September 17, 2013

An Industry Professional Reviews New Ultra-Filmic Footage from the Digital Bolex

Michael Plescia Digital BolexIf it seems like we've been talking about the Digital Bolex a lot lately, it's because we definitely have. A few months ago, it looked as if the release of the D16 was still quite a ways into the future. However, Joe, Elle, and the DB team have really pushed the process and gotten the beta version of the camera up and running. As a result, we've been seeing some promising test footage circulate for the past couple of weeks. Now, we've got even more to get excited about, as Michael Plescia, a professional filmmaker, has shot and graded some footage of his own and weighed in on the future of this camera.

Firstly, Michael Plescia is a professional filmmaker and compositor whose work can be seen in major motion pictures (like Zodiac and Jumper) and high-end television spots alike. Here's his reel:

And here's the footage that Michael shot with the D16 and graded himself:

For my money, this footage is the closest thing to film that I have ever seen come from a digital camera, and that's no small accomplishment considering that cameras like the Alexa exist. Granted, Michael's vast post-production experience means that he's better suited than most to take the D16's footage and make it shine. Still, the fact that the Digital Bolex can produce these kinds of images, even in its beta stage, is downright impressive. The accolades don't end there, however. In his guest post on the Digital Bolex blog, Plescia had this to say about the D16:

After having the privilege to participate in a test shoot with a beta model of the Digital Bolex, I can state with full confidence that this camera is the real deal and is the one filmmakers like me have been hoping for.

It’s not all about depth and bokeh and closeups like with DSLR’s. The D16 Bolex is about surfaces, textures, gradients, tonal nuance, skin, performances. It comes alive in traveling masters, and lock-offs don’t feel harshly static. You feel permission to film wider; to let the mise-en-scéne unfold. The image has confidence so you have confidence that the camera will capture the life in front of it -- so you have less of an impulse to overcompensate for a lifeless frame by moving the camera and over-cutting. It loves handheld in wider lenses. The grain is pleasing. Lowlights have a soul again. The image feels like story.

For me, seeing that footage and hearing those words really seals the deal. This is the narrative filmmaking camera that I have been waiting for. Of course, the Digital Bolex will not be my go-to camera in many situations due to the fact that it only shoots RAW and has a comparatively low maximum ISO. But in a narrative context, when I'm in complete control of the light, the D16 would be an ideal digital cinema camera because of the malleable and soulful image that it provides.

What do you guys think? Are you as impressed with this footage as I am? Let us know in the comments!

Link: Guest Post: Michael Plescia -- Digital Bolex

Your Comment

191 Comments

dig it

September 17, 2013 at 1:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Has anyone said anything about those distorted bottom lines on ALL of their sample footage?

September 17, 2013 at 1:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Pat

Still in beta, we will get rid of all those little anomalies by the time we ship... promise :)

September 17, 2013 at 4:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

That'd be awesome. I love the colors and the CCD performance, so I really want to see you guys pull through.

September 18, 2013 at 8:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Pat

Quite impressive. For the first 15 sec, I thought it was film from the 70s

September 17, 2013 at 1:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Agreed....definitely a 70's feel. Think the footage helped on that front as well.

September 17, 2013 at 1:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Darren Wolff

I was thinking the white dodge challenger from vanishing point would come rolling through the scene.
I really love the feel of the D16 footage.

September 17, 2013 at 2:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
VinceGortho

+3

September 17, 2013 at 5:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Marc B

I'd be interested to know of any film filters was used in post or was it solely graded. Certainly has the old school 16mm look and feel from the clip and definitely evokes a certain vibe.

September 17, 2013 at 1:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Darren Wolff

It says at the end;

"Footage is shown with post-applied film grain simulation"

September 17, 2013 at 2:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Aha.....should pay more attention! Thanks.

September 17, 2013 at 5:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Darren Wolff

I can't believe that's digital. Very 16mm.

September 17, 2013 at 2:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

edit: filmconvert. hmm....

September 18, 2013 at 12:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

It's more like an 8mm look.

September 17, 2013 at 2:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

7
Reply
DLD

Yep, it's a little softer than 16mm scanned at 2K.

September 17, 2013 at 5:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Natt

there is something about ccd and global shutter. I always liked the ikonoskop look. Very vintage feeling.

September 17, 2013 at 2:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
cee

This really looks amazing and showcases that there are still a couple of people out there who are actually interested in imitating the film look apart from ARRI. Yet, a questionmark stands behind why the let a compositor do the test shoot and grade: Those are people who can even let 5D MII footage look like film and are very clever in shooting and grading around the weaknesses of any given cinematic process, inluding of course digital. This silightly Instagram-sih look also makes me wonder, whether any grain was added, any filmlike behavior imitated in post (i see some fringing that seems very analogue), whether some old lenses were used (could explain the seemingly aged soft-focus) and if anybody else except a die hard, high-end post professional could make it look the same way. Is there any more information about what lenses he used, what filters he took or added in post and how the raw material actually looked?

Greetz,
Matt

September 17, 2013 at 2:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
MattN.

Lenses \ ZEISS CONTAX 25 mm f/2.8 & 50 mm f/1.4 & CP2 85mm and 21mm
This is what he stated in the vimeo description

September 17, 2013 at 2:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Kasper

The footage looks great, but it's clearly heavily graded. A good colourist can turn any decent bit of footage into something that "looks' like film. Id like to see the ungraded footage.

September 17, 2013 at 2:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Adam

agreed!

September 17, 2013 at 4:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Cool. I just saw a video on vimeo (staff pick). Was convinced it was shot on 16mm. But it was actually shot on a Canon 550d and graded well. Isnt this more or less the same here? This example is very cool, but it tells more about the skills of the grader than it tells us about the image quality. I would like to see the same footage from the Alexa, with the same grader worked on it before you say it looks even more like film than the Alexa.

September 17, 2013 at 3:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Nanno

Nanno, I'd like to see that 550D film. got a link? Thanks

September 17, 2013 at 3:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
John

I think Nanno must be talking about this one https://vimeo.com/74573072
I thought it had to be 16mm. I talked with a DOP friend, I was guessing either 16mm or alexa with digital grain applied.

Turns out to be a one man shoot with a 550d and a sigma 30mm f1.4, no rigs, no ML, nothing.

Be sure to check the rest of Kendy Ty's work, he's got some great stuff to see. Only to prove that the tech side isn't that important when you know what your'e doing.

September 17, 2013 at 4:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

You are kidding right? That video is clearly DSLR footage. Look at the monotone flatness of the textures.

September 17, 2013 at 9:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Rik

Agreed 100%, looks nothing like the Digital Bolex footage. Typical DSLR footage, with grain, etc. Not bad, but a totally different feel on the Digital Bolex

September 18, 2013 at 10:03AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Jeff

Its easy to see when you know what it is and know what to look for.... Most "normal" people would not see it that easily.... I have seen things shot on RED that looked worse.... Its all about knowing how to use what you have and to play to its strengths and be aware of its weaknesses.... There is a lot of people that believe having a raw shooting camera is going to make them great when in fact there is a lot more work required in post to make it look good.... if anything that is what ML raw has proven... its all about how you use what you have.....

