Geoff Boyle tests the Digital Bolex

R

Razz16mm

Veteran

Geoff is doing his usual annual round up of new camera tests. The Bolex is among them. Results should be posted soon.

Comment in his email list announcement:

"There was an interesting comment from an observer that she found it strange the way all the “hard core techies” reacted to the DB, saying that there was an emotional response that there wasn’t with the others, kinda like a bunch of women with a newborn baby “ah, isn’t it cute”.
Whilst we used either a Cooke 50mm5i or a 20mm DigiZoom with the other
cameras we used old c mount primes with the DB because they just seemed more appropriate, OK they aren’t as sharp wide open but they feel right."
 
The first time Elle handed me a finished Digital Bolex she made sure it had the pistol grip on -- and I just couldn't put it down. The camera is VERY petite, and it certainly brings out a certain childhood instinct in one.

It was like holding a Star Trek phaser. Perfect geek marketing.
 
Mitch Gross said:
The first time Elle handed me a finished Digital Bolex she made sure it had the pistol grip on -- and I just couldn't put it down. The camera is VERY petite, and it certainly brings out a certain childhood instinct in one.

It was like holding a Star Trek phaser. Perfect geek marketing.
Click to expand...

The handle works well with small C-mount primes. Nice balance. Very easy to shoot stable hand held footage with it. Definitely a fun camera. Test grade of a night shot from a party:
 
This is still my favorite camera of the whole bunch. Working for over a year at a place where video isn't really understood, doing everything one-man-show style, (something I no longer believe in) my chip size of choice is 16mm, and global shutter is the feature that beats all by a landslide now.

I'm dying to get my hands on this thing. It's Ikonoskop 2.0 in my head... That thing was my dream cam for years.
 
I've had a D16 for a few months now and am deeply impressed. It's hard to believe that they were able to pull off that much camera for under $4000. I added the HotRod Camera PL mount to mine and am shooting with Zeiss Super Speed mk III primes. The images that the camera produces are very organic and film like. Dare I say that it reminds me of the Alexa and film?

For some reason the camera reminds me very much of my Arri IIc. I plan on shooting two pieces with it in the near future.

I think Bolex has two problems.

First there is a lot of footage out there that has not been properly converted from DNG for grading. As a result it turns magenta and all sorts of crazy colors and you loose dynamic range. The camera is capturing in a colorspace that is far greater than rec709 and if you do not properly convert you will have problems. Bolex recently posted a blog post illustrating how to properly import footage in to Davinci. Hopefully people will read it.

The other issue is that a lot of people simply don't take the camera serious. This is not a toy, but it sure looks like one. And the Bolex marketing campaign has earned a rep as the 'hispster' camera. It would be a shame for a camera that is this capable to be written off for such reasons. Hopefully that perception will change as people shoot and post good material on the web.

Other than that it's great. Tiny, onboard battery and uncomrpessed RAW recorder,with excellent build quality. The Truesense / Kodak CCD is very capable and Joe and Elle made sure to spend their money wisely on things like a very high quality OLPF.
 
Last edited:
Well said on the perception point. Trying to emulate film isn't hipster, arri do it, but the bolex company do it in a very hipster-ish way for some reason. I am not saying they're doing a ''wrong'' thing but it's just wrong marketing for a target group of geeks/scientists and people working in a very serious industry... The digital Bolex is considered a toy, a hipster camera, for those people who like shooting on a Nikon f1 in 2015, producers look at it this way, and they're wrong because it's an
excellent camera with a very capable modern image.


I don't know exactly what gave it that impression, maybe it's the fashion-oriented design, the pistol grip and cheesy crank on the side? Or the use of old obselete elements like the sensor size, the C-mount and vintage 16mm lenses, the old CCD architecture, maybe it's the name, the website design, the actual personality of the creators and how they communicate... and maybe it's all of them combined. But whebever the digital bolex is brought up in a serious conversation it's met by laughs and smiles as something ''funny''
not an actual video camera... which is a shame really because I'd like to see more about it, it should have much more successful than it is for what it offers, shows you far marketing appeal to target groups affect products, I mean who wouldn't want to have an ''Epic'' or a sexy ''Alexa''? Joe & Elle should have given it a sexy female name too, just sayin :)
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Well said on the perception point. Trying to emulate film isn't hipster, arri do it, but the bolex company do it in a very hipster-ish way for some reason. I am not saying they're doing a ''wrong'' thing but it's just wrong marketing for a target group of geeks/scientists and people working in a very serious industry... The digital Bolex is considered a toy, a hipster camera, for those people who like shooting on a Nikon f1 in 2015, producers look at it this way, and they're wrong because it's an
excellent camera with a very capable modern image.

I don't know exactly what gave it that impression, maybe it's the fashion-oriented design, the pistol grip and cheesy crank on the side? Or the use of old obselete elements like the sensor size, the C-mount and vintage 16mm lenses, the old CCD architecture, maybe it's the name, the website design, the actual personality of the creators and how they communicate... and maybe it's all of them combined. But whebever the digital bolex is brought up in a serious conversation it's met by laughs and smiles as something ''funny''
not an actual video camera... which is a shame really because I'd like to see more about it, it should have much more successful than it is for what it offers, shows you far marketing appeal to target groups affect products, I mean who wouldn't want to have an ''Epic'' or a sexy ''Alexa''? Joe & Elle should have given it a sexy female name too, just sayin :)
Click to expand...

