Digital Bolex - 2K Raw at $2500

This looks pretty cool! I want to do a little more research into the people behind it, but if they can deliver on their campaign in a timely matter this is a pretty sweet little camera!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joedp/the-digital-bolex-the-1st-affordable-digital-cinem?ref=live


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

Specs:
Resolution 2048 x 1152 (Super 16mm mode) + 1920 x 1080 pixels (16mm mode)
Format Adobe Cinema DNG, TIFF, JPEG Image sequences
Colour depth 12 bit – 4:4:4
File size 2 to 3 MB per frame in RAW
Sensor Kodak CCD: 12.85 mm (H) x 9.64 mm (V) – Similar to Super 16mm
Pixel Size 5.5 micron (compared to the 4.3 micron size of many DSLRs)
Framerate up to 32 fps at 2K, 60fps at 720p, 90 fps at 480p
Sound Balanced, 2 channel, 16 bit, 48 kHz via XLR
Viewfinder 320×240, 2.4” diagonal, with Focus Assist
Video out 640 x 480 B&W via ⅛” video jack (HD-SDI avail in separate unit)
Ports ⅛” video, headphone, USB 3.0, Audio XLR (2), 4-PIN XLR
Data Storage Dual CF card slots, SSD (buffer drive)
Power Internal battery, 12V External via 4 pin XLR port
ISO Options 100, 200, 400

Obviously, it's not a completely full-featured camera. The ISO goes up to 400, only SD video out, etc. But RAW video (or image sequence) at 2K for $2500, pretty cool.
 
So it is on sale now? What, no talk about it? Is it being ignored, overshadowed?

It only goes up to 400 ISO. But in this Indy Mogul interview she says that you don't need higher, if you're thinking about your lighting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKk6hOtKDk4

Phillp Bloom's initial review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfUwq77ngr8

I don't know. To my eyes that PB video looks fairly lovely. Seems to me to have pretty nice color. Or no?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01JX38oetuU

Hmmmm, I'm not sure how I feel about the look of that video. Am I right in thinking that it goes to show you really need some lighting or at least light modifiers when shooting in those kinds of conditions...to compete with that harsh sunlight? How would the BM pocket camera or a DSLR have handled those conditions by comparison? Would higher ISOs save you there without the expense and trouble of brining in your own light? Or do you think it looks fine the way it is? Certainly looks like retro home movies, anyway.

Doesn't look like there's much in the way of video examples on YouTube or Vimeo yet.

It's not like I'm in the market for a camera at this price. Nuhah. And I don't think I could love a camera without a removable battery. Really do like that it has a CCD sensor, though.

But hey, don't you just love the packaging it comes in. Take a look at that box pictured in PB's article. Nice.
 
It's going to be tough for the $3300 DB to compete with a $995 camera.

That's really it, isn't it? At the end of the day, they're very similar cameras, but at very different price points. The image is also not wildly different, and neither camera will ever be an 'A' camera on any but the lowest of budgets - and on the lowest of budgets you're likely going to go for a camera that's available in retail numbers (i.e. without a decent wait), and is cheaper. Eliminating rolling shutter by implementing a CCD is perhaps useful, but when it comes at 3x the cost, I'm not sure it will be something that most will be interested in.

I personally don't like a lot of the inherent colour on the BMPCC, but realistically I could buy a PL-mounted 4K raw Blackmagic Camera for a similar price that I could get a D16, and the BM is likely going to match better with whatever my A camera is, unless my A camera is S16mm film.

That's not to say it's a bad camera - certainly it seems those who have finally received their cameras (albeit a year and a half later) seem happy with them, but it seems like it's going to be a specialist indie camera, rather than anything that has major effect in any way.

It was an exciting project when you couldn't get 2k or raw below $10k + accessories, but when it takes you a year and a half to get a camera out, you can be sure that the technology is going to surpass you pretty quickly.
 
id rather buy a better quality 1080p camera with better features like built in ND and high sensitivity and get my current work done to earn me better money towards an Alexa :P.

2k-4k-8k is the future, but thats all it is, the future, it will start to become commerical within 2 years at affordable prices, but lets face facts 1080p is still now, there isnt enough of a tv push for HD content (im talking about uk here) sure you can downscale, but the question is can you afford to.

this camera to me is nothing more than a gimmick a very nice gimmick but impractical, loads will find their uses but others will be sensible and buy what is right for them im banking that this wont be a major product.
 
