Jump to content

Digital Bolex image quality - Exclusive look at sensor samples and footage


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

The footage looks good for what it is, but what it is, is not at all representative for the qualities of a camera, it's too stylized for that - just a couple of Macro shots. That just increases my distrust and it should worry the manufacturers that a lot of what they show and tell us seems misleading to us (or just me?). I wouldn't dare judging on basis of this footage, and I'd dare say no big company would put a video like that into circulation to show qualities of a camera: No BlackMagic, no Canon would do that, not to mention the big ones from Arri, Red, Sony or Panavision. Sorry, to me this video is nothing. And that's more a criticism on their marketing than on the article itself, of which nothing representative I've seen so far. Might be a good camera, but I just don't know, yet.

 

Greets,

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, SMPTE might ratify the VC-5 mezzanine wavelet compression standard, which is based on Cineform. Until then, would you be willing to pay for a Cineform RAW recording option on the Digital Bolex? This assumes the camera could handle the processing, which it might not be able to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until then, would you be willing to pay for a Cineform RAW recording option on the Digital Bolex?

 

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. If this camera succeeds and production ramps up, then they could easily justify such an expense, but I understand them not doing that just yet.

 

They have included HDMI though, which also requires developers to pay an annual fee.

 

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

 

IMO I'd rather have the hardware in place and then focus on firmware updates, even if they're paid, than having crippled hardware to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but Digital Bolex would undoubtedly pass on their licensing costs

 

Not necessarily, the more they sell the less it costs to make them, and the more profit they will be making, so they could absorb the licensing costs, if that's what they decide. Or come up with a paid upgrade. I'm sure most people who use the cameras for serious shooting wouldn't mind paying for an upgrade that adds cineform compressed raw and prores, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily, the more they sell the less it costs to make them, and the more profit they will be making, so they could absorb the licensing costs, if that's what they decide. Or come up with a paid upgrade. I'm sure most people who use the cameras for serious shooting wouldn't mind paying for an upgrade that adds cineform compressed raw and prores, for instance.

How do you know what others are prepared to pay? It may suit you But many indie film makers dont have a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I respect that T. If you thought my post was directed at you, it wasn't. 

 

I think building off of your comment that nobody but the DB team really know whats going on, I find it counter productive to speculate in an under-educated way that I've perceived a little bit in these pages. I think its worth it to look at this camera as a what it can and will do as opposed to what it can't, and won't do. Some people are at risk of stuffing their feet in their mouthes and looking like kooks at the end of the day when this thing ships. But alas, we are all hiding behind our keyboards  B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The digital bolex started 1 year ago ( http://prolost.com/blog/2012/3/15/the-passion-of-the-bolex.html ) and the kickstarter campaign was funded with 260 000 $. In october 2012 there's a team of 10 people working on the project (  http://www.digitalbolex.com/news/page/3/ ). I don't know how much the team is paid plus the expense but i would guess the monthly expense resolves around 40 000 $. The 260 000 $ fund would last at best 6 or 8 months.

 

It's great to believe in Santa Claus but it's unlikely anyone would get a digital bolex to buy, not counting the 77 guys who backed up the kickstarter campaign ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joedp/the-digital-bolex-the-1st-affordable-digital-cinem ) with a 2 500 $ pledge !!!

 

they should get this : OK this is it, at this pledge amount you get 1 of 100 Pre-sale Digital Bolex Cameras with serial numbers between 1 - 100. This is an $800 savings under retail price! (Sorry No International Buyers at this time)

Estimated delivery: Aug 2012
 
it's on the left of the kickstarter page if you want to check, scroll to "Pledge $2,500 or more"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great to believe in Santa Claus but it's unlikely anyone would get a digital bolex to buy, not counting the 77 guys who backed up the kickstarter campaign ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joedp/the-digital-bolex-the-1st-affordable-digital-cinem ) with a 2 500 $ pledge !!!

 

The cameras could turn out to be pretty bad, or not work at all, and they could decide to can the entire project, then no one would get a camera. It's a possibility on any project of this nature, backers should be ready for it.

 

However, if they do finish the camera and deliver the 100 or so kickstarter pre orders, then I don't see why they wouldn't keep going.

They're probably not making any profit with the first cameras, but once all the R&D is complete, making more of them is much easier and quicker, and that's what would start creating some profits for them.

 

I agree 260k is not much for a project and team of this size, but you're assuming that's all they've got. They've said before they have a silent partner/investor, it's not just the two of them running the company. Also, they're working with another company for all the electronics, etc. and it's possible that they're working at a cost or even at a loss in trade for a share of the profits in future sales. These are all common practices in startups such as this one.

 

Then again, this is all speculation, I have no insider information, and as far as I'm concerned it could turn out to be a success or a failure, no way to tell, but none of it strikes me as grim as many seem to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm, very strange example of footage. as to screen grabs - clean image (because RAW) with low dynamic range (because KAI sensor) what else could be expected from this camera? it is also could be very interesting to see aliasing tests compared to Blackmagic camera...

 

BTW nice looking software UI as for me!

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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

×
×
  • Create New...