Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Digital Bolex raw camera, no longer made
  • 1130 Replies sorted by
  • @babypanda

    All three points are not valid, >90% of the time people have no idea about actual similar products and competition, underestimate risks, and absolutely do not give a fuck about support. All they want is get some advertised, exclusive, new, amazing, etc, etc thing. Btw this is why Kickstarted specially tell that they are not shop - because otherwise different laws and approaches must be used that will kill all this chutzpah.

  • @Vitaliy, sorry I don't fully understand what is involved in purchasing a camera via kickstarter.

    Is it safe to suggest that you don't like this camera very much? And is one of the main reasons the fact that it came about through kickstarter? Sorry, the few posts of yours on this thread that I recall reading all seem to be negative, so I'd like to understand why you seem to dislike this camera so much.

  • Is it safe to suggest that you don't like this camera very much?

    LOL. Go back and spend some time. My posts here started from facts and statements about real release date estimation (that was accurate in result).

    All else are just result of finished product.

  • @babypanda Vitaly is everytime right, ok ? :-)

  • Vitaly is everytime right, ok ? :-)

    Yep, he is right if he is not wrong.

  • quote What can you get nowadays for 400-600$? A consumer camcorder whose technology has hardly changed in 10 years?

    @babypanda for $400-$600 you can buy my used, mint, hacked GH2 with a couple of super sharp prime lenses, no need for a ten year old camcorder. And I'm not the only one upgrading.

    For $565 I purchased direct from Canon the HF G10 with the Pro CMOS sensor which is a fantastic camcorder.

  • @luekio still waiting to see your professional video on the Bolex, or any other camera signed, "one of the kids". Look forward to seeing it!!!!!!!!!! Linky! linky! (sorry for the exclamation points but that's the way us kids talk)

    PS The review from Bloom, among other things, said it was unusable in low light and that for any professional use there were better alternatives--I don't see how that is a positive review. I personally would interpret that to be the most negative review imaginable, whilst still being civil. But I would encourage ppl to see the Bloom review for themselves too see if it is positive, and make their own determination.

    PPS here is a sample of my work--I'm not saying it is great but OTOH I'm perfectly willing to put it online.

  • Hmm..how many cameras have they shipped? Where can I buy or try it today, or even tomorrow? Seriously, I'm interested.

    I think that VKs title is still closer to reality than some of you are.

  • @luekio This thread was not created to piss on the D16. Go read the first page from March 2012. The OP is excited about the camera's announcement, and if you scroll down to @vitaliy 's first comment he warns that projects like this are usually late to deliver by one to two years: a pretty good prediction, I'd say. seconding @DrDave, is Bloom's review really a positive one? If I recall he said that the one place where he thought it useful was in film schools when students are learning to light (and thus won't be limited by the D16's 200 iso).

  • @DrDave I agree with you on Blooms review. I've never seen him say something that negative, though it was with other praise. You could tell he was covering his ass though. Everyone hears what they want to hear but I heard from Bloom, "It's a fun camera to play with".

  • I for one would be happy to review this camera, and I also look forward to an m4/3 version. I don't think the comments are overall negative on this thread, either. I think it would be great if Bolex submitted one for a review on this site.

    @digger a film student would be better off with a different camera, IMHO. Also, if you are ordering cams for a class you need a batch of them all at once, with a fast repair turnaround if needed. Maybe that can be done, but I haven't seen that they are geared up for that.

  • My previous post got deleted, I've tried to remove anything off topic.

    @digger : ISO is not 200. It's 400 with 800 coming in a firmware update!

    @Dr_Dave bloom never said the camera was unusable in low light, but it's true it's not a low light camera. Fair enough if you don't like them, but there are night shooting samples if you are interested: http://www.digitalbolex.com/d16-night/

    Bloom is right, for the type of work he does professionally, which is corporate and commercials for which he owns a 30k camera camcorder workhorse, the d16 would not make sense. Razz16mm put it into words the use for the d16 better than I ever could in another thread

