So is it dead in the water, right out of the gate? Or can this cam find its niche in the marketplace with all the competition around? I'm honestly trying to picture who the user is - whom is this camera addressed to whose need this uniquely fulfills? I guess there must be that part of the market - whether it's big enough to sustain a production line, who knows. Speaking purely personally, for me, what this offers, is not interesting given the price point and alternatives. But of course, everyone's needs are different, so it'll be interesting to see who ends up buying this.
Digital Bolex weeks away
- Thread starter combatentropy
- Start date
snowblindfilm
Carbonite Member
When originally announced D-16 sounded like a great camera. But then the whole BMD happened- great IQ for the price. All these cameras are again workaround cameras. But BMD cams just kill D-16 when you take into consideration IQ and a price point. I don't think DB can compete long term without S35, decent low light camera, plus higher frame rates. I bet BMD will announce their MFT upgrade, with active mount and higher frame rates and global shutter at NAB in April. Of course we will have to wait till next April to have it actually delivered, but this is my prediction. And that is the case, D-16 will go bye-bye.
One more issue, where BM cameras have HUGE advantage- they sell with Resolve. I tried the provided software, but it is not even close as far as ability to color correct in comparison to Resolve. It's very basic and allows for a quick transcode to something usable in NLE's, but that is where it ends. I think if you shoot RAW, you must use resolve to take full advantage of RAW. So any D-16 user count on forking off another 1K for Resolve.
One more issue, where BM cameras have HUGE advantage- they sell with Resolve. I tried the provided software, but it is not even close as far as ability to color correct in comparison to Resolve. It's very basic and allows for a quick transcode to something usable in NLE's, but that is where it ends. I think if you shoot RAW, you must use resolve to take full advantage of RAW. So any D-16 user count on forking off another 1K for Resolve.
I'm not basing that statement on how web videos look. I'm basing it on actually playing with and pushing camera original samples to their breaking point. 8-bit 4:2:0 long GOP compressed video codecs are just not good enough period. Fine for final delivery codecs, which is what they are designed for. But for camera original it is like comparing a child's box of Crayolas to a $3000 set of Sennelier pastels. An FS700 at least can be equipped to shoot raw, or high quality video via an external recorder though it is too expensive for me.
12 bit uncompressed raw is still better and more interesting to work with if you want refined in depth control over over how you paint your images for value and color. Compared to what creative still photographers are doing with digital raw originals these days, video is still pretty primitive for the most part.
snowblindfilm
Carbonite Member
But there is absolutely no footage produced, that would be higher quality then what BMD does at the same price point. And on the top, if you insist on system superiority you can't even start comparing provided software for D-16 with Resolve. So in order to take advantage of RAW, you'll still need to fork off additional 1K for a copy of Resolve, which adds to the total cost of purchase. I don't care how much internet fan-boy spray you intend on doing in regard of D-16 image superiority, the facts of life simply do not back up your statements. Like the whole thing with CCD in ENG cameras or the whole NASA nonsense. Fact is you are spreading a lot of FUD.
Last time I checked Resolve is free for up to 2k resolution projects minus a few features. The Bolex comes with its own software for Mac users. I've loaded Resolve Lite on my new workstation but haven't really had time to learn how to navigate it yet. But for the best most sophisticated raw processing tools I'm sticking with Raw Therapee or Capture 1 Pro for now and editing frame sequences in Lightworks. Since Lightworks was designed as a DI editor for scanned film it works better with JPEG, Tiff, or DPX frame sequences than the video NLE's. It has many of the sophisticated node based grading tools that Resolve has built in as well. No need to round trip between apps or go through proxies or multiple transcodes. Clean simple work flow.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
They're good enough for countless productions...the C100 is an incredible camera. I'd rather get a solid image in camera, than to be playing on a computer all day long, so again it's a matter of choices. I'd rather have the wider angles of S35, the superior low light abilities, the inexpensive media, the built in ND filters, the long battery life, the very good DR (yes, even in humble AVCHD) the infinite profile adjustments in the camera, (or one can shoot C log and go out to a 4:2:2 recorder) All of these things mean more time out shooting.
The D16 is not the be all end all for everybody, it is for you...great, but others have things that are of higher importance than a raw workflow.
But is that not largely down to the long delay between Digital Bolex starting the design and finally managing to get product to market? They fixed certain factors (such as sensor) early on, by the time product eventually starts to become ready, (2 years + ?) things have moved on. Giving companies like Black Magic, with far quicker development cycles, a big advantage.
