Deciding closest modern camera to Digital Bolex look

[Andrew Reid]

It is interesting that Joe says in the video, they wanted the absolute character of the Kodak sensor to be preserved in-camera, without any noise reduction or introduction of any circuit noise. Just the natural grain from the sensor.

So it got me thinking...

With HVEC and modern sensors we have a squeaky clean look. It has a lot of noise reduction you can't turn off, and a lot of compression.

So if we wanted the colour, character, uncompressed Cinema DNG and film grain of the Digital Bolex...

We need to find a modern camera...

Because the D16 on eBay now is $6K!!

I think the closest I own is the Sigma Fp-L in crop mode.

It has the resolution for 2x crop so works with Super 16mm lenses.

But any crop from about 1.37x onward gives a very detailed texture to the uncompressed 4K raw.... as it is a 1:1 pixel readout.

If you download the frame grab below, and look at the full 4K JPG conversion of my DNG, it is apparent at 1:1 that nothing is being lost and nothing is being added.

Especially since this is at ISO 3200 behind a strong ND filter.

At lower ISOs it looks a bit too clean to be a Digital Bolex-a-like.

However at ISO 3200 it is perfectly on note.

What other cameras could we wrangle (with a few tricks) to look like a Kodak CCD?

GH5S?

S1R 5K?

Canon RAW?

Nikon Z9?

How about our smartphones in Motion Cam?

[tupp]

Global shutter and S16 optics are significant to the look of the D16.

[Andrew Reid]

Global shutter and the motion cadence were very nice on it. I don't expect to nail the look identically just see what gets closest to it. Because the big full frame, high resolution, noiseless, super-duper £6k stuff of today is miles off from that look, at least out of the box

[newfoundmass]

That entire series is excellent, especially that entry.

What about one of the older BM cameras?

[PannySVHS]

I gave the HD pixel to pixel mode  on the Lumix S1 a run. It´s not S16 width but closer to 16mm format. VLog ISO 640 should look similar to ISO 5000 in FF format in the low native Iso mode, which should provide enough grain. Since the S series is well know for an image without pixel mush and for "honest" rather filmlike grain, it should do the trick. I have tested it two years or so ago with an Angie 75mm C-mount in the crop mode and it did the trick pretty well. That lens also kinda works in S35 mode with slight vignette. I just simply enjoy my BMMCC too much so my S1 is collecting dust.

[FHDcrew]

6 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

I gave the HD pixel to pixel mode  on the Lumix S1 a run. It´s not S16 width but closer to 16mm format. VLog ISO 640 should look similar to ISO 5000 in FF format in the low native Iso mode, which should provide enough grain. Since the S series is well know for an image without pixel mush and for "honest" rather filmlike grain, it should do the trick. I have tested it two years or so ago with an Angie 75mm C-mount in the crop mode and it did the trick pretty well. That lens also kinda works in S35 mode with slight vignette. I just simply enjoy my BMMCC too much so my S1 is collecting dust.

Funny you say it's collecting dust, I'm considering upgrading to a Panasonic S1 from my Nikon Z6.  You selling?  Just curious.

[amweber21]

I second the Sigma fp L. With it's crop zoom function it gives a lot of flexibility for active sensor size. Rolling shutter should improve the more you crop as with any camera. You can shoot 4K at pixel-to-pixel 2.5x crop giving you an effective 14.4mmx8.1mm. Which can crop to a 3.4K if you want to match the 2.8x d-bolex size, but with a 3:2ish aspect. Or with a 2.1x crop it gives a 17.1mmx9.64mm to match the 4:3 height. 2.7x and 2.9x available in FHD but shooting in UHD would probably make more sense to utilize more of the area. All in uncompressed 12bit CDNG of course, and offers more visual aids than most.

[BenEricson]

3 hours ago, tupp said:

Global shutter and S16 optics are significant to the look of the D16.

It really depends what people define the "film look" to be. The OG pocket gets close, but the Jello ain't it.

