F35: F35 vs Digital Bolex

eddavid said:
super beautiful stuff Razz16!
I really would do a test between f35 and db16 but I just don't feel up for it and again its ergonomics is the biggest difference and workflow, not image quality - and I don't need to do a test to know the difference. I think for all intensive purposes - it's not about resolution and both f35 and db16 will get you somewhere really beautiful. Now to mess with the alexa mini.
Click to expand...

Workflow can be efficient with Resolve. I can play, grade, and edit the DNG files real time with a very quick base correction for video using a BMD film to linear input lut and a linear to REC709 video output lut. Only noise reduction, if needed, slows things down.

The other side of the coin for more deliberate fine art approaches using far more advanced stills raw processors like Capture One Pro or Raw Therapee can eat significant machine time for transcodes to JPEG or TIF frame sequence intermediates. The Ginsburg interview is going to take about 108 hours to render out at about 4 seconds per frame for the wavelet transforms. But I can get results that way that I can't begin to approach with Resolve. It can look like nothing you will ever see out of a video camera, or a film camera either for that matter. A purely modern digital aesthetic more like what you see creative fine art still photographers doing these days.
Storage space and data speed requirements are pretty high too. This thing eats 2TB drives for lunch. But that is cheap storage these days at typically less than $90 a pop. Lots cheaper than CFast cards. They are building the camera with an optional 1TB internal enterprise grade SSD now for a $700 premium. That's good for about 3+ hours at 2k or 4 hours at 1080p.
 
If you use a program called SlimRAW to copy the footage from the camera to disc it automatically turns the DNGs into lossless compressed DNGs (I've been getting roughly 2:1 lossless compressed RAW using it). There is very little transfer speed hit, too. Only costs like $40. So the space issue is a little better, certainly no worse than ProRes 12bit 4444.
 
keithlango said:
If you use a program called SlimRAW to copy the footage from the camera to disc it automatically turns the DNGs into lossless compressed DNGs (I've been getting roughly 2:1 lossless compressed RAW using it). There is very little transfer speed hit, too. Only costs like $40. So the space issue is a little better, certainly no worse than ProRes 12bit 4444.
Click to expand...

Wow they should do this in camera.
 
eddavid said:
Wow they should do this in camera.
Click to expand...

Allegedly in a near future firmware update. It's a small company (one that grew out of a kickstarter campaign, no less) so any user of the camera has to take into account that things will likely evolve as the business does. However this evolution will most likely occur at a pace that does not always align perfectly with our "21st century frictionless consumer experience" ethos. Of course the whole thing could go the way of Ikonoskop, too- which would be too bad because I think a dedicated 16mm/Super16mm digital camera is something that ought to exist in the world.
 
keithlango said:
Allegedly in a near future firmware update. It's a small company (one that grew out of a kickstarter campaign, no less) so any user of the camera has to take into account that things will likely evolve as the business does. However this evolution will most likely occur at a pace that does not always align perfectly with our "21st century frictionless consumer experience" ethos. Of course the whole thing could go the way of Ikonoskop, too- which would be too bad because I think a dedicated 16mm/Super16mm digital camera is something that ought to exist in the world.
Click to expand...

Digital Bolex is much more actively focused on their marketing than Ikonoskop ever was. I believe they have sold significantly more cameras in their first year than Ikonskop ever made. It is now in stock and on sale at B&H and Hot Rod cameras.
They have a European retailer on board too. Firmware releases in the first year have gone from 1.01 to 1.7.5. Two of these were official releases, but many of us have been blessed with intermediate beta versions when service issues came up. They are field testing the next release candidate now.
 
Shot the test today - f35, db16, and red one mx - and results

Digital bolex 16 - ergonomics are "interesting" - it's heavy - no mounting points on top besides a hotshoe - recording and offload situation makes you need 2 of them to use on set. to get to function well you have to build a cage - make it as heavy and size with battery as big as any other camera.

Haven't looked at image but limited dynamic range makes it "vintage-y" - couldn't get infinite focus on two lenses -

this coming out when it did in this crowded digital landfield - makes it interesting.

But still haven't looked at the rushes.
 
So I am guessing the internal SSD is not accessible? That is weird.

I would understand it from an amateur point of view, but not with the size of files this thing generates. 512GB/1TB of space is plenty of ProRes 422, but not raw or whatever it is purporting to shoot
 
Yep, ergonomics are "interesting". Going with an internal SSD doesn't make sense to me, but I'm sure they had reasons that made sense to them. Hopefully the CF card background offload thing comes along soon and works well. I wish they didn't rely on cold shoes, even if they are integrated right into the body. They sell a little cheese plate with goes up there and also screw to the body, so that's an option. But outside that I've found ways to make it rig up anywhere from a backpack walkabout cam to a shoulder mounted set up to sticks & stuffs. It's an oddly cobbled beast for sure. I'm interested to hear what you think of the footage.
 
I wonder if they hired an ex-Apple employee who told them the best way to make money is to solder cheap parts to the boards and charge a ludicrous fee for cheap memory.
 
here's some stillsstill187_red.jpgstill187_f35.jpgstill187_digitalbolex.jpgstill187_f35_moretweaks.jpgstill187_f35_withmorered.jpg

here's to download and look at them -
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/seekuaut4iry6an/AADQ0wUn4VvMW2OOeGLrSIlNa?dl=0

but db16 is not for me.
I like vintage and downgraded images as much as the next guy - but the camera is $4000 - I rather spend that on some lens or something.
I still don't know if the DB16 was fully-thought out - it should have removable storage options - that's a pretty big annoyance.

Oh well - that's why it's good to do test.still187_f35_colorseperation.jpg
 
Last edited:
OK so a 2009 Porsche 911 GT2 is not comparable to a 2012 Dacia Sandero. OK. Were they even contenders? Why the surprise?
 
Hey Ed, would you be willing to post an ungraded DNG right from the D16 of either you or the girl head shots in the dropbox? The dropbox is all JPEGs and I'd be interested in seeing what I could do with the DNGs in grading. If not, no worries. I'm just curious as the grabs you posted look a lot more crunched than the stuff I'm getting from my camera. I'm still trying to learn what does and doesn't work and when i see something really different I want to understand how it came to be. But again, if you'd rather not, no worries.

And yeah... the D16 is definitely not an F35. I seriously doubt it ever was positioned to be, but it's still fun to see them side by side. If you want a full 35 big movie look that feels like modern film stock it's F35 all the way. But if you want something different... :cheesy:
 
Yeah $4000 is a nice standard speed or something. I am shocked at the colour difference between the F35 and the MX though. I assume the same WB was used? Crazy difference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top