September 18, 2013 at 2:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Oooooh, so the 'D' stands for 'Instagram'?

September 17, 2013 at 3:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
WM

This camera is going to be so awesome when they figure out how to attach it to a tripod.

#NeverBeenTriedBefore

September 17, 2013 at 3:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

6
Reply

It's already been designed to be used tripod mounted.

The "Removable Pistol Grip" is just a convenience for handholding.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachments/digital-video-industry-news/2925...

September 17, 2013 at 3:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Markus

While Arri announced a special base plate for their MBP-3 that can even stbilize the PL mount.

September 18, 2013 at 5:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Thyl Engelhardt

Interesting. After having seen some early footage from this camera, this sample feels vintage indeed.But it is still the same camera. That one that got kinda bashed some days ago, because of the fact that people found the footage too amateuristic. I remember the Johnny Depp lookalike guy from Bolex defending himself, saying it was test footage. But now....with the same camera....they hired or asked Michael to make some Pro pictures. Accompanied by some great lines, i must admit its great copy. Interesting. Maybe people are more interested in how Michael handled the grading? I hope they start to ship these cams soon, so we can see what the community will do with it and hopefully use it as an all round cam, and not a 70's clone cam only.

September 17, 2013 at 3:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Tomski

I like it. It's proven to be a versital tool, the image is remarkably workable. Nice move on the DB team having Michael Plescia shoot something on it, great piece.

September 17, 2013 at 4:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Anthony Marino

Nice that they listened, although a real DOP/operator would still be nice!
I saw this footage a day or so ago, and felt like I was watching mid-late 70's indie cinema (as he points out himself elsewhere, its very 'Mean Streets'). It could also be the GVs from a Cassevettes film.
It looks a LOT like my first 16mm films. That's both a good and bad thing. I wasn't a very good camera operator either :-)
I do agree with him - its the most absolutely filmic digital camera output I've seen, although he leant a little hard on the grain pedal.
Now let's see it applied. You say it sings in traveling masters? Give us a real traveling master.

/as to the 'hipster/Instagram' comments. Honestly, you're revealing your own limited aesthetics, you're not being either funny or clever. The term 'filmic' covers a lot of area. If you want 35mm pristine, I'm not sure this is the camera for you, and you probably know that already.
/The Alexa has a wonderful look, but filmic? Only kind of. Its a wonderful imitation. But its really something else, something new. Even Deakins will tell you that.

September 17, 2013 at 4:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
marklondon

As you say the Alexa has a wonderful look, but the D16 really has its own unique look. It's indeed looks very filmic with or without post. There are a DNG to download from the DB site from earlier. I have color corrected their skin tone test in Lightroom and it looks like no other camera on the market. Very cool!

September 17, 2013 at 5:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Martin

I've seen experienced colorist make Red, Alexa, F35 and F65 footy to look like a bunch of different film stocks. With RAW the point is to record as much information in shadows, highlights, midtones and colors as possible and then work from there. Trademark soft rolloff can be controlled with curves if you have enough highlight information.

September 17, 2013 at 6:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

7
Reply
Natt

"/as to the ‘hipster/Instagram’ comments. Honestly, you’re revealing your own limited aesthetics, you’re not being either funny or clever. The term ‘filmic’ covers a lot of area. If you want 35mm pristine, I’m not sure this is the camera for you, and you probably know that already."

Yeah it;s annoying when people say things like that. The lazy cynicism comments bring nothing to the table of these conversations.

I think it does have a really nice look and feel to it as well, its a bit too heavy on the grade but it does bring back a feel of nostalgia. Must be the global shutter and the the raw codec. Really nice.

September 17, 2013 at 10:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Xiong

@marklondon, the world's best dop. lol

September 18, 2013 at 1:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Heyzeus

Any word on a 4:3 or 3:2 mode for anamorphic? The sensor is in fact 4:3 so I guess that's possible. Have they mentioned it? Maybe through firmware in the future?

September 17, 2013 at 4:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply

We are planning a 2048 x 1716 mode for 2K / 2X anamorphic, which would squeeze down into 2048 x 858 in post.

September 17, 2013 at 4:35PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

That's amazing. Thanks!

September 17, 2013 at 5:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

"For my money, this footage is the closest thing to film that I have ever seen come from a digital camera."

Well, Robert, your credibility just got flushed down the drain.

Show me the footage as it was shot, not that overly graded joke, then we'll talk. I see nothing here that looks better than what I can achieve with my JVC XDCAM and Magic Bullet.

September 17, 2013 at 4:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
FabDex

I agree, seeing overly graded footage tells me nothing about the cameras output.

From the photo at the top of this post, I see that the DB is still an ergonomic disaster. Where did people get the idea that camera operators wanted to hold the camera in front of them for a twelve hour day? There are good reasons why an Arri Alexa or an Aaton look the way they do.

September 17, 2013 at 5:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
c.d.embrey

+1

September 18, 2013 at 3:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Sorry, if you think this looks like something that you can do in magic bullet you need a replacement set of eyes. I'm not saying it great, but you are clearly a complete idiot.

September 17, 2013 at 7:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Lucian

Yeah..no. I have magic bullet and you can't get this look with that. Besides, all footage straight from raw cameras look like shit anyway since they're so flat and muddy. Footage from these cameras HAVE to be graded to see what they're capable of and how much they can be pushed.

September 17, 2013 at 9:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Sotts

Way to stick to them... You're a real pro now...

September 17, 2013 at 10:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Xiong

Can this camera be speedboosted? Multiple mounts, right?

September 17, 2013 at 4:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
vinceGortho

great images. it's the analog CCD sensor. it truly makes for moving picture illusion that film creates. CMOS has too much jitter and that's what makes most digital cameras stutter like video, no matter what grading you use. i hope more companies will produce a CCD sensor camera.

September 17, 2013 at 4:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
ishoot720p

Global shutter is your friend.

September 17, 2013 at 6:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Natt

Yeah, this footage looks like DVX footage to me. Very organic and analog, but not HD.

September 19, 2013 at 1:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

I really like where this camera is going. If later down the road it has the option of shooting in compressed RAW or ProRes through a firmware upgrade, that would make it even more desirable.

September 17, 2013 at 4:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Ian B

We are definitely thinking about the right way to do this, just don't want to rush into it right now, but there will be a solution for some kind of compressed footage down the road.