But they have all been out for quite a while - they may well be extensively used, but they don't represent state of the art modern tech. Whereas the cameras I referenced (Canon (C300/500), Sony (F5/55), Panasonic (4K s35 Varicam), Red) do represent modern tech at the high end - and they're all CMOS.
Again, wrong. F55 for one. CMOS and global shutter. It may be true that most CMOS cameras are rolling shutter (though some much worse than others) but it's simply not an inherent CMOS/CCD matter.
If that was your point, just saying something like the Digital Bolex offers good value for money overall, then you may have a point. Yes, it may be true to say it fills a certain niche.
But you don't stop there. And some of the assertions you've made in it's support just don't hold up. As such, I think you may be doing it a disservice. I for one now think along the lines that if such exaggerations have to be resorted to ....... then isn't it showing a slightly desperate pitch?
Exactly what is this "unique quality of its Bayer filters"? A Bayer pattern is a Bayer pattern, period. Yes there will be differences in size of sensor, no of photosites, and maybe slight differences in spectral filtration - but the latter is normally defined by matching relevant standards. Just what is unique about this sensor that you think gives it the ability to reproduce "fine tonal scales and fine color discrimination"? (Though I suppose "unique" could be used to mean "uniquely mediocre"!?
)Because "fine tonal scales" tend to go hand in hand with dynamic range and "fine color discrimination" with basic resolution. Being relatively small (cf s35) isn't going to help the former, being only 1920x1080 isn't going to help the latter.
Rather than just posting a link to a basic chart, then why don't you show us the performance of the camera when looking at such? You've obviously got the chart, I assume you've at least got access to a camera, so why not share the result with us?
I don't see much point in simply posting a pdf of an original chart, but certainly on my display I can see unaliased resolution right up to the full 1000lpph. (Not being aliased can be checked by the slant of the just off horizontal lines - if they seem to resolve, but slant the wrong way, they're aliasing.) "800-850 lpph is the practical upper resolution limit of the 1080p format regardless of source resolution" is simply nonsense. I earlier posted charts of other 1080 cameras clearly showing they can resolve up to the 1000lpph mark.
Just because the Digital Bolex may only manage 600-700lpph does not mean other cameras can't get far better - they can, and they do. It's FUD to make out otherwise.
As for the "does it matter?" and "why pixel peep?" questions, then if basic resolution is on the low side, it tends to lead to using more detail correction - and that's what I tend to see on the photos you posted of the lady in the yellow hard hat. And that does not lead for an "organic" look, it tends more to "video". Nice lighting, photography, composition - but don't be misled, that photo is not showing off great camera performance.
It's true that in general coded video can't be stretched as much in post as starting with RAW. But a pure RAW camera is a double edged sword. It may give that post flexibility, but can lead to a far more convoluted workflow, and can lead to a sloppy "ahhh, it'll be alright in post" attitude. You are making a virtue out of the RAW only aspect - I strongly suspect it's as it is because it makes for a cheaper design. You can just ignore all the difficult aspects of designing in camera processing.
Last edited:
I believe that Resolve 10 Lite supports resolutions up to UHD.
electricjib
Active member
Last time I checked you got the full version of Resolve with 4K features when purchasing any of the BM cameras other then the pocket cam.
Also the newest Lite version allows you to use some features in up to 4K.
Hard to beat that for free.
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/11/10-awesome-new-features-blackmagic-davinci-resolve-10/
But is that not largely down to the long delay between Digital Bolex starting the design and finally managing to get product to market? They fixed certain factors (such as sensor) early on, by the time product eventually starts to become ready, (2 years + ?) things have moved on. Giving companies like Black Magic, with far quicker development cycles, a big advantage.
But they have all been out for quite a while - they may well be extensively used, but they don't represent state of the art modern tech. Whereas the cameras I referenced (Canon (C300/500), Sony (F5/55), Panasonic (4K s35 Varicam), Red) do represent modern tech at the high end - and they're all CMOS.
Again, wrong. F55 for one. CMOS and global shutter. It may be true that most CMOS cameras are rolling shutter (though some much worse than others) but it's simply not an inherent CMOS/CCD matter.
If that was your point, just saying something like the Digital Bolex offers good value for money overall, then you may have a point. Yes, it may be true to say it fills a certain niche.
But you don't stop there. And some of the assertions you've made in it's support just don't hold up. As such, I think you may be doing it a disservice. I for one now think along the lines that if such exaggerations have to be resorted to ....... then isn't it showing a slightly desperate pitch?
