@luekio Yes. I am completely aware that "filmic" is intended to mean "looks like film," but thanks for the stupidly patronizing response. My original point stands that there aren't, as far as I know, any specific measurements that can be made to quantify how filmic one device is versus another... not to mention that over the years, there were many many types of emulsion. Does it look "filmic" in the sense of "black and white?" Does it look like Kodachrome? Technicolor #1? Agfacolor? Ektachrome? Panacolor? Orwocolor? Does it look like it was shot at 15fps, 23.98fps, 24fps, or 30fps?

My point was that terms like "cinematic" and "filmic" are useless in descriptions of a camera's quality as they are completely and utterly subjective to the viewer. Measuring rolling shutter, exposure latitude, sharpness, resolution, etc. are potentially useful since the results are absolute and theoretically reproducible given a similar setup. Getting upset that someone said that the image from one camera is more "cinematic" or "filmic" than the other is as stupid as getting upset that someone said it's better to get a lens which is rotated clockwise to focus to infinity vs counter-clockwise.

Still, most people are just trying to express something they can't articulate properly when they use the term "filmic". For more than a decade I've read "how to" after "how to" on how to make your video look more like film and almost all of them have been full of bad ideas and gotten it horribly wrong.

At least "filmic" is better than "transparent fluid motion with slightly moving edge" you can find in audio reviews. :-)

You could paint it however suits you but jello cam and moire are not good or filmic by anyone's standards.

Looks like grainy footage, not filmic, that is unsuitable for use indoors--if the usable ISO is 200-400, that makes it an "outdoor-daytime" camera. Perhaps a sensor upgrade will help, since the cams are made in small batches that should be a possibility.

Really would like to see some decently graded footage somewhere from this camera.

Since there are few or no criteria to determine how "cinematic" or "filmic" an image is, the guy's not at all wrong if he says that something is (in his opinion) either one. In fact, both are among the worst possible descriptors for the quality of a camera. You might as well start throwing out terms like "pretty" and "shiny" to describe the output. They're just about as useful.

i download this video and color corrected and upload again :-)

NoFilmSchool - official sponsors of the Digital Bolex.

Here's some super quick dng's from christmas morning. I like the image, but this camera is starved for light. Have to shoot wide open pretty much all the time if you're shooting indoors even in good light. 200 is more optimal of an ISO than 400. 400 is usable but DR seems to go down with it and color starts to shift odd and of course added grain. The grain though is I guess more "filmic" that what you'd get with many CMOS sensors, but it is quite present in low light. This camera is SHARP in good light. These were all shot wide open with my rokinon 16mm f2. Very easy to handhold without a rig honestly.

https://app.box.com/s/zqozokekfe5et9j9ro92

@luekio, thanks but I'm only interested in video from a shipped camera.

@MattRobertson7 A lot has been said about the audio capabilities of the camera. If you have a chance, plug "real" mics in, one with a Y-cable, turn on the phantom power, and measure the loaded phantom power with a Voltmeter. Should be somewhere around 48 volts.

Also, if you have a DAW with a bitmeter, it would be interesting to see if the 24 bits are "real" 24 bits--most DAWS will have a feature that shows harmonic analysis of the extra bits--some recorders just record zeros instead of actual audio.

If you have any RME gear, the bitmeter is built in. Thanks for posting the videos!

@MattRobertson I have three questions, what is your impression of the IQ, what is the vid like in low light, and also the screen seems really small, can you see much on the screen?