Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Indie Filmmakers Rejoice-D16 Digital Bolex

Don't get too excited. Something tells me the 5D Mk.III is still going to be a favorite but yet this does look amazing if it will pull through.
 
waloshin said:
2K as in 1080P? If thats the case then get a Red Scarlet shoots 4K raw at $16,000 much better. 16,000 includes everyhing you need to shoot such as the battery and battery grip.
Click to expand...

How is $16k in any way comparable to $3.3k?

How often do you go in to a clothes shop to get a $33 shirt, and then say 'oh look, there's a $160 shirt over there - I may as well just go ahead and buy that instead'?

I really can't understand Red 'fans'. Are you even a potential buyer, Waloshin?
 
firestarter said:
How is $16k in any way comparable to $3.3k?

How often do you go in to a clothes shop to get a $33 shirt, and then say 'oh look, there's a $160 shirt over there - I may as well just go ahead and buy that instead'?

I really can't understand Red 'fans'. Are you even a potential buyer, Waloshin?
Click to expand...

Just like this guy https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1339409/
I can buy anything I want on the internet.

I question why you would buy a 3.3K camera when it record 1080P what DSLR doesn't record 1080P now.
 
waloshin said:
Just like this guy https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1339409/
I can buy anything I want on the internet.

I question why you would buy a 3.3K camera when it record 1080P what DSLR doesn't record 1080P now.
Click to expand...
Resolution is not everything, the actual information about colour, light and shadows gets lost with modern DSLR video footage.

Video from that Bolex compared to a video shot with DSLR is like a photograph shot with a DSLR compared to a cheap point and shoot.

Current DSLR cameras record video with a highly lossy codec (H.264), the Bolex records video as RAW, meaning there is much more room to adjust colour and brightness and contrast and hue and saturation with footage from a Bolex than with footage from a DSLR.
DSLR shoot video and store it like moving JPEGs, and if you ever tried to change any of the settings I mentioned with a JPEG and then with a RAW photo, you will see the difference.
If you haven't yet, okay then. But then such statements of yours seem rather ridiculous now.

Maybe have a read.

PS: Why not get an Alexa then?
 
The pedant in me wants to ask how it manages to be (Bayer) Raw and at the same time 4:4:4...

I like the concept, but is this kind of thing achievable for a Kickstarter campaign?
 
waloshin said:
I question why you would buy a 3.3K camera when it record 1080P what DSLR doesn't record 1080P now.
Click to expand...

That's bs. The ARRI Alexa records at 1080p and is being used A LOT lately. (on 100M$+ movies, mind you).

It's all about compression and workflow.
 
Last edited:
juanm said:
That's bs. The ARRI Alexa records at 1080p and is being used A LOT lately. (on 100M$+ movies, mind you).

It's all about compression and workflow.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this camera costs more than a D16 Digital Bolex and a Red Scarlet put together
 
waloshin said:
Yes, but this camera costs more than a D16 Digital Bolex and a Red Scarlet put together
Click to expand...

And? The Alexa offers recording in ProRes or DNxHD, which means there is no need to transcode the video during importing it into FCP or Avid, which saves a lot of time, especially with HD footage. And the ability of such codecs to store much more information than the DSLR cameras do is also worth some money. Know that the Alexa and similar cameras are aimed at professional filmmakers in for bigger budget productions. The RED is the same, though cheaper.
The Bolex is aimed at independent filmmakers, who want more than the measly image quality one can get from a DSLR, but at a lower price.

I don't know, if you have ever edited footage from several cameras, but once you do, you appreciate the material, which has more information to offer compared to the compressed footage.

I edited with Beta SP (analog SD broadcast tape), Digi Beta (digital SD broadcast tape), DV (digital SD prosumer/consumer tape, compressed), HDV (digital HD prosumer/consumer tape, compressed), XDCam HD (digital HD prosumer/broadcast format, compressed), ProRes 422 (from Alexa, before the introduction of the DNxHD firmware by ARRI), H.264 (from Canon 5D MKII and some footage.
The best footage to edit with was the one the least compressed (Alexa, Digi Beta, Beta SP), as I could do much more in post with them (green screening, colour correction, ...) without destroying the image than with the compressed ones (H.264, HDV, DV).

A proper workflow is worth money, if one has less money, one has to arrange with a more complicated workflow and with less parameters to adjust and probably less image quality.

3000 USD for such camera like the Digital Bolex is nothing. I would buy it in a heartbeat, if it proves to be a viable solution and not just hot air.
 
Last edited:
As much as I want to avoid AVCHD and 4:2:0, this new 4K camera from JVC looks interesting. It shoots up to 60p in HD to a single SD card, and 60p in 4K... to 4x SD cards. It's only $5000. I'm not sure I'd get it, but I like seeing a 4K camera out here for so cheap!

