Jump to content

Digital Bolex


Brian Drysdale
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Why in heaven's name would there a handcrank on a digital camera?

 

The only digital camera I've heard off having a hand crank option was the Kinetic.

 

Perhaps it could be a clockwork power generator, similar to that used by the clockwork radios for use in the third world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

The only digital camera I've heard off having a hand crank option was the Kinetic.

 

Perhaps it could be a clockwork power generator, similar to that used by the clockwork radios for use in the third world.

 

Interesting idea but why create a digital camera that mimics the look of 16mm when most hi-end digital cameras mimic the look of 35mm? And if we're talking about cost, I imagine the difference between buying a digital Bolex and shooting on a real Bolex would be negligible. New filmmakers are better off getting their hands dirty with film so that they can understand the craft (which many don't nowadays since everything they've done has been digital.)

Edited by Bill DiPietra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea but why create a digital camera that mimics the look of 16mm when most hi-end digital cameras mimic the look of 35mm?

 

There seemed to be quite a few people interested in the 2/3" Scarlet, so I guess those people are still out there.

 

It seems they're looking for donations (I assume they mean investors) to get it into production. Not quite the usual approach, but I guess neither was RED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seemed to be quite a few people interested in the 2/3" Scarlet, so I guess those people are still out there.

 

It seems they're looking for donations (I assume they mean investors) to get it into production. Not quite the usual approach, but I guess neither was RED.

It seems like they've already hit their 100 thousand dollar target, in fact they've gone well beyond it.

 

This camera might just happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems they got 1/4 million dollars and pre-sold 88 cameras in the first day.

It's the first camera I've seen where it's specs and pricing are what all the indie guys want, hopefully the image holds up as well which is all that really matters in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t see that coming any soon, and I think a lot of folks who gave their money before using their brain, will be disappointed.

Remember how long it took to make the A-cam happen and RED gave up the idea of the soccer mum cam for 3k.

 

Stu Maschwitz has an interesting article on that camera: http://prolost.com/blog/2012/3/13/digital-bolex.html

 

Also there are other questions like, how can it have an LCD screen if there is no debayering going on in the camera?

Edited by Frank Glencairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Bill said.

Still, though it's an interesting little camera and hopefully they'll get something out of it.

I would love to, but most of the extremely low budgets I am working with would get blown on film stock and processing. I've shot film once at film school and they paid for the stock and processing. It was only a standard def telecine and I sometimes wish I asked for a better transfer cause it would have looked a lot better. I think in the end of it all, it would have worked out really cheap too considering it was a 1 minute commercial and I only shot 4 minutes. Fantastic shooting ratio, but there was a lot of compromised involved.

 

There's this great idea I like about digital of very little ongoing cost. I think back to something like Peter Jackson shooting Bad Taste, if he owned one of these back in the day or a decent digital cam, he'd have no worries about spending his weekly wage on film stock and having this racking budget by the end of it. He could have probably spent that very same money on the things he needed the New Zealand Film Commission to eventually buckle down and pay for (I believe the end shoot and post and some other things).

 

You could essentially shoot a film for very little and retain a quality image, I mean I have yet to see it happen on a grand cheap scale, maybe cause there's so much little quality and thought put into digital in comparison to classic old 16mm film, but I'm sure someone will get around to it eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I think you hit on an interesting problem of Digital there, Marcus, the lack of thought put into digital.

In my experience at least, as soon as a digital camera (and it's accompanying video monitors) come out on set, all thought kind goes right out the window. It takes extreme discipline to shoot film, and sadly, more often then not, such discipline doesn't transfer over to digital productions precisely because it is so cheap to shoot. There's often the attitude of, ok, let's do another take, and another, and another. Eventually you wind up with a lot of footage, some of it good, most of it bad, and an exhausted cast/crew for the next setup (if you even now have time for it).

But, such is the double edges sword of ease, says me.

All things being equal, I'm always of the school of thought to pick the format which most easily gets you what you need- sometimes film, sometimes digital. I see, almost, attempt at creating a digital "film look" Sisyphean, in the end, as one ought to really be embracing a format for how that format looks, feels, and operates-- married to the way in which you want to tell a story.

 

I often come back to the film Cloverfield in this example, primarily because the way in which it was supposedly told- by a handycam, required it to be shot digitally. Also it is one of the few films I can think of that really embraced the "digital aesthetic," though I'm sure there are many other examples.

But anyway; I don't want to derail the topic too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sensor department of Kodak is now a new company called Truesenseimaging, that continues service and further development.

So speaking of a KODAK sensor is technicaly incorrect. But nobody associates anything with the name of the new company.

 

Truesense Imaging, formerly the Image Sensor Solutions (ISS) division of Eastman Kodak Company, was acquired by Platinum Equity through a transaction with Kodak that closed on November 7, 2011.

