F35: F35 vs Digital Bolex

eddavid

eddavid

Carbonite Member
I'm going to do a test this week both being CCD based - I'm very impressed by the look of the Digital Bolex. Actually I cancelled the test - the limited dynamic range and noise issues kind of just look - well - what one would expect. Does anyone else have experiences with this guy?
 
Last edited:
Any idea if the Bolex shares a sensor with anything else? It's CCD isn't it?

My Cion test ruffled a few feathers, hence I am going to repeat it soon.
 
While the DR might be lacking... in my opinion DBolex would give the F35 a run for its money in overall color and motion rendition. In fact, just in my opinion, it would probably outshine just about everything out there in these two areas, including Alexa and BMD cameras. When treated properly, the image this thing is capable of outputting is truly special. Yeah, it's a bit of a shame about the pink highlights and the DR (even though it's an actual 12 stops I believe), but the color and motion are very very solid.

You should test it anyway and form an opinion first hand, Ed. Especially if you have access to one.

Edit here: I considered getting one, but it doesn't check enough boxes as an A-Camera to me. Especially given the price to buy in.
 
Last edited:
I saw some super beautiful stuff shot on it, then I saw Philip Bloom's stuff on it, and it looked pretty standard- so I kind of got second thoughts on it. But yes it doesn't quite seem like it's $5k for a camera that is not really competent to be used on professional gigs - but one can rent it from lensrental for $300 for 5 days about, so I may still test it out. Especially after your opinion. The amount of storage space required for it though is definitely not something I am into - shooting 12 bit DNG files off the odyssey - man that alone took up so much space.
And having to offload from the camera to cards after the fact - it seems like revision 2 could be amazing.
 
There's a few people who have been given shocks when they realised how much space ProRes 4K takes up, as well as the various flavours of raw.

I don't believe in any camera that needs "the right conditions" to look good... but I'm judging something from impossibly high standards!
 
eddavid said:
I saw some super beautiful stuff shot on it, then I saw Philip Bloom's stuff on it, and it looked pretty standard- so I kind of got second thoughts on it. But yes it doesn't quite seem like it's $5k for a camera that is not really competent to be used on professional gigs - but one can rent it from lensrental for $300 for 5 days about, so I may still test it out. Especially after your opinion. The amount of storage space required for it though is definitely not something I am into - shooting 12 bit DNG files off the odyssey - man that alone took up so much space.
And having to offload from the camera to cards after the fact - it seems like revision 2 could be amazing.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I was in the same boat. The earliest stuff shot with the D. Bolex only showed one thing, that motion was on. I've seen some stuff recently that's made me want to lose some gear to pick one up. It's so very difficult to find a camera with that kind of motion and color and they seemed to have nailed it, but the sticking points for me were:

- Internal SSD (this is a major one for me... although you get alot of record time, I personally can't see this is a viable A-Camera because of that)
- Pink highlights (they're supposedly finally fixing this, but at what cost?)
- Lack of an MFT mount currently (Sensor size is too small for me as an A-camera, personally)

And then the very very *me* specific gripe:

I have to build it out. I'm almost allergic to anything that I have to add a monitor arm and SDI cable to, these days. hahah

But, you should try it out, Ed. Contact one of those two at D. Bolex and ask if they know anyone in your area that may be willing to show you around the camera for a day.

JMtheDP said:
There's a few people who have been given shocks when they realised how much space ProRes 4K takes up, as well as the various flavours of raw.

I don't believe in any camera that needs "the right conditions" to look good... but I'm judging something from impossibly high standards!
Click to expand...

Well, there's a reason why Sony and Canon haven't been doing RAW and/or ProRes internally (up until recently). The people that are shocked by that aren't the people that should be using it. =P Yet, anyway.

Also, it's not the right conditions, it's just the right person shooting with it. Just someone that understands the format, what takes the time to learn how to expose it and especially post it. From what I've gathered, it's capable in most situations, but there aren't enough owners that actually understand what to do with the format while shooting and then after you've shot it.
 
