Slashdot Mirror
Digital Bolex Gives You a Classic Film Look in a Digital Package (Video)
Once upon a time, people shot a kind of video called "film." And one of the most popular film camera makers was Bolex. Their 16 mm and Super 16 mm cameras were the favored tools for indie film makers, low budget TV news operations, and film schools. Sure, there were 8mm and Super 8, but they didn't give you the stunning clarity you could get with 16 mm. Besides that, carrying a Bolex was kind of like telling everyone, "Look at me! I'm a professional moviemaker!" And with the cost of processing 16 mm film back in the late 1960s and early 1970s you pretty much had to be a pro -- or at least have access to a TV station or college film lab if you wanted to do any serious movie experimentation. Obviously, times have changed. You can now buy a fairly serious camcorder at a consumer-level price. Or a DSLR that can do video -- and do depth of field tricks hardly any camcorder can match. Even so, if you are a film junkie, you just might want a Digital Bolex. Thanks to a highly successful Kickstarter campaign, it looks like you might be able to buy one before long. Too bad you can't still get Kodachrome film, which was the perfect film for your Bolex. Ah, well. RAW format digital is more or less the 21st Century equivalent of Kodachrome, so it will have to do.
Does it come standard or optional?
Say what?
Why can't they just call it a RAW format camcorder?
Hipster cache thats why.
Should call it the Instagramcorder.
All this advanced super-duper mega-tronic technology to emulate the old dusty analog stuff found in the garage
Table-ized A.I.
14-bit RAW is probably like Kodachrome (K-14). If it's 12-bit, you are in Ektachrome territory.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
There's a reason every professional video camera uses a shoulder mount instead these days. The weight may not be as much of an issue now as it was in the U-matic days, but you're still going to get less camera shake when you don't have to balance the camera in one hand.
I vaguely recall from my filming in standard 16mm in the early '70s that the cost was about $25 for a 50 ft. roll of Kodachrome plus $10 for processing.
That 50 ft. would be used up in about 80 seconds at 16 fps (silent film speed). The bookkeeping of each shot to avoid interrupting subsequent shooting by an end-of-reel event was no fun.
Well, it does physically resemble one particular Bolex design.
Also, I feel an overwhelming urge to point out that brand name recognition and hence resurrection is not exclusive to hipsters. There have been five "Atari" companies, for example.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
You can buy better than their Digital Bolex from sony on the used market. The VG10 with a lens adapter will do more than that thing ever will for less. and that is the out of date discarded model. the VG30 has a better sensor and does even better, or you can upgrade to the full frame version that gives you only a slight advantage over the VG30.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Cachet.
Love my Kern-Paillard, now Bolex, "Switar" 75/1.9 which I use on micro-four-thirds. That small lens on the right is a Switar...
because... hipsters.
I just got myself a Bolex diver's model when I was in New York. Guy told me they sell for $3000+ in stores, but he let me have one for just $250. Talk about a bargain!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
RAW is 21st century equivalent of Kodachrome? WTF is wrong with you?
And probably around 42 "Amiga" companies.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
RAW format digital is more or less the 21st Century equivalent of Kodachrome,
In what universe is digital format equivalent to Kodachrome? There is an exhibit at the National Archives of photos from the 70s, all of which were done on Kodachrome. The color saturation, gradation and tonality are far beyond anything digital can do.
Unless you're looking at a 1G file size, digital will never be equivalent to Kodachrome.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Actually the figure is somewhat smaller: Hi-Toro (the original startup), Commodore, Escom, Gateway (did nothing with it), Bill McEwen (outsourced everything). The Commodore name has been through the same number of post-demise owners: Escom, Tulip (also did nothing with it), Yeahronimo Media Ventures (renamed to Commodore).
Commodore was my first thought when looking for examples of brand resurrection, but I figured that since neither brand name had done anything world-changing since 1994, that wouldn't exactly demonstrate that the phenomenon had mainstream appeal.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Ok, cute for highly-specialized projects. Otherwise almost as silly as 3Dfx making 3D cards that artificially blurred motion rendering so it looked like movies, i.e. like 1910 tech, as if it were some great, desired feature.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Their CTO and his team are in Canada, but they won't ship outside of the US.
The farking thing is basically being built and designed here but I can't order one?
I hope that the digital bolex will sound better than this video. Maybe it's as simple as installing a Wind Muff, but damn.
you condescending asshole. There is a look you get from film that cannot be duplicated any other way.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
The cost of making a movie now is not film or equipment, but talent and time. A good 3 CCD camera is less than $1000. I have edited such things on a portable macbook. It is not uncommon for students to learn the basic skills in high school.
