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

[Nicholas Kovats]

Well this just blew the Digital Bolex project out of the water.

Blackmagic just introduced the "Cinema Camera".

Includes a Canon EF mount. $3,000 for an aluminium body.2.5K image sensor with a alleged 13 stops of dynamic range. Built-in SSD recorder. Metadata Entry. RAW output via 3 Gb/s SDI. Includes DaVinci Resolve 9.0. Ouch.

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/produc ... emacamera/

[Will2]

I'd have to agree if they come in at the $2995 price point. Initial tests looked very 16mm to me.

[wado1942]

I might agree if somebody can assure me they used a CCD on it, which I doubt.

[Nigel]

The ergonomics looks like shit.

The issue I have with Red, C300/400, DSLR, you name it is that they are blocks that house computers. Not computers housed in a camera.

If or when these low cost cameras start to look and feel like a true cine camera then I'll start to pay more attention. As of now I down want to shoe horn whatever AKS I need onto a cube. I want something that looks, feels and plays like a true movie camera.

Good Luck

[MovieMaker]

I second Nigel´s last comment!

[wado1942]

It's official, they used a home-brewed CMOS sensor. Their extended latitude is double exposure trickery (has its own artifacts) and suffers jelly-motion as confirmed directly by two guys who tried the prototype at a public exhibition. That puts this camera into the consumer pile for me. That and the fact that it appears to be completely unusable unless you spend more money on hardware to hang onto the thing, plus the fact that I'd have to buy all new lenses again puts this in the "don't care" category for me. I'll keep the D-Bolex in my "want it" category.

[Nigel]

The Digital Bolex. Is still a Bolex. Which is to say that it is not 'professional' camera in the sense that it is off standard for lenses, aks, tripod mounts and lack of standard rails.

It would be great if the Alexa wasn't 180k or if Penelope was widely adopted. It would be great to have a camera that is designed around a platform AC's can build and set up quickly. With controls DP's are familiar with.

RED sucks ass. The menu tree is a cluster. You have to have a printout cheat sheet on your wrist if you want to get anything done. The C300/400 is the same and feels like an over priced plastic toy.

Hopefully over the next couple of years it will all shake out and a roadmap will develop.

Good Luck

[wado1942]

I wouldn't even go as far as saying it's a Bolex. I don't expect a professional cinema camera for $3,500. I don't really even expect one for $10,000. It does seem to offer promise as a high quality microcinema camera. It appears to be a simple unit with minimal features that lets you use a variety of lenses and may produce good quality results. I wouldn't call my K3 a pro camera, but it does with exactly what the D-Bolex does with video and that's OK. I would like to try one myself before committing to a purchase, though. I only bought my K3 without trying it because it was $150!

[grainy]

I wouldn't even go as far as saying it's a Bolex.... I only bought my K3 without trying it because it was $150!

I took out my low-end Bolex H16 reflex just last night to see how it's holding up after many years of storage with a roll of undevelopable (except by filmrescue for 100$) Ektachrome 7251 threaded in it...

This machine is older than I am by at least 10 years, yet it ran like a clock the moment I gave it a few winds and pressed the trigger. And the technology is 100% viable right now today. I got it used for $300. It isn't going out of date any time soon, and can actually be physically improved (super 16 if I wanted). It's as sturdy as a tank, feels great running in my hands, and it makes me look cool when I'm shooting with it.

Why is it that I'd need a "digital bolex" for X thousand dollars? The product that the analog one creates is still the gold standard of imaging.

G

[Tommy]

The Blair Witch Project was made on a Hi-8 consumer video camera. How many of you with "professional cameras" have made a movie has profitable?

[MovieStuff]

The Blair Witch Project was made on a Hi-8 consumer video camera. How many of you with "professional cameras" have made a movie has profitable?

Hmmm... I dunno. One could point out the number of movies made with $250,000 Panavision cameras that flopped at the box office and compare that aggregate loss to the number of successful movies made with amateur cameras as a contrast to your statement. How much a camera costs versus how much money was made isn't really the issue being discussed. A good producer/director knows how to match the medium to the project so the issue, if there is one, is whether a camera has the kind of features one looks for for any given project. The biggest problem with HD cameras right now, IMHO, are the fucking rolling shutters inherent in CMOS imaging chips. I can live with the contrast range and limited color palette because you can always trim the lighting and grading to compensate. But there is really nothing you can do when you get rubbery pans and motion from a rolling shutter. It looks like crap. So if the new BlackMagic camera has that problem, then it's just an expensive version of a DSLR with all the same issues. More to the point of cost (read "value"), it's guaranteed that eventually CMOS will go to a global shutter so anyone that invests in a camera that has the rolling shutter won't be able to give it away once the new global shutter version comes out.

[grainy]

The Blair Witch Project was made on a Hi-8 consumer video camera. How many of you with "professional cameras" have made a movie has profitable?

Uh, Tommy...
1. you're saying that the "digital bolex" is a non-professional camera?

2. This is the small gauge forum. There are no hollywood features shot in super 8. No one here is trying to equate quality or success of their work with profitability.

3. Everyone knows that turning a discussion into an arguement by insulting the other side shows the indefensibility of one's own point.

[wado1942]

I think the inherent problems of all electronic capture systems hinder production. 8-9 stops of latitude of CMOS is a huge problem that really brings up the cost of lighting, wardrobe, set design etc. & forget about working outdoors unless you have an HDR cheat like the Red. But then, you get a short exposure time superimposed over a long exposure time, so you have less motion blur in the highlights vs the shadows. Not to mention, the highlights are exposed AFTER the shadows! The D-Bolex should have about 10-stops, which is still not great but at least on part with a good reversal film. Yeah, you have the risk of bloom & smear, but that's largely avoidable. I'd still rather shoot film, but it would make a better video camera than I've ever owned for not much more money than my current video camera, which still hasn't paid for itself after 12 years. My $150 K3 on the other hand, paid for itself on the first job I did with it. I'm not looking to replace film anyway, I'm looking to replace prosumer video, which that should do nicely. You're right though, I won't touch anything without a proper anti-aliasing filter or that has a rolling shutter.

[jpolzfuss]

The Digital Bolex. Is still a Bolex.

No, it isn't. The "digital bolex" is Chinese video-camera by an USA-based company that bought the right to put a "bolex"-sticker onto their video-cameras. Other than this there's no connection to Bolex (Switzerland).

[Will2]

No, it isn't. The "digital bolex" is Chinese video-camera by an USA-based company that bought the right to put a "bolex"-sticker onto their video-cameras.

Thought it was made by some Canadian engineers...

The Bolex connection is simply a nostalgic homage to the company and a way to drum up interest; I doubt any expertise at what's left of Bolex in Europe is really driving anything. Still may be a fine camera however, looking forward to it.

The advantages I see on the Blackmagic camera are simply workflow based. Those guys are all about post production workflow and their camera reflects that with the ProRes codecs and connectivity. The question is not is it better than 16mm, the question is if it is easier to use than a Canon 5D at a lower price point... and it just may be.