Digital Bolex

lol Red has power? (I know its not you writing that.)

One thing Red is right about, technology always gets better...but...
Technology always gets cheaper too, it wouldn't surprise me if this camera would be a lot better than the old Red one. I remember hearing about the old Red in 2006 when I started this.

Although the bolex has a smaller sensor someone (I trust) told me the sensor design had more light sensors elements per square inch which is kinda like having a bigger sensor. I cannot verify that information...I like the CCD thing the most.

The marketing is clever trying to associate it with the Bolex but I have doubts that they can produce a reliable camera without bugs. Consider how buggy Red cameras were when they first came out and they have deep pockets. My guess is that if the product ever comes to market it will be buggy for a couple of years until they straighten out the firmware.

I don't think the engineers at RED are very intelligent people honestly. When they speak about cameras they have a "good" understanding of firmware codecs or whatever, but they lack some obvious insights.

The heat sink is on the bottom of the RED one, Duh... heat rises. The human eye caps out at 3k, meaning anything above that resolution will not be perceived (by humans.) Especially when things that are farther away appear smaller (perspective) so the whole concept that you have to have perfect data and obscene resolution is ridiculous to me. Things like circle of confusion, or display resolution escape them.

I looked into building a DIY camera, and there are open source firmware options for that sort of thing. I'm not a trained engineer but I did stay at a holiday inn express...... When I was a kid I was into electronics and all that.

Hey Ironstrike,

Not sure where you get the 3k max on human vision but I know for a fact that higher res image capture produces far more detail in the final product even if the final use is of lower resolution.

Whether the capture format is super8 to IMAX motion picture stock, NTSC 640x480 video to 5K digital cinema or Kodak cartridge camera vs 8x10 stills. I have shot both motion pictures and stills both film and digital at low to high resolution (never IMAX yet) and have seen the results both under a loupe and on a computer. Capture resolution does make a big difference. As said above, even if material is down-rezzed the final image is still better looking than if the original was captured at the delivery resolution. There may be diminishing returns but it is not at 3K.

I think there is some data out there saying that 35mm motion picture film resolution maxes out at around 3.2K but that is only because of the current limits of film emulsions in that format.

Also I wish the makers of the Digital Bolex much luck in their project. I am very fond of the Bolex cameras and have 3 that are currently gathering dust with other cameras in a corner of my studio. Once upon a time I used to shoot every day with them for years. Will be nice for film makers to have an affordable digital equivalent .

Your assumptions are wrong about what is causing the image to look better. You are saying there is something inherent about the 5k-ness of the image? The larger sensor/ causes the clarity of the image. On the lovely RED camera the 2k option crops part of the sensor which is why the 4k downresed looks better than the 2k. The physical size of the super 8 "sensor," if you want to call it that, is smaller which causes it to have a smaller circle of confusion. The large size of the 5d causes the image to appear very clear because there is more physical distance between where the points of light hit the sensor and it also exaggerates the DOF caused by the circle of confusion.

So whether or not 35mm film is 3.2 K is irrelevant.

This is where an inherent flaw of the RED reveals itself, the sensor should NOT be cropped to create the 2k image, its like shooting on something smaller. That is wky 4k will "look" better on the RED.

Imax employees did an experiment, people cant see past 3k. According to John Galt. Which was also mentioned in an article for Creative Cow as well as American Cinematographer.

A number of years ago some IMAX engineers – and I don’t think IMAX ever let these guys out of their lab again -- did this wonderfully elegant experiment at the Large Film Format Seminar at Universal Studios Imax theatre. They showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen.

Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4K the screen was gray. Do you know what the means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information. Technically, the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) was zero at 4K!

My point is simply one of resolution. The higher the resolving capacity of the capture medium the higher quality the image can be provided all other variables are of maximum potential quality. If you use a bad quality lens then it will become a bottle neck and the potential resolving power will be capped by the optics. But that is not the point of my argument.

My comment was never really sensor size related. With film surface area is a critical factor due to the nature of emulsion technology. 8mm vs 35mm film use similar emulsions. The same emulsion used in both formats will have a resolving limit based on that emulsion and the surface area of the film. Therefore a larger format film will have higher resolving capacity.