Now I am back to the idea that a creative person will find the funding, and creating a good original story and finding good people is really the impediment to a good film, not the money. It seems sad that the trend now is to incorporate increasingly technical FX, which really just test the ability of software writers, not creative talent, instead of creating better content. As hockey as blair witch was, it is still better than Transformers.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I hope these schmucks die in a celluloid flare up.
I almost wrecked my speakers on that dumb fuck
insane audio level.
What's next Slashdot "stories" on DailySteals specials?
"XtremeMac BT Connect Bluetooth Audio Receiver - Portable, Battery Powered Compact Receiver Makes Any Stereo System Wireless"
Some other "pertinent" links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising
What is the nature of "working in partnership," I don't know. Hopefully it's a close partnership, because otherwise it seems like you'd be crazy to buy such a complex product from somebody who never made one before, when there are already entrenched, world-class competitors.
The message is in the subject!
Slightly off-topic, but the above video won't play in Chrome in Ubuntu (12.04 64bit) for me; I just get a black box showing.
:D
I can get it to play in Firefox on the same Ubuntu machine... but it's annoying so I thought I share/bleat about it!
FYI it seems just only be a problem with Slashdot embedded videos... I've not had a problem elsewhere.
The chick looks like Garth form Waynes World. The dude is just icing on the cake.
So their peddling a digital movie camera that makes it seem like 16mm film. So, basically, Waynes world presents Instagram movies.
I can't find a link that goes to a youtube video or still pictures of the effects mentioned in TFS.
Is this a story or a slashvertisement? (this question may be rhetorical)
Actually the figure is somewhat smaller [than 42]
I *suspect* there was some moderate exaggeration for the sake of making a valid point(!)
Hi-Toro, Commodore, Escom, Gateway, Bill McEwen.
The Commodore name has been through the same number of post-demise owners: Escom, Tulip, Yeahronimo
Even assuming that *is* a complete list of all the *owners*, it doesn't account for the clusterf*** of licensing that is the Commodore IP rights, and more significantly, the Amiga IP rights.
As far as I know, the Amiga is split between the brand rights, the hardware rights, and the OS rights, all licensed to different people, changing over the years and subject to legal disputes. The latter two are aimed at getting the money off the few remaining diehard "Amiga" hobbyists, even though the current "Amiga" hardware has little to do with the original design.
There was also something called AmigaOne, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the original Amiga or its OS at all, but was sold by the then-current "Amiga" company a few years back.
Then there's also been transparent brand whoring, with the same people who recently launched the pretend "Commodore 64" (PC in a fake C64 case) also selling HTPC cases that had *nothing* to do with the Amiga under the Amiga 1000 name (and the like).
I can't keep track of this, and I don't care to either. There may as *well* have been 42 owners!
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
What will they think of next?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Sorry that the sound sucked, even though Roblimo did his best to rescue it. You're right. This was a human error -- mine. Actually, a series of them, but "mine" still applies.
End of the day, of the last day at SXSW, didn't expect to even get to the Digital Bolex booth. As it turns out, I did get there, but didn't have my handheld mic. Stupid. The D.B. folks very graciously tried to help; believe it or not, she's talking into a lav mic, she's just got a very quiet voice, probably after talking to too many people in too short a time. And he's trying to speak loudly enough into the shotgun mic on top of the camera.
I ended up borrowing a better wireless mic shortly thereafter, and then buying one (factory refurb, yay!) for myself when I saw what a difference it made. I also finally replaced a cable on a set of better-isolating headphones. Various things I should have done better; hopefully, you'll see continuing improvement.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
It has a built in taser and it uploads the video directly to youtube.
No brain, no pain.
Yes, I realise that it was hyperbole, but now you've got me started and I won't be able to stop.
It's actually pretty straightforward:
Amiga, Inc., which is Bill McEwen's company and the current holder, outsourced hardware manufacture to a venerable Amiga hardware add on company, EyeTech. The result was the AmigaOne, a PPC-based system that iterated the natural direction in which Amiga hardware addons had developed throughout the nineties. The operating system, AmigaOS 4, was outsourced to Hyperion Entertainment. (AmigaOS 4 also runs on the Pegasos computers made by Genesi, an off-brand effort that is similar. Genesi also sells their own OS, MorphOS, which does not run on the AmigaOne.)
Leaving Genesi out of the equation, there are really just the two companies, one for hardware and one for software. Amiga, Inc. just holds the brand name. The machines actually are logical successors to the classic Amigas, but to an outsider they look strange because there are several generations of expansion cards and off-brand machines in between, such as the DraCo. Some AmigaOnes even have slots for inserting classic Amiga components to improve compatibility.
The Commodore USA story is also pretty simple: they just sell low-end PCs in kitschy boxes.
