This just blew the Digital Bolex project out of the water.

[wado1942]

To my knowledge, Bolex has absolutely nothing to do with the project, and yes, it's Canadian designed. Where it's actually being manufactured, I don't know.

[jpolzfuss]

Thought it was made by some Canadian engineers...

Not sure about the engineers, but http://www.digitalbolex.com/contact/ gives a mailing address in the USA.

[wado1942]

The guy who came up with the idea and is fronting the project is in the U.S. but I distinctly remember him talking about having a meeting with the design team in Canada.

[Nicholas Kovats]

To my knowledge, Bolex has absolutely nothing to do with the project, and yes, it's Canadian designed. Where it's actually being manufactured, I don't know.

When Phillip Bloom...yes that Phillip Bloom of DHSLR fame, published his original blog article raving about the debut of the Digital Bolex I called him on it and he promptly blocked my post. I was understandably a tad incredulous. He basically stated to me privately that I was alleging fraud and I should provide proof otherwise.

So that's what I did. It turns out that Phillip also made his own independent inquiry. And viola...Bolex's involvement has now been verified by both of us. To what degree Bolex is involved I do not know. According to his blog Phillip has subsequently invested approximately $3,500 US into the Digital Bolex project.

I am still not impressed with 16mm size sensors.

And if I may call out Mr. Lunar07 publicly on this forum...congratulations and thank you for investing in our UP8 project. Lucky #10!

---

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicholas Kovats <nkovats@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: New Digital Bolex d16 camera
To: Marc Ueter <bolex@bluewin.ch>

Hi Marc,

Thank you and I appreciate the confirmation. Have a great day.

Regards,

Nicholas

-----

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Marc Ueter <bolex@bluewin.ch> wrote:
Dear Nicholas,

Thank you for your message of 19.03.2012.

Yes Bolex is involved in that new d16 Digital Bolex camera.

We invite you to follow the starting of this camera on:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joe ... t-affordab
le-digital-cinem and on: www.digitalbolex.com

Don't hesitate to contact Mr. Joe Rubinstein, his email is:
joedp@cinemeridian.com
Mr. Rubinstein is the developer of this new Digital Bolex and will be very
pleased to send you all necessary information you would need.

Thank you for your support.

Best regards.

Bolex International SA
Marc Ueter

www.bolex.ch (16mm and Super 16 film cameras, repair and service on 8mm and
Super 8, Bolex and Eumig)

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Nicholas Kovats [mailto:nkovats@gmail.com]
Envoyé : lundi, 19. mars 2012 05:43
À : sales@bolex.ch
Objet : A contact request from Nicholas Kovats

You have received an email message from  Nicholas  Kovats
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
City        : Toronto
Country     : Canada
E-mail      : nkovats@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

Are you aware of the following initiative called the Digital Bolex, i.e.
http://www.digitalbolex.com?

They have initiated a capital campaign here, i.e.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joe ... t-affordab
le-digital-cinem?ref=live.

Do they have a formal licensing agreement utilizing your name to raise
funds?

Regards,

Nicholas Kovats
Toronto, Canada

[Lunar07]

And if I may call out Mr. Lunar07 publicly on this forum...congratulations and thank you for investing in our UP8 project. Lucky #10!
Nicholas Kovats

Hi Nicholas - After seeing your footage (specially woman with crystal ball) and the other footage from the trip to the park by another user, I decided to take the plunge. This is glorious instead of playing with anamorphic lenses.
I was going to make an announcement this weekend (I am at work now and have been quite busy at work) but in the context of also inquiring about the possibility of something similar but for DS8 - UltraPan S8
I displayed your footage at a friend place on a 54" wide screen Sony TV and it held out beautifully. For TV productions in R8, UltraPan8 is the way to go.
I also asked Jean-Louis for two vertical thin centered lines to show in the viewer denoting 2:1 frame.
I thank you and Jean-Louis for being on this GREAT forum with the other excellent participants.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Hi Lunar07!

Congratulations once more! My apologies for pre-empting your announcement. I would still encourage you to do so as technically we have now officially hijacked this thread. For the greater good of course in popularizing the use of glorious film.

Excellent! Recently a US based UP8 enthusiast clandestinely projected a 40ft wide DCP file of the inaugural UP8 footage in a commercial theater. He said it looked amazing. The high rez scan helps. I would love to share details regarding an incredible and forthcoming UP8 scanner project but all in good time. The originator is also a new enthusiastic UP8 camera owner.

Hmmm. Why the 2:1 aspect specification as opposed to the CinemaScope 2.4 mask? I am curious.

Our pleasure in promoting film goodness.

Cheers!

