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.

Comments

Lensaflare

[Carnivore24]

Does it come standard or optional?

Re:Lensaflare

[Jeremy Erwin]

Profesional filmmakers used 35mm or even 72 mm (four times the resolution of 35mm).

Did you mean 65mm?

old 16mm telefilms (Poirot, Pride and Prejudice, Dr Who--Spearhead from Space) are occasionally released on Bluray, with good results, though perhaps that's because they are still superior to PAL 576i video.

Why the need to associate with the name with Bolex

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't they just call it a RAW format camcorder?

Hipster cache thats why.

Should call it the Instagramcorder.

Handheld?

[hackertourist]

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.

Re:Handheld?

[Rinikusu]

Indeed. I'm shooting DSLR films at the moment, and while not really comparable to the devices you listed, I've done the same thing. I've got a tripod for steady shots, I've got a glidecam for follow/chase shots, I've got a shoulder mount for, well, I dunno what I got it for, honestly, but it was $25, and I've got a pistol grip for run & gun guerrilla shots. Honestly, the last one is the one I like the most, even though it's not as steady/smooth as some of the others, simply because it doesn't take up a lot of space, weighs almost nothing, etc. I've added quick release mounts to everything so I can just move my camera from rig to rig as needed with minimal downtime between shots. I've seen some of these guys walking around with terminator style rigs, and while I can definitely see the benefits, just not willing to spend more than my camera + lenses for a decent one.

Re:Why the need to associate with the name with Bo

[Samantha Wright]

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.

Too late to the party....

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Too late to the party....

[D1G1T]

The whole point of this and other cameras like the BlackMagic Cinema Camera is color depth and dynamic range. Think RAW vs JPEG for digital stills. They are intended to fill the market gap that RED's original 3K for $3k Scarlet was supposed to. The VG30 and the various DSLR video modes aren't the same thing at all.

They make fabulous, high end watches

[Overzeetop]

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!

Re:Huh?

[turkeyfeathers]

To be fair, vinyl only sounds better than CD if you use the recommended Monster cables.

Re:something is wrong here

[Samantha Wright]

No, it's just a high-quality uncompressed video camera. It doesn't attempt to reproduce any visual artefacts of its namesakes. The point is that all cheap camcorders output in compressed formats, so an alternative is necessary for small-time film makers who want to do elaborate post-processing.

Re:I still shoot film

[wonkey_monkey]

You overly-sensitive and possibly a little bit pretentious asshole. Where exactly in the summary does it say that film is for loserz and digital is the shizzle?

There is a look you get from film that cannot be duplicated any other way.

No there isn't. There are hundreds of pieces of software dedicated to exactly that. If you really wanted to you could simulate film at a near-molecular level to get it just right. The thing is - and I'm sorry if you feel it's a bad thing - not many people are that interested in approximating film any more. They want to capture their images and have them look good - you could do that with film and now you can do it with digital. And even if there was something about film that just couldn't be emulated in the digital realm, what makes that objectively better? One could just easily claim the inverse.

If you're happy shooting film with all the attendant extra time and effort it takes, great. But why come here sneering at everyone else because they're happier with their high-tech gizmos? Are you the sort of person who gets annoyed because now anyone and his dog can get into what used to be a nice exclusive field?