Clark Nikolai

This is why I've never put my work on YouTube (and some people were suggesting that I do). I've had enough rejection in my life, I don't need to set myself as a target for more. Who needs to show the world their baby they put a lot of care in to making just to have some dweeb say that it sucks or something.

Me too. Ergonomically it's nice. Holding up to your eye with the loupe is good for both stability and keeping out sunlight from the screen. If it was all programmable, even with a third-party firmware hack, it would be great! I agree again. There's several nifty retro style cameras out now that are fun but just have such crappy image quality. The early days of digital photography had such a variety of shapes that were tried. Kind of like the Burgess Shale fossils. No, but CMOS has come a long way in image quality, global shutter and colour depth which are the things that people like about CCDs. A new camera could be made with a good CMOS sensor. My first miniDV camera was the Canon ZR10. Amazing little thing. Pretty good quality for its time and tiny. (Truly a palmcorder.) I shot lots of stuff with it. https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/dvc673.html If they came out with the same body and features, but recording HD, 2K or 4K in ProRes (or raw) to a card it would be great!

So, the Fujifilm Instax Mini Evo Cinema is about to come out and there are showcases of it on YouTube by the usual influencers. What do you think about it? It appears to be for rich kids to play with and make their cool vertical videos for TikTok, etc. but how would you design it differently to make "real" art with? In redesigning it, I would keep the same shape as it's good. I would have it record in square format in ProRes. Have the ability to add one's own film effects, such as to use OFX plugins like Dehancer and others (if this is possible in real-time) and put them on the dial. Remove the printer to make the whole thing smaller. For me, it's part gimmick and part useful. I can see how in fifteen years, long after it's been discontinued, it being a thing for artists to make art with (much like the Fisher Price Pxlvision camera is now).

There are two different people working on a DIY digital bolex. One is La Faux Bolex (pictured above) who is using an industrial camera that has the same image chip, connected to a Raspberry Pi and is using every open source thing out there. The other is David Bross who mentions in his video that he's in touch with, or working with Joe Rubinstein of the original Digital Bolex company. He doesn't say much about it though. I think it's great that people are working on this again. There were only so many of the original made. If you want the nice colour depth you either pay $12000 or you make your own.

Oh, for sure, eh? I remember forgetting to bring my external monitor cable with me so I used the little built in screen and while I could frame the shot up fine, I didn't see that there were rain drops on the lens until later when I got home. I understand though why they did it, if you have to skimp on something to save money (not just monitor but all the electronics to send a signal to it) to put resources elsewhere (like the image quality), then it makes sense to do it to the monitor. Probably every D16 owner uses an external monitor or EVF because of that. The idea of it being a handheld, one piece thing that you just pick up and start shooting isn't really true. It's too heavy to hold for a long time, the screen is tiny and low resolution (I don't have the shark fin mirror thing so don't know what that's like), there's no built in microphone. Still it's a great camera, amazing image and sound quality making it all worth it. Love it!

I had been searching awhile back for one of his videos I remember watching a few years ago and couldn't find it. He might just be pulling out of being online. I know several friends who have done that, (usually to stay sane.) Maybe he's not into photography anymore in his life. I don't think any of his videos were at all political, they were always about photography and his personal philosophy about it. The thing I got the most from his videos (aside from some pretty thorough reviews of equipment) was him saying that it's okay to go back to a place and take the same picture again and again, improving it each time. This was good advice for me. I guess I had some idea that every picture should be original. (Don't know where I got that idea and wasn't even conscious I held that belief before he helped me change it.)

Looks like someone else is making a "digital bolex". This guy in Paris. https://davidbross.fr/#about Former cinematographer is building one. I don't know what the plan is though, if it's going to be a cottage industry and he'll make and sell them or sell/give away the plans. Like the Faux Bolex guy, he's using the same sensor as the Digital Bolex. In this video he shows his menu system he's working on for it(which resembles Blackmagic's menus). He also has an iOS app that takes stills and video in open gate with the look of Kodak Vision3 500T film stock or Arri Alexa look. I played around with it and it seems fine. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/digilog-camera/id6753213428

It looks good. The use of iPhones is interesting. The quality is now more than good enough for narrative. I would imagine the camera operator would have been seen as just another YouTube travel and food blogger and ignored. I don't know how "guerrilla" their approach was though. Did they inform the market authorities they were shooting or did they just go and do it? Story wise it seems fine. From my perspective (in a progressive city in another country) the left handed thing is so old fashioned that I wonder if it's truly a thing in Taiwanese culture or just a device for this story.

It looks like even the eagle is wondering why you aren't holding the camera vertically.

This is a good idea. One thing that art school students get are assignments. This provides them with opportunities to explore things and learn from them. If someone isn't in art school (or film school or whatever) they can still give themselves assignments. Set parameters that they have to get creative within, do a series on a theme, etc.