All of the functional design elements of the D16, including the cranks, the format and CCD are deliberately there for sound functional reasons. This camera has appealed to a whole class of film makers like me that have been ignored by the broader camera market. 16mm is a wonderful practical format with excellent aesthetic potential. It is still used in film and digital versions for anything from documentary, animation and personal art films to major award winning theatrical features. CCD's still offer superior image quality in many ways but are not used in low end cameras any more because they are too expensive, both the analog sensor and all of the external circuitry and programming needed to support it.

I love the aesthetic quality of the images I can get from this robust little jewel that is a real joy to shoot hand held.
 
Razz16mm said:
All of the functional design elements of the D16, including the cranks, the format and CCD are deliberately there for sound functional reasons. This camera has appealed to a whole class of film makers like me that have been ignored by the broader camera market. 16mm is a wonderful practical format with excellent aesthetic potential. It is still used in film and digital versions for anything from documentary, animation and personal art films to major award winning theatrical features. CCD's still offer superior image quality in many ways but are not used in low end cameras any more because they are too expensive, both the analog sensor and all of the external circuitry and programming needed to support it.

I love the aesthetic quality of the images I can get from this robust little jewel that is a real joy to shoot hand held.
Click to expand...

My main beef with the industrial design of the camera is the lack of mounting points (especially on the bottom) and the cranks, which I would replace with notched dials... I'm frustrated by the fact that I can't mount a set of rods on the camera without losing the pistol grip.
Other than that I can live with its quirks...
 
Last edited:
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
I don't know exactly what gave it that impression,
Click to expand...

It's not so much the design of the camera as it is the marketing. It starts with the box it ships in that looks like something from a vintage toyshop to the rest of the site. It's a nice package design, but it's not really appropriate if you are trying to sell a camera and be taken serious.

Compare the marketing of the digital Bolex and the Ikonoskop. (Ikonoskop failed because it was overpriced, not because of poor marketing.)

I really don't like to be critical of Elle and Joe. I've met them and not only are they very nice people, but also extremely bright, passionate and talented. Building a camera like this is an extremely challenging undertaking and they deserve nothing but kudos for not only pulling it off, but producing something as good as the D16. Sales appear to be strong, but that doesn't mean that their marketing is as good as it should be. In any case I urge those who are curious about the camera to put their skepticism on hold and shoot a test. I think they will be very pleasantly surprised.
 
The Digital Bolex is a good camera choking amid sabertoothed competition: DSLRs below and professional handicams above.

DSLRs are stealing students, hobbyists, and artists, who might have liked the Digital Bolex, but man, a DSLR is half as much. Pro handicams lure small-biz shooters, who can write off the three grand, but man, when you're filming a wedding, are you going to rely on a newbie indie or a name brand like Canon? The deal is sealed by dual-pixel autofocus, edit-ready codecs, and superhuman night vision.

The competition has got its game on since Ikonoskop. Ten years ago, raw was enthralling, because everything was 8-bit 4:2:0. But now, log profiles and ProRes calm the color-maniacs. And back then, a 16mm sensor was the new old hotness, because everything was 1/3. But now, every camera is 35mm.

The Digital Bolex is better than the Ikonoskop in every way and a third the price. But the shore has shifted. I would love to kickstart my own camera but don't yet dare. The big fish woke up, and even bigger fish are awaking.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
The Digital Bolex is a good camera choking amid sabertoothed competition: DSLRs below and professional handicams above.

DSLRs are stealing students, hobbyists, and artists, who might have liked the Digital Bolex, but man, a DSLR is half as much. Pro handicams lure small-biz shooters, who can write off the three grand, but man, when you're filming a wedding, are you going to rely on a newbie indie or a name brand like Canon? The deal is sealed by dual-pixel autofocus, edit-ready codecs, and superhuman night vision.

The competition has got its game on since Ikonoskop. Ten years ago, raw was enthralling, because everything was 8-bit 4:2:0. But now, log profiles and ProRes calm the color-maniacs. And back then, a 16mm sensor was the new old hotness, because everything was 1/3. But now, every camera is 35mm.

The Digital Bolex is better than the Ikonoskop in every way and a third the price. But the shore has shifted. I would love to kickstart my own camera but don't yet dare. The big fish woke up, and even bigger fish are awaking.
Click to expand...

As Geoff Boyle said, camera IQ has reached a point where the choice of camera is like the choosing a filmstock. You pick it for aesthetic considerations. I have yet to see any camera in the D16 price range that can match the aesthetics of its images, especially on a large projection screen, and none other than the BMC's shooting raw that produce can produce a native 2k DCI format compliant file. Nothing being shot in any compressed video format, log or not, has the color reproduction and grading range this camera can deliver. It doesn't need a mass market, and sales so far show that independent creative filmakers are choosing it in large enough numbers to make it a very successful niche camera. 15 films at Slamdance this year.
I find it performs quite adequately under some very demanding low light conditions and produces gorgeous images. A few samples from a recent art studio party casual shoot.
16481634966_22cf39d8d3_o.jpg

15887477463_94cedfbfef_o.jpg
16320175650_5133f45060_o.jpg
 
Thanks, Razz, and I love it when you post stuff. I wish you'd post more :)

I would love to know how many D16s have sold, or at least whether they have sold enough to make it worth their while. But that's technically none of my business.

When dialed in right, as Harry Lime noted and you in fact practice, the D16 indeed has nicer colors than most footage I see. I still love this ad for airbnb, shot on the Digital Bolex, not film (although even they let some of the reds and oranges get oversaturated).

 
Last edited:
Thanks Combat.

I don't know how many they have sold but it has to be somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1000 or so. We are all still getting a handle on color space and processing. The firmware has been updated a couple of times. Timelapse and single frame animation modes are included now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top