Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tzedekh

  1. Some people seem to think they know alot about whats-what in the case of this camera. I often go back through forums and see what people have said before camera systems have been released. With the DB, it will be no different. #pissingmatch 

    Nobody outside the Digital Bolex team really knows anything about this camera, other than the published design/specs, and even those have changed since the camera was announced. Regarding the potential of adding Cineform RAW recording capability, I did couch it as a question because I don't even know if it's even possible. Given how simple Joe Rubinstein wanted the camera to be, I tend to doubt it has the processing power.
  2. That was not the point. Digital Bolex would pay for it themselves in order to make their product more competitive, just not at a time when they're only selling 100 cameras.

    Yes, but Digital Bolex would undoubtedly pass on their licensing costs, so the question remains, would you be willing to pay more for a Cineform RAW option (and if so, how much)? 

    BMD didn't include an HDMI port, maybe because of this, but they did license Prores, it's a matter of strategy I guess.

    They already pay the annual licensing fee for the HDMI ports on their Hyperdeck Shuttle, switchers, and capture cards (the per-unit fee is 4-5 cents). I assume they didn't include HDMI for the same reason they didn't include XLRs -- not enough space.
  3. So convert the DNG to CineForm on your $600 PC. Hardly a big ask??!


    Yes, but pointless. Transcoding doesn't reduce data storage requirements, it adds to them (unless you delete the original), plus it adds steps to the workflow. Cineform RAW as the originating format has multiple benefits, not the least of which is that in reducing the recording data rate, it would potentially increase a camera's maximum frame rates (if the camera can process CR RAW). RedCode ompressed raw allows the Red Epic to achieve its high frame rates.

  4. I'm in their market. I want something that shoots raw for under $5K. 16mm, means cheaper lenses, which is a big plus.


    I'm not touching BMC, until they get their supply chain issues figure out, and i know that i can have one in my hands within a month of ordering it.


    How do you know the Digital Bolex won't run into supply issues? Nobody's gotten one yet.


    I have a couple issues with the camera. First, there's no removable SSD storage solution. Second, I'm not crazy about uncompressed raw, but I doubt the Digital Bolex has the power to do Cineform RAW in-camera.

  5. Why don't manufacturers combine something like this with backside-illuminated smaller (1/2- to 2/3-inch) sensors?

    Beats me. Because there's more profit in making a larger CMOS sensor and a lens that covers that I suppose? 

    I suppose that with too small a sensor size, the required optics would probably introduce too many aberrations. Also, with a crop factor of about 3.9-4 for a 2/3-inch sensor, you might expect, in theory, a .25 factor and a four-stop decrease in f/stop. Well, the latter seems especially unlikely.

  6. Wow, that is a magic trick then, changing a lens after the fact and not changing how much of what the lens already saw your sensor can now see.  


    Some kind of optical reach-a-round I suppose.


    The lens itself doesn't physically change. The lens plus Speed Booster has different properties. The same with a teleconverter -- putting a 2x extender on a 10-100 mm f/2.4 renders it effectively a 20-100 mm f/4.8.

  7. The T-stop of a lens measures the light performance after the lens, what's there for the exposure but DOF and F-stop must be managed by the operator independent of this.  I think you have your mechanics backwards and imagining mechanical functions that aren't there.  It's simplicity seems to be causing all kinds of confusion.  


    I don't understand how the depth of field can effectively remain constant if the the focal length is reduced to a factor of .71 unless the effective f/stop is opened up (i.e., the f/number reduced) about a stop. As the lens' elements and coatings don't change, any factors that prevent the T-stop and f/stop from being identical remain. Therefore the effective f/stop must change. So if the lens is marked as a 100 mm and is set at f/2.0, it will effectively be roughly 70 mm at f/1.4 with the Speed Booster. Which is exactly what the whitepaper ("The Speed Booster™ – a New Type of Optical Attachement for Increasing the Speed of Photographic Lenses") says: "A focal reducer . . . is basically a positive lens that fits behind an objective lens, and its function is to reduce the focal length. However, the entrance pupil D remains fixed. Because of this, the f/#, given by f/# = (focal length) / D, is reduced. In other words, the speed of the lens is increased – for the same reason, why a teleconverter reduces the speed of the lens."

