The Digital Bolex (http://www.digitalbolex.com)

Its a kickstarter, so who knows if it will really come to fruition, but its a great concept.

Don't like the idea of an internal battery. But otherwise it looks interesting, especially at that price point.

i want one

Don't like the idea of an internal battery. They're saying a 4-pin XLR battery (external) will be included along with the internal battery.

If they're actually calling it a Bolex then legally there must be some real
connection to the actual Bolex of the past... although the website was
a bit vague on that point, saying only that "the Bolex is back" on their
About page.

Edit: Yes, it seems the Bolex branding is indeed legitimate after all.
From their Kickstarter page: "Our current agreement with Bolex states
that we may only ship cameras within the United States. Anyone with
a US mailing address can purchase a camera."

The retro design is admittedly appealing, as are the three XLR inputs
(two 3-pin jacks for L&R audio, one 4-pin jack for power). But... what
about the image? The sensor is a Kodak CCD in appx. S16 size.

Hmm... proposed specifications, from http://www.digitalbolex.com/products/

Resolution: 2048 x 1152 (Super 16mm mode) + 1920 x 1080 pixels (16mm mode)
Format: Adobe Cinema DNG, TIFF, JPEG Image sequences
Colour depth: 12 bit – 4:4:4
File size: 2 to 3 MB per frame in RAW
Sensor: Kodak CCD: 12.85 mm (H) x 9.64 mm (V) – Similar to Super 16mm
Pixel Size: 5.5 micron (compared to the 4.3 micron size of many DSLRs)
Framerate: up to 32 fps at 2K, 60fps at 720p, 90 fps at 480p
Sound: Balanced, 2 channel, 16 bit, 48 kHz via XLR
Viewfinder: 320×240, 2.4” diagonal, with Focus Assist
Video out: 640 x 480 B&W via ⅛” video jack (HD-SDI avail in separate unit)
Ports: ⅛” video, headphone, USB 3.0, Audio XLR (2), 4-PIN XLR
Data Storage: Dual CF card slots, SSD (buffer drive)
Power: Internal battery, 12V External via 4 pin XLR port
Body: Milled steel and hard plastic
Size (body): Approximately 5”H (without pistol grip) by 4”W by 8”D
Size (grip): 5”H by 2”W by 5”D
Lens mount: C-mount comes standard; Optional PL, EF, B4
Weight: 5lbs
ISO Options: 100, 200, 400
Also in the box: pistol grip, USB 3.0 cable, internal battery, 4 pin XLR Battery, cable, video cable, transcoder/raw conversion software

...not exactly sure how a person can pull focus from a QVGA viewfinder, even with Focus Assist.

Anyone know what the crank on the side is for?

Perhaps they're going really retro and having a clockwork generator in the camera. I know of one camera that didn't get into production, which had the option of a hand crank.

Apparently the "crank" has assignable functions (such as ramping the frame rate?)

Products | DigitalBolex.com (http://www.digitalbolex.com/products/) Its a kickstarter, so who knows if it will really come to fruition, but its a great concept.

Oh yeah, that was an easy decision -- I'm definitely in! (Hopefully money well spent ;^)

-- peer

This is a really cool concept. 12-bit, 4:4:4 color - wow!

This is really cool, but the monitor resolution is surly lacking.

I dunno -- it looks like a cute little toy but the big red flag for me is their opening statement:

Once upon a time, motion picture cameras that created high-quality images were affordable for all filmmakers on any budget. Consumer 8mm and 16mm cameras like the original Bolex shot footage that could be projected on any movie theater screen.

which is patently false and revisionist history at best. I cut my teeth shooting docs and newsfilm on 16mm and the truth is, there were (and are) NO affordable 16mm consumer cams. About the cheapest you could get away with was about 1200 1975 dollars, which would be over five grand today. The film stock itself was grainy and crappy looking -- aside from TV news, no one shot 16mm except for underground indies and porn. It wasn't until the 1990s that film stocks got good enough for 16mm to be used in Network TV production, and by then consumers were starting to use video, even if was only VHS or Hi8.