I think the 2nd part looks amazing - the first part doesn't seem that much better.
upon further reviewing, there is not much shadow detail and the highlights go pink - only in the controlled lighting setting does it look better. And the 2nd half cranked up the shutter to make it sharper - the first half at 180 shutter doesn't look that much more remarkable.

But I judge a camera not by its best stuff, but by its best and worst stuff - then I will test it myself. It's worse at least by my standards - the Philip Bloom stuff (and no offense to him, I like a lot of what else he shoots like the drone video and his a7s stuff and fs7 stuff blows my stuff away) - but three videos by him kind of made me think a little bit more about it. in natural uncontrolled settings it looks pretty crappy.

But I will test it out.

I think though hypothetically there is no reason the f35 should not in the same hands and with same lenses and post have the same beautiful imagery - but yes overall the motion on the D16 does look in many ways better than most stuff I shot on the f35 - I am trying to figure out the formula. But then again, it's easy to long for what we don't have, and only see the bad in what we have. At least I'm always doing that.
 
Last edited:
eddavid said:
I think though hypotechtically there is no reason the f35 should not in the same hands and with same lenses and post have the same beautiful imagery - but yes overall the motion on the D16 does look in many ways better than most stuff I shot on the f35 - I am trying to figure out the formula. But then again, it's easy to long for what we don't have, and only see the bad in what we have. At least I'm always doing that.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that... I can't seem to convince many that there's a difference in motion between cameras, only a handful of us can see it, figuring out why or how it's done is an entirely different headache. You could ask the DB people, they seem to have made it a sticking point in their image development (based on what they write on the website).

I'm experimenting with URSA DCM (Dual Card Mode) recording 48 to pull 24P out of it, not sure if it's working or would work at all... and I'm trying to convince BMD to allow a project frame rate of 48P for this same reason, I don't think they'll go for it because there isn't a viewing standard for 48P.
 
Speaking bolex/f35 motion ''cadence'', I don't like the magic/voodoo approach to images. Let's break it down to technicalities.
What is it that affects motion in a motion picture capturing system?


-The number of frames takes every second (frame rate)
-How long each frame is exposed (shutter angle)
-Shutter design (rolling/global)
-Motion-based compression codecs.
-The TV/viewing settings


That's it.


Since all cameras share the ability to match shutter speed, frame rate, then these two are eliminated as the cause.


However these are not shared among cameras:


1-Shutter design: so rolling shutter is a huge factor here, and remember it'a not just the presence/lackofit but the amount of rolling shutter skeweing.
another point, film actually had a rolling shutter artefacts, something most people who haven't shot film seem to forget, it was not a global shutter where all the film is exposed at the same exact point, it had a rolling shutter equivalent to somewhere aroung 5-6ms. The Alexa has a rolling shutter amount close to that, and the C300ii as specs say, and strangely, the Samsung nx1 in 1080p mode. These cameras should resemble film rolling shutter effect as much as possible, but of course most cameras with rolling shutter have significantly worse than 5ms, so a global shutter is closer to film than most rolling shutter cameras.

2-Motion-based codecs
This might be a very important factor here, most AVCHD and H.264 codecs actually compress frames by guessing many frames from one, which on many (most) cameras introduces motion artefacts, these artefacts appear as blurring and pixelation of moving pixels in the frame-to-frame basis, and it only appears when you analyze frames carefully and is invisible at normal viewing speed, I think this is the most important element in cameras having bad motion cadence people see. Closest to film should be RAW, where there is no compression at all. But codecs that don't compress based on motion (only compress colour, so a different subject and doesn't affect motion) like All-I codecs that compress each frame individually should emulate film too, especially ones with high bit rates like ProRes HQ and DNxHD.


3-Vieweing settings
You might export your final video in a codec that does bad motion compression, or render at a different frame rate introducing ghosting or unwanted artefacts, in fact also the Website you upload to might compress your video in a motion-based codec that introduces artefacts. The viewer might view the footage at a different frame rate, at a different speed all together, might have ''image enhancing'' features turned on, he might have sharpness turned up beyond normal limits, etc. So this is a VERY important factor, buy sadly is beyond our capability to correct as filmmakers, so let's just focus on getting our end correct (frame rate, shutter speed, shutter design, and codec)

So these are 5 factors thats I can think of. Anyone have more?
 
