Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Digital Bolex raw camera, no longer made
  • 1130 Replies sorted by
  • DrDaveDrDave

    Just plug in two mics, and take a $10 voltmeter and measure the current. Takes one minute.

  • MattRobertson7MattRobertson7

    http://cikproductions.com/digitalbolexunboxing/

    My digital bolex unboxing video!

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @elleschneider tweeted me saying that the crank issue was one that should have been fixed in a past version of the camera, and they simply sent me the wrong one

    Huh.

  • diggerdigger

    @MattRobertson7 it looks like it takes about 20 seconds to power on, right?

  • DrDaveDrDave

    It's alive!

  • MattRobertson7MattRobertson7

    @digger yeah approximently, there is a sleep mode you can put it into though that saves battery. Its probably still faster than the red power on time

  • DrDaveDrDave

    @MattRobertson I have three questions, what is your impression of the IQ, what is the vid like in low light, and also the screen seems really small, can you see much on the screen?

  • luekioluekio

    @DrDave There is a night time shoot in their vimeo channel if you are interested in seeing how it fairs in low light.

  • MikeLinnMikeLinn

  • cantsincantsin

    The first video is quite useful. Compared to the Blackmagic Pocket, the Bolex has a softer image but also less or no moiré - so maybe it's equipped with an antialiasing filter in front of the sensor? Looking at the Christmas tree, it seems to have less dynamic range/clip earlier in the highlights. On the other hand, it has no rolling shutter and better audio. There seems to be no big difference in the color reproduction of both cameras if their material is competently graded in post.

    So everyone can decide themselves which camera better suits their needs, and which usage scenarios may justify paying the higher price for the D16.

  • DrDaveDrDave

    @luekio, thanks but I'm only interested in video from a shipped camera.

    @MattRobertson7 A lot has been said about the audio capabilities of the camera. If you have a chance, plug "real" mics in, one with a Y-cable, turn on the phantom power, and measure the loaded phantom power with a Voltmeter. Should be somewhere around 48 volts.

    Also, if you have a DAW with a bitmeter, it would be interesting to see if the 24 bits are "real" 24 bits--most DAWS will have a feature that shows harmonic analysis of the extra bits--some recorders just record zeros instead of actual audio.

    If you have any RME gear, the bitmeter is built in. Thanks for posting the videos!

  • DrDaveDrDave

    I'm not sure the focus points were the same in the test, so I don't want to prejudge the Bolex. On this test, I don't see a big difference.

  • MattRobertson7MattRobertson7

    Here's some super quick dng's from christmas morning. I like the image, but this camera is starved for light. Have to shoot wide open pretty much all the time if you're shooting indoors even in good light. 200 is more optimal of an ISO than 400. 400 is usable but DR seems to go down with it and color starts to shift odd and of course added grain. The grain though is I guess more "filmic" that what you'd get with many CMOS sensors, but it is quite present in low light. This camera is SHARP in good light. These were all shot wide open with my rokinon 16mm f2. Very easy to handhold without a rig honestly.

    https://app.box.com/s/zqozokekfe5et9j9ro92

  • babypandababypanda

    "Very easy to handhold without a rig honestly."

    Thanks! That's something I was hoping to hear.

  • last_SHIFTlast_SHIFT

    NoFilmSchool - official sponsors of the Digital Bolex.

  • DrDaveDrDave

    @last_SHIFTlast_SHIFT rofl. @MattRobertson7 Colors look good, but that grain is a sticky mess, like leftover split pea soup. Yikes!

  • derekderek

    i download this video and color corrected and upload again :-)

  • ahblezaahbleza

    And now some tro^H^H^HKroll is wading into the debate, claiming that the DB rivals the BlackMagic, and even the RED.

    http://noamkroll.com/digital-bolex-has-arrived-with-a-cinematic-image-that-rivals-blackmagic-and-even-red/

    He writes:

    "I really believe that this camera is producing one of the most cinematic images out there today. There is a quality about the image that really replicates the look of Super 16 and looks so filmic right out of the box, while still maintaining the sharp details that are required for a modern day, 2K image."

  • eatstoomuchjameatstoomuchjam

    Since there are few or no criteria to determine how "cinematic" or "filmic" an image is, the guy's not at all wrong if he says that something is (in his opinion) either one. In fact, both are among the worst possible descriptors for the quality of a camera. You might as well start throwing out terms like "pretty" and "shiny" to describe the output. They're just about as useful.

  • robertGLrobertGL

    not to say that the images so far are bad, but they aren't blow-me-away,,, not like what i've seen from the 5DIII and the BMCC, which are their cost competitors.. just typical blogger_demo_vid standard

  • vicharrisvicharris

    Really would like to see some decently graded footage somewhere from this camera.

  • luekioluekio

    @eatstoomuchjam The term filmic is a pretty concise way to say "looks like film" . really. Sure digital will never look exactly like film but I think much of what ppl are responding to is the ccd sensor which I agree looks much more organic and film like than most digital cmos sensor cameras. Ikoniskop which is ccd has a similarly organic look too

  • DrDaveDrDave

    Looks like grainy footage, not filmic, that is unsuitable for use indoors--if the usable ISO is 200-400, that makes it an "outdoor-daytime" camera. Perhaps a sensor upgrade will help, since the cams are made in small batches that should be a possibility.

  • cantsincantsin

    It's rather funny how some people now seem to associate CCD sensors with "filmic" - while it used to be the other way around. CCD was synonymous with the "video look", smearing and blown-out highlights/limited dynamic range.

    Both in photography and in cinema, digital didn't replace film until single-chip sensor technology moved on from CCD to CMOS. Manufacturers like Arri didn't even venture into digital before modern CMOS sensor technology was available; Red, too, was CMOS from the very beginning. (And on the lower end, DSLR video wasn't even possible before DSLR manufacturers switched to CMOS sensors.)

    So, CCD now looks vintage, and that's falsely associated with "film" - similar to a hypothetical false association of the CRT tube tv image with analog film projection.

    Or did I get facts wrong?

  • luekioluekio

    You could paint it however suits you but jello cam and moire are not good or filmic by anyone's standards.

Add a Comment