And it is physically impossible to show 8mm film of any flavor in a real movie theatre -- the projectors weren't powerful enough for their light to actually reach the screen, even in a small multiplex theatre. We did a Super 8 film festival and had to specially convert an Elmo to use a more powerful light source -- it looked like a Rube Goldberg invention and still sucked.

So I'm leery. From their other statement it sounds like they've just licensed the Bolex name. Could be this is another RED, all promises and nothing else.

They've reached the production start goal of $100,000. It looks like it's a go.

About the cheapest you could get away with was about 1200 1975 dollars, which would be over five grand today. The film stock itself was grainy and crappy looking -- aside from TV news, no one shot 16mm except for underground indies and porn. .

The BBC and other UK broadcasters all shot on 16mm, including negative for their both their high end documentaries and dramas. There were also a number of successful feature films shot on 16mm, including "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

The weak link in the chain were the telecines of the time. Running that original film material through a modern TK comes up with results far better than the original transmission and the quality often surprises people.

I should add that I bought my first 16mm film camera for £40, it was an old Bolex, you don't need to buy a brand new camera with film.

+1 for Adam's post!

I, too, am skeptical. Any team that can't center their dual-mono interview tracks in post seems like they might now be laughing all the way to the bank of over-promise/ under-deliver vapor-ware. Although I'd LOVE to be wrong.

And anything smaller than S35 sensor, I'd just have no use for. Not with plenty of S35 and FF sensor options out there. Even during its heyday, aside from docos, there weren't that many great indie/underground films shot on 16mm. Was there?

And anything smaller than S35 sensor, I'd just have no use for. Not with plenty of S35 and FF sensor options out there. Even during its heyday, aside from docos, there weren't that many great indie/underground films shot on 16mm. Was there?

What was shot decades ago on 16mm doesn't have any relevance to this digital camera. They used the reference to 16mm as a marketing tool, as indie filmmakers used 16mm a lot back in the day. Especially with old Bolexes.
But "Woodstock" was shot on 16mm. And in today's time, "When We Were Kings," "The Black Swan, " "The Wrestler" and "The Hurt Locker" are recent, notable films shot on 16mm or Super 16. So is the TV show "The Walking Dead."

And right now there is nothing even close to the new Bolex's 2K RAW, 12-bit, 4:4:4 color video, all for around $3,000. This is what the Scarlet should have been, IMHO.
That's assuming it really does get built.

Thanks for the film run-down, Glen. And I shouldn't be so dismissive. Let's hope the $100k gets a real product out there. It'll be good for the industry.

No, Brian, it's good to have a healthy bit of scepticism. Especially when someone asks you for money!
It's an interesting concept. Let's see if it comes to fruition.

You cannot discount the eternal quest for "different and interesting". I've watched feature films shot on fisher price pxlvision cameras, just because it was an interesting challenge for the filmmaker.

Narrow DoF is sexy, but with every low budget short now oozing thin focus, there is bound to be a backlash to deeper focus - at least from the cutting edge crowd.

If the response to light is really organic and their raw implementation gives you latitude like a red/arri, then I reckon this could be an attractive shooting option for music videos, docos trying to have a style and alternate narratives. Many times I've lusted for latitude and would have given up DoF to get it.

Anybody know what the rules of kickstarter are? Is there any kind of guarantee of delivery?

Time to dig out that box of bolex primes in the shed.

It's not April 1st is it?... That looks pretty damn cool. Not much ISO range, but still...RAW... 2K...
Great stuff! And if the Kodak sensor works, then good for them.

A camera with almost exactly the same specs exists and is called ikonoscop:
A-Cam dII The camera loves you | A-Cam dII | Products | Ikonoskop (http://www.ikonoskop.com/dii/)

I'm quite sceptic if they could deliver the same product at almost 1/3rd of the price...

They could be being rather optimistic in the price quoted on the Digital Bolex site. Once they get into development for a production version, there's good chance the selling price will drift up. I suspect they still need to do a lot of development work to convert the current prototype into a reliable production camera. It doesn't seem to be a process that should be underestimated.