This footage did not look as nice as the last footage I post, some of the footage in the end of the story looked much better than the beginning? I have seen these Bolex's going for $2500 - $2800 used here in LA, pretty cheap.

https://vimeo.com/124507353

Broatch Berry
Venice CA
 
still274_soften.jpgstill117_test.jpg
the above stills were shot on the f35 with ultra prime lenses that I degraded in post - I lowered sharpness, added noise in photoshop and grain - these are from pro res hq files.

I think I mean I could do tests - but I think hypothetically with the f35 I could downgrade the image to get to the D16 look quick effectively, but not the other way around - one can't upgrade the d16 image to the f35 look - plus it has a 35mm sensor - all this.

I don't think there is any special magic or mojo in the D16 that the f35 doesn't have - since both are CCD and global shutter but I'm not really being scientific about it - but then again, I have so many other things to do with my time.

If anyone else wants to look into this let me know and I might as well just try the d16 out before I just make blanket observations on stuff I've seen over vimeo.
 
Film has a varying grain structure consisting of fine, medium and course.


Different levels of detail are accentuated differently across the luminance ramp because the larger grain can see further into the shadows.


Does this effect how motion is rendered? I'm not sure, but it could be another factor we're forgetting.
 
I was going to buy Ikonoskop before I found out about F35. Digital Bolex is sister sensor to Ikonoskop, I believe Ikonoskop sensor was more $$ than D16 sensor. In any case, both are Kodak 16mm sized CCD's so they produce very nice images. I have studied the Ikonoskop footage a lot. If you can imagine the difference between Super 8mm film and Super 16mm film and then Super 35mm film, this is closer to describing the advantages and differences of the F35 over the Digital Bolex. These CCD's have beautiful motion similar to film, the difference is the sense of scale they deliver. I love the way handheld 16mm looks, and the D16mm can give you that 70's documentary film camera feel.

If I could get an Ikonoskop for a reasonable price I would jump all over it, I really prefer the shape and workflow of the Ikonoskop over the D16, problem is the Ikonoskop is still over 8k if you can track down a used package. The other big advantage of the 16mm CCD's is the obvious size of the camera. You could stuff a D16mm in a backpack with a dozen C mount lenses, it is obviously more versatile. Also it is better option for things like gimbals over the F35.

Ed you have developed a beautiful look from your F35 footage, I hope you continue to play with your F35 look even if you branch out to trying other CCD cameras.
 
Well, as chance would have it I own a D16, so I have the unique perspective of being a former F35 owner and now a D16 owner. Like Yachacha I was full on getting an Ikonoskop before I stumbled on the F35 here a couple years back. I've ALWAYS loved the 16mm and Super16 look. It triggers some deep emotional thing in me that says 'That's what a movie should look like.' Last year I sold my F35 to Kassim here and it looks like he's enjoying it a lot. I did, too, and I miss a lot. In fact that CCD vibe and motion was what I was missing when I used the BMD Pocket that I got after my F35, thus I took the plunge to get the D16.

I got a new D16 from DB in March and I've been getting to know it and understand how it wants to be used as best as I can with the very limited free time I've had the last 3 months (some serious family health challenges that take up pretty much all of my time outside of work). Right now I don't have anything to post that's anything more than random derping about with the thing for an hour here or there on a weekend. And since I'm learning the camera still much of that footage is filled with mistakes as I figure out the best way to expose it, the best configurations, settings, lens combos, etc.

Before I get into my impressions so far, I must remind folks, I am a hobbyist. I don't do this stuff for a living, I do it so that I can scratch my creative itch. So there are a lot of professional grade usability considerations that you guys need to take into account which I don't. I like to shoot a film every now and then with a crew of friends and colleagues with actors and everything. When I do that kind of stuff I actually enjoy lighting a scene, it's really fun and interesting. I don't mind using available light, but a camera that shoots ISO 2000+ is not a priority to me. I also want to be able to throw my camera in a bag and go for a drive or a hike, shoot something I find beautiful or interesting without drawing too much attention to myself or bogging down. And of course I don't need to worry about delivering stuff to clients, or to post production, or other editors, etc. And I adore a 16mm look.

