Personal View site logo
Digital Bolex raw camera, no longer made
  • 1130 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @DirkVoorhoeve

    No one really knows it.
    Right now they got ready network camera with RAW shooting ability (with very fast ports), connected it to computer and presented result :-)

  • DirkVoorhoeveDirkVoorhoeve

    It looks great at first sight.

    The Digital Bolex is a “digital cinema camera” or a camera that shoots RAW images (sometimes known as Digital Negatives) instead of compressed video.

    What I was wondering is how they get it to write 12 bit 4:4:4 RAW data to a CF card!? They state it will be 3 MB per frame, so the would need a (lossless!) compression ratio of about 4:1 as well as really fast cards that support av. write speed of about 100MB/s. Is that even possible?

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @Roberto

    During the 2012 SXSW Film Festival, a US-based company called "Digital Bolex" announced to have licensed the brand-name "Bolex" for a video-camera

    Nothing personal, just business.
    No one stand behind them. And Bolex has zero to loose as they are not responsible and are just getting good money that, considering their 16mm cameras sales, can be very significant to them :-)

  • RobertoRoberto

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    Thanks for doing the detective work. So far it looks like Bolex are standing back, making comments only by email.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @Roberto

    This is highly suspicious firm.

    Looking at whois:

    Domain: digitalbolex.com

    Date Registered: 03/21/11
    Date Modified: 03/06/12
    Expiry Date: 03/21/13

    Registrant ienso
    Stylianos Derventzis
    20 Mural Street, Unit 7
    Richmond Hill, on (CA)
    L4B 1K3

    And the company they are referring to as their partners who make some development:

    Domain: digitalcameradesign.com

    Date Registered: 02/08/10
    Date Modified: 01/01/12
    Expiry Date: 02/08/13

    Registrant
    ienso
    Stylianos Derventzis
    20 Mural Street, Unit 7
    Richmond Hill, on (CA)
    L4B 1K3

  • RobertoRoberto

    Marc Ueter of Bolex says to me, "Yes, Bolex is involved and we invite you to contact Mr. Joe Rubinstein in Los Angeles for more information about this new Digital Bolex Camera soon and first available on the USA and Canada Markets".

  • TheNewDealTheNewDeal

    Sound a lot like the 'ol RED promise. They kept slipping deadlines for years, and then came out at 10K plus options. But RED actually had something they would show the public that was working. These guys don't sound like they have ever really developed, manufactured, sold, or supported anything at this level before. Scary...

  • OedipaxOedipax

    Have there been any Kickstarter projects that were funded for large sums of money and then never materialized, or came out in some compromised way that people were dissatisfied with? If nothing else, this would be an interesting test case, but it could get really messy.

    As VK said, what this really shows is people want their damn affordable RAW camera.

  • MacalincagMacalincag

    @Roberto

    Bolex. Rolex. Play-doh. Whatever name it's given, I just hope it amounts to something. If not, I hope this "initiative" triggers others to tend to this market, creating more competition within the price range. Options are always great.

    I know the Apertus project like what they see in regards to d16's Kickstarter campaign's success. It gives them an idea of how their campaign for their APS-C sized sensor project will be received. And if these two get the ball rolling, maybe we'll see more/faster efforts from Kineraw and perhaps others.

  • RobertoRoberto

    @Macalincag

    It's just that - from Bolex's side, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of partnering up. A digital Bolex would be a change of direction for the company.

    Since it's not their own camera, it's either a big Xmas present to these cash-strapped developers or else it's Bolex's swan song, implying that the name has become worthless.

  • MacalincagMacalincag

    @Roberto

    In their interview they stated they've developed a good relationship with bolex for the past six months and they partnered up, allowing them to use the name....

  • RobertoRoberto

    I can't find any references to Digitalbolex on the Bolex International website. The Digital Bolex website uses the same colours, fonts and trade-mark-able looks as Bolex International, especially in the 1960's. Either they've got agreement or they're about to get sued.

    The digitalbolex's disclaimer says, [sic]: USER AGREES THAT BOLEX AND CINEMERIDIAN INC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY, FOR THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, QUALITY, PERFORMANCE OR FUNCTIONALITY OF DIGITALBOLEX.COM

    For me, so far, it's a credibility issue.

  • vladnikvladnik

    yeah ... i know...

  • MacalincagMacalincag

    The GX2300 is $5,660- if they're reselling the camera, it's considerably cheaper...

    http://www.graftek.com/pages/GX2300.htm

  • vladnikvladnik

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev you read my mind....

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @vladnik

    This is approach used by many forum "geniuses-scammers" around many forums.
    They are easy to spot, as constantly telling you about some unique debayer algorithms, can't tell much about hardware details.
    I doubt that this guys are pure scam. They just use simple approach - get the money and try to find someone who can make it in time.

  • vladnikvladnik

    all i see that they use industrial camera without any modification... recode image as anybody else who will buy gx2300.. ... than use that image as commercial for their camera ... and i bet that external design is only thing that they get

  • MacalincagMacalincag

    @danyyyel

    I posted a picture of their so-called prototype. Looks like a shoebox.

  • vladnikvladnik

    @danyyyel that kodak sensor that they say to use gives beautiful image its bigger brother of a cam dll sensor.... so all that makes things more suspicious(good sensor bad image?) ....

  • brianlucebrianluce

    I'd say the footage is poor looking due to lighting and composition.

  • danyyyeldanyyyel

    I really want it to succeed but I see all this hype and just no prototype and sorry to say some not very nice footage. Look how on such a flat lighting the colors are clipping on the girls hat... and people are saying 10 - 12 stop of DR!!! Sorry for now it is just marketing hype. Just put a named brand like Bolex and add RAW and voila $250 000 in 24 hours. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

  • ttancredittancredi

    it's suspicious because it's too good to be true. I really hope it comes out the way they expect it. I think the interview clarifies a lot: they are just people. We shouldn't treat them the same way to treat big companies like canon, trying to find conspiracy... even the fail,maybe some more people can try to help developing something since we saw how many people are ready to invest, take the risk etc.. maybe I'm being too naive. I don't know.

  • pvjamespvjames

    I really like their philosophy behind it all. I think it'll happen but i can't afford to invest in it. I also like more of this to open up the floodgates of tech. RAW, 4K, etc. Canon would never be frontrunners with this.

  • vladnikvladnik

    i bet on guys from kineraw ... at least they show some prototype and images from them .... and Dan Hudgins who developed software is in industry for some time... + recording directly to cineform RAW ....

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    It is extremely suspicious.
    This guys do not have people.
    Do not have even prototype hardware. Do not have firmware. And do not have software either.

    The main real thing you could get from this is how many people want real RAW camera.
    Make expert mode with GH3 shooting 4:2:2 RGB RAW and it'll sell like hot cakes.
    Same for Canon adn Sony.

Add a Comment