Exactly what is this "unique quality of its Bayer filters"? A Bayer pattern is a Bayer pattern, period. Yes there will be differences in size of sensor, no of photosites, and maybe slight differences in spectral filtration - but the latter is normally defined by matching relevant standards. Just what is unique about this sensor that you think gives it the ability to reproduce "fine tonal scales and fine color discrimination"? (Though I suppose "unique" could be used to mean "uniquely mediocre"!?
Because "fine tonal scales" tend to go hand in hand with dynamic range and "fine color discrimination" with basic resolution. Being relatively small (cf s35) isn't going to help the former, being only 1920x1080 isn't going to help the latter.
Rather than just posting a link to a basic chart, then why don't you show us the performance of the camera when looking at such? You've obviously got the chart, I assume you've at least got access to a camera, so why not share the result with us?
I don't see much point in simply posting a pdf of an original chart, but certainly on my display I can see unaliased resolution right up to the full 1000lpph. (Not being aliased can be checked by the slant of the just off horizontal lines - if they seem to resolve, but slant the wrong way, they're aliasing.) "800-850 lpph is the practical upper resolution limit of the 1080p format regardless of source resolution" is simply nonsense. I earlier posted charts of other 1080 cameras clearly showing they can resolve up to the 1000lpph mark.
Just because the Digital Bolex may only manage 600-700lpph does not mean other cameras can't get far better - they can, and they do. It's FUD to make out otherwise.
As for the "does it matter?" and "why pixel peep?" questions, then if basic resolution is on the low side, it tends to lead to using more detail correction - and that's what I tend to see on the photos you posted of the lady in the yellow hard hat. And that does not lead for an "organic" look, it tends more to "video". Nice lighting, photography, composition - but don't be misled, that photo is not showing off great camera performance.
It's true that in general coded video can't be stretched as much in post as starting with RAW. But a pure RAW camera is a double edged sword. It may give that post flexibility, but can lead to a far more convoluted workflow, and can lead to a sloppy "ahhh, it'll be alright in post" attitude. You are making a virtue out of the RAW only aspect - I strongly suspect it's as it is because it makes for a cheaper design. You can just ignore all the difficult aspects of designing in camera processing.
Don't have my D16 yet. Just been getting footage samples from those that do. Should get it sometime early April hopefully if they stay on schedule. For me shooting raw is much closer to the discipline of shooting film than shooting video. I think people make raw work flows a lot more convoluted than is really necessary. The main thing is to stay in an uncompressed format until final export to delivery formats if you want refined grading capability.
Never seen a 1080p LCD display of any kind come close to resolving 1000 lines without major visible artifacts and loss of MTF at some line angles. A 3-chip DLP will come close.
The Kodak color filters are more saturated than most, at the cost of some sensitivity, but they have a bit richer color gamut than most video cameras, on par with the best raw still cameras. There is no standard for Bayer color filters, they are not pure RGB and they vary dramatically with different cameras for bandwidth and saturation.
Last edited:
HKO
Well-known member
For those who don't wish to have a Da Vinci workflow you can use this program http://raw4pro.com/ to convert the DNGs to Cineform RAW - including the audio in the processed video stream. You can get an AVI or mov file but in Cinefom RAW. I use it with the BMPCC and it is absolutely brilliant. The Quality is incredible. The great thing is you can edit as usual in your chosen NLE - I use Vegas and grade 'under the hood' so to speak using Cineform GoPro studio or Cineform firstlight.
That looks great. Thanks for posting.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Blackmagic's cameras offer some amazing features but are plagued by serious issues too. Anyone interested in them should do their research before deciding if their workable for their needs.
snowblindfilm
Carbonite Member
Unfortunately it doesn't work natively on Mac machines. I guess Resolve Light is a decent option now, as they offer unlimited nodes. When I tried it a couple of years ago, I found it very limited, but I guess times change. Software provided with D-16 is adequate for transcoding, basic (actually VERY basic) adjustments and creating files for NLE.
Like many of the older guys here, I've used the original windup Bolex cameras quite a bit. One of the best things about the camera was its simple functionality. Put in the film, wind her up, and rock and roll. Built like a tank, they were perfect tools for both students and those wanting a ready-steady & portable means to get decent footage.
You weren't going to get CITIZEN KANE from one, but for making zombie movies (which is what I invariably did), they were great.
Based on that, the D16 would seem to be a success - a small, all in one package that is, more or less, ready to go right out of the box. Produces images that, while not top of the line, are certainly more than good enough for most uses. The size, weight, image - all very reminiscent of the original.
That is but for one very large thing - the battery. The crank handle on the original camera wound the camera for shooting, no batteries or external power needed. That meant that as long as you had some film, you could literally shoot anywhere at any time.