OK, on to my impressions of the D16 so far...

​

  • [*=1]The camera can shoot 1080 with 16mm lenses, or if you have Super16 lenses you can shoot 2k without vignetting.


​

  • [*=1]The magenta highlights are only a problem on clipped highlights when shooting ISO 100. Shoot 200 or 400 and they go away. Supposedly the next firmware due next week fixes the ISO 100 problem.


​

  • [*=1]The base ISO is 200- the camera LOVES 200. But 400 is excellent and perfectly up to par when you need the push. You can cut between them without pain or worry.


​

  • [*=1]I find it's no worse in low light than my F35 was (400 vs. the F35's practical 450). I use them the exact same way in low light.


​

  • [*=1]The grain feels like F35 grain, only 16mm sized. It's organic, lively, not distracting and pleasing to the eye. CCD for the win!


​

  • [*=1]The DR overall is about 11 & 2/3rds in ISO 200, give or take. If you light for ISO 400, but shoot ISO 200 and lift the image in post you actually get about another half stop, giving you 12 & 1/3rd. Not great, but not terrible, either. I always shot my F35 like it was a 12 stop camera, so I shoot the D16 with a similar mindset.


​

  • [*=1]I'm finding that unlike BMD RAW cameras this thing likes to be UNDER exposed by about a half to full stop. If you meter & expose a scene to 400 and record it at 400, and then shoot the same scene at 200 and compare the images in post-- the ISO 200 with a 1 stop lift in post has a slightly cleaner signal to noise ratio than the 400, as well as just a wee bit more headroom for the highlights. This even though you lit and exposed for 400. Maybe I'm doing something "wrong" but so far this seems to hold water in my own tests. Really odd, and completely counter-intuitive to anyone used to the ETTR method for RAW capture. This might explain why the noise you're seeing in online samples is kinda troubling, I think. People are trying to shoot this thing like a BMCC and it's not like that. Least not that I've found.


​

  • [*=1]Lots of footage out there from D16 users is graded incorrectly, which contributes to the uneven impression of the camera. Many users don't understand the right way to process the color space in Resolve or ACR, and frankly the info on it isn't very widely known outside of those who frequent the Facebook group for the camera. The camera does not shoot Log. When you load the footage in with the default Rec709 color space to grade it the colors are nuclear hot & strongly magenta shifted in the skin tones. There's no de-log LUT for it like for S-Log, C-Log or whatever. So in Resolve you need to process the RAW footage using the BMD Film color space with an output gamma of either BMD Film or BMD Film 4k. The conventional wisdom is that BMD Film 4K is better, but I've found that either works OK depending on what you want from the image. Either one gives you a workable log-like image from which to start your grade, and the whole suite of LUTS and plug ins that work on BMD footage work with D16 footage just fine.


​

  • [*=1]Apparently they are working on a D16 IDT for ACES workflow, but that's probably a ways off yet.


​

  • [*=1]Once you sort out the grading, workflow, though.....the colors.... man. The colors are great. I'm nothing but thrilled with the results so far.


​

  • [*=1]The internal SSD is a bit of a drag, but that's the choice they made. Transfer to a PC is via a USB 3 port, so offload isn't terrible slow. The next firmware coming out in a few days will allow passive copy to the two CF card slots between recordings. Compressed RAW DNG is in the cards for later this year, apparently.


​

  • [*=1]No last clip playback in camera is the real deal killer for use on a professional set in 2015, though. Again, firmware next week adds clip playback. Delete last clip in camera, as well.

​

​

  • [*=1]The stop motion recording style feature is a real sweet touch for someone like myself who is a professional animator.


​

  • [*=1]The form factor is wonky, but endearing. The cranks/knobs on the side are kinda dorky, but you can set which controls in the menu they operate on and they're handy. The mounting options are crappy cold shoes, though. On a pro shoot you're gonna want to put it in some kind of rig and take the handle off (which is easy to do). The 2 XLR mic lines in are great. It also has an XLR 4-pin power out to power mics or an EVF and stuff. Battery life is about 4 hrs or so. It has a 4-pin XLR power in port for when you want to rig it up with a brick battery on longer shoots.


