Log In
Register
The Digital Bolex Forum
Topic RSS
8:31 am
March 27, 2012
Online
Seems like most shooters using DSLR's, AF100's, Canon C300, Sony F3/FS100/FS700 are using external EVF's and LCD's on their rigs. So the need for one is a bogus argument.
The Bolex even with an external EVF like the Zacuto or Small HD will still be a relative lightweight for a true movie camera. With my Cooke 9-50 zoom installed the entire rig would weigh around 8 lbs shooting off the internal battery. A nice weight for stable hand held work IMO. With the handle one supports and operates the camera with one hand and runs the lens with the other. I have shot B&H 16mm and Bolex 16mm cameras with this type of setup and weight range. It is not a problem and is ergonomically superior to any DSLR for motion work without adding any external rails or other support gear.
Compared to any camera shooting 35mm formats, I can carry the 35mm full frame equivalent of 8mm-900mm focal lengths into the field along with camera EVF, batteries, filters, tripod and accessories in a small day pack with an all up weight of less than 25lbs. 35mm lenses to match would weigh significantly more by themselves, not to mention being considerably bulkier. With the heaviest long zoom, a 12-240 and an external battery pack, shooting weight would fall around 12lbs. The closest S35 equivalent zoom lens weighs more than 21lbs by itself and requires another 3 or 4 lbs of support gear.
You might think DSLR's are lighter, but they are not when rigged for decent ergonomics for motion and still require an external EVF/LCD too. And there is no comparison to the size and weight of lenses needed to match the range and speed a single 16mm zoom can cover.
The 16mm format offers a much broader range of creative DOF control than small format video cameras but without the bulk and weight penalties of 35mm systems.
3:33 pm
August 7, 2012
Offline
I helped with a shot (FS-100) 2 days ago. You can , but you don't have to use an external VF/LCD. You can achieve accurate focus without an external device both on FS-100 and on 7D. You can also use a magnifier (roughly $50). Again, the cost at the end will be exactly the same, weather you include a workable LCD, or force people to buy something else. For discrete location shooting, run and gun and guerrilla type work, an extra LCD device provides an extra step.
As the end user, I am not interested in jerry rigging, I want to buy something and shoot out of the box. Between SD cards, lack of on-board monitoring, S-16 sensor size and ports on the left side of the camera, my interest is getting pretty minimal.
Might I add- I am voicing my needs for equipment. Camera company is free to choose the direction it wants to go and the pricing it wants to implement, including or excluding features. The decision is theirs. However I don't appreciate the fact of people responding to my remarks and treating me like a novice and idiot.
5:57 pm
March 27, 2012
Online
Robert Rogoz said
I helped with a shot (FS-100) 2 days ago. You can , but you don't have to use an external VF/LCD. You can achieve accurate focus without an external device both on FS-100 and on 7D. You can also use a magnifier (roughly $50). Again, the cost at the end will be exactly the same, weather you include a workable LCD, or force people to buy something else. For discrete location shooting, run and gun and guerrilla type work, an extra LCD device provides an extra step.
As the end user, I am not interested in jerry rigging, I want to buy something and shoot out of the box. Between SD cards, lack of on-board monitoring, S-16 sensor size and ports on the left side of the camera, my interest is getting pretty minimal.
Might I add- I am voicing my needs for equipment. Camera company is free to choose the direction it wants to go and the pricing it wants to implement, including or excluding features. The decision is theirs. However I don't appreciate the fact of people responding to my remarks and treating me like a novice and idiot.
It just seems like you are looking for a more conventional video camera or 35mm something or other. The Bolex design is focused on filling a particular niche in the market that isn't being served, not duplicating what other companies are already doing. Design choices all incur costs, sometimes significant costs. As far as what Joe has expressed in interviews and blogs, the focus of the Bolex is to provide a minimalist 16mm/S16mm format uncompressed Bayer raw cinema camera. They chose to add an HDMI port and circuitry to support after market EVF's instead of spending the money on a high quality in camera LCD and the software necessary to support it. Joe said in an interview that there was no point in trying to reinvent the wheel to duplicate the quality and features of existing aftermarket EVF's since they do it better and cheaper he likely could. He has also talked about most cameras in this price range being loaded with features, but compromised by low end high compression video codecs. The Bolex is the opposite of that.