 

As an independent company, Truesense Imaging will continue to provide a broad range of image sensor devices that combine high resolution, ultra-fast frame speeds, and unmatched image quality – features relied on by camera manufacturers around the world for use in their most demanding commercial, industrial, and professional imaging applications.

 

http://www.truesenseimaging.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sensor department of Kodak is now a new company called Truesenseimaging, that continues service and further development.

 

It's often the case with viable parts of large corporations with difficulties, they split off and either have lives on their own or they go under the umbrella of another large corporation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too good to be true all right.

Why in heaven's name would there a handcrank on a digital camera?

 

Cheers,

Jean-Louis

 

For over function.

 

Interesting idea but why create a digital camera that mimics the look of 16mm when most hi-end digital cameras mimic the look of 35mm? And if we're talking about cost, I imagine the difference between buying a digital Bolex and shooting on a real Bolex would be negligible. New filmmakers are better off getting their hands dirty with film so that they can understand the craft (which many don't nowadays since everything they've done has been digital.)

 

Yes, they are. That's why there's film school. Then when they get out and make their festival underdog sensations, they can choose whichever medium suites the story and budget. Or suppose they're realistic and want to shoot a short but would rather put that hard earned cash towards a location or real actors. You know, the stuff that everyone else notices.

 

It mimics the look of a 16mm camera because it also mimics the function of a compact 16mm camera, or Bolex. A low budget camera that allows the filmmaker to capture their image with little to know influence from the camera. Or more simply put, a taste of the big leagues.

 

Does anyone actually do photochemical finish and edit on a Steinbeck. No. If you do, "viva la resitance".

 

The reality is that even film ends up being captured in a raw format for DI. Usually some flavor of 4:4:4 DPX or Cineon. So really, if we're going to split hairs about it, this fun little camera is still introducing new filmmakers to the workflow of film.

 

The craft has nothing to do with being a medium snob. So can we all just cut it out? I LOVE FILM, but I don't dictate the studios or the economy so I'm embracing the future, rather than pretend it isn't already on our doorstep.

 

 

It's the first camera I've seen where it's specs and pricing are what all the indie guys want, hopefully the image holds up as well which is all that really matters in the end.

 

Exactly biggrin.gif If it's anything like the Ikonoskop, it should be great. I just did a doc with the DII and the images are very pleasing.

 

I don´t see that coming any soon, and I think a lot of folks who gave their money before using their brain, will be disappointed.

Remember how long it took to make the A-cam happen and RED gave up the idea of the soccer mum cam for 3k.

 

Stu Maschwitz has an interesting article on that camera: http://prolost.com/b...ital-bolex.html

 

Also there are other questions like, how can it have an LCD screen if there is no debayering going on in the camera?

 

Stu's thoughts after speaking to the inventors of the Digital Bolex: http://prolost.com/b...-the-bolex.html

 

There is more to the A-Cam DII and the Scarlet. The D16 is engineered so only the bare minimum processing is occurring within the camera. That's how they made it for cheap. Just because the original scarlet had a fixed lens and a 2/3" chip, doesn't mean it's for little Beckham's tournaments. It's called TV, and it would have been lovely and welcomed by an ENTIRELY different crowd of users.

 

As far as the LCD goes, ask them. They're very nice and open to discussion.

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

 

FILM, people. SHOOT FILM.

 

As soon as my clients want it, I'll be first in line smile.gif

 

I love the 1950's retro style. But I worry about the CCD chip, it's from a bankrupt company.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

You mean like the film emulsion company? Hm...

 

I too love the whole form over function. Though the usefulness of the LCD is arguable, I'm glad there isn't some painfully useless inline-viewfinder (F3 huh.gif )

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Clearly I put my money up for one of these cameras, and why shouldn't any of us. I am thrilled to back people who want to throw a wrench or two in the big boy's gear. Hell, consider it retribution for what they did to my favorite film manufacturer (I shot still before this 24p hoopla, and fell in love with the Kodak 1600 Ektapress and bought every roll I could find. Alas two remain and they're fading away in my fridge sad.gif ).

 

It's so easy to pick on the little guy, I truly hate seeing it happen here. No one is forcing you to shoot on the D16 (yet), so stop naysaying hand over fist, sit back, and enjoy the ride.

 

-Ari "a bit grumpy about all the unfounded hate" Davidson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

The Kodak (now Image-sense ??) 2K CCD in this project is the same CCD that is in the DII from Ikonoscop Just remember that a 2K Bayer mask chip will not really resolve 2K but broadcast HD cameras from Sony and Panasonic have been using scaling and sharpening less than HD imagers for years and still do. I think the digital bolex people should call Go-Pro and buy a Cineform license like SI did.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Forum Sponsors

Film Gears

Serious Gear

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

DMX-iT

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...