did in film days) there's a big argument for 16mm. But now..... don't people expect better for $3500?
The EBU reference R118 covers RAW cameras as well as coded. They lay down MINIMUM requirements in key areas, and to gain Tier acceptance, a camera must meet or exceed *ALL* relevant criteria for that Tier. With a 1920x1080 chip, it will never get above only Tier 3, and never was the saying "you're only as strong as the weakest link" more true.
Such a chip sets a ceiling to final performance, at least in terms of resolution/aliasing. (OLPF choice can trade one off against the other.) It doesn't matter how fantastic the RAW workflow is, how good the deBayering etc, how light the final compression, it will never break through that ceiling. The main benefits of all the latter are post flexibility, not necessarily image quality.