7:52 pm
March 19, 2012
Offline
"CCD is terrible in low light,"
That is pure bollocks. Most color CCDs of decent size (2/3" and larger) are typically at least 360 ASA and this one is no exception. The DBolex is a native 400ASA which is just fine. CMOS sensors achieve their insane 800+ "sensitivities" through high gain with built-in digital and analogue noise reduction. This comes at a cost of image quality. Even at optimal gain, CMOS uses internal noise reduction, requires stronger anti-aliasing filters due to the smaller photosites... oh yeah, and you can't have any movement in your movies because of the horrid rolling shutter. CCD is the better technology and anybody who tells you different is just trying to save money.
Any way, I agree with what the others say in that you can't treat this like a video camera. The viewfinder is meant to point the camera in the right direction and that's what it does. It could be a 160x120 viewfinder for all I care. I could totally live without the HDMI as well, which will be virtually useless but is inevitably pushing back the deadline (along with other useless "video camera" features) and will probably drive up the cost as well.
10:16 am
June 22, 2012
Offline
From
http://hdtv.videotechnology.co.....SvsCCD.htm
"The sensitivity of today’s best CMOS sensors matches the sensitivity of the comparable CCD devices since the amount of light collected at each pixel is now roughly equal. Specifically, when deep submicron CMOS processes are used to design and fabricate the sensor, the photon collection efficiency of a CMOS pixel supporting progressive image formation is significantly higher than for a progressive CCD at the 5 micron pixel pitch that produces 2/3 inch HDTV sensors.
In the absence of microlens technology, both Frame Interline Transfer and Frame Transfer CCDs can collect more light than today’s CMOS sensor. "
This article appears to be several years old, so Robert may be right by now.
12:33 pm
March 27, 2012
Online
Dalsa makes both types of sensors. Both can offer comparable quality but with different trade offs.
"CCD (charge coupled device) and CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) image sensors are two different technologies for capturing images digitally. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses giving advantages in different applications. Neither is categorically superior to the other, although vendors selling only one technology have usually claimed otherwise. In the last five years much has changed with both technologies, and many projections regarding the demise or ascendence of either have been proved false. The current situation and outlook for both technologies is vibrant, but a new framework exists for considering the relative strengths and opportunities of CCD and CMOS imagers.
Both types of imagers convert light into electric charge and process it into electronic signals. In a CCD sensor, every pixel's charge is transferred through a very limited number of output nodes (often just one) to be converted to voltage, buffered, and sent off-chip as an analog signal. All of the pixel can be devoted to light capture, and the output's uniformity (a key factor in image quality) is high. In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, and the sensor often also includes amplifiers, noise-correction, and digitization circuits, so that the chip outputs digital bits. These other functions increase the design complexity and reduce the area available for light capture. With each pixel doing its own conversion, uniformity is lower. But the chip can be built to require less off-chip circuitry for basic operation. "
Overall camera and software design has more to do with real performance than which type of sensor one uses.
2:26 pm
Camera Owner
February 28, 2012
Offline
Razz16mm said
Dalsa makes both types of sensors. Both can offer comparable quality but with different trade offs.
"CCD (charge coupled device) and CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) image sensors are two different technologies for capturing images digitally. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses giving advantages in different applications. Neither is categorically superior to the other, although vendors selling only one technology have usually claimed otherwise. In the last five years much has changed with both technologies, and many projections regarding the demise or ascendence of either have been proved false. The current situation and outlook for both technologies is vibrant, but a new framework exists for considering the relative strengths and opportunities of CCD and CMOS imagers.
Both types of imagers convert light into electric charge and process it into electronic signals. In a CCD sensor, every pixel's charge is transferred through a very limited number of output nodes (often just one) to be converted to voltage, buffered, and sent off-chip as an analog signal. All of the pixel can be devoted to light capture, and the output's uniformity (a key factor in image quality) is high. In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, and the sensor often also includes amplifiers, noise-correction, and digitization circuits, so that the chip outputs digital bits. These other functions increase the design complexity and reduce the area available for light capture. With each pixel doing its own conversion, uniformity is lower. But the chip can be built to require less off-chip circuitry for basic operation. "
Overall camera and software design has more to do with real performance than which type of sensor one uses.
This is very true, but I feel like there is a couple of important parts missing in this description. As is sort of implied CMOS is much much much easier to work with for the electrical engineers, but it takes a few key steps out of the control of the camera maker. First is the control or initial calibration stage. A CMOS chip usually only requires a general chip capture request, where as a CCD is often captured in quadrants, 4 parts, or sub-quandrants, 16 parts. This is the first place you can attempt to calibrate or control the image your sensor is capturing. In my understanding this stage is missing(or at least not controllable) on a CMOS. The next is the A/D conversion. This is a very critical stage, I would say it's around 1/4 to 1/3 of the image quality, and again as far as I understand it this is not controllable by the camera maker (unless they make their own sensors). So as a camera maker CCD gives you more control, but is much more difficult to work with.