    "i''m an old 16mm film shooter and professional video engineer who has a D16 on order. I have seen some early prototype sample footage from the D16 that I processed and graded projected on a 20' theater sized screen from a $60k 3-chip DLP cinema projector my company was installing for a corporate client. That is where the D16 really comes into its own, producing a seamless rich image with refined color, grayscale reproduction, texture and motion quality that no compressed codec HD video camera anywhere near its price can come close to. At that size all of the typical low end HD camera artifacts like rolling shutter, moire and aliasing stand out like a sore thumb. Compression artifacts like crushed blacks, macro blocking, and images that turn to mush when anything moves look horrid. The BMC's are cheap and do shoot raw and Prores, but they still suffer the same range of low end CMOS artifacts. Prores is just another compressed HD video codec, though better than most. Comparing the D16 to any HD video camera is a futile exercise. It's design target is to be a viable true 2k DCI format compliant digital cinema camera. An affordable direct replacement for an S16mm film camera. That it does extremely well. Better than anything short of a Sony F5 with the 2k OLPF installed shooting raw on an Odyssey 7Q. A week's rental for an F5 raw package will buy you a D16. It is very cheap for what it does."

    I've called people out on BS several times on this thread but the specifics are never addressed by the OP because they can't be , instead another pointless comment about the d16 footage being too shaky or hipstery is made. The camera is not perfect , but it's just silly when people make up rubbish that can't be backed up.

    Suggesting a gh2 or an old camcorder is a better alternative to a cinema camera with a kodak true sense sensor without moire, jello cam, rubbish compression and in camera noise reduction means any sort informed logical debate is not possible, so this is the last I'll bother commenting.

    The camera is no longer a "fantasy", it's here and if you are looking for an affordable alternative to a 16mm film camera I think it's a good option.

  • The BMC's are cheap and do shoot raw and Prores, but they still suffer the same range of low end CMOS artifacts. Prores is just another compressed HD video codec, though better than most.

    I don't think you understand anything you're talking about. Prores is used for about 90% of the Alexa shoots I've seen. You could film a feature on it. Plus, the BMC also shoots 2.5k RAW... why are you leaving this out and only focusing on how "compressed" Prores is? Is it because your post is nothing but opinionated conjecture?

    suggesting a gh2 or an old camcorder is a better alternative to a cinema camera with a kodak true sense sensor without moire

    Here's the problem though... the DB doesn't look that cinematic to all people. To me, it looks like 80's film stock. To most people something like the GH2 is still going to look more like modern s35mm.

    At that size all of the typical low end HD camera artifacts like rolling shutter

    The Alexa and Red camera's suffer from some rolling shutter artifacts too... are they low-end now? The audience doesn't fucking care about rolling shutter for the 10 millionith time. Nobody notices!

    Plus, have you even seen the striping and sensor-quadrant errors that occur when filming into a window, bright object, or scenes that are drastically different across the frame? THIS is something people will notice and about 1000x worse than rolling shutter. This Kodac sensor is nothing special. Quite low-end from when compared to the quality of most others on the market. At least from what I've read.

  • I love the ProRes talk. I was just working on a new HBO series and they only shoot ProRes on Alexas. No SFX so no reason to shoot anything other than that. And they can roll forever without cutting! We were just rolling forever in Pasadena, making our way to the freeway and nobody gave a damn!

  • 444 Prores from Alexa was good enough for Only God Forgives and helps make Hannibal arguably the best looking show on television.

  • @DrDave "I think it would be great if Bolex submitted one for a review on this site." - The camera isn't actually made by Bolex, but by a startup that licensed the brand name.

  • @luekio hate to say it but your post is a good example of the Stockholm syndrome community brainwashing originating from the D-Bolex web forum. The "Kodak Truesense sensor" is becoming a kind of religious mantra there because it suggests some magic transfer of Kodak's film stock to digital sensor technology. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The KAI-04050 is an old industrial CCTV camera sensor; Google the product name and see which kinds of cameras use it. CCD has no jello, but this is bought with reduced dynamic range and highlight clipping in comparison to CMOS. And for that matter, nobody who bought Kodak's digital photo and video cameras in the past (no matter whether the "EasyShare" series or the early DSLRs co-produced with Nikon), thought that their image resembled Kodak film.

    I happen to be member of a filmmaker's 16mm lab, and sorry, the footage I've seen from the D16 so far looks nothing like 16mm film, neither reversal, nor negative - no matter whether I'm thinking of Kodak E100D, Kodak Vision2/3, Fuji Eterna or even Kodachrome. With the limited dynamic range, the D16 image looks more like vintage UMatic video than vintage film. If you want to know how real S16 looks, have a look at this. Or, 16mm reversal stock shot on a Bolex, this. Especially the latter example, with the kind of grittier, handheld, artist's filmmaking look that Digital Bolex is supposedly aiming for, shows you that the D16 has as much to do with real 16mm as Instagram has to do with a real Polaroid.