September 17, 2013 at 4:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

7
Reply

Great work Joe. A 2K Raw to ProRes/DHNX transcode isn't a huge deal breaker at all, and I suspect it'll be nowhere near as painful as a RED 5K to 2K transcode w/out a rocket card. I'd love to see you and your team continue to focus on getting the best CCD 2K RAW camera out there, w/ emphasis on good color science and reproduction. Please add attention to color charts based on vectorscope Rec.709 standards, such as the " One Shot " chart made by DSC Labs for the SMPTE: http://store.smpte.org/product_p/dlab-smpte-pos.htm

Please try to avoid using charts based on proprietary color software such as those made by X-rite.
I've previously mentioned this to Roald Christesen who reports he's working on color software for the D16. Please consider it as well. There's a good article by Art Adams (who also consults w/ DSC Labs) that reviews why it is important to take color vectorscope standards into consideration for both making and using a color checker chart: http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/what-good-is-a-macbeth-colorch...

I do not work for DSC Labs, the SMPTE and I am not being endorsed/compensated for in any way. Thank You

September 17, 2013 at 7:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

14
Reply
Dan

Hi Dan,
I have purchased the SMPTE chart and will use it on future tests!
And our transcoding is MUCH faster than Red w/o Red Rocket.
We transcoded an hour of D16 footage recently and it took between 2 and 3 hours in ClipHouse.
Where as the same amount of Red footage transcoded on the same computer took almost 30 hours!

September 17, 2013 at 10:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply

I like it. It's great for what the shooter wanted to achieve. I wish the Digital Bolex folks all the best. On another note, I'm always curious as to why commenters on websites like this ( one of my favorites) can't just comment on what they've seen or read without coming off as arrogant or pompous. The internet is an awesome forum but the promise of anonymity and not having to take responsibility for what you say has made jerks of a lot of people.

September 17, 2013 at 5:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Adrian

I suspect it's an entitlement thing. Look at the nastiness directed at Phillip Bloom for his detailed camera reviews. I can't fathom being mad at guy with his deep well of broadcast experience giving back in such a way, and he gets nitpicked by anonymous commentators. And even if is just vaporware, I happen to appreciate an elaborate and well-executed practical joke.

September 17, 2013 at 5:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Marc B

Agree, however, how the person on the receiving end of the nastiness handles himself and his response, to me, is the determining factor on whether that person has got it together or not. Some of PB's responses to trolling comments have been worse than the original comments themselves.

On the other hand, notice the amount of crap that has been doled out to Elle Schneider and Joe Rubinstein and their Digital Bolex; from personal attacks on their dress, their business acumen and their product, yet they still have the ability to leave their ego out of it, take a higher ground, and be cordial in their responses

To me, those are the people, and the products they produce, that I want to embrace.

It's too bad our community interacts with one another the way it does

Oh, beautiful footage btw...

September 18, 2013 at 10:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Jeff

Early tests showed "wrong" shutter speed, this video nailed the "cinematic" feel.

September 17, 2013 at 5:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Natt

I have a small, contained feature set around a beach house in the summer of 1976 that this camera and post treatment would be perfect for.

September 17, 2013 at 5:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DLW

maybe some people confuse 'closest thing to film with 'vintage look'. Film actually did improve since the 60's.

September 17, 2013 at 6:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
hansd

is that your way of saying you don't like the pictures?

September 17, 2013 at 8:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
jime

Dear Joe Rubinstein, Shut up and take my money, already!

September 17, 2013 at 6:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply

Hahahaha We're working on it, the camera that is, not taking your money :)

September 17, 2013 at 7:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

Holy moly, that looks so good. Love it! Can't wait till I can pick one up. Amazing image. Hats off to the folks who built this thing!

September 17, 2013 at 7:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Anotherthing

i thought that was supercool, certainly perked my interest

September 17, 2013 at 7:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Chris

beautiful image! this camera continues to impress me and exceed my expectations. for the right film, this camera is going to make all the difference.

September 17, 2013 at 8:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

I LOVE this camera's emulsion. The texture and look of the grade clearly helped, but luckily enough people will have a tool that will allow them to forget the obsession to photograph and will think about what is to be photographed! Bravo

September 17, 2013 at 9:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Manuel Correa

I came here to hate on digital Bolex This sample made me decide that I'd absolutely shoot on it for the right project. This comes VERY close to the look of S16 Kodak reversal, IMO.

I like the halation of the lenses for that same aesthetic. So, they are paired well.

However, I'm glad there's more than one camera in the world because this doesn't seem to do a good clean look.

Having said that, I'd have to see what both the color settings/LUT and image processing are doing.

September 17, 2013 at 9:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Harry Pray IV

Funny comment. Expanding thereupon, it really seems to me that only people want to hate the D16 that have not spend time trying to understand its concepts. And apparently, you are no exception, as your statements show. Go to the Digital Bolex website and spend some time looking through the discussions, and the images of alternative gradings people post there from DNGs that Digital Bolex published for download, and you you will find that the post can deliver amazingly different results. So much so that a statement like "doesn't seem to do a good clean look" starts to no longer make sense, since you will learn that the look is what you do to the RAW footage. And the terms "colour settings" or "LUT" also make no sense in relation to the D16, since, imho, it does have neither.

September 18, 2013 at 5:35AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Thyl Engelhardt

After a discussion over at Digital Bolex, it might be that I need to correct myself. It seems as if meta data could in fact be defined, like e.g. white balance, which will be recordered together with the footage. Still, colour settings/LUTs will be doing apparently what YOU do to them.

September 18, 2013 at 8:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Thyl Engelhardt

While the footage certainly has an interesting look, I'm more inclined to say this looks like heavy FilmConvert grading. This look isn't too hard to achieve with grain and one of the S16 film stocks in that plugin.

The one thing that gives it away as digital quite easily is the look of the motion. As cars pass and people walk by, it looks like normal video. RED, ALEXA and other cinema cameras have a very smooth filmic quality to the motion rendering that makes it really feel a lot more like film. This looks like graded video... not bad at all... it does have some charming characteristics, but this really isn't filmic in the way Alexa, BMCC and RED are.

September 17, 2013 at 9:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
James

Hi James,

Thanks for your comment.

We do have some ideas about improving motion, but if you can put into words what exactly you mean, I am interested. Motion effects / artifacts are one of the aspects of pixel peep I am into ;)

I think he processed the raw through Adobe's Camera Raw, which does introduce micro exposure changes and a very very slight flicker effect.

If you actually pause the video while a person or car crosses are you still seeing the motion artifacts?

September 17, 2013 at 10:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Motion is connected to shutter speed and sensor type. When I shoot on 5D (CMOS) or other Canons I use a shutter of 1/50 when I use 25p or Magic Lanterns hack, 1/48 when I shoot 24p. Then the motion becomes smoother. In this video the motion is very smooth as it is and it does look a bit more like video. Personally I prefer the motion from the CCD. This is one of the reasons I consider to buy this camera but if you want the motion to be different try with different shutter speeds. 1/24 for 24fps for exemple. There has to be a sweet spot somewhere.

