Well, yeah 10 bit 4:2:2 would be good enough really, but I'm guessing putting
out 4:4:4 at 12 bit isn't actually something difficult/costly for this camera
to do instead. The consumer DSLRs you mention mostly give you 8 bit 4:2:0 and
that can fall apart in post if you're doing anything excessive (long GOP AVCHD
doesn't help much either). Also the colour profiles of said DSLRs (film modes
or whatever each manufacture calls it) bakes a lot into your image. The forums
of DSLR film makers are full of hints/tips to get a 'flat image', or as close
to one as possible. Its also pretty common for DSLR filmmakers to transcode
into 4:2:2 before doing anything else to their footage in some attempt to sort
out the chroma subsampling (actually, that can often lead to highlighting any
posterisation/banding resulting from an 8-bit 4:2:0 image in AVCHD).
So this camera is going to give you 4:4:4 12 bit for a little over the price of
the 5D MK III, I can see it selling, mainly to DSLR based film makers. Which is
going to give you a lot more latitude in post, you could even pull a key
without spending an age messing with despill mattes and pre processing your
chroma channels. I shoot at the moment with a GH2 hacked to give AVC-INTRA/CBR
like performance (GOP1 at a max of 154Mbps), but I still sometime have to deal
with all manner of crap when trying to do anything excessive, or experimental
with my footage as a result of it being 4:2:0 8 bit, and as a result of
Panasonics film modes. As I mostly convert every sequence to stills for the
work I do, a raw stills workflow isn't something that worries me much.
The aspect ratio of the sensor is the real concern though,every DSLR
downsamples its sensor output somehow to create a HD resolution. I've no idea
how this is going to be done in this digital bolex, but its pretty important. A
4:3 viewfinder does make me think that said viewfinder is going to have safe
guides etched into it, as you're only actually using a partial amount of the
sensor, which isnt good. A 16:9 section over the middle of the 4:3 sensor.
Black and White output on HD-SDI is really weird, could it be its just going to
throw the luminance out (and therefore its not actually a true B&W
representation).
The actual box they've put it in is a joke. I would guess that most people who
want it will get it with the PL mount, and put it on rails in a rig. Seriously,
I think the lack of colour output so that you can plug in a proper monitor that
can give you peaking, scopes etc, etc is what may prevent a lot of people from
getting one. But hey, its raw, you can fix anything in post right ? ;). No.
There is obviously some conversion from YCbCr to RGB in this thing, there is
some signal interpretation being done (some 'film mode', colour profile has to
be in there and I'm sure its not S-LOG or something like it), but they're
telling us nothing about it. A lack of full resolution uncorrected stills to
look at is suspicious. But I'm really pleased to see a camera like this
appearing in this price range, much like its good to see the Ikonoskop A-cam in
its price range. Although, the Ikonoskop makes more sense than this bolex.
There are, it seems a fair few people using C-Mount lenses on DSLRs, I
personally don't get it, but its keeping the price of 16mm C-Mount lenses
pretty buoyant.
- Stray.
>________________________________
> From: David Tetzlaff <[email protected]>
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <[email protected]>
>Sent: Tuesday, 13 March 2012, 23:24
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] digital Bolex
>
>This is bizarre. For $3300 you get an awkward, non-orientable b+w finder, and
>a silly faux crank mechanism and non-ergonomic handgrip to make it kinda
>resemble a Bolex?
>
>Since the sensor and the viewfinder are spec'ed at 4:3, why are the two output
>resolutions spec'ed at 16:9?
>
>Why don't they mention the CCD vs. CMOS and rolling shutter issues in the
>copy, if that's a strong point?
>
>Sure, it might be nice to have something that isn't as compressed as AVCHD,
>and has 4:4:4 color, but RAW strikes me as overkill for moving images. By my
>quick math that's ~4GB per minute.
>
>It seems, with the c-mount, that they're trying to make something that will
>work with all the classic 16mm lenses, but how large can the market be for
>combining 16mm DOF with the short run times and high cost of the storage
>format in digital, when you can get an APS-C DSLR that has the same image size
>as a 35mm movie camera for $700? I mean, if I wanted to shoot on a Bolex, why
>wouldn't i just shoot on a real Bolex, with film? I can't imagine their 2048 x
>1152 mode being prettier than 100D.
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
