sugartown

Looks stunning.... ...but creatively speaking, the limitations of this camera suggest anyone intending to do serious work should proceed with caution. For art films, and perhaps animation, this is fine.... but the labor of shooting a montage to the exact frame is a step backwards. Yes, some filmmakers with thrive under such limitations, just the way some have by editing entirely in camera, but for most practical purposes, including building a montage, 1 second of shooting time is not always enough. Shooting ratios for montages can be deceptive, and you're now talking about a labor intensive process to get results, that most users have never experienced in the digital film age. For most purposes, a smoother workflow in the field, and in post, will provide better results. I would also warn anyone thinking this is an ideal music video camera in lip sync performance situations, since a couple posts seemed to imply you could sync upwards of 240 clips to music that are 1 second and call it ideal...and that's assuming every take was perfect without additional coverage or backup takes. The Chemex Coffee clip, towards the end shows how timing of the edits can also be a problem. Cuts create a herky jerky pace that doesn't flow with the composition, because they should be extended just a little bit longer. Anything less than steady is amplified by the quick pacing. So here we see good work stifled by the camera. That said, more power to anyone who can overcome these problems and make something cool! Some people certainly will.

  I'd say Standard Digital video in the era of the VX1000 preceded the practical use of DSLRS for video...the quality of the preamps just declined and high level production required double system.   DSLR brought with it even more limitations like with audio metering, so it forces people to look outside the camera for solutions.  Meanwhile, if you're weren't a one man army, there were better tools on the market, but it becomes a matter of budget. A working cinematographer/filmmaker needs the most versatile tools possible.

Audio recording in camera is a modern reality. A fair amount of production work relies on this, which is why these cameras DO include audio (unlike the original Bolex or Arris). Expecting a documentary, or run and gun shooter to settle on inferior audio while upgrading the picture leaps and bounds reflects on a lack of production experience. Anyone who has ever attended a film market can also testify that quality audio is everything, and it's often more important than clean picture.   Yes, in a perfect world you should employ a sound mixer AND a boom operator....and you should be feeding them, alongside your focus puller, and camera operator....but in this day and age, people pull their own focus, and hand hold themselves....and yes, they set rough audio levels too....that's life. The days of double system and shooting entirely on Prime Lenses aren't gone, but they are a luxury, that's overkill in many cases, thanks due to the available technology. The technology is available!!! Why cripple the product!? Attaching a mini recorder, or XLR convertor just to record audio is akin to expecting someone to attach a video light to get an exposure, and thinking low light isn't important, because you should be using real lights.    The technology exists to partner with companies who specialize in such engineering. We're talking about a camera with an on-board battery. Certainly clean on board audio recording must be a priority.   The form factor of this Bolex is a little Fisher Price Pixelvision for some reason, but I'm confused why anyone would want it box shaped instead. Cinema cameras like the Eclair, Arri, and Bolex were never box shaped, in part because of how they needed to be balanced. The pronounced back end should be more ergonomic for a heavy lens.