Digital technology breaks this model since you can pack more receptors into smaller areas. As a result a 2/3 inch sensor can have the same potential resolving capaciity as a 35mm sized sensor. There are other issues, both optical and and creative, with regard to sensor size that are not material in making my point. Ultimately it is the resolving power of the mechanism you are using.

All other factors being even,a current cheap little Nikon pocket camera shooting 12 megapixels can produce images that look better than my first professional multi thousand dollar Nikon digital camera that shot something like 3 or 5 megapixels.

My other point was that capture at higher resolution produces better low res output. I stand by this statement because I can see the difference and it is true for both film and digital. Again resolution plays a role but not the only role. Grain/noise and aliasing issues are improved when you capture large and output to a smaller format. Oversampling as I'm sure that you are aware is a common technique to improve image quality. I use it in my still photography, my computer graphics and my film/video work.

Ultimately I think the missing point here is how the images are ultimately displayed. Say that I shoot for a print job. The shot is for a full bleed 8.5"x11" page. The printer will use standard 300 dpi resolution for the ad and all art is prepped for that size. Now say the designer decides to use that same image for a 25" x 30" poster also at high quality 300dpi. The oversized output will be compromised because there is not enough resolution. Edges will not be crisp where they should be. and the image will not look its best. Conversely if the ad is reduced to a 1/4 page the result will look fine at least optically.

Take a 16mm film and show it on a 3x4 foot screen and it looks great. Try to project the same image on an IMAX screen and need I say more?I have seen this done back in the 1980s at the National Air and Space Museum. They had a program of showing old Sci Fi films in their IMAX theater. A friend of mine was a projectionist there. Even using a portion of that screen made the films hard to watch because they were fuzzy looking. I have also seen IMAX films on that screen and they are tack sharp.

Just ask Doug Trumbull. I saw a demo of "Showscan" back in the mid 80s. I watched his companies presentation which started with a 16mm mono image at relative 24 fps bursting into a 70mm stereo at 60 fps actual. The difference was impressive.

I personally prefer 24 fps but that is a stylistic decision not a technical one.

The 3.2 k resolving power of 35 mm comment was only my speculation on where you got that 3k number from.

Human visions resolving limit is irrelevant unless you define the area being viewed. 3k image spread over 10 feet vs 3k over 40 or 100 or more is a factor. We only see with sharp focus on a very narrow area at any one time but that area moves constantly. If 3k is accurate for that narrow spot then it is possible that usable display resolutions could benefit from even more than 5k resolution. Depends on how close to the screen you sit. :-)

Regarding the RED. I am aware of how it works and am shooting with one now on a project. Again a matter of resolving power. 3k looks better than 2k. 4k looks better than 3k. 5k looks better than 4k. It is primarily a matter of how much data you want to deal with vs how good you want the final image to look and how it will be displayed.

There are other factors as well. I have found that green screen keys beautifully and noticeably better in 4k than 3k. I had planned to use only 3k for the project but testing changed my mind. Seeing is believing!

3k on an IMAX screen up close is generous.

I don't think you get what I'm saying.
Instead of going through a detailed explanation Ill just let you try an experiment.

Take the sensor size out of the equation
Go into 3ds max
render a 3000 X 3000 image.
render a 100 X 100 image.
Downres the 3000 X 3000 image to 100 X 100

See if the formerly 3000 image looks better than the original 100

Hey Ironstrike,

Not to be argumentative but 100x100 is too small to see any useful detail worth examining. If you change your output specs to a more realistic format like 1280X1280 or even 720x720 you will see a better image if mastered at a higher res than an original of the same resolution.

I mean people here can try it out for themselves.
Go from 5k to 3k, it doesn't matter, make sure the render settings are not in draft mode.

It should look the same.

If you think the quality difference you get from a high resolution downsized is significant compared to the difference you get from the nature/quality/size of the sensor than go ahead and buy a Red because they emphasize resolution size as paramont... but I still personally think its an over rated camera.

This will be ready 10 years from now:
http://www.digitalbolex.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/P8090088.jpg