​

  • [*=1]This camera's form factor really is an odd mix of pro and hobby decisions. Honestly I'm probably their perfect customer profile. But it's not a true A-cam. I mean, you can do it. Hell, people find ways to use the BMCC and Pocket for paying work, so it's not like this thing is an albatross incapable of doing the job- it's just got quirky trade offs.


​

  • [*=1]The on camera screen is practically useless for anything but basic framing or the menu operation. It's too low res to pull focus from. But if you have a 10mm c-mount lens on the camera outdoors everything is gonna be in focus anyhow. With the handle, trigger, and a small wide prime lens the thing is just flat out fun to shoot with for quick grab and go stuff while you're out and about. This is what makes it such a charming option for many folks. I just throw it in a pack for every hike I take now (which aren't as many as I'd like, sadly).


​

  • [*=1]Lenses can be an odd duck for a lot of folks until they get the MFT mount shipping in mass. I ordered an MFT mount with my camera, but they've had delays in manufacturing. Apparently that's been sorted and they're starting to deliver in quantity. I got an email from them saying mine should be coming with the next batch in a week or so. We'll see. You can also order a PL mount from Hot Rod Cameras for an extra $1000.


​

  • [*=1]The MFT mount is compatible with the Metabones BMPCC Pocket Speedbooster, which I have. Once I get the MFT mount I can put my Nikkors on it and get roughly the same crop factor as a S35 sensor. Opens a lot of possibilities, but it's still a photo stills mount and not a locking true cine bayonet style mount. The PL to MFT adapter from Hot Rod would solve alot of that if you needed a pro set up.


​

  • [*=1]Right now I use the C-mount on the camera. I picked up a few cheap c-mount lenses and a Nikon to C-mount adapter to use my Nikkor AIS primes on it. But my favorite lens is my Angenieux f1.9 9.5-57mm in an Eclair mount. Had to wait a few weeks for the Eclair to C-mount adapter to come from eBay, but it was worth the wait. The old Angie is in great shape and coupled with the D16's sensor.. it's really, really charming. I'm also picking up a Cooke 9-50 t2.5 and a Zeiss 10-100mm T* T2 this week for it. And because they're 16mm zooms the prices aren't insane. I could only dream of owning Angie, Cooke and T* Zeiss cine zooms for my F35, vintage or not. For this reason alone I say God bless the 16mm sensor in the D16.


​
OK, that's a big enough wall-of-text for now.
To summarize-- the D16 has a lot of image characteristics that made us fall in love with the F35, but in a different S16 kind of way. It feels familiar, but not the same as the F35. But it's not built to be a professional crew type of camera like the F35 or F65, either. The workflow for post is a bit of a secret handshake affair, but once you figure it out the results are wonderful. If you shoot the D16 much like you would shoot the F35 -- that is you shoot it like a film camera and not like a modern video camera- then you'll do just fine with it.
 
I feel kinda bad about bashing the Bolex at all.. after all it is kinda meant to embrace the "amateur" thing, I don't believe they bill it at all as a modern SR3 or anything.

Personally I always felt there should have been a digital Super16 (ignoring 2/3" for a second) because there are so many things that are much better suited to the S16 form than S35.
 
Ikonoskop went out of business. They are still very valuable when they pop up used, funny because I think they were cheaper than the Red One when they were new. I still see projects popping up on the Ikonoskop. There is even a super rare version of the Ikonskop with native B+W sensor.

http://blog.rawcinemashop.be

They still repair and service Ikonoskop at http://www.rawcinemashop.com/#filmmaker-support , so it's not like you are all alone in maintenance if you track one down.

I prefer Ikonoskop because of form factor over the D16mm. I owned Eclair ACL and Aaton film camera never Bolex so maybe it's my nostalgia. It also had a more professional workflow on the very exspensive SSD's that were similar to Redmags.

Thanks for the in-depth review Keith, haven't heard from you in a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top