@matt_gh2 thanks for that half bro XD - you put the thing with much nicer words {monkey looking at the sun}

@BurnetRhoades , ok maybe not huge :P • Night boat shot with this lens have CAs (maybe 'cause wide open dunno), in the end of this shot there are purple and blue... not that it makes the film less good, that's exactly my point ,-) • BTW what do you mean by "Or are you talking about something good?" I'm honestly asking 'cause I don't know • Another thing about DB is highlights falloff, real hard... but again, and from the tinkering with DNGs, there's some room (not much) for interesting improvements via firmware. Will they manage? I guess time will tell. Will it get dragon's DR? Most probably just the whiskers of it. Will DB be able to produce very neutral (clinic) images? I highly doubt it, after all was not the whole idea to go Western Deep ? If you let me abuse of OT chatting, there's absolutely no point of seeing this McQueen's film if not in most overwhelming darkness with inverse protection, then you'll know where you are just by the pumping of your heart :-)

As a final curiosity the greek word "alethia" literally means the state of not being hidden; the state of being evident

@maxr

HUGE CA's... not in the 80's, very recently... i.e. The Master

Are you talking chromatic aberration? You found huge CA in a motion picture that was predominantly 65mm, using painstakingly selected lenses and optically timed? It's one of the most amazingly gorgeous films of our time, with close-ups that reveal just how far digital still has to go.

Or are you talking about something good?

I half agree with @maxr because the image can be nice, if the film calls for that type of image. I guess they said they were going for the 16mm film look, and I guess they got it. That can work for some films. I think other cameras can produce a variety of looks (such as GH2), such as modern cinematic look or more classical film look. I get the feeling that you won't be able to color correct/grade away the look of the Bolex, so if you like it, that's cool, but it seems to have a particular look to it that will always be there. (Of course this is all speculation from viewing footage, but seems to be the case.)

You can call me a clown, but I LOVE the look of those images =)

Attention sharpen knifes' addicts, I'm not talking about future proofs, anal peeping, ISO or highlights... it's the feel of it I like; pseudo-arbitary rendition of colours (just invented, je je) creamous textures and lovely bokeh to point out some.

One of major problems with footage from DB I find to be CA's. That, very disctincly showed on the DNGs I played with, even before the cam was out. But if one wants (and I always want) to be the devil's advocate, I've seen big budget, critique acclaimed movies with HUGE CA's... not in the 80's, very recently... i.e. The Master
Da tha thats all fofolks

Yeah, it is troubling when a camera can't make a sunset look good.

Weird, the technical quality of this video is quite low. Lots of camera micro shake in the long shots, muted/greyish colors, unnatural looking (too clay-like brownish) skin tones, horrible CAs (from the cheap Computar lens?), low detail sharpness (grains of sand, leaves and other details blurred out), the orange sunset looks like a cheap video effect, sand in weird dark brown. Was the IR pollution on the sensor?

I don't know, it just fails to impress me, this particular video is somehow dull and bland. Storm coming on the beach in magic hour, it should pop, and author is not to blame here. I see some micro shake all the time, static shots are dancing all over. Most of the shots seem slightly underexposed, maybe the camera doesn't handle highlights too good, so he had to escape to the left. There is some ugly video noise evident in the clouds and sky. There is so much chromatic aberration and pro-mist, must be because of the lenses used. DR seems like forced out few stops with either washed out blacks or highlights lowered in mid-high range.

This camera might be cool, sharpness is pleasant and colors might be ok, but I think it should not be pushed to capture some beautiful imagery, landscapes, oceans, etc. Old C lenses with their blown up prices just under-perform. Some Docu Verité scenarios might suit it better.

The footage from this camera's looking worse and worse... Sudden Blackmagic 4K Price drop just compounds things...

All the footage from Ryan looks good on that vimeo site, the rest looks like shit. Though all the skin tones look too pink but I'm sure that's just a grading thing. Just like it took a little bit of time to not make the BM cameras look like a pile of brown mush.

@caveport go here: https://vimeo.com/groups/digitalbolexuser or here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/digitalbolexuser/ and see if anythings interests you. Philip Bloom should be out with his review soon, and you can check out this preview here: http://philipbloom.net/2014/01/21/d16/ Salud

Donut shop video looks bad. Very poor video, please use tripod or shoulder rig. Highlights look blown out, not good at all.

I played with the DNGs as well. There's not a lot of latitude in there at all. The output is very similar to the raw files from a Pentax Q. While it's neat to be dealing with a "raw" file, a lack of latitude defeats the purpose.

And moire is horrid on these! Oversampling appears to be the best solution for Bayer sensors. Even the BMPCC suffers this way. It only has a little more DR and costs way less. No reason to prefer this scammy seeming pipe dream camera. And yes, it's still a pipe dream, even if they're starting to deliver a product, since it doesn't appear to live up to the hype.

Well, unless the hype was to create Super8 quality in the digital domain. In which case--mission accomplished!