I just got an Atmos Ninja 2.0 and a Crucial M4 256GB SSD for my Canon XH-A1. Wanted to extend the life of the camera and stop using tape, and now I get 4:2:2 color from the component out --> HDMI converter --> ProResHQ or 422 instead of the 4:2:0 HDV tape. That should hold me for a little longer and reduce the number of times I rent a nicer camera for some shoots.

I love new camera news, and all the debates with colleagues that come with it. :)
 
Last edited:
waloshin said:
Yes, but this camera costs more than a D16 Digital Bolex and a Red Scarlet put together
Click to expand...

Your point was about resolution. Now it's about price? I don't have the same animosity against you as some people on this forum, but you really should avoid talking about things you know nothing about (or do it, but on your blog). The point of forums is to share knowledge and discuss, not to spread misinformation. (I work with these cameras, btw)

Also, about this Bolex, I've heard this story before. As pointed before, the Scarlett was, at one point, supposed to be priced about the same as the 5D. :rolleyes:
If RED, which is a huge company, couldn't do it, even though they already had a lot of the tech involved already developed, I franlky doubt these guys can.

It reminds me of the Sparta Camera. Same small startup, same promises, and it ended up being a failure (and a scam, since some people had already paid reservation fees, IIRC).
 
Last edited:
To those arguing the price point is way too low, I'm guessing their 16mm sensor is much cheaper than the full frame 35mm used in a 5d or red. From what I can find, a similar sensor to what they're using, the Kodak KAI-02150 is about 300$ (possibly less when bought in volume). That's definitely where the price cut comes from.

I'm not sure how practical this camera will be though. Sure it's cute but I'm not sure who drops 3.3k$ for a camera designed for taking movies of your picnic vacation. 240 in the view finder and 480p on a monitor is not great for focus. Noise is probably worse than DSLR, 35mm is nice for DoF and oversampling probably produces better pictures.
 
paolo- said:
I'm not sure how practical this camera will be though. Sure it's cute but I'm not sure who drops 3.3k$ for a camera designed for taking movies of your picnic vacation. 240 in the view finder and 480p on a monitor is not great for focus. Noise is probably worse than DSLR, 35mm is nice for DoF and oversampling probably produces better pictures.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure noise will be worse. Once advantage of CCD type sensor (that they STILL hold over CMOS) aside from not rolling shutter is less noise at low ISO settings. The resolution from my 6MP DSLR with a CCD sensor pales compared to my 14MP camera but the smoothness at low ISO is still something I miss. The disadvantage of CCD's is they have a much lower ISO ceiling--hence the bolex will top out at 400ISO which is really, really now in todays post-DSLR world.

The upside here is that fast C-mount lenses are the norm and (relatively) cheap. Heck, I've seen f1.0 primes floating around and the smaller sensor will give *enough* depth of field to make that type of lens useful wide open. So I don't know if the camera is a magic bullet but initially (before C-mount lenses start rising in price) it could be an easier set of tradeoff for an aspiring filmmaker. There are some real trade-offs and it may or may not be better for run-and-gun indie filming than DSLRs. It certainly will provide better latitude in post.

I do agree that low-res monitoring and no oversampling are my two biggest concerns. A bayer pattern doesn't hold the native resolution but then few DSLR seem to even with down scaling. NOW if they added 720p or 1080p out (on even HDMI) plus a foveon 2k CCD I would ecstatic.
 
juanm said:
Your point was about resolution. Now it's about price? I don't have the same animosity against you as some people on this forum, but you really should avoid talking about things you know nothing about (or do it, but on your blog). The point of forums is to share knowledge and discuss, not to spread misinformation. (I work with these cameras, btw)

Also, about this Bolex, I've heard this story before. As pointed before, the Scarlett was, at one point, supposed to be priced about the same as the 5D. :rolleyes:
If RED, which is a huge company, couldn't do it, even though they already had a lot of the tech involved already developed, I franlky doubt these guys can.

It reminds me of the Sparta Camera. Same small startup, same promises, and it ended up being a failure (and a scam, since some people had already paid reservation fees, IIRC).
Click to expand...

This is when it became about price:

firestarter said:
How is $16k in any way comparable to $3.3k?

How often do you go in to a clothes shop to get a $33 shirt, and then say 'oh look, there's a $160 shirt over there - I may as well just go ahead and buy that instead'?

I really can't understand Red 'fans'. Are you even a potential buyer, Waloshin?
Click to expand...
 
waloshin said:
Just like this guy https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1339409/
I question why you would buy a 3.3K camera when it record 1080P what DSLR doesn't record 1080P now.
Click to expand...

It's not just the fact that it can record 1080p but the fact that that is it's true resolution. There is no line skipping a la DSLR and it doesn't use a poky codec like H.264.

Last time I checked this is more expensive than a 5diii so if you are looking at a DSLR for video this is a viable option especially with the cheap price of some S16mm glass as people are moving away from 16mm film.