September 18, 2013 at 5:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

looking at the movement of this fotage I feel it has an edge over a lot of the competition. Looks more organic and pleasing to me than most midrange cameras. The dealbreaker for me is rather RAW only which will make it unsuitable for a lot of jobs.

September 18, 2013 at 6:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Jonas

I think technically, motion rendering can only be affected by shutter speed and frame rate. But if you look at a Sony camera like the FS100 at 24p 1/48 shutter, the characteristics of the motion are completely different than a professional camera like the F35, without taking into account obvious things like DR, resolution etc. The actual motion looks different and is extremely easy to spot.

I think there's only been a handful of cameras to pull off motion that actually feels like film. The ARRI Alexa series, ARRI D21, RED one MX (EPIC / SCARLET) (not the original "ONE"), Sony F35 and to a lesser extent the BMCC (which is probably more like the DB in this regard...)

I know the Alexa in some cases uses a mechanical shutter, which is likely the main reason it looks so similar to real film motion. It's not easy to describe, but if you look at just regular untouched footage from Alexa and RED, you'll notice the motion seems to have more "weight" to it, whereas on other video cameras motion simply looks more "immediate" / refreshed (like in TV's with the 120hz true motion etc.) are the only words I can think of to describe it. This is what DB looks like to me along with the majority of other video cameras.

I only point it out because it's for cinema-purposes. I have a BMCC and this is the one thing I wish it was more like the Alexa or RED in... to me, motion is everything. It's really what gives footage that sort of elusive "filmic" quality.

September 18, 2013 at 10:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
James

James,

I agree with your assessment. I'm very sensitive to issues of motion rendition and have long thought most Digital Cinema cameras didn't quite capture the effect of film's mechanical shutter, being that the temporal edges of the motion blur don't have hard ins and outs, considering it takes a few hundredths of a second for the mechanical shutter to fully eclipse the film plane. The Tessive Time Filter provides an interesting solution for this by introducing an LCD shutter mechanism that softens the ins and outs of the motion blur edge. I believe Red will be incorporating this technology. It will be very interesting to see if Joe and the Bolex team can solve this issue, because I think that it's the only missing piece to giving the DB an indescribably filmic look. -Michael

September 18, 2013 at 2:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Michael Plescia

You know why? Because only professionals are using the F35, they use a lot less contrasty image (contrast increases jerkiness) and move the camera more deliberately.

You get a real professional to move the FS100 and grade it properly and it will look motionwise almost exactly the same, the only real difference being the rolling shutter (and that's actually a pretty big difference).

The hogwash that motion blurs look different is quackery in the same vein as in putting hifi-rocks on top of your equipment to make them sound better.

September 20, 2013 at 4:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
mikko löppönen

A final graded image between the FS100 and the F35 looks completely and utterly different in every single possible way there exists a metric to distinguish them apart. The motion rendering between those 2 cameras is so easy to tell apart I can point it out in seconds. I have a very good eye, you might not :)

FYI: contrast does not "create jerkiness".

Some people just have a good eye for this sort of thing, don't worry if you can't see it; you need to have a lot of experience to see some of the minor differences between cameras at times.

September 20, 2013 at 10:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
James

It's CCD, so the shutter is a lot better than any rolling shutter CMOS camera. CMOS's wildest dream is achieving CCD motion quality.

October 19, 2013 at 2:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
motion

I like it a lot, but yeah, not sure it shows much about the camera's ability. Great look though, and am very interested in the process the filmmaker followed.

September 17, 2013 at 10:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

It looks cool, but really more "vintage"-looking than anything. Looks more like old, saturated 16mm footage to me,l ike the old documentaries or newsreels from the 1960's and 70's. I'd be interested in see the "raw" footage, without the grain added in post, as is stated. The way it is, it would be great for period, late 1950's to 70's, but not much else. I would be really interested in see a greater range of the camera's abilities, as I'm sure it's probably more versatile than this one,stylistic look.

September 17, 2013 at 11:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Drew

In terms of dealing with motion, the high end cameras are moving into the 120/150 fps world. Arri's Amira (200 fps) feature set is not accidental.

September 18, 2013 at 12:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
DLD

It does seem that higher frame rates in digital cameras does take away that computer image feel that some complain about in digital video. Higher K's is doing it too.

I was in Best Buy about a week ago and they happened to have Life of Pi and The Hobbit playing next to each other. The Hobbit shot in 4K at a higher frame rate looked better, had richer color, a clearer picture, with more of a 3D look than Life of Pi at 1080p. Higher K's are making 1080p look like yesterdays news. The game is about higher and higher K's now. I have no complaint that video is moving farther away from "filmic" just like I have no complaint that all cars have not continued to look like '57 Chevy's.

Now I'm going to take cover from the luddites. ;-)

September 18, 2013 at 3:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

This is a bit of a sidetrack but, according to the Display Search (a major marketing research company in the industry), prices for Quad HD TV's will be dropping by 40% annually, from $4K in 2013 (and, remember, they started the year at $6K) to $2.5K in 2014 to $1.5K in 2015 to under $1K in 2016. And that's for major brand names too. I expect the 4K camera prices, depending on their feature set, to exhibit a similar downward trajectory.

September 18, 2013 at 8:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DLD

Looks lovely.

I agree that it is most likely this guy can make DSLR footage look as nice as this (especially since he has even created his own grain effect), so it may not show the realistic output of a lower-level user.

However, I think his written review of the camera is very exciting. Unless he has reason for strong bias, this confirms that the Bolex is going to be the camera that its fans want it to be - especially this line "It comes alive in traveling masters, and lock-offs don’t feel harshly static."

It really sounds like a camera you feel able to be expressive with when working handheld. Like the way I like to operate with lower end cinema cameras, but built for that purpose with its handheld-intended design and Global Shutter.

Sure, this isn't flat and unmanipulated footage that will give a clear technical insight into the Bolex's sensor, but hasn't everybody complained before that Bolex never let a pro go out and test their product handheld and in a real world scenario?

They listened, and here it is!

September 18, 2013 at 2:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

Just shoot with film if you want a film look. Maybe you can still find some film manufactured in the 70's. But, I don't think the general public is wanting movies to look like they were shot in the 70's.

September 18, 2013 at 3:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gene

^ Yeah, why waste time with improving digital technology with cool new cams like the Digital Bolex?

Just shoot film, even if film production is very expensive and winding down production.
Zzzzzzzz

September 18, 2013 at 11:14AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Heyzeus

I've been reading over and over in comment threads that film is cheaper. Now you say it isn't.

September 18, 2013 at 7:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Seriously? Film is not cheaper. Anyone knows that. How old are you? Really?

September 20, 2013 at 7:41AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

14
Reply
WranglePCvideos

Wrangler

you have suddenly shown up in these comment threads along with SlamBom. You both seem to be working in tandem. Are you one person using 2 names? Or do you have even more than 2 names here in comment threads? It is unusual that you both have suddenly shown up at the same time with the same level of negativity.