Same here, if it did raw I would give it a second look. But it's really just a fun toy for rich teenage girls to match their outfits or for their rich parents wanting a stocking stuffer for the kids knowing that they'll play with it for a week, then drop it on the floor, the maid will clean it up and put it in the storage room. If I wanted a cute retro style camera that saved to JPEG I'd just go to a thrift store and get a 20 year old camera. But you know, it's cute, it has retro styling (so a fashion accessory), it's easy to work, the vertical format, supposedly a retro reference to half-frame film is really just the framing for smart phones.

I'm surprised that I'm just finding out now that he had a career after All in the Family. I know I've never really followed Hollywood that much but how did I never find out he was directing? Anyway, yeah, that Trump guy. Oh wait, should I be careful what I write here? Is this social media and I might need to show it at the border someday? Nah! He'll be gone soon likely, things won't be better with Vance but at least they won't be so unpredictable. I'm still not setting foot in that country until they make some changes. Am I too hopeful or is this really just "the good times" before it really gets bad?

I have one and it really is a good camera when it comes to the image quality. I love the image it makes. It's brought my own filmmaking to another level. It's not a run and gun camera though. More of like using a 16mm film camera. Nothing automatic. Manual everything. The dream of an all-in-one isn't quite true with it though. You need to rig it out with an EVF. (Although I don't have and have never used the shark fin shaped viewer with the mirror so maybe that's okay.) I used to see them come up on eBay a few times a year but now they rarely do. And people are asking US$11000 with accessories. (I also notice that nobody is bidding on them at that price and the listing ends without any bids, then gets relisted.) I occasionally see them listed for about US$5000 but they don't last long at that price. They're a good camera, worth $5000 but not worth $10000. I think that it's no longer such a unique camera image-wise and you can get a close enough image with a used Alexa or Blackmagic Production camera 4K and be making your movies. (Still if one came up and you could afford it, get it.) If you're handy you could make your own using the same sensor. Check out this project: https://github.com/lafauxbolex https://www.youtube.com/@LaFauxBolexDigitalCinemaCamera/videos

Schhwwweeeaaatt!! Just checked out the specs. Nice. If I was looking for a camera I'd totally check it out. https://media.onecall.com/Image_Products/Canon/XHA1_info6.pdf It doesn't have HDMI but it does have HD-SDI through a BNC terminal, meaning it could connect to an external recorder to record in ProRes if you can't find any miniDV tapes anymore.

Yikes! You know, I've been too busy to get around to upgrading my iPhone to iOS 26 and now maybe I won't (until they sort this out.)

It once was that the pros had 16mm an 35mm film and the "amateurs" had Super 8 and videotape. Now that's all changed. Yesterday I was capturing some old videotapes from a friend's project that we did in 2011 on a Canon HV20. It looked amazing. I was expecting it to look worse than cameras of today but it doesn't. Just shows that even a camera from then, with a CMOS chip from that era, MPEG 2 encoding, 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, 1440 x 1080 frame size recorded of the wide screen image, and 8 bit colour, it still can look amazing. It just shows that cameras have been very good for a long time now. The differences are mostly ergonomics and physical size. When deciding on a camera, you have to consider what you want to spend months living with.

Wow! This is surprising to me. Maybe the market is saturated for that type of camera.

I really like this shape in the bokeh. It reminds me of 1950s graphic designs.

I was looking at the Chinese characters and wondering what rice would have to do with lenses. I looked it up and 小米 is pronounced xiao mi. Hah!

This is interesting. Now, what I want to see is software that converts CinemaDNG in to ProResRaw.

It's more work but can be done. This guy cycled from China back to England and shot video along the way. Quite an adventure. https://www.instagram.com/joshreids/ Now, he would be someone to ask for advice from.

Both types of credits on imdb won't be a problem. In fact it could show that you have experience on set so you possibly could have a greater understanding of a film project than just your one area. It won't matter if there were some big names in the film.

I got in touch with the person who's doing this project and we've been emailing back and forth about it. There's now a YouTube channel and a sample video (with more to come).

I had a better look and they're not going directly from the sensor, they're going from an already made machine vision camera. https://machinevisionstore.com/Catalog/Details/992 https://machinevisionstore.com/content/downloads/basler/AviatorDatasheet.pdf These are used on assembly lines and such. It connects with Camera Link (which is an industrial standard for these kinds of cameras.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_Link Maybe this thing isn't "faux" after all.

I stumbled on this GitHub project. Not sure what to think about it (and suspect it might not be real). They're using the same sensor as the Digital Bolex and 3D printing a similar shaped body. No mention of an A to D board, just the chip going in to a Raspberry Pi. I remember the original Digital Bolex team took a few years to get the sensor's quadrants aligned and to get the colour science sorted out and these guys' sample images look great after only a short time. Maybe all this stuff is just faster to figure out nowadays. https://github.com/lafauxbolex What do others think? If real this would be great! They're changing some things from the original: A M4/3 mount, a big monitor and compressed DNG files.