However, I do agree with some that there are some questions to be raised over this product. I personally don't understand how people can drop $2500 into a kick-starter campaign for what is essentially a proof of concept. Ikonoskop have already made this camera however for almost 3 times the price. I have used it and whilst it is good it is no where near perfect so I can imagine this will be the same if not worse.

Also, about this Bolex, I've heard this story before. As pointed before, the Scarlett was, at one point, supposed to be priced about the same as the 5D.
If RED, which is a huge company, couldn't do it, even though they already had a lot of the tech involved already developed, I franlky doubt these guys can.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the Scarlet is a very different beast from the 16mm 8x fixed lens camera it started out as. I don't think its fair to say RED couldn't do it, more like RED didn't want to do it as they felt that there wasn't a market for it.
 
waloshin said:
This is when it became about price:
Click to expand...

It wasn't so much about price, it was about comparing cameras that aren't in the same market.

Red tried to target the pro-am/Indie market with the Scarlet and failed. It costs at least $15k... and given Red's reliability you probably need two - which puts it firmly into the rental category.

The Bolex (if shipped at that price) will compete against DSLRs.
 
gnomeisland said:
I'm not sure noise will be worse. Once advantage of CCD type sensor (that they STILL hold over CMOS) aside from not rolling shutter is less noise at low ISO settings. The resolution from my 6MP DSLR with a CCD sensor pales compared to my 14MP camera but the smoothness at low ISO is still something I miss. The disadvantage of CCD's is they have a much lower ISO ceiling--hence the bolex will top out at 400ISO which is really, really now in todays post-DSLR world.

The upside here is that fast C-mount lenses are the norm and (relatively) cheap. Heck, I've seen f1.0 primes floating around and the smaller sensor will give *enough* depth of field to make that type of lens useful wide open. So I don't know if the camera is a magic bullet but initially (before C-mount lenses start rising in price) it could be an easier set of tradeoff for an aspiring filmmaker. There are some real trade-offs and it may or may not be better for run-and-gun indie filming than DSLRs. It certainly will provide better latitude in post.

I do agree that low-res monitoring and no oversampling are my two biggest concerns. A bayer pattern doesn't hold the native resolution but then few DSLR seem to even with down scaling. NOW if they added 720p or 1080p out (on even HDMI) plus a foveon 2k CCD I would ecstatic.
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't know it stopped at ISO 400, that might be a pain especially considering how clean the 5Dmk3 seems to stay at higher ISO. I thought that not oversampling might lead to more noise when at higher ISO, but I guess the question doesn't even need to be asked.

It looks like it will be possible to get an external piece of gear to get an external unit to spit out HD to a monitor. Exciting times, the promo for One Small Step looks amazing. I can imagine that quite a bit of post was done on it to give it that look but there's essentially no visible sign of degradation. Seems like a viable alternative to DSLR for some people.

You might want to check these guys out http://apertus.org/en . Basically they're making free software to work with elphel cameras, http://www.elphel.com/. Elphel is an open hardware/open software company that makes cameras using other people's sensor mainly for use in science labs. Apertus want's to give those cameras a user friendly interface with software as well as some modular gear (rail system, remote and viewfinder) from what I can gather. Elphel's prices seem pretty good, though Apertus is waiting on Elphel to come up with their next model (which should allow users to change the sensor IE choose it and even swap it CMOS or CCD) to come out of beta.
 
Last edited:
They are swinging for the fences and I hope they make it but I doubt they will.

As RED quickly found out, there's more to making a camera than just making a camera. If people can't easily, quickly & inexpensively use the media the camera produces that's an out of the gate hurdle that will deter users (especially the no-budget, indie types this camera seems to be going after). The 7D, 60D, GH2, T2i, etc., didn't become popular because they were great video cameras. They become popular because they were good enough cameras that could be owned and operated inexpensively. Canon had unknowing crashed Scarlet's party and that's why RED, IMO, decided not to enter a market segment that is so overwhelmingly driven by price.


Lethal
 
paolo- said:
Oh I didn't know it stopped at ISO 400, that might be a pain especially considering how clean the 5Dmk3 seems to stay at higher ISO. I thought that not oversampling might lead to more noise when at higher ISO, but I guess the question doesn't even need to be asked.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that it shoots RAW so the ISO is not baked into the clip and can be adjusted but I believe the native ISO will probably be 400 and there will be an option for 800 and 1600.
 
LethalWolfe said:
If people can't easily, quickly & inexpensively use the media the camera produces that's an out of the gate hurdle that will deter users (especially the no-budget, indie types this camera seems to be going after).
Click to expand...

That is mostly true however the Bolex will (supposedly) use Adobe's video DNG format which is about as standardized and cross platform as a raw codec can get. While I think you have a point, I think that there will be less of a hurdle on the post end then you have with a RED camera. Again, that's partly because these are 2K raw files instead of RED's 3-5K files but that means that the actual resolution is likely to be considerably less because of the bayer pattern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back