A camera with almost exactly the same specs exists and is called ikonoscop:
A-Cam dII The camera loves you | A-Cam dII | Products | Ikonoskop (http://www.ikonoskop.com/dii/)

I'm quite sceptic if they could deliver the same product at almost 1/3rd of the price...

The A Cam has HD/SDI, timecode, better viewfinder.

So after a bottle of wine I went on kickstarter and ordered one last night. I woke up this morning extremely worried about that decision. It looks like a cool concept and if it does come to fruition I can think of many uses for it (16mm glass is a lot cheaper the 35mm glass these days) but I think I may have just had a very costly night of drinking...

Though the ikonscop does give me hope that it's possible to do.

So after a bottle of wine I went on kickstarter and ordered one last night. I woke up this morning extremely worried about that decision. [...] I may have just had a very costly night of drinking...

I did the same thing, on a smaller scale though -- I donated $40 after a bottle of beer.

-- peer

In barely one day, they've managed to raise a quarter of a million dollars and pre-sell 88 cameras. Impressive.

Impressive marketing. Sounds like what the original Scarlet was to be: 2/3" single chip. But Red gave up on that and went for a bigger chip. Maybe the smaller chip market still exists.

I usualy love this type of thing... but I kind of hate it. The concept is good, but if you are making a serious tool, put it in a professional package. Yeah, nostalgia factor is fun... up to about $999... but there's a reason they don't make cameras in this form factor anymore.

Anyway, I'll pay more to buy when when they are actually out and battle tested. Not going to be first in on this one.

Time to dig out that box of bolex primes in the shed.

That's what I was thinking, until I remembered that they were RX mount (C mount with optical correction for the beam-splitter prism in the Bolex).

The attractive thing about the Bolex H16 was its versatility: Variable shutter, behind-the-lens filter slot, 3-lens turret, spring motor or electric motor or hand crank, single frame capability, footage and frame counters that allowed accurate rewinding for double exposures, 12 to 64 fps (8 to 64 fps in older models).

Some of that versatility was specific to film, although some would also apply to video. Wouldn't it be great to have a 3 lens turret on a video camcorder? (Maybe the Digital Bolex people can be persuaded to include a turret!)

Ah, such fond memories. Anyhow, I'm skeptical for now, but I'll be watching.
IMHO I think the Panasonic AG-AF100 is the best current example of the versatile but thrifty "spirit" of the old Bolex. So that AF100 is likely to be my next camcorder.

- Ken

Here's a sceptical viewpoint.

Prolost - Blog - DigitalBolex (http://prolost.com/blog/2012/3/13/digital-bolex.html)

From one of the comments at the bottom, it seems that Iensco is the manufacturing partner for the camera.

Ienso Electronic, manufacturing services, electronic and electrical - Ienso Electronic - Digital Camera Design (http://digitalcameradesign.com)

I don't see how you can get such a small data size from 4:4:4 12 bit.

Seems they have already pre-sold all their 100 planned cameras.

Bloom is giving us all his twopenneth The Digital Bolex D16. Raw 2K for less than a cost of a 5Dmk3? | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/13/digitalbolex/)

I have heard Fisher Price have shown a huge interest in this! They may even have it in the shops by Christmas, along with the launch of 'My first film studio'. Let's hope so.

Impressive marketing. Sounds like what the original Scarlet was to be: 2/3" single chip. But Red gave up on that and went for a bigger chip. Maybe the smaller chip market still exists.

Weisscam are launching a camera (or camera platform) at NAB with interchangeable sensor boards that include 2/3", Super 16 and Super35mm. Although, I suspect it'll be more expensive that this camera, they must think there's a market. There are quite a few Super 16 lenses out there.