I am not saying we would never use a CMOS sensor, because they are getting better all the time, but right now I feel like CCDs give you the option to get a better look if you're willing to put in the extra work 
I am in Toronto right now and we are talking in deep levels as to sensor calibration and A/D conversions!
BTW I didn't want to say anything until I knew for sure, but it looks very likely that we can have adjustable shutter angles. And not just 3 or 4 of them, but the full range between 45 - 300. And it could be adjustable by the small fly wheel behind the crank so you could adjust it on the fly. This isn't 100% assured, but after today I feel pretty confident saying I think we can do this by or soon after launch!
Thanks guys for the conversation! Joe
6:54 pm
March 19, 2012
Offline
Well that's good news. Thanks for the update.
7:11 pm
March 27, 2012
Online
I hope that shutter speed can be set independently of frame rate. This would allow hand cranked frame rate ramps at constant exposure times. Shutter angle definition ties exposure time to frame rate. This emulates a film camera, but is not really necessary for a global shutter digital camera. Nice to have both options, but shutter speed as an independent function is more practical to me.
2:49 pm
Camera Owner
Kickstarter Backer
April 12, 2012
Offline
I really hope that Joe and Elle will watch Blooms review of BMCC (http://philipbloom.net/2012/09/05/bmd/), because I hope that D16 wouldn't have most of the downsizes of BMCC (except maybe internal battery) - including not only the technical characteristics, but also menu options like formatting, battery percentage, etc. etc. - again, I hope creators of D16 will watch this video, because it's like a list of recommendations for them.
2:43 am
Camera Owner
February 28, 2012
Offline
nikitapavlov said
I really hope that Joe and Elle will watch Blooms review of BMCC (http://philipbloom.net/2012/09/05/bmd/), because I hope that D16 wouldn't have most of the downsizes of BMCC (except maybe internal battery) - including not only the technical characteristics, but also menu options like formatting, battery percentage, etc. etc. - again, I hope creators of D16 will watch this video, because it's like a list of recommendations for them.
Yes of course we have seen it!
Our battery should last twice as long as the BMC battery, and our battery connection for external is a robust common connection for motion picture film cameras. I think he will like it
We have of course talked to him many times about the camera and the ergonomics. I very much hope he likes what we have to offer.
I have also sent a summery of his review (prepared by Elle) to all of the key engineers involved. So not only have We seen it, but they have read about it too.
Thanks for your suggestion though! It is good advice
5:41 am
Camera Owner
Kickstarter Backer
April 12, 2012
Offline
joerubinstein said
I have also sent a summery of his review (prepared by Elle) to all of the key engineers involved. So not only have We seen it, but they have read about it too.
Wow! You guys working much better than I thought!
7:05 am
Camera Owner
Kickstarter Backer
March 18, 2012
Offline
The most interesting flaw to the bmcc that I had found was the inability to delete sets of frames (clips if you will) I would like to know if the digital bolex will be able to do this? Maybe make it an user selected option in the menu. -enable delete- Disable delete
That way the truer analogue buffs could not accidentally delete cips with the slip of a finger, and the more type A personalities could limit the amount of bad shots that everyone else would see.
this would also be great because it would mean that instead of bringing 4-5 cf cards the poorer ones of us could manage on one.
Many would argue that deleting clips is somewhat reckless when there is no video review option, however, a good DP knows when a shot has been ruined and a better DP knows how to save a ruined shot. I am the former, and when I have been interviewing someone for 5 minutes and their co worker ignores the filming in progress sign and walks through the door and onto the set. I would really love to say " mulligan" and delete the last recorded clip. If I could do this for certain projects, it would save me oodles of time of useless importing, and sifting through lemons.
12:22 pm
Camera Owner
February 28, 2012
Offline
hieber said
I would really love to say " mulligan" and delete the last recorded clip. If I could do this for certain projects, it would save me oodles of time of useless importing, and sifting through lemons.