So, really, four things to keep track of in the current ecosystem, and only two that actually produce anything of worth. The tricky detail is that Eyetech has recently been replaced by another company, A-Eon, but it's still the same hardware lineage. Amiga users are divided between classic purists, MorphOS enthusiasts, and AmigaOS 4 enthusiasts, with a small group who use a multiplatform open source OS called AROS. (And, yes, all of it is outdated, overpriced, and underpowered.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
LOL - stunning clarity you could get with 16 mm? As opposed to 8mm?
the HR-16 always seemed a little top-heavy to me, but then Canon came along with the Scoopic-16 and Sound-Scoopic to make the Bolex seem balanced.
crank? on a digicam? man, it better telescope and fold back.
and I notice they're pushing Switar lenses. some things never change ;)
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I'm sure this seems like a crazy idea to non-filmmakers. Here's why this is important:
There are two things that are very important to us - the ability to use our existing lens investment, and "raw" data.
Pro still photographers shoot in "raw" format. We have the camera store raw sensor data (14 bits on mine), rather than "cook" it to a 8-bit JPEG (compressed, too). The massive increase in data lets us alter white balance, exposure, curves, etc. after the photo has been shot. This is a huge deal to photographers, and video guys never had it.
Well, until the RED camera arrived about 5 years ago. RED is a large sensor cinema camera that shoots in raw - that made it a game changer, even at a cost of $40k-$50K for a fully dressed rig. Last year, Black Magic Design shipped a small-sensor camera that shoot in raw, for US$3000. There are lots of things to dislike about that camera, but nothing anywhere close to that price shoots raw.
Back to the lens collection. Many of us have a collection of Nikon, Leica and Zeiss manual focus lenses. We look for cameras that can use these lenses, because it is the lens that draws the image on the sensor. When we want a certain rendering (soft, sharp, dreamy) we pick a lens that renders that way. There are a lot of good C-mount lenses that are too small to fit large sensor camcorders. They have become dirt cheap, since there is little use for them.
The digital Bolex give us the ability to shoot raw files, using old C-Mount lenses, and modern lenses via an adapter. That's a lot of good stuff, assuming the price is reasonable. Right now, only Black Magic Design is anywhere close.
The drawback? Well, sensor size is also very important to us, and the Bolex is small. In fact, the driving force for the dSLR video "revolution" is simply the size of the sensor. A large sensor needs a lens with a longer focal length to maintain the same field of view. Longer lenses tend to have a shallow depth-of-field, and that characteristic can be used to create blurry backgrounds. This keeps the viewer's eyes on the sharpest part of the image, and allows us to control where the viewer should look. This would be very hard to do on a 16mm camera, Digital Bolex, or Black Magic Design. It is trivial on a Nikon D800 or Canon 5D Mk III - but neither of these cameras shoot video in raw.
So we are in the middle of the raw-format revolution in video. Right now the combination of raw-format recording, interchangeable lenses and a large sensor is expensive. You can get 2-of-the-3 for about US$3000 today (camera only - no lens). This is a very interesting time for filmmakers.
Place nail here >+
I spent a few years as a contributing editor and translator for Berlin-based smallformat (the English version of schmalfilm). It was extremely sad to see how the European movie camera manufacturers had been completely unable to competitively shift manufacturing to Asia when the electronic revolution started to take hold in the early 1980s - we basically lost AGFA (Germany) Eumig (Austria), Beaulieu (France) and even the once-might Bolex SA ended up as little more than a repair shop occupying a small part of their old office tower. Here's an article about a melancholy visit to Bolex in early 2005 (originally in German): http://schmalfilm-shop.schiele-schoen.de/115/8170/smf2050748/WHERE_THE_BOSS_OPENS_THE_DOOR.html
Should call it the Instagramcorder.
Calling it 'Bollocks' is designed to subliminally attract the young, female demographic that use Instagram.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Well done. Have a cookie.
While it's understandable, I'm not sure I'd call all the above "entirely straightforward". :-)
Also, when I said AmigaOne (the computer), I meant "Amiga Anywhere", which appears to be something to do with Java ME feature-phone software development... but whatever it is, nothing to do with the Amiga(!)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
That's got its own internal history, and was actually started by Gateway (the only thing they did with the IP.) It's kinda an irrelevant footnote, though. It was essentially a Java imitator that was practical for multimedia, at a time when Java was not practical for multimedia. Development was abandoned some time before 2007. I realise that if you head straight through amiga.com and start looking around, it seems like a big deal, but really it's just the tail end of a dot-com convergence fantasy that never amounted to anything. Worrying about it is comparable to including Microsoft BOB in the Windows family tree. :)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!