fuzzynormal

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/12/digital-bolex-d16-review-part-1-first-impressions-pre-order/ Joe Marine's of NoFilmSchool recent 2-part review of the Digital Bolex seems not very skewed in favor of that camera. In fact, it's a reasoned balanced opinion, I think. Personally, I like the idea that some folks had an idea and made it happen with "Kickstarting" support from the filmmaking community. I also like that they developed a camera for 16mm lenses. So many American university are full up on 16mm lenses going unused. This camera is near-perfect for those programs. I'd go so far as to say that the RAW workflow is a nice parallel to traditional film production. That's good for students. Learning footage discipline is a worthwhile skill.

It might appear someday as a hack on cameras like the GX7. You never know. At least I can hope. And, of course, Panasonic is hitting the market with a 4K camera this year that (from what I've seen with my limited wisdom) may share the same sensor as the GX7 and GM1. The point being that 4K is happening in the marketplace. More important, it looks like it has a chance to be a big deal in the consumer market -- because of companies wanting to upgrade/sell 4K monitors. As you know, the consumer market is where the DSLR/M43/Mirrorless products are. As such, adapting them to a useful workflow is important. It'll happen fast.

At that price point it's worth giving it a go. Thanks.

Thanks for this suggestion. I hadn't heard of it before, but seems like a good option. Is there anything else you can tell us about it?

To be fair, if your subjects are not near the lens, shallow depth of field isn't too hard to handle. Wide shots at night wouldn't be an issue at all. Medium shots with disciplined blocking is viable. If you want closeups then yeah, you'd have to be strategic with what you're doing with your actors or subjects. Also, softness that's quite noticeable in hires photographs, isn't that bad, imho, @1080. One has to decide if the DOF is worth the edge softness, I guess. Still, you can always just shoot an f4 and save the wide open apertures for times when the light is low and can't be controlled. For instance, I know that I found myself shooting pretty wide-open on a documentary where I was inside night clubs and in dark backstage areas. In that case, every little bit helps. In those situations, I wouldn't mind having a .95. Not willing to pay 1K for just that 1 extra stop though. Yet. I got a doc shoot coming up this spring... Might have to rent the .95 and see what I see before then.

In the case of the Panasonic GX7, I do wonder if there's enough bandwidth in it to eventually pull off 24fps @4K. Sure would be a nice bonus to have that option in the future. The sensor specs certainly allow it; not sure on the other bandwidth components. Also, the cheap little Nikon V1 does a short 1sec burst at 60fps. You can check out the popular thread here on EOSHD for examples. If these cameras could even just manage a modest 10 second record time with a firmware update, then lots of high res creativity would be available for the filmmaker. It would be great for music vids, for instance.

I think it would be pretty good for that too. Not sure on the low light capability yet, but having those audio inputs would be nice.

Tee Hee. C'mon, it's the internet. Taking things personally here is a fool's game. My response was just meant to illustrate how I think your earnestness is misplaced.

And laughing. Thanks for offering the amusement.

I'd say that's good advice.

Assuming you know what kind of camera I want to use based on this conversation is amusing. Maybe we just don't find PB's statements as much of a big deal as you do? Try not to get worked up about it. People don't agree with you. It's not that important.

I really don't think you understand what that guy is doing on his blog. What he wrote is not a review. He can offer advice from his perspective. Exercise some free will and use that advice or ignore it. That's it. If you think that statement discredits him, great. That's your call. If you find his opinion about codecs seemingly contradictory, so be it. I don't. Nor, based on what I shoot, would I concern myself too much with it regardless.

Yes. It's his ideas and his writing. His opinion. He's not entitled to do anything beyond that. If he has a favorable initial impression over one piece of gear to another, that's fine. He was enthusiastic for the C100 awhile back, but that isn't a viable camera for a lot of people. Big deal. He's not doing a "Consumer Reports" market study, he's writing His Thoughts about a camera. Welcome to the internet, BTW, hope you like it here.

As someone that just did a shoot in NZ barely a year ago on 60i HD and a 5 year old Canon camcorder, I'd just like to say I'm crazy jealous that someone got to run around the country using this gear. What I would have given to have shot my assignment on this cam. Man, I know a lot of y'all never seem satisfied with limitations, but just take a breather and realize that you're looking at a camera that shoots 4K for less than 2K. I don't know, seems impressive to me.

Still have mine in the back of the closet...

Ah, understood. Busting out some Barry Lyndon level shooting, eh?

Those are all valid concerns. I like the GM1, but I don't plan on running around with it as my A cam. It's a stealthy and small option to capture nondescript shooting. That's the biggest feature of the cam for me. However, when not trying to "steal" shots I certainly don't plan on running and gunning with the thing (even though I'm confident that I could do so if needed). It'll serve well though for more considered (sticks/slider) shots, flying, and getting into tight corners.

How fast is your lens? What f-stop are you at when shooting that stuff? 4, maybe a 5.6? I did a shoot recently, on an old 5DII, with a driving shot at night through a city, just ambient/dash board light, using a 50mm@f1.4. I was able to pull acceptable exposure with a 1600ISO. I'd still recommend getting it right through the lens rather than saying to yourself "Oh, I can use NeatVideo in post." If you ever tell yourself, "I'll fix it in post" I'd suggest to take a moment, stop what you're doing, and consider a solution to make your imaging work while on location. I like NeatVideo too, but I never WANT to use it.

Yeah, a lot of people have a hard time understanding how frame rate can make an image appear "sharper" even though an image might have the same resolution as another. It's true though. Get the frame rate up around the human eye speed of 60fps and the brain just sees it more "natural." However, I believe that the motion blur of 24p will be with us for generations, even though it's a goofy legacy frame rate, simply because movies are a creative art form. Using a slow frame rate can help create the context of an alternate reality. That's why I like it anyway.

I've used it to salvage some RED footage with too much ISO. You basically balance it out by applying as little of it as you can to do the job. So it basically depends on how much grain and how hard you're pushing the image to start with. I'd seriously consider trying to add light or getting a faster lens if shooting low light before relying on NeatVideo though. And hey, I just picked up the GM1 and GX7 for some future shooting. I'm in the same situation as you. What to shoot to grab some proof of concept footage? For me, I could go out and shoot some standard scenics, but I get more motivated when I'm building a story. Good luck!

I'm not flippant; quite serious and it even seems like we agree a bit. If you're able to imagine a compelling story that fits your setting and then build your shots around that narrative idea, you got something cooking. It'll inform your shooting creativity. I think it's good advice.

I haven't had much trouble shooting video to be honest. It's been more intuitive than I expected.

I'll offer some advice: don't fret about the techno stuff and try telling a narrative story with motion pictures rather than just shooting various images.

Good call, that. I need to do the same. A few quirks in the camera as a photographer's shooter, but when in manual motion picture filming it's straightforward and easy to use.

Still a great sensor to plug into that body. Overall, close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades if you ask me. The GM1 shoots very comparable to the GH3...and have you seen how small it is!? Anyway, it's gotten to the point where the technology is pretty dang democratized. If you got a visual story to tell, plenty of tools out there to do it that are willing to help and don't cost much at all. (and affordable 4K is on the near horizon) Sergio Leone managed to make a lot more with a lot less. Time to go make something!