Jump to content


Photo

Digital Bolex


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:02 AM

Seems there is a prototype and the Bolex company itself is on board with the concept, so they're allowed to use their name.

http://www.digitalbolex.com/products/

http://philipbloom.n...3/digitalbolex/
  • 0

#2 Jean-Louis Seguin

Jean-Louis Seguin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Other
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:59 AM

Too good to be true all right.
Why in heaven's name would there a handcrank on a digital camera?

Cheers,
Jean-Louis
  • 0

#3 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 March 2012 - 09:07 AM

Why in heaven's name would there a handcrank on a digital camera?


The only digital camera I've heard off having a hand crank option was the Kinetic.

Perhaps it could be a clockwork power generator, similar to that used by the clockwork radios for use in the third world.
  • 0

#4 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:33 AM

Apparently the "crank" has assignable functions.
  • 0

#5 John Salim

John Salim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Essex, UK

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:38 AM

Hang on ! ..... isn't it the 1st of April soon ???

John S :P
  • 0

#6 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:38 AM

The only digital camera I've heard off having a hand crank option was the Kinetic.

Perhaps it could be a clockwork power generator, similar to that used by the clockwork radios for use in the third world.


Interesting idea but why create a digital camera that mimics the look of 16mm when most hi-end digital cameras mimic the look of 35mm? And if we're talking about cost, I imagine the difference between buying a digital Bolex and shooting on a real Bolex would be negligible. New filmmakers are better off getting their hands dirty with film so that they can understand the craft (which many don't nowadays since everything they've done has been digital.)

Edited by Bill DiPietra, 13 March 2012 - 10:41 AM.

  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:19 AM

Interesting idea but why create a digital camera that mimics the look of 16mm when most hi-end digital cameras mimic the look of 35mm?


There seemed to be quite a few people interested in the 2/3" Scarlet, so I guess those people are still out there.

It seems they're looking for donations (I assume they mean investors) to get it into production. Not quite the usual approach, but I guess neither was RED.
  • 0

#8 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 March 2012 - 09:33 PM

There seemed to be quite a few people interested in the 2/3" Scarlet, so I guess those people are still out there.

It seems they're looking for donations (I assume they mean investors) to get it into production. Not quite the usual approach, but I guess neither was RED.

It seems like they've already hit their 100 thousand dollar target, in fact they've gone well beyond it.

This camera might just happen.
  • 0

#9 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:00 PM

It seems like they've already hit their 100 thousand dollar target, in fact they've gone well beyond it.

This camera might just happen.


Seems they got 1/4 million dollars and pre-sold 88 cameras in the first day.
  • 0

#10 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 14 March 2012 - 07:30 PM

Seems they got 1/4 million dollars and pre-sold 88 cameras in the first day.

It's the first camera I've seen where it's specs and pricing are what all the indie guys want, hopefully the image holds up as well which is all that really matters in the end.
  • 0

#11 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 14 March 2012 - 08:11 PM

Has anyone heard what an estimated price may be?
  • 0

#12 Gary Lemson

Gary Lemson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Other
  • Santa Cruz Mountains

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:59 PM

Has anyone heard what an estimated price may be?


$3299 (from the press release).

Edited by Gary Lemson, 14 March 2012 - 10:00 PM.

  • 0

#13 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:51 PM

$3299 (from the press release).


Interesting. I guess we'll see.
  • 0

#14 Frank Glencairn

Frank Glencairn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Germany

Posted 15 March 2012 - 05:19 AM

I don´t see that coming any soon, and I think a lot of folks who gave their money before using their brain, will be disappointed.
Remember how long it took to make the A-cam happen and RED gave up the idea of the soccer mum cam for 3k.

Stu Maschwitz has an interesting article on that camera: http://prolost.com/b...ital-bolex.html

Also there are other questions like, how can it have an LCD screen if there is no debayering going on in the camera?

Edited by Frank Glencairn, 15 March 2012 - 05:21 AM.

  • 0

#15 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:25 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

FILM, people. SHOOT FILM.
  • 0

#16 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:51 AM

What Bill said.
Still, though it's an interesting little camera and hopefully they'll get something out of it.
  • 0

#17 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:49 AM

What Bill said.
Still, though it's an interesting little camera and hopefully they'll get something out of it.

I would love to, but most of the extremely low budgets I am working with would get blown on film stock and processing. I've shot film once at film school and they paid for the stock and processing. It was only a standard def telecine and I sometimes wish I asked for a better transfer cause it would have looked a lot better. I think in the end of it all, it would have worked out really cheap too considering it was a 1 minute commercial and I only shot 4 minutes. Fantastic shooting ratio, but there was a lot of compromised involved.

There's this great idea I like about digital of very little ongoing cost. I think back to something like Peter Jackson shooting Bad Taste, if he owned one of these back in the day or a decent digital cam, he'd have no worries about spending his weekly wage on film stock and having this racking budget by the end of it. He could have probably spent that very same money on the things he needed the New Zealand Film Commission to eventually buckle down and pay for (I believe the end shoot and post and some other things).

You could essentially shoot a film for very little and retain a quality image, I mean I have yet to see it happen on a grand cheap scale, maybe cause there's so much little quality and thought put into digital in comparison to classic old 16mm film, but I'm sure someone will get around to it eventually.
  • 0

#18 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:56 AM

I think you hit on an interesting problem of Digital there, Marcus, the lack of thought put into digital.
In my experience at least, as soon as a digital camera (and it's accompanying video monitors) come out on set, all thought kind goes right out the window. It takes extreme discipline to shoot film, and sadly, more often then not, such discipline doesn't transfer over to digital productions precisely because it is so cheap to shoot. There's often the attitude of, ok, let's do another take, and another, and another. Eventually you wind up with a lot of footage, some of it good, most of it bad, and an exhausted cast/crew for the next setup (if you even now have time for it).
But, such is the double edges sword of ease, says me.
All things being equal, I'm always of the school of thought to pick the format which most easily gets you what you need- sometimes film, sometimes digital. I see, almost, attempt at creating a digital "film look" Sisyphean, in the end, as one ought to really be embracing a format for how that format looks, feels, and operates-- married to the way in which you want to tell a story.

I often come back to the film Cloverfield in this example, primarily because the way in which it was supposedly told- by a handycam, required it to be shot digitally. Also it is one of the few films I can think of that really embraced the "digital aesthetic," though I'm sure there are many other examples.
But anyway; I don't want to derail the topic too much.
  • 0

#19 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:45 PM

I love the 1950's retro style. But I worry about the CCD chip, it's from a bankrupt company.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#20 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:39 PM

I love the 1950's retro style. But I worry about the CCD chip, it's from a bankrupt company.


I'd assume the Ikonoscop A Cam DII would have a similar issue, since it also has a Kodak sensor.

http://a-camdii.tumb...494/sensor-size
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

CineTape

CineLab

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc