Digital Bolex weeks away

sounds like they are very dedicated to the image itself and science that goes in behind it, me personally I don't know if I will ever to get over the form factor. I would have to look at using it in a cage from a 3rd party, etc..

cheers,
 
Jay Birch said:
Surprised by the negativity here.... This is a tiny company who seem to be close to achieving their goal. I think it is fascinating and a true reflection of the social/crowd funding era.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is a mismatch in market. It's like a runner critiquing high heels. How could you run in those? What good are they?

My impression of the majority of members on DVXuser is that they are camera operators, or DPs and not directors at all, or if they do direct they are camera operators and DPs first, and directors second. People on these forums concentrate on gear, image quality, moire, aliasing, bit rate, color depth, file types, etc. They want to look at the footage with a microscope and compare pixels and argue over the science in developing an imaging chip, discuss debayer settings and so forth. Most directors don't spend any time at all worrying and discussing those issues. They just use the best camera their budget allows.

They need a camera that works and develops a solid pleasing image. The rest of those details aren't a concern and shouldn't be. Those directors are concerned about the story, the talent, and the shot list. They aren't worried about 444 color space and 50mps per second, etc., etc.

The idea of the Bolex is you hand it to someone that wants to direct, not be a DP or camera operator. They turn it on, and it works. You get a nice image and decent sound for a good price. The end.

It's like asking an Indie 500 race car driver what they think of the Kia Sportage. Why would anyone drive that? It doesn't even go 150 miles an hour. What good is it?

The indie director primarily concerned with story telling, not bit rate, isn't on a forum like this. I think that's why you see so much negativity and little enthusiasm.

That being said, I don't know that the Bolex is a viable business model. There is stiff competition and they don't have the resources to stay nimble in a market that is changing extremely fast. I'm just saying the Bolex market isn't hanging out on DVXuser discussing Foveon's scheme of vertical filtering for color sensing.
 
I agree,

The bolex is kind of for people like my dad, or some artsy director who can just go out and shoot stuff.

Is that same crowd going to work with "RAW" images and worry about how to make it look good without spending a lot of time learning how to start grading footage?

As it is there are people really struggling with grading RAW or even non-RAW for that matter and getting the most out of it. I know people selling their BMC - its just too much for them.

D16 looks like great image and price but it will be interesting to see where it ends up.

Cheers,
 
I don't think anyone really disagrees at the science and effort being put into getting this camera as close to "film" as possible, but that in itself doesn't seem to jive with who this camera is aimed towards - but hey, breaking rules seems to be a lot about what is going on with cameras these days :D
 
I disagree about market focus. This is a cinematographer's camera. Simple clean manual operation like a film camera. ISO speeds accurately calibrated to a light meter. Designed pimarily for use with cine lenses in a classic film format. An excellent camera for film schools to replace their 16mm film cameras with and teach basic photographic skills that one would learn shooting film adapted for the digital age.
It is a camera for film makers to whom the image as content is first consideration not last and who want to exercise maximum control over the entire image making process.
It is an S16mm format film camera replacement that shoots native 2k digital cinema resolution files with no need to scale up or down. I have had a sample clip projected on a $60k digital cinema projector that we were demonstrating for a client and it looks really good on a big screen.
 
I don't think you're all giving proper creditto what is being developed in this camera. Note that it captures Cinema DNG files, not any compressed video codecs. Don't judge until you really know what it can deliver.
 
Razz16mm said:
This is a cinematographer's camera.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry but i find that statement laughable. cables coming out of the left side, no onboard proper monitoring, advertising it with a bottom pistol grip... maybe if you said "up and coming cinematographer", but a veteran cinematographer would find many issues such as what i just rattled off.

if you were just talking in the sense of the image flexibility, that still wouldn't make it a cinematographer's camera, it would make it a colorist's camera. RAW and the likes don't make a camera a cinematographer's dream, the layout/design/ergonomics ALONG with how well it captures/processes information, does. Hence why the ikonoscope is loved by so many, and why many of us love the canon C series, etc...

i don't have issue with you defending the camera, but defend it for what is is, not what you want it to be, and keep the advertising tongue out of your posts please.

cheers,
 
from kickstarter page said:
the Bolex is designed with consumers as well as pros in mind, and will be inexpensive, compact, and easy for anyone to use, just like the film cameras many of us remember using as kids.
Click to expand...

from kickstarter page said:
There is no camera on the market that offers affordable RAW quality to consumers and independent filmmakers. The Digital Bolex will mean filmmakers who prefer an uncompressed and “film like” look won’t have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve that. Isn’t it time for the digital generation to have image quality as good as our parents had?
Click to expand...