The HPX and HVX will probably become more popular as the years go on. Especially for things like mixed medium etc. It has deep depth of field, but it has the caked on color look due to the CCD sensor. There's also nice look noise and really nice baked in looks.

You can also just shoot film... There's more resources than there have been in the last 10 years. You can have processing and scans turned around in a few days.

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

What other cameras could we wrangle (with a few tricks) to look like a Kodak CCD?

Maybe the AJA Cion? (or the Blackmagic equivalents) So long as you light it carefully. 

 

[kye]

To me, the FP or FP-L seem like the natural choices, but I do wonder how far away other options are.

I see three essential criteria:

• Rolling shutter amount
  Zero is ideal of course, but I wonder how much leeway there is for this.  IIRC film had a degree of rolling shutter so some is likely tolerable.
   
• Colour science
  I've tried at length to replicate the colour of the OG BMPCC and BMMCC with my GH5, even when recording RAW stills, and have fallen short by miles every time, despite being able to match other cameras together as well as match grades etc, so this tells me there is something magical about their colour that perhaps simply isn't captured by other cameras.
   
• NR / noise performance
  This happens in-camera from deliberate processing and also as a side-effect of compression in the codec

The Sigmas are great because they seem to have some of the nicest colour science around at the moment (I'm not sure if it's the camera or the transformations and management afterwards but the results speak for themselves), and the output is (AFAIK) completely unprocessed and uncompressed RAW.

I watched that video some time ago and one thing I noted at the time was the OG BMPCC having NR built in to manage the noise of the circuitry inside the camera. I have played with digital circuits and optimising for signal quality and have done a reasonable amount of research into the topic, so it makes perfect sense to me that a product designed like any camera with many circuit boards and high-frequency digital busses would be noisy as hell, but I never thought that they would need to process it within the camera beyond just keeping a digital signal viable between ICs through careful PCB design and the odd bit of shielding.  I'd be extremely curious to learn more about this.

[seanzzxx]

Maybe the global shutter Ursa/Production Camera 4k cameras. Relatively limited dynamic range but I always thought the color and look and feel of that camera was exceptional.

[PannySVHS]

12 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Funny you say it's collecting dust, I'm considering upgrading to a Panasonic S1 from my Nikon Z6.  You selling?  Just curious.

Hehe, yes, indeed, planning on selling it. I am a bit sad, because it is such a super high quality image taker. But I am not in instant love with it under natural light conditions. I think it has to do with the huge dynamic range and colour space. On the other hand, I just love how easy it is for me to grade my BMMCC, mine has the IR Cut from Rawlite, just beautiful process. S1 is an image quality monster, but I am not in love with this monster.  It for sure is not my first love. 🙂  Maybe i should give it more use and give it an exclusive run. So fare it served me as A Cam for event but only as B and C cam for narrative or more visual stuff. Maybe I should give it A Cam consideration and love will grow by that.:)

[Robert Patts]

Are cameras that shoot PRR not an option? If so , you have the Fuji XH2S with very low RS.  

[Andrew Reid]

6 hours ago, kye said:

I've tried at length to replicate the colour of the OG BMPCC and BMMCC with my GH5, even when recording RAW stills, and have fallen short by miles every time, despite being able to match other cameras together as well as match grades etc, so this tells me there is something magical about their colour that perhaps simply isn't captured by other cameras.

The OG BMPCC is hugely different again, compared to the Digital Bolex and Ikonoskop. The Ikonoskop had the same Kodak sensor as the D16. I shot with both side by side (BM Pocket and Ikonoskop) in Berlin.

Whereas the D16 and Ikonoskop have a very particular low-fi look and a lot of "imperfections" in certain conditions from the CCD sensor, the original BM Pocket was far more modern and clean looking, just all round a bit more normal. Still very nice, but it was its own thing and separate to the DB.

Joe ran the sensor hot in the D16, basically overclocked it.

It also had a much more appealing look undercranked to 16fps in post than a modern CMOS sensor camera.

So if we can get even a bit closer to this look, with the help of some tricks and post production I'd be a happy bunny.