    Nothing of this is surprising since a video sensor is not film emulsion, and will never be, despite what marketing people try to make you believe. Digital cameras always look different from analog cameras, and those differences increase the more you don't go for a polished mainstream look but push the camera to its extremes (like handheld, self-developing/-grading, low light, grain etc).

    Except for the audio department (where the D16 is clearly superior) and maybe the form factor (matter of taste), a camera like the Blackmagic 4K does everything the D-Bolex does (raw video, global shutter) and more (4k, display resolution, dynamic range, low light), and better, for a lower price. The D16 could have been a game changer if it had been delivered on time, but is simply no longer unique and came too late to the market.

  • Moonrise Kingdom was shot on S16 as well.

  • "Except for the audio department (where the D16 is clearly superior) and maybe the form factor (matter of taste), a camera like the Blackmagic 4K does everything the D-Bolex does (raw video, global shutter) and more (4k, display resolution, dynamic range, low light), and better, for a lower price. The D16 could have been a game changer if it had been delivered on time, but is simply no longer unique and came too late to the market."

    I would like to know objectively if this is a better camera overall price/performance wise compared to BMC, but I think your arguments are not objective.

    1 - The audio and the form factor are not MINOR points to be dismissed lightly. Those 2 factors alone make the D16 a very different camera from BM and possibly much better, image quality notwithstanding. 2 - So what if it's too late to be a game-changer? The only reason that would be an issue is if someone has already invested in Blackmagic. Otherwise, who cares if it's late. Better late than never. 3 - This is connected to the first point. It has audio and doesn't need to be rigged up as much as BMC, and therefore is it really more expensive than investing in BMC?

  • @babypanda :

    1 - What is there to be misunderstood in the grammar and logic of the clause starting with "except for"?

    2 - Are you actually familiar with the semantics of "game changer"? Anyone who really believes that the D16, or any other raw recording video camera, can still be a game changer at this point, must live in a reality distortion field.

    3 - Whether it needs to be rigged up less or the same as the BMC, is arguable. For the BMC, you absolutely need an external preamp or audio recorder, for the D16 you absolutely need a field monitor or EVF. The rest is pretty much the same (need of external battery for serious shooting, need of proper stabilization via rig or tripod - the heavy jitter in Bloom's and Reid's handheld footage clearly shows that the D16's pistol grip does not suffice, need of lens support for cine zooms or teles).

  • @babypanda Decent Tascam (DR100 Mk 2) or Zoom (H4n) portable recorders are available for only $200 or so and can be attached to the shoe mount on the Black Magic camera and then wired into the audio input of the camera for internal recording. Doing so allows use of preamps superior to those built into the camera and allows one to use the audio meters built into the external recorder. Even if that plus rigging puts it and the BM extremely close in terms of price, the BM is still a superior camera in many other regards... except the crank. Black Magic have yet to come out with a camera with a fancy crank on the side. NAB is coming up, though, so we can all hold out hope!

    Oh, and the BM camera also comes with a copy of Resolve so if you're a Resolve user, they also have that going for them.

  • @eatstoomuchjam Can't leave off the DR60 at $199 with PE!!!! :) Sorry but I just started using this thing and it's amazing for the price. Makes me giddy.

  • @DrDave What did you film that video with? I went full screen on my 27 LPS monitor, stepped back and it looked nice.

  • @eatstoomuchjam, thanks. @cantsin, point 3 taken. for point 2, i don't think it matters. not every camera needs to be a game-changer. if the D16 is better, it doesn't matter if BM came out with a low-cost RAW first. unless you already have a BM....

  • @vicharris GH2 with lpowell's flowmotion.

    @cantsin I haven't seen any tests to show that the audio is "clearly superior" but I would be happy to test the audio--thoroughly--if someone provides me with a cam, including the voltage of the phantom P48 under load as well as the bit depth and a number of other tests. Agreed it does not look my 16mm film, but unlike you, I haven't used film in while, so it is good to have an opinion from someone who is still working with film. Good film looks pretty amazing.

    @bwhitz yup, not everyone agrees what "cinematic" is, and maybe that even changes over time.