WEISSCAM TO LAUNCH NEW “SOHA” CAMERA PLATFORM AT NAB 2012 (http://www.weisscam.com/company/press/releases-2012/weisscam-to-launch-new-soha-camera-platform-at-nab-2012.html)

The BBC and other UK broadcasters all shot on 16mm, including negative for their both their high end documentaries and dramas. There were also a number of successful feature films shot on 16mm, including "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

The weak link in the chain were the telecines of the time. Running that original film material through a modern TK comes up with results far better than the original transmission and the quality often surprises people.

I should add that I bought my first 16mm film camera for £40, it was an old Bolex, you don't need to buy a brand new camera with film.

The BBC started shooting some fairly large budget programmes on 16mm in the '90s in anticipation of HD broadcasting. The contemporary 16mm stock had a native resolution that matched HD at a comfortably low price point. What they didn't cater for was the level of grain, which although low enough for raw viewing and SD digitisation, created merry hell with inter-frame compression at HD resolution as it gobbled up too much of the bandwidth. The consequence was that several programmes that could even have done well on the export market, only ever had SD showings.

Steve

BBC, with the odd exception, always shot on 16mm or Super 16 until recent times when engineering did what what they've been trying to for years. In recent years the BBC have shot dramas on 35mm, ITV have a history of shooting 35mm dramas for sales in the US. An example would be the Avengers, 35mm from 1965 onwards, before that it was 405 line B & W.

A number of people would argue the grain issue given modern degraining methods, however, you still get Super 16mm being used for slow motion shots on major BBC productions.

Economic factors also come into the equation, now that there are digital cameras that don't look like video available, although they may not actaully look like film on closer inspection.

BBC, with the odd exception, always shot on 16mm or Super 16

Indeed. I shot a number of dramas in the late 70's and early 80's for BBC1 / 2 on 16mm with the Arri BL and then the Arri SR.
However, HD was on a distant horizon then...

Wow. No disrespect but you are a veteran sir.

What I don't get with the design is why use an SSD as a buffer, instead of being the recording media.

A 512 GB SSD is around $700 at Newegg, and a bit more here in the UK. If the 3 MB / frame figure is accurate then that would give about two hours of recording time.

My concern about the project would be that both Red and Ikonoskop have failed to deliver cameras in as aggressive a timeframe as the Digital Bolex team are proposing.

The real risk in the project is going to be in its software stack. Joe Rubinstein does have a background in image processing, but I don't know what his experience in the industry is like. (And I can't find him on LinkedIn either.) Hacking up a one-shot application is rather different to delivering a maintainable, bug-free piece of code.

For those of you who aren't software engineers, the rule of thumb is that you always double a programmer's estimate. One professor I knew at university used a sliding, exponential scale, so a two week project would actually take a month, one estimated to last a month would be a quarter, and so forth.

It's a cool project, and their intention of using as much off the shelf hardware and software is a good one. Fingers crossed they pull it off.

i think of a form factor, is this a 100% hand held camera? how do you set it on the rig, or a tripod, (forget the steadicam) and I don't think they will implement in camera IS

The hand grip is removable and yes it has a standard 1/4-20 tripod mounting socket.

Interchangeable lenses with a choice of lens mounts (EF, PL, B4 etc.), so no it probably does not have in-camera IS.

I, too, am skeptical. Any team that can't center their dual-mono interview tracks in post seems like they might now be laughing all the way to the bank of over-promise/ under-deliver vapor-ware.

After I had donated my $40, I pointed out a couple of issues that I had with the project -- also mentioning the sloppy audio track(s) in their promo video. This is what Elle replied in regards to the audio:

> You are totally right, we forgot to center our audio and deserve all the fcp ridicule the Internet can muster.
> This is what happens when you edit a Kickstarter video after a 24 hour road trip from LA to Austin :)

Since she also gave me her private email, I suddenly feel much better about this project -- I'm so gullible ;^)

-- peer

There have been some updates with full HD output SD cards and requested changes:

Specs Update Full HD output SD cards and more | DigitalBolex.com (http://www.digitalbolex.com/specs-update-full-hd-output-sd-cards-more/)

Also, maybe a change from the "estimated $3299 retail price"