  8. I can't say for sure, but perhaps it would be better to think of, and refer to, this adapter's "speed boosting" as effectively increasing the T-Stop of the lens, rather than F-Stop, which might be partly responsible for some of the confusion surrounding this thing (that doesn't seem to be going away no matter how much new information comes out daily). 


    If it increased only the T-stop rather than also the f/stop, then how does the depth of field remain comparable? To maintain the field of view, the adapter must effectively reduce the focal length, but to maintain the DOF at the reduced focal length, the effective f/stop must also be reduced.

  9. It is important to look at the current landscape when judging a camera system. Right now, options under $5k are pretty limited. If you are doing Fx/greenscreen or need headroom in post for grading, you won't find many cameras shooting in RAW. Is the camera for everyone? Definitely not. But it will fit the bill for many people's projects.


    Problem is, this camera isn't out now and probably won't be until later this year at the earliest. The only advantage -- and it's a minor one at best -- it appears to hold right now is that it's S35. Who knows what else is coming down the pike this year? I stand by my contention that any company announcing a new camera should probably consider 4K at minimum.

  10. [quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1351909402' post='20937']When "rougue" camera companies up the ante, then the big guys are forced to change especially when it cuts into sales. Interesting times coming.[/quote]

    I'd like to think this is true, but how long after Red released the One did anyone else release a 4K camera -- four years? (Of course, the Dalsa Origin predates them all.)
  11. [quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1351643009' post='20671']
    Sony gives 4K with the FS700 but you need a specific recorder, which costs more money.[/quote]

    Unless I missed an announcement, it's not clear that the FS700 will need a specific recorder. For all we know, it will be able to record raw to any number of external recorders. In an ideal world, it would put out a compressed raw stream, recordable with a HyperDeck Shuttle.

    [b] [/b]
  12. [quote name='Ross Wilson' timestamp='1351626593' post='20658']
    I don't know if anyone else mentioned this but the Ikonoskop A-Cam is a digital Cinema camera and it has a global shutter so it's not a first by a long shot by Sony.

    I believe there are several other high end digital cinema cameras that also have it which can be seen in the Zacuto shoot out.

    The A-Cam's sensor is a CCD, as is the Digital Bolex's. The open-source Apertus, projected to cost less than $10K, will be using the CMOSIS CMV12000, an S35 global-shutter CMOS sensor. Sadly, there's no release date for it.
  13. [quote name='TC' timestamp='1349875780' post='19558']
    "Improved RAW coded" sounds suspicious, not just because of the typo. It is quite difficult to "improve" raw. It is exactly what it says it is - the raw data from the camera. You could compress it to make you hard discs go further, but I wouldn't really call that an improvement.

    It's possible that they've finally licensed CineForm RAW, which has a number of compression levels, including uncompressed. Considering that Adobe doesn't appear to be motivated to improve CinemaDNG support in Premier Pro and CineForm RAW is already supported, addition of the latter to the BMC's codecs would be a wise move.
  14. While I think that an active-MFT version is inevitable (provided, of course, that any model of the camera ever ships in quantity), I'm highly suspicious of the 43 Rumors article's FT4 classification ("61-80% chance the rumor is correct"). The author says he received "multiple mails from different sources" but never describes those sources as reliable, and he concludes that the "rumor based on 'non-facts.'" Yet it has received the second highest reliability rating.

    Logic dictates that the timing of the alleged new model's release -- "early 2013" -- is strange. It was more than a month ago that BMD announced a tentative December release of the passive-MFT version. But the original EF version is months behind schedule, and BMD has said those orders would be filled first. That will likely push release of the MFT model into at least early 2013. Why bother even releasing a passive-mount version when the active-mount one is right on its heels? Wouldn't that piss off a lot of buyers, especially if it also had "phantom XLR, larger capacity battery and an external battery mount, . . . an improved RAW coded [sic] and a slightly different design"? Even if it cost somewhat more (e.g., $3,500-$4,000), buyers of the first two models would be justifiably angry. And although it's possible BMD could announce in early 2013 and release later that year, I assume that by now they've learned their lesson. Most likely they wouldn't announce a new camera until they were just about ready to ship.

    The only way this would make sense would be if BMD bagged the passive-MFT version and went straight to the active mount. They'll have additional development time, given how far behind schedule the EF model is.
  • Create New...