Do you use 2 or more commenter ID names on this blog?

September 20, 2013 at 8:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

you are a girly man.

September 20, 2013 at 7:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Alexa BMCC

I guess I'm not in the general public then.

September 18, 2013 at 5:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Dave

I'm so excited about this camera (I own a Scarlet and will upgrade to the Red Dragon Epic in time)... but still. The CCD, the engineers, the whole team have/are clearly putting together something special. Well done. (I think people who called this vaporware are gonna look stupid). That said, I really hope they can find commercial success, they are well on their way to creating a great camera. And full credit to them for letting everyone in on the ups and downs of the process

September 18, 2013 at 3:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Dean Butler

Are you going to be selling your Scarlet?

September 23, 2013 at 10:27AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Cory Ewing

It looks cool. Yes, it does. BUT... we need to see this camera mounted on a bleeping tripod, dolly and steadicam. The hand-held has got to go. Get it in the hands of Phillip Bloom or some other highly respected DP. Then we'll know what the deal is.

I'm excited, so don't get me wrong. But we need to know more.

September 18, 2013 at 11:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
The Rising

LOL

September 19, 2013 at 1:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Look guys...There HAS been footage with a tripod, and people complained and wanted to see hand held. I agree that this shot is ridiculous as a 'test' since there is so much post stylizing, however the TRUE test in this footage is precisely in the hand held nature of it...Try anything like this on a DSLR...even with IS on a new canon lens, you couldn't get this.

Certainly I'd love to see some crisp narative, but I'm stoked about the newly retained and once assumed ability to pick up a camera and shoot...Everything on DSLR nearly needs to be locked off, and I get why people want to see that because that's what they are accustomed to...However, this is how 16mm has been shot for ages...this is part of the 16mm aesthetic. I dig it, and look forward to more.

September 18, 2013 at 12:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
MIke C

"Everything on DSLR nearly needs to be locked off, " Thats ridiculous. There is nothing in this video that a DSLR wouldn't handle easily. Look how much noise there is in the blacks in scenes that aren't even that dark. Motion wise it takes a lot more than you think to notice any warping in real world shooting and I'm not talking about whip pans of telephone pole tests. I shoot pro tennis for part of each year which is very fast moving, very tight shots which makes for even faster BG movement and its never been a problem with DSLR.

September 20, 2013 at 8:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply

i think he was refering to handheld motion jitter. DSLR CMOS sensors are horrific for handheld, even in pans, you get warp and jello. this has nothing to do with the cameraman, it's an inherent flaw with most CMOS sensors

September 21, 2013 at 11:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
ishoot720p

Yes it was his comment about CMOS warping I was referring to.

September 21, 2013 at 9:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

When is camera going to be available, it says summer 2013 on the site but obviously that has come and gone...

September 18, 2013 at 2:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Lucian

At some point it might be worth asking an industry professional who is a DoP, who perhaps is known for shooting feature films, to put the camera through its paces.
No offence to the man that shot this but clearly his skills lie in CG effects as opposed to being a professional cinematographer. If you contact the ASC I'm sure they'd put you in touch with someone like that or you could try approaching Shane Hurlbut. Just an idea.
Fairly nice footage but heavily graded and I'd still like to see if this interesting camera will stand up image quality wise to rival offerings. Global shutter is a winner.

September 18, 2013 at 2:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
ADC

We are in touch with several members of the ASC and when the camera is really ready to be put in there hands we will most certainly do so. I am actually sitting in an airport at 3:30am on my way home from the first real sensor calibration session.

I promise we will get high end professionals and high end glass to show you what the D16 is capable of, but I don't want to stick the camera in someone like that's hands before it's really ready.

September 19, 2013 at 6:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Sounds like a good plan Joe, cool news. Will follow with much interest.

September 20, 2013 at 1:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
ADC

I think it's brilliant. I shot a feature in 16mm and it cost me $250k with post and finish. This camera is a blessing.

September 18, 2013 at 4:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

What is the projected release date? Summer 2015? Website says 2013 but they missed that deadline again (after missing three previously posted ones) so I am eager to purchase one but a lot can change in the industry in such a long time.

They have excellent potential to pick up where Iconoskope left off and I wish them the very best!

They are champions of being different - and different is good. Bravo!

September 18, 2013 at 4:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Lisa

We are in the final design stages. Cameras should be out very soon. I don't want to give an exact date in case we miss it, but soon :)

September 19, 2013 at 6:51AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

A Bloomberg article on the state of the photo industry.
.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-18/smartphone-cameras-at-41-megapi...

September 18, 2013 at 7:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DLD

41 megapixels in a phone. And there's arguments that Canon and Nikon don't need to go to 4K. Sheesh!

September 18, 2013 at 9:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Yes we all know that smart phones are killing the point and shoot market, but the higher end camera markets are all still growing. This article is focused completely on consumer products not pro or prosumer.

And it's not just point and shoot cameras, but a large portion of consumer grade electronics, including guess what, TVs. And 4K TVs are actually hit the hardest out of all of them.

Analysts don't expect 4K adoption to even hit 2% by 2017 and almost all of those will be $25K TVs for company board rooms and ground level window displays.

And what good does 41 megapixels do if it's on a sensor the size of tic tac?

September 19, 2013 at 6:56AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

You can buy a Seiki 4K tv for approx. $1000.00. Some times the price dips under $1000.00.

Sony and Samsung have 4K tvs for $5000.00 to $6000.00. You can see them on display at Best Buy.

September 19, 2013 at 9:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gene

September 19, 2013 at 9:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

You guys talk in circles. Yes there are some cheap, probably not so good, smaller than 55" 4K monitors out there. Just cause they are out there doesn't mean anyone will buy them.

Can I ask you a question? Gene do you or DLD personally own a 4K monitor? Does anyone you know in North America own a 4K monitor for personal (not professional) use?

If not maybe that message is more important than what a TV company is trying to push.

Basically don't start bragging about 4K until we hit at least 25% market adoption. I think we can all agree that getting to 25% would be the minimum number where it starts to make sense to pay attention to, Yes?

Look at what happened with 3D. I'm not saying it's the same but after several years of huge companies spending billions of dollars pushing 3D they only got to about 6% market acceptance and it has now completely fallen off. This btw from a person who owns a 3D projector.

Would you recommend to indie filmmakers to go out and spend $30K on a 3D rig at this point?

Market acceptance is the only thing that really matters.