Netflix will deliver 4K streaming content this year, YouTube already does. Vizio launched a $9954K TV at CES. 4k's here. Still in the baby phases, but worth planning for. If you can be the first guy delivering solid content in 4K you might find your market.

Back to Bolex, I'm not that impressed at all. Especially considering the BMCC and the 5DmkIII running Magic Lantern. Both shoot better looking RAW. For not much more you can get into a used Sony shooting 2K and 4K RAW and the ability to overcrank while doing it.
 
Netflix will deliver 4K streaming content this year, YouTube already does. Vizio launched a $9954K TV at CES. 4k's here. Still in the baby phases, but worth planning for. If you can be the first guy delivering solid content in 4K you might find your market.

Back to Bolex, I'm not that impressed at all. Especially considering the BMCC and the 5DmkIII running Magic Lantern. Both shoot better looking RAW. For not much more you can get into a used Sony shooting 2K and 4K RAW and the ability to overcrank while doing it.

agreed but in a few years 4k cameras will be the price of 1080 cameras, if you can afford it then do it, if you cant then theres not much to worry about, netfilx is delivering 4k... im willing to bet less than 2% of their entire subscribers can even watch 4k, rising to 15% next year.. theres still a few years left i reckon.

anyway you can still watch 1080p movies on a 4k screen so your not losing an audience ..
 
I wouldn't shoot any important project in 1080p

All projects that get made were important enough to get made. It all depends upon where/how you will show it. If I was planning/hoping for theatrical distribution, I would not shoot 1080P (or even 2K for that matter). If, however, I knew that my project would only be distributed online or DVD/BluRay, I would not hesitate to shoot 1080P, if that is what I had available. I see no reason to buy/rent a 2K/4K camera and add to my post workflow if I will only be distributing in 1080P.
 
I've said it a million times - I'd rather shoot Alexa at 2k than Epic at 6k for many things that I might shoot for theatrical viewing.

4k may be the future, but unfortunately, 4k only means higher resolution, and is not the same thing as a 'better image'.

Colour rendition, dynamic range, and how the image looks is so much more important to me 80% of the time than how high the resolution can go.

As LH says, it also very much depends on where you're exhibiting/distributing. If I were shooting for YouTube, I'd have no issue shooting 1080p. If I were shooting for IMAX distribution, I'd have more reservations.

Also, I'll believe 4k Home TVs when I see it. TV stations can't even broadcast 1080p properly yet, and the 1080i we get is incredibly compressed. They've only very recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading their equipment. HD was certainly an improvement, but I also think a part of the push for HD in the home came from the fact that analogue TV was turning off, and so everyone was forced to buy a digital TV, most of which were also HD.

A few years ago at CES, you might have said 3DTV was the future. Look how well that went.

At least with 3D, it offered a different viewing experience that some might have liked, despite the fact it didn't really catch on.

4k really only offers a difference once you start getting up into TV sizes of 80"+ - sizes which are always going to cost a lot of money, and are always unlikely to sell large amounts because many people simply don't have the wall space for a TV that big.

I've seen 4K TVs around in shops for a while now. The first time I saw one I thought 'wow this is awesome, and definitely is the future'.

I went into a shop the other day and they had a Sony 65" 4k TV mounted next to a Samsung 65" 1080p OLED TV. Up close (within a couple of feet) I could see the difference was huge.
But I took a couple of steps back and could barely tell the difference between the images on the two TVs.
Who watches TV with their eyes within inches of the screen? I certainly don't. Maybe Computer monitors, but certainly not televisions.

You can bring out as many 4K TVs as you want, but there needs to be the content to support it, and there needs to be the uptake to support it, neither of which are there, at leas yet.

Anyway, in terms of Digi Bolex they're going to have a tough time. When their only competitor was a very similarly priced Blackmagic camera, then they stood a chance. Even when BM brought in the pocket, there was still a possibility that the plusses of the D16 could have brought sales.

But then Blackmagic dropped the price of the CC and brought in a 4k raw camera. Suddenly the Digi Bolex is 40% more expensive than it's closest competitor which does 80% of what the D16 can do, and only 20% cheaper than the next camera up, which brings with it 4k raw and a S35 sensor.
 
But then Blackmagic dropped the price of the CC and brought in a 4k raw camera. Suddenly the Digi Bolex is 40% more expensive than it's closest competitor which does 80% of what the D16 can do, and only 20% cheaper than the next camera up, which brings with it 4k raw and a S35 sensor.

I wasn't aware the BM 4K was released? Q4 has passed and not a peep from that company. It's been delayed, again, which has become habit for BM.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top