6 hours ago, kye said:

The Sigmas are great because they seem to have some of the nicest colour science around at the moment (I'm not sure if it's the camera or the transformations and management afterwards but the results speak for themselves), and the output is (AFAIK) completely unprocessed and uncompressed RAW.

Yeah. It's very much uncompressed.

Cinema DNG is the key to the Fp. Even in 8bit.

It doesn't have the squeaky clean and processed look of BRAW and ProRes RAW.

I may try the 2K on the Fp-L and see if it's any good. The file sizes in 4K are a bit of an issue.

But so is finding, maintaining, keeping and shooting a Digital Bolex lol.

6 hours ago, kye said:

I watched that video some time ago and one thing I noted at the time was the OG BMPCC having NR built in to manage the noise of the circuitry inside the camera. I have played with digital circuits and optimising for signal quality and have done a reasonable amount of research into the topic, so it makes perfect sense to me that a product designed like any camera with many circuit boards and high-frequency digital busses would be noisy as hell, but I never thought that they would need to process it within the camera beyond just keeping a digital signal viable between ICs through careful PCB design and the odd bit of shielding.  I'd be extremely curious to learn more about this.

I am also curious to hear more about that.

The CMOS 'plastic' look could well have something to do with that.

I also think it handles white balance and colour temperature completely differently to CCD.

There is always an overall slight veiling especially in warmer scenes.

[BTM_Pix]

3 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

Maybe the global shutter Ursa/Production Camera 4k cameras. Relatively limited dynamic range but I always thought the color and look and feel of that camera was exceptional.

Yeah, I've always had a bit of a hankering to have a go with the Production Camera but never quite had the purchase impulse intersect with the price at the right time !

Not every piece that I've seen posted with it has been fantastic, of course, because no camera ever has that but I've always felt that is has one of the higher wow to meh ratios of any camera.

That is quite likely to be related to the skill of people who are using them, of course, as it is has always been quite niche anyway and obviously not without its quirks that have to be worked around.

But 4K RAW, ProRes, cheap media and global shutter makes it a really appealing option at the £600-700 they can be had for.

 Form factor leaves a lot be desired though.

[FHDcrew]

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Yeah, I've always had a bit of a hankering to have a go with the Production Camera but never quite had the purchase impulse intersect with the price at the right time !

Not every piece that I've seen posted with it has been fantastic, of course, because no camera ever has that but I've always felt that is has one of the higher wow to meh ratios of any camera.

That is quite likely to be related to the skill of people who are using them, of course, as it is has always been quite niche anyway and obviously not without its quirks that have to be worked around.

But 4K RAW, ProRes, cheap media and global shutter makes it a really appealing option at the £600-700 they can be had for.

 Form factor leaves a lot be desired though.

It seems like an absolute PAIN to shoot with, and I’ve heard the dynamic range is not amazing. But yes the global shutter basically makes up for it, so much mojo and glorious motion candence. And you get that sweet sweet uncompressed CDNG RAW video, so it’s very pure. Though it sucks in lowlight and has horrendous battery life, plus the ergonomics are strange. 

[QuickHitRecord]

I had such high hopes for the BM Production when I bought one in 2019. I even went the extra mile and paid for the integrated speed booster. I did one shoot with the camera and found it to be the single most frustrating camera I have ever worked with. Ugly fixed pattern noise everywhere. I did this test comparing it to the BMMCC and sold it shortly afterwards:

^BMPC

^BMMCC

 

[deezid]

6 hours ago, Robert Patts said:

Are cameras that shoot PRR not an option? If so , you have the Fuji XH2S with very low RS.  

Not a bad idea. With ProRes RAW all the nasty internal processing is gone. Internal footage is heavily oversharpened and has barely any chroma detail.

[TomTheDP]

6 hours ago, Robert Patts said:

Are cameras that shoot PRR not an option? If so , you have the Fuji XH2S with very low RS.  

The A7S3 or FX3 also have low RS. 

The Pana S1/S1H/S5 also has pretty low RS in S35 crop mode. 

[independent]

Komodo