September 19, 2013 at 3:33PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Joe, 3D was DOA. I saw a few demo units during the 2010 World Cup and the images looked like cardboard cutouts. Then, you add the need for the 3D glasses and the result was the technology unsuitable for the mass adoption.
.
As to the Quad HD TV, as I had already posted, according to the Display Search, the prices will be declining at about 40% annually - from $4K today to $2.5K in 2014, to $1.5K in 2015 and $1K in 2016. The media player is in the offing and the download capability exists already. I have also mentioned a market insider prediction that between now and the NAB'14, there'll be as many as 20 various 4K models unveiled. So far you can count the two Sony models and maybe an upgraded FS-700R. Which means there are (theoretically) 17 models more to go. The DB can choose any resolution with any features, obviously, but IMO, you will have a tough time going against the prevailing tide. The price pressure, largely generated by the current overcapacity within the photo/video industry, is forcing the major brands to update furiously and offer more features and higher performance than they had ever before and that will effect every model offered on market. This is a very tough gig to lust after, even when you outperform the competition and, frankly, I have not seen that either.

September 19, 2013 at 5:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DLD

I notice how you didn't answer my question :)

DLD, do you own a 4K TV right now? Do you know anyone that does who isn't using it for professional uses?

Prices alone don't determine market acceptance. It's not a straight cause and effect. It's a Cost VS Benefit analysis and the prediction is that the cost will GREATLY out weight the benefit for most average users for at least 10 years. And it's not just the consumer markets either. Most movie theaters that have invested heavily in 4K have not seen extra profit from it. There are articles siting that average movie theaters see ticket sales grow when investing in better seats, drink options, and just about everything else except 4K.

September 19, 2013 at 8:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

You say:

"by 2017 and almost all of those will be $25K TVs for company board rooms and ground level window displays."

There are consumers that already own 4k tvs that cost less than $1000.00. They will not cost $25K in 2017. They already cost less than $1000.00 this year, in 2013.

No, I do not own a 4K tv as a monitor. But I have not bought a new monitor in years. My ~2K monitor suffices for now, but I am not satisfied to stay with it. I am already planning to buy a 4K tv to be used as a monitor. I am only waiting for a low cost 4K video resolution card. No low cost 4K resolution video cards are available right now. If I had one now I likely would have already bought a Seiki 4K 50" tv. There are expensive gaming video cards that have 4K resolution now.

There are consumers buying 4K tvs now. It is not just professionals.

You talk about 4K as if it will never happen for the consumer. It is already happening. Sony and Samsung have 4K tvs on display right now in stores. There are more manufacturers making them. There are many camera companies making 4K cameras. You can even 4K video in some phones now. YouTube has already said they will go back to 4K streaming capacity when there is enough of a demand. They had it at one time and will be going back to it.

3D in tv has been proven to cause headaches. It is recommended that children not use tv 3D glasses because of possible brain development problems it could cause. It is incongruent to compare 4K to 3D.

The beauty and fascination of higher K's insures 4K will be in the mainstream in a short period of time.

And even higher K's are on the way. While we argue over 4K, manufacturers are already R & D-ing 6K, 8K and beyond.

4K is here to stay Joe.

I don't want to exchange more comments on this. I hope you have a nice night. And I hope your camera does well. God Bless you.

September 19, 2013 at 9:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Gene You're right 4K will most likely gain significant market acceptance, I never said it wouldn't. The question is WHEN will this happen?

This report is by IHS Worldwide Television Market Tracker, their job is to track and predict TV purchases for the 168 Billion dollar TV market...

http://www.isuppli.com/Display-Materials-and-Systems/News/Pages/4K-Telev...

If after reading this you still think 4K will gain significant market acceptance in the next 5 years then you're right we should just stop talking about it ;)

September 20, 2013 at 1:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Joe, that report is almost a year old and sounds woefully out of date. It referenced $20K TVs as if these "massive price tags" are where consumer oriented 4K sets would start their slow decline. It makes no prediction of the true $5K starting point a mere 2 months later ( http://cnet.co/XjNNTw ) and from Sony, no less (that $5K set is now $4K and there's a speaker-less version for $3,500) . I think you're off in terms of how many people will buy 4K capable TVs if the price is right but closer to the mark about the availability and volume of 4K content that will be available in 5 years. I believe it will be more than you think it will but that's what's going to keep 2K content viable, not how many 4K sets there are.

If I'm not mistaken, more people today have HD sets than watch HD content on them. When the price hits the sweet spot, people will buy 4K TVs because it will represent more bang for their buck. I guarantee people won't say, "Give me the 1080p set for the same price because 4K is too much resolution and the content is only at 7% saturation." They won't care. The day you can walk into Walmart or Target and buy a 4K set, the deal will be sealed. I think that's definitely going to happen by 2017.

Don't underestimate people's willingness to buy shit they don't need or can't fully utilize if it's cheap enough, my friend. In the meantime, rock on.

September 20, 2013 at 7:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Brian

High end customers are already buying 4K tvs instead of high end 1080p. I was told by a Best Buy salesman that on the first week they were in his store a man bought 6 for his house. 4K tvs already cost less than 1/2 of high end 1080p. 4K tv broadcasting will take a long time to come about in America. But 4K over the internet and 4K DVD players will not. Many people have Blu-Ray players showing movies on their 1080p tvs.That shows the average consumer wants higher resolution. It didn't matter to them that tv wasn't broadcast in 1080p when they made the move up.

People are already using the tv in their living room to surf the net, and to watch movies over the net. Oppo 4K tvs will soon be available in WalMart---projected by the end of this year. There's 4K resolution gaming cards already installed in lots of gamers computers. They are 4K ready now, now some never never time in the future. I am certain those gamers will want a 4K tv. They can now, today, buy a Seiki 50" for $965.00. The Oppo 50" will be selling for about $1500.0o and will have more features than the Seiki. The game is moving fast.

The consumer will want 4K because they will use it, not because it's a novelty.

September 20, 2013 at 9:03AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Gene

Listen, I'm not trying to argue that they won't sell any 4K TVs, or even that 4K content is totally useless. Just the timing. So great one person bought 6 TVs, but who else did that day? They will sell millions of these TVs, but that is a microscopic market. Less than 1%.

HD(720 or 1080) just hit market acceptance(75%) last year after 17 years of being pushed. And HD is a HUGE improvement over SD. I don't think 4K is as big an improvement over HD as HD is over SD. You really need a big TV to see it easily. And big TVs 60" or bigger of any resolution are only 1.5% of the market.

This is where the prediction comes from. Basically right now no one buys huge TVs and in order to really see 4K you need a huge TV, so IE no one buys 4K TVs.

Unless a the market trends towards 80" TVs really quickly (which is very unlikely) 4K adoption will be REALLY REALLY slow. Not that it won't happen, but you won't hit 75% market saturation or "market acceptance" for at least 10 probably closer to 20 years.

This is all I'm trying to say. It will take more than 10 years for grandma and grampa to have 4K in their living room. Price / anything else doesn't matter. The only thing that should matter to filmmakers is market acceptance.

September 20, 2013 at 7:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

And Brian if you have found any studies that say 4K will be more popular than 1% or 2% in the next 5 years I would be very interested to read them. My guess is they don't exist.

September 20, 2013 at 7:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply

Unfortunately for 4K to succeed all the manufacturers have to do is make their new models 4K and natural attrition will take care of it.