I really can't suggest an average consumer will want to mess around with "RAW" , DNG , Davinci, etc.. and whatever and however it takes to get footage out of the D16.. not to mention deal with file sizes, post workflow, etc..

Again, nothing bad against "the image" (this is a community forum where that is the bulk of what we discuss) but as far as "market" that's where many of us just see a hard time with it.

If you want one GOOD. If you don't GOOD too.
 
Darren Levine said:
i'm sorry but i find that statement laughable. cables coming out of the left side, no onboard proper monitoring, advertising it with a bottom pistol grip... maybe if you said "up and coming cinematographer", but a veteran cinematographer would find many issues such as what i just rattled off.

if you were just talking in the sense of the image flexibility, that still wouldn't make it a cinematographer's camera, it would make it a colorist's camera. RAW and the likes don't make a camera a cinematographer's dream, the layout/design/ergonomics ALONG with how well it captures/processes information, does.
Click to expand...

Not ENTIRELY true, especially because as an experienced Cinematographer, you don't speak for me. However...still, it's arguable.

Darren Levine said:
Hence why the ikonoscope is loved by so many, and why many of us love the canon C series, etc...
Click to expand...

[h=3]Technical Specifications[/h][TABLE="width: 348"]
[TR]
[TD]Image size[/TD]
[TD]1920 x 1080 pixels (1966 x 1092)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Format[/TD]
[TD]CinemaDNG (individual files in RAW sequences)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Color depth[/TD]
[TD]12bit[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]File size[/TD]
[TD]3,2MB/frame
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Wait...WTF?!
The Ikonoskop IS Cinema DNG standard, just like the Digi Bolex. You DO know this, right?
 
Darren Levine said:
i'm sorry but i find that statement laughable. cables coming out of the left side, no onboard proper monitoring, advertising it with a bottom pistol grip... maybe if you said "up and coming cinematographer", but a veteran cinematographer would find many issues such as what i just rattled off.

if you were just talking in the sense of the image flexibility, that still wouldn't make it a cinematographer's camera, it would make it a colorist's camera. RAW and the likes don't make a camera a cinematographer's dream, the layout/design/ergonomics ALONG with how well it captures/processes information, does. Hence why the ikonoscope is loved by so many, and why many of us love the canon C series, etc...

i don't have issue with you defending the camera, but defend it for what is is, not what you want it to be, and keep the advertising tongue out of your posts please.

cheers,
Click to expand...

How many of these new cameras, including the Canon C series, are used exclusively with their inadequate on board monitors? How many of them are rigged with all sorts of external cages and hardware to make them practical balanced rigs? The Canons are certainly not a shining example of ergonomic utiltiy.
The D16's on board display is primarily there for menus and monitors video as a convenience. It was not intended as a primary monitor. So you are not paying for an EVF and an LCD display as on the Canon C series that are at best marginally useful and in the wrong place. You buy the EVF or monitor that suits your application and rig, as most people do with the new gen cameras anyway.
The D16 may not be the right choice for general commercial market video production. But there is a different class of creative film makers out here for whom all of these reasonably affordable prosumer video cams are frustrating and fundamentally unsatisfying because they overly compromise image and sound quality in favor of consumer convenience features for the unskilled. Perhaps that is what you mean by flexibility?
It s interesting that you mention the Ikonoskop, because it is also a functionally simple minimalist camera with uncompromised quality of image capture as its primary design feature.
Raw workflow is simple. Simple to shoot on set and simple to manipulate in post for creative purposes if one bothers to learn the most fundamental photographic skills that apply to all imaging systems, film or digital.
Would you expect a modern digital still photographer to reject the creative power of raw images in favor of the lowest quality highest compression JPEGs his camera can produce? This is the choice that we now have as creative film makers with the emergence of DNG raw motion cameras of modest price.
 
I've been very skeptical of this company from the get go and specifically the 2 people running this venture. it would not have surprised me that it never got off the ground.

but...here it seems that camera has come much further than i ever thought it would have and the last few videos are looking really good to my eye. like a previous poster says it has a 70's look to it. i don't know if thats really the camera's vibe or PP. still its appealing to me.

i probably wouldnt ever buy this camera for a variety of reasons (mostly ergo). still with not having a serious interest in the DB at this point i would be happy to be proven wrong about this project in thinking that it was bulls*%t that would never materialize.

honestly im pretty surprised about the degree of negatives here as well. if they can get 100 cameras out to the kickstarter people then they should be rolling and cameras to follow at some point. if they achieve that and the cameras perform nicely IMO they deserve some serious credit. does it matter so much now that its late? so many companies do this baloney with promising then not delivering so arent we all getting used to this?

ill give them credit for having it together and shooting some real video footage that is looking interesting at least.

i hope finish this camera off and have success moving forward.

david
 
We can be negative about the ergos, intended market, and god knows what other reasons - but the fact of the matter is these guys actually did it., And if you're any sort of tech-head and you've been following the progress on the development of the camera, well these guys put a serious amount of thorough science behind it that is really going to make those people who embrace it quite happy.