I would love if the crank handle on the D16 actually did something (and I'm sure I'm not alone in that feeling), and I think I have a solution for future models - use it as a battery charger. There are all manner of radios and flashlights that use a crank handle to charge an internal battery. Typically, such devices will last only a short amount of time on 1 minute of cranking, usually 10 minutes or so. I would think that such a crank on the D16 would not only serve to link it even more strongly to past models, it would also add a level of functionality missing not only from this camera, but from all other video cameras. It would also make the current handle not merely a thing of whimsy, but of real every day value.
If it had such a crank feature, it would really and truly look to be a modern era replacement for those Bolexs of yore and would, at least for me, make it infinitely more attractive as a purchase. I'm sure those going on some grand adventure into the wilderness would want it too....
Or am I crazy?
You weren't going to get CITIZEN KANE from one, but for making zombie movies (which is what I invariably did), they were great.
Based on that, the D16 would seem to be a success - a small, all in one package that is, more or less, ready to go right out of the box. Produces images that, while not top of the line, are certainly more than good enough for most uses. The size, weight, image - all very reminiscent of the original.
That is but for one very large thing - the battery. The crank handle on the original camera wound the camera for shooting, no batteries or external power needed. That meant that as long as you had some film, you could literally shoot anywhere at any time.
I would love if the crank handle on the D16 actually did something (and I'm sure I'm not alone in that feeling), and I think I have a solution for future models - use it as a battery charger. There are all manner of radios and flashlights that use a crank handle to charge an internal battery. Typically, such devices will last only a short amount of time on 1 minute of cranking, usually 10 minutes or so. I would think that such a crank on the D16 would not only serve to link it even more strongly to past models, it would also add a level of functionality missing not only from this camera, but from all other video cameras. It would also make the current handle not merely a thing of whimsy, but of real every day value.
If it had such a crank feature, it would really and truly look to be a modern era replacement for those Bolexs of yore and would, at least for me, make it infinitely more attractive as a purchase. I'm sure those going on some grand adventure into the wilderness would want it too....
Or am I crazy?
I think cranking to charge the battery is a great idea, but after watching Philip Bloom's review of the D16 I didn't have the impression that was the make-or-break issue with the camera.
Clearly Bloom liked the D16 a lot, but even he struggled to justify who should buy one. I'm in a the market for a new camera in just about exactly the price range of the D16. Not only that but I'm 61 so I have a lot of nostalgia for old-timey retro gear like that. But I'm not crazy - it just has too many real-world drawbacks to compete with other cameras in the $3K-$4K price range. As Bloom says, for him it's more of a possession than a tool.
Clearly Bloom liked the D16 a lot, but even he struggled to justify who should buy one. I'm in a the market for a new camera in just about exactly the price range of the D16. Not only that but I'm 61 so I have a lot of nostalgia for old-timey retro gear like that. But I'm not crazy - it just has too many real-world drawbacks to compete with other cameras in the $3K-$4K price range. As Bloom says, for him it's more of a possession than a tool.
Read Joe's reply blog to the market question that Bloom posed. Maybe understanding the design goals will give you a better insight into where this camera fits. http://www.digitalbolex.com/d16s-place-market/
Sorry, I don't agree at all with the IQ criticisms many pose. I have processed and graded short samples from the D16 for several months now, I have encoded it to full bandwidth uncompressed video formats and viewed the results on a $60k 3-chip digital cinema projector on a 15 foot screen. That is where this camera really shines.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
The one thing the D16 has absolutely is excellent IQ. If one likes to really get into the post process, the images can be pushed like nobody's business and will reveal a multitude of looks very easily.
I would just suggest people think about how they like to compose, and how the camera fits into the way they shoot/light/etc. If all those things are a match to the D16 strengths it truly is a no-brainer.
I also found it odd Mr Bloom didn't see who this was for. To me it's ideal for those looking to shoot very high quality low budget short narrative and narratives. It could be used for other things but it is most well suited to those who have set up shots and plans ahead of time.
I would just suggest people think about how they like to compose, and how the camera fits into the way they shoot/light/etc. If all those things are a match to the D16 strengths it truly is a no-brainer.
I also found it odd Mr Bloom didn't see who this was for. To me it's ideal for those looking to shoot very high quality low budget short narrative and narratives. It could be used for other things but it is most well suited to those who have set up shots and plans ahead of time.
snowblindfilm
Carbonite Member
And nobody is disputing that. However Pocket Cinema does as well at less then 1/3 of the cost.