For production reasons I think 4K cameras are a good idea but I'm only interested in HD delivery myself.

September 20, 2013 at 8:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply

The consumer wants higher resolution. 1080p in not the end of the line for higher resolution. Nor is 4K. The beauty of 4K cannot be denied. The beauty of 6K is even better and more fascinating than 4K. Higher K's are not being foisted upon the public. The public wants higher resolution. Manufacturers know this. So they are creating products they know the general public will buy. People buy Blu Ray because it looks better than SD. They will buy 4K because it looks better than Blu Ray. They will buy 6K because it looks better than 4K, and so on. You guys are putting the caboose in front of the engine.

September 21, 2013 at 12:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Gene

Joe

if your camera sells well, and I hope it does, you have to consider that the next iteration, the next generation, of the Digital Bolex may need to have 4K. Many camera companies see the need to go up to 4k, and are going there. Sony jujst came out with a consumer 4K. Panasonic is supposed to be releasing a 4K prosumer in November that uses the GH3 sensor. I saw a demo video of a new 4K video phone. It really did look pretty, even with the small sensor. It didn't look as good as Red 4K, Sony 4K, or Nikon 4K. But it was the prettiest phone video I've seen.

Just a thought.

September 21, 2013 at 1:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Joe, I don't know of any such studies but if run across one I'll let you know.

My point is this. I find a study that claims to predict what 4K TV sales are going to be in 5 years but can't predict what the real-world starting price will be in a few short months to be highly dubious. I'm willing to bet the average selling price they "predicted" a set will go for in 2017 is at or slightly below where the Sonys actually started last January. If you insist on defending this report, the real question you should be prepared to answer now is how much has their model changed due to the $5K, not $20K, starting price? 2013 is Year 1 for 4K in the home and that $5K dropped to $4K within 9 months. Does that report take into account Sony's very aggressive 4K push. Being the one, true, a-to-z, soup-to-nuts, acquisition to delivery multi-media company on the planet, I'd say Sony's doubling down on 4K is a significant factor. Hit me with a more recent study and I'll give it more credence.

Joe, I hate to brag, but I'm somewhat of an oracle. TVs aren't TVs anymore. At least, not in the sense that we're all used to thinking about them. They're digital appliances and their advancements and adoption rates will seem like warp speed compared to the analog days of NTSC. Things move so fast now your study was out of date in a matter of months. TVs will be computer screens and vice versa. Higher resolutions mean they'll take on roles they were never suited for in the past. A 10 to 20 year adoption prediction for any digital device, now that everything is digital, seems unrealistic to me. In 20 years I fully expect my mobile phone to double as a personal teleportation device.

September 21, 2013 at 2:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Brian

Brian, I gotta say I love your conviction and positive attitude, but I don't think you are grasping the size of the market. We have a 529,000,000 person population. That is ALOT of people, and getting them all to do anything is very very slow. Getting even half of them to do things is slow, even when those things are free to them like getting a gmail or facebook account. If you look at facebook adoption rates in North America it took them 7 years to get to market acceptance, and that's facebook, one of the most popular sites on the internet! Seven years to get people to sign up for something they don't have to leave their house for, costs no money, basically has a SUPER LOW barrier to entry.

4K not only has a much higher barrier to entry, but there is less reason for it than Facebook. I guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 4K will take longer to reach market acceptance than facebook did.
That study it's done by a multi-million dollar company who's entire existence is based on tracking and predicting TV sales world wide. I also guarantee they know more about this stuff than we do, and they have an ear to the inside track we do not have access to.

So yes, when they say 1% by 2017 I believe them.

September 21, 2013 at 3:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Thanks, Joe. Yes, I'm a veritable ray of sunshine. You raise a good point and I want you to know I take no pleasure in destroying it. Firstly, 529 million people? Who all are you counting? It's more like 320 million. Secondly, some of them have to be babies with limited purchasing power. Thirdly, gmail and Facebook aren't really free. If you want to access them from your home only, it's going to cost you $40/mo. If you also want access on-the-go, it may cost another $40/mo. Yeah, yeah...you get the entire internets with that price but if you primarily socialize on FB and check your email, you're paying a pretty penny to do it. In addition, FBing is work and many people are lazy. Using something people have to actually engage with in comparison to something people can veg-out in front of as an example of slow adoption seems problematic for your argument. Nevertheless, I'm willing to concede it will take 3-4 years before 4K TV adoption kicks into high(er) gear. I've never said otherwise. The following 3-4 years will see an exponential growth as HD choices and purchases slow. As I've stated elsewhere, HD adoption was plagued by (roughly) simultaneous transitions - SD to HD, the last of the CRTs to LCD/plasma and analog to digital standards for TVs, cable boxes, and over-the-air broadcasts. 4K sets won't have that problem. Cost is the largest deciding factor, followed by the size to available space ratio. Have you honestly ever considered anything more than that when buying if you were happy with the picture and features?

Maybe everyone is focusing too much on the 4K part and not enough on the TV part. As I and some others have stated, all that needs to happen is HD choices become limited by manufacturers as 4K prices come down and eventually cost the same. Presto! That's how it always happens. When people who bought a new 1080p set in 2006 go to buy a replacement in 2015, if the 4K sets cost as much as their HD set did in 2006, they're very likely to be going home with one. Do people walk into a store wondering where the CRT TVs are? Do they even think about whether they're getting an HD versus an SD set? For the bigger sets, do they need to ask if they're getting 1080p versus 720p? Buying a 4K TV will be no different from buying an HD set today. I'd love to hear how you think it will be otherwise, given a comparable price. Speaking of which, as for the study you asked me about, I forgot that previously on this page DLD mentioned that Display Search predicted a drastic drop in UHD prices over the next 3 years.

What may also have to happen is there'll be an intentional size gap as 4K gets pushed. For the most part, HD will start to max out at maybe 37" from everyone manufacturing a 4K set. 42" and the like will disappear and UHD will start at 50" but be primarily 55" and up. I don't know about your neck of the woods but, around here, electronics stores partner with furniture stores and bundle 50" TVs with living and family room sets for "free" (or, as free as FB and gmail really are). Once the price is right, UHD will have yet another avenue into the home. You're right. Penetration won't be huge by 2017. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying penetration will be bigger than you think and may be big enough that you as a camera manufacturer as well as your customers feel like you have to address it sooner rather than later.

BTW, I give the authors of your study within a year before they revise their numbers to something significantly different than what their last report shows. They won't do it right away in order to save face but when they do, they'll cite some exciting new trends blah, blah, blah. It won't be 10% by 2017 or anything but it will suggest 2017-2020 growth will be considerably more than the previous few years.

September 21, 2013 at 6:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Brian

With gaming moving to 4K resolution and with 50" 4K tvs available from $965.00 to $1500.00 it won't take decades for many houses in America having 4K tvs. HiSense (I think earlier I said Oppo) is supposed to start selling 4K tvs in WalMart by the end of this year. I don't know if they will have them in store or on internet only. WalMart has HiSense 1080p tvs now. The 50" 4K HiSense will be $1500.00. The same tv can be used, of course, as a monitor.