So putting aside my negativity for a second or two, CONGRATULATIONS to the D16 team!!! You guys actually pulled off what so many others have only DREAMED ABOUT, TALKED ABOUT, or has had STOLEN FROM THEM by someone else!


:birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy:
 
starcentral said:
We can be negative about the ergos, intended market, and god knows what other reasons - but the fact of the matter is these guys actually did it., And if you're any sort of tech-head and you've been following the progress on the development of the camera, well these guys put a serious amount of thorough science behind it that is really going to make those people who embrace it quite happy.

So putting aside my negativity for a second or two, CONGRATULATIONS to the D16 team!!! You guys actually pulled off what so many others have only DREAMED ABOUT, TALKED ABOUT, or has had STOLEN FROM THEM by someone else!


:birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy: :birthdays: :thumbsup: :happy:
Click to expand...

that's a statement i can get behind

+1
 
Razz16mm said:
How many of these new cameras, including the Canon C series, are used exclusively with their inadequate on board monitors?
Click to expand...
I actually happen to work with XF and C300 and this is a completely bs statement. C300 has more then adequate lcd for critical focus, XF also, but you need to shade it outside. It probably has 4x the resolution of what DB is implementing. DB 320x240 2.5" is like stepping back to DVX100 or worse.
I wish them best of luck in their venture!
 
snowblindfilm said:
I actually happen to work with XF and C300 and this is a completely bs statement. C300 has more then adequate lcd for critical focus, XF also, but you need to shade it outside. It probably has 4x the resolution of what DB is implementing. DB 320x240 2.5" is like stepping back to DVX100 or worse.
I wish them best of luck in their venture!
Click to expand...

Yes, and you paid considerably more for those cameras to get those LCD's. In fact you could add both an aftermarket EVF and an LCD to a D16 kit and still be under the cost of an XF or C100. The D16 is not feature rich, it is image and sound quality rich at a pretty modest price. A deliberate design choice, made with the expectation that people will build around the basic package to suit themselves.
 
Last edited:
Razz16mm said:
Yes, and you paid considerably more for those cameras to get those LCD's. In fact you could add both an aftermarket EVF and an LCD to a D16 kit and still be under the cost of an XF or C100. The D16 is not feature rich, it is image and sound quality rich at a pretty modest price. A deliberate design choice, made with the expectation that people will build around the basic package to suit themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Who on earth shoots with any camera straight out of the box, no add-ons, no accessories, no tweaks? Demonizing the D16 for eschewing stuff that you're going to upgrade, replace, or work around anyway... That is not a very compelling argument. Any camera that purports to offer "everything" is wasting your money on **** you'll never use.


All these armchair business experts *who don't own their own tech company* pooping on a start-up for having the balls to try something different... Well, it makes me laugh into my bowl of cheerios every time I visit this forum.
 
oneonetwothree said:
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Who on earth shoots with any camera straight out of the box, no add-ons, no accessories, no tweaks? Demonizing the D16 for eschewing stuff that you're going to upgrade, replace, or work around anyway... That is not a very compelling argument. Any camera that purports to offer "everything" is wasting your money on s*%t you'll never use.


All these armchair business experts *who don't own their own tech company* pooping on a start-up for having the balls to try something different... Well, it makes me laugh into my bowl of cheerios every time I visit this forum.
Click to expand...


why can't you understand that there are cameras that are mentioned numerous times here that work strait out of the box with ZERO additions, the king of that are the Canon C cameras. And that it's not that some of us are demonizing the d16, heck i, and i imagine most people have all the hope that it turns out even better than imagined, but much of the negativity towards it is due to this pedestal some have put it up on, like it's the jesus camera.

the same thing happened with BMC, but they at least eventually got the camera out the door and now everyone knows all the limitations of those tools and either choose to use them or not. The D16 has been on the backburner for so long, there's really nowhere to go but questioning what's going on with it and will it live up to the wait.

Just because i see zero place for a d16 in my camera bag doesn't mean i think it's useless, it just doesn't fit my uses. As long as the product they turn out hits the crucially important reliability that consumers expect, then who knows how high they can reach? All the power to them. I just hope next time they don't try so hard to be different and go retro with the ergonomics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top