NK

[Nicholas Kovats]

In fact my initial interest was developing a native spherical Cinemascope format for Bolex converted Double Super 8 cameras, i.e. viewtopic.php? f=1&t=19108&p=179889&hilit=nicholas+cinemascope+bolex#p179889

But Jaako wanted $2,000 US plus for the conversion...$5,000 US for a K3 camera. Understandably that concept never took off.

It is justifiable irony indeed that we can potentially offer a UP8 conversion of a Jakko converted Double Super 8 Bolex camera at a much, much significantly lower cost. I am positive that he was aware of the historic Bolex interchangeability of H8 and H16 camera lines but chose not to disseminate that valuable information.

The current state of U}P8 conversions is somewhat modelled on the open-source hardware concept in the digital domain.

You might be able able to squeeze off an extra millimeter width wise due to the thinner Super 8 perforation relative to the Regular 8 perf, i.e. current UP8 width = 10.75mm -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:8mm_and_super8.png

But I suspect there is little or no latitude on the potential vertical dimension (UP8 frame height = 3.75mm) as the current UP8 frameline is very thin. Are you looking to develop UP3.1? i.e. 11.52mm x 3.75mm? Aspect Ratio = 3.1?

Keep in mind that "potential" UP3.1 users would be restricted to sprocket-less scanners. UP8 films can also use sprocket based systems due to the historical similarity of R8 and 16mm perforation dimensions.

[beamascope]

I can only assume that anytime now there will be a complete collapse in the digital imaging market. I can't imagine the market can maintain this many manufacturers doing this much R&D and trying to undercut each other on price for much longer.

[wado1942]

Hey, why not do Ultrapan-double-super-8-ultra? Just off set the sprockets and use the space between perfs vertically as well? Say, 15.5mm width and 3mm height = 5.17:1!

[bolextech]

The estimated size of a UltrapanDS8 camera aperture would be 13.0mm x 4.22mm for an approximate 3:1 aspect ratio. The total negative area is around 55 square millimeters.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

[wado1942]

double post

[wado1942]

I can only assume that anytime now there will be a complete collapse in the digital imaging market. I can't imagine the market can maintain this many manufacturers doing this much R&D and trying to undercut each other on price for much longer.

Take apart any camera from the five leading manufacturers and you'll find parts from probably at least two of their competitors. They often have many parts in common from non-competitors as well. They're all in bed together and you better bet there's a lot of cooperation when it comes to the pricing and marketing. Do you really believe the Sony's three 35mm-sized video cams, at $1,500, $5,000 and $15,000 really have that much difference in production cost between them? They have the same image sensors, lens mounts (except the cheapest), same video proc, same encoders, the outputs and viewfinders are very similar. The major differences are user features. Sure, that adds some cost, but not that much as it's mostly firmware programming. In other words, there's enough padding in the pro level stuff to allow the consumer level stuff to survive for no purpose other than advertisement for the pro stuff. Then you go overseas and you'll find the same cameras for 2/3rds the price, showing that there's plenty of padding even in the consumer grade stuff. Not kidding, a $2,500 camera in the U.S. is often $1,800 in Japan and less in poor countries. The most expensive components, the image sensors and lenses, well they're almost all paying $10-$25 for CMOS sensors instead of $80-$200 for CCDs and the tolerances for the lenses are intentionally relaxed so that there's fewer rejects to drive up costs and at the same time, won't "compete" with their own high end models of the same optical design. Tape drives were expensive, but those are virtually extinct, leaving cheap card readers that cost pennies to make. They have camera manufacturing down to a science, so there's not as much need for R&D anymore. They can pick from several combinations of standard specs and write the software to make them work together. Trust me, they're doing fine.

[Lunar07]

Hi Lunar07!
Hmmm. Why the 2:1 aspect specification [as a UP8 2.8 view finder mask] as opposed to the CinemaScope 2.4 mask? I am curious.
NK

I went for the 2:1 mask because this is the aspect ratio I like to use with narration-based dramatic films. For other projects I would go for Cinemascope 2.4. I received word from Jean-Louis that the view finder framing in UP8 2.8 is very close to 2.4 so there is no need for a 2.4 mask. PERFECT!

I truly do not know how to shoot narration-based dramatic films with a 2.4 or 2.8 aspect ratio After all, I am not shooting a remake of "Ben Hur"

[Will2]

After all, I am not shooting a remake of "Ben Hur"

But chariot race scenes always make a movie better. Really. Just throw it into any production and it's money.

[Lunar07]

Hmmm. An idea. In my upcoming dramatic project I'll utilize the whole 2.8 space with toy chariots. Like that we can save production money while making lots of money with toy chariot races.

After all, I am not shooting a remake of "Ben Hur"

But chariot race scenes always make a movie better. Really. Just throw it into any production and it's money.