September 21, 2013 at 8:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Biggest reason why I wanted the Digital Bolex... because it gives me the film look like classic movies like The Ten Commandments, The Good Son, etc.

I dont give a damn what people says... I'm still buying this! Every cams are not for everyone.

September 19, 2013 at 2:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Donald F.

Ha ha im sick of the 4k thing i real am. What this camera will produce is far more valuable then quad HD blahh blah blah. And 4k TVS really? Are they going to be 40ft screens? No sense in that. Im sooooooo done with the mega pixel rubbish. DLD and Gene im not sure why you want 4k so bad. I rather these companies focus on the quality of there pixels and dynamic range. How about making images that dont look like CGI. "Just got my new 100 megapix phone yall. Image looks like poo but who cares cuz it has more mega pixels then your cam or phone or what ever you call these garbage wannabe film apps blahhh blahhh blahh" Sorry but this will be my next camera and i think most indie film makers (who know what makes a good camera) will agree that this is and amazing cinema camera. No need for 4k at all crisp REAL 2k is plenty. ha ha i cant even believe that 40 megapoo phone was even mentioned in this blog.

September 19, 2013 at 11:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
hjfilmspeed

Sorry Donald F I ment to post this up top.

September 19, 2013 at 11:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
hjfilmspeed

From a marketing perspective, I think this is a great approach once you have other footage as well- fits the whole retro vibe that the camera's going for. Keep this idea in your backpocket to use on some sort of promo down the line ;)

In terms of evaluation, the only thing that's bothered me about the footage in the past, is that the noise is ugly. With this footage and all the grain/processing, it's hard to see if you've done anything to improve the inherent look of the noise.

Anyway, I'm not in a market to buy one of these, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. But if the price is right I'd think of renting it instead of a BMCC.

September 20, 2013 at 1:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Didn't read through all the comments, but for what it's worth, the only reason I'd directly benefit from 4K it is to have extra room for moves on a 2K timeline. Saves money on renting a slider :D

If any camera makers are listening, here's my wishlist in a camera that I'd spend money renting or investing in... pretty much in order of importance, but depending on what I'm shooting (i.e. long interviews in the dark would switch around a couple of these):

1) RAW straight to internal media (preferably SSD, CF Card is okay depending on what I need to shoot)

2) Large dynamic range

3) Predictable and avoidable artifacting (moire, rolling shutter, color screwups)

4) pretty (or little) noise even in dark

5) control over focus (APS-C or bigger sensor)

6) sharp imagery

7) colors that are decent straight out of camera

It looks like the Digital Bolex can stack up really well with these in mind... just make the noise look organic! :)

September 20, 2013 at 6:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

Thanks for your comments David.

We are working on it, just got back from a sensor calibration session.

Blog post about it is coming on Monday. And we will be showing a mini-doc by another filmmaker next week too.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

September 20, 2013 at 7:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

David I wouldn't use 4K to replace a slider if I were you. It wont give you any parallax at all (distant objects moving slower, close objects sliding by faster). It will just look weird.

September 20, 2013 at 11:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Yeah, pan and scan is ugly.

September 21, 2013 at 12:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Nailed the Sydney Lumet look.

September 20, 2013 at 8:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

i dont like it but..

September 21, 2013 at 12:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Sebastian Roland

Great comment, thanx! Really useful.

November 12, 2013 at 2:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

8
Reply
Andrew

Here are some facts about 4k and why it will take at least a decade to become mainstream for the home if ever.

The major cable networks have only recently been able to get a decent 1080p image on your tv's. It is acceptable 1080p, meaning that it's not the best but a highly compressed version of 1080p that looks good enough from 4-10 feet away. Try looking closeup at your tv, it's really not that great right now. Why, because of compression. The infrastructure and distribution technology isn't even fully there yet for 1080p
To upgrade the entire cable infrastructure for 4k cable programming would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. will the consumer pay up through an increase in their cable bill? NO.

I have seen 1080p and 2k raw digital intermediary from feature films before it's compressed for BluRay and Cable. It is much better. Technology has a ways to go to even get 1080p to look it's best for mass distribution. Even if 4k content is available in the near future, it will be so grossly overcompressed, you won't even see much of a difference to blu-ray.

Finally, from 6-10 feet, which is where most people watch their 40-60 inch tv's from, 4k is no different than 1080p or 2k. There is no point in buying a 4k tv under 50" unless you're watching right in front of the screen. It makes a difference when you get to larger projections. How many people are going to buying 10 ft projection screens for their homes? that's a niche market.

September 21, 2013 at 11:38AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
ishoot720p

ESPN is already in process for broadcasting in 4k over the internet. TV will be broadcast in 4K over the internet long before it reaches traditional broadcast venues, that is, if ever it reaches there.

September 21, 2013 at 12:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Gene

Companies like harmonic are already working on ways of delivering 4K over the internet.

http://www.harmonicinc.com/

September 21, 2013 at 12:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

I was told by a Best Buy employee they can't put the 4K tvs next to the 1080p tvs. They have to keep them separate, for now, because there are so many 1080p tvs back logged in warehouse they might get a large inventory left because people will switch to 4K faster than they can reasonably handle the 1080p tp 4K transition. A difference can be seen. I have seen it for myself. And I have listened to people talk as they stand looking at 4K in the store. They all see a difference. The common thing most say is they are going to wait a little while until more 4K content is available. So the demand is there. They would take it NOW. There are many new 4K and 6K movies being shot. And many now in existence. 4K dvd players are in the works now. As soon as they hit the streets sales of 4K tvs will start in earnest. Higher K's are taking over the video industry. It is very easy to see it happening.

I am growing weary of this debate. It actually is not a debate anymore. The train has left the station. Time waits for no man. But then, some people like to drive classic cars, like the '57 Chevy, the same as some people want to hang on to 720p and 1080p. '57 Chevy's and "p" resolution are great for some people. Most people don't want to stay at one moment in time though. They move on with the times. I am looking forward to 8K now, and ultimately 16K. And I bet that most of you guys that are kicking and screaming about 4K now will move up to 4K and will love the picture you see. :-)

September 21, 2013 at 12:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

I should have put 6K in parenthesis---(and some in 6K)---like that :-)

September 21, 2013 at 12:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

7
Reply
Gene

I also should say, as means of heading off nasty replies, that 1080p and 720p are still in wide use and will be for a while. But there is nothing to keep them in wide use. They will fade as time passes. And don't bet on 10 years of wide use. 4K has staying power. I should say, higher and higher K's have staying power. You can future proof yourself by going to higher K's.

Like I've already said, I'm looking forward for the Seki 4K 50" tv to come down under $800.00. :-)

September 21, 2013 at 1:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Pages