Hi Hieber,
Yes we will have a "Delete Sequence" option. We are working through the menu functionality right now so we will definitely implement our notes from Bloom's review. We are also working on a play back option. It may be something like you can scroll through the image sequences using the crank in a review mode, which may not get up to 24 fps, but you'll get a sense of whether or not the take was good. This is not an official announcement of playback btw, this is a we're working on it
hieber said
this would also be great because it would mean that instead of bringing 4-5 cf cards the poorer ones of us could manage on one.
You should always run this camera with two CF cards of equal size and speed, this will dramatically increase the transfer time from the SSD
Thanks for your input, Joe
12:23 pm
July 10, 2012
Offline
Any possibility of a fully customizable resolution/sensor sizing? it will be 4/3rds down, correct? It might come in handy to max out the lens exposure circle for artistic reasons
Just make everything extremely customizable where possible
3:10 am
June 22, 2012
Offline
RobertGL said
Any possibility of a fully customizable resolution/sensor sizing? it will be 4/3rds down, correct? It might come in handy to max out the lens exposure circle for artistic reasons
Just make everything extremely customizable where possible
From what I understood so far, this would be strongly against the principles underlying the D16. Could the size be set when using film? No? Then don't expect to see it in the D16 (cut a mask and put it over the sensor). And this is what makes it so apealing to me. No 2 million customizable options that I do have to learn (even if only to get back to a standard setting in case of having inadvertedly "customized" something, I need to know what to do). Anything beyond image aquisation is not the task of the D16. Hence, ND and colour conversion filters, etc. Anything artistic is confined to the post.
But make it a suggestion for the film crank, as an effect. Crank clockwise to make the image circle smaller, counterclockwise to make it larger.
3:57 am
March 19, 2012
Offline
Thyl said No 2 million customizable options that I do have to learn (even if only to get back to a standard setting in case of having inadvertedly "customized" something, I need to know what to do).
Especially, no 2 million USELESS options. I've navigated so many video camera menus and found so many features that mean nothing to me like time & date that only appears in the menu, not embeded in the metadata. With film, your options are frame rate and that's it. Everything else is the film itself or the lens.
4:58 am
June 22, 2012
Offline
wado1942 said
Thyl said No 2 million customizable options that I do have to learn (even if only to get back to a standard setting in case of having inadvertedly "customized" something, I need to know what to do).
Especially, no 2 million USELESS options. I've navigated so many video camera menus and found so many features that mean nothing to me like time & date that only appears in the menu, not embeded in the metadata. With film, your options are frame rate and that's it. Everything else is the film itself or the lens.
it is my conviction that the only reason for endless options is that hardware is expensive, but software is cheap. So, the manufacturers can show off with all the nice options ("art filters", boy) but don't have to spend money on things like mono-functional knobs and buttoms.
Pardon me? I am at 114 postings? I should really shut up. One year until the D16 will be available to my market, I'd guess. What do I do here?...
1:19 pm
Camera Owner
February 28, 2012
Offline
RobertGL said
Any possibility of a fully customizable resolution/sensor sizing? it will be 4/3rds down, correct? It might come in handy to max out the lens exposure circle for artistic reasons.
Just make everything extremely customizable where possible
This won't be possible because of the sensor type. CCD sensors require you to have an analog stage to "drive" the sensor, which means each frame size requires considerable firmware programming, on both the driver, and analog to digital converter stages. Along with the DSP stage to show it on the 1920 x 1080 HDMI port and the 320 x 240 1/8" port.
We will how ever offer as many frame sizes as we can that we think people will find useful.
Thanks for your suggestion though!
Thyl said
wado1942 said
Thyl said No 2 million customizable options that I do have to learn (even if only to get back to a standard setting in case of having inadvertedly "customized" something, I need to know what to do).
Especially, no 2 million USELESS options.
it is my conviction that the only reason for endless options is that hardware is expensive, but software is cheap. So, the manufacturers can show off with all the nice options ("art filters", boy) but don't have to spend money on things like mono-functional knobs and buttons.
We are actually going through the menu structure again right now today trying to make everything as intuitive and easy to understand as possible. We understand that the power in design is to offer meaningful choices in clearly defined contexts.
Thyl said
Pardon me? I am at 114 postings? I should really shut up. One year until the D16 will be available to my market, I'd guess. What do I do here?...
Please do not "shut up"! Your input is valuable and will help us make better products, and help you get better products too
We will open up world wide distribution as soon as we possible can! There is obviously a lot of extra costs for us to do this. When we do open up more pre-orders (as soon as the kickstarter orders are filled) you can use a service like myus.com to get the camera sent to you!
Thank you all for your comments, Joe