Group: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Other formats, tripods, projectors, bags etc.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
> On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam,com > wrote:
>> There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do
>> early in the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size
>> device with the CCD on what would have been the first frame of film
>> that rested over the proper area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat
>> idea and they had a working prototype. However, they never could get
>> it working quite right. They had too little space to cram a lot of
>> technology including batter for power also the need for a full size
>> 35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they went belly up.
>>
>> =(8)
>
> I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
> medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
> very expensive.
> What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
> cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
> Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
> have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
> back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
> replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
> slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
> did it the old fashioned way in the past.
> Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
> cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
> People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
> Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge? Then, add
> a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
> that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
> My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
> is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
> way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
> all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
> consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
> the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
> no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
> something that can be perceived as a competition.
> Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
> processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
> the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
> the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
> etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
> digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
> nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
> Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
> M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
> or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
> It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
> the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
> to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
> exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
> sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
> 35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
> same way it did using regular 35mm film.
>
> Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
> The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
> the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
> people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
> to continue using it.
> The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
> of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
> challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
> drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
> is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
> This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
> planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
> that was the defeat.
> To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
> possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
> on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
> into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...
>
> Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
> interesting comments.
The big problem is that the sensor has to be the same thickness as a
length of 35mm film and have the sensing surface exposed on the front,
with no intervening optics or filters or the like, and is going to have
to be durable enough to withstand handling. Going to be a long time
before that's doable.
The "defeat" was that they never actually managed to make one of the
things.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
> On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam,com > wrote:
>> There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do
>> early in the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size
>> device with the CCD on what would have been the first frame of film
>> that rested over the proper area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat
>> idea and they had a working prototype. However, they never could get
>> it working quite right. They had too little space to cram a lot of
>> technology including batter for power also the need for a full size
>> 35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they went belly up.
>>
>> =(8)
>
> I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
> medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
> very expensive.
> What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
> cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
> Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
> have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
> back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
> replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
> slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
> did it the old fashioned way in the past.
> Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
> cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
> People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
> Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge? Then, add
> a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
> that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
> My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
> is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
> way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
> all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
> consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
> the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
> no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
> something that can be perceived as a competition.
> Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
> processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
> the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
> the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
> etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
> digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
> nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
> Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
> M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
> or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
> It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
> the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
> to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
> exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
> sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
> 35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
> same way it did using regular 35mm film.
>
> Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
> The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
> the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
> people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
> to continue using it.
> The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
> of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
> challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
> drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
> is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
> This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
> planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
> that was the defeat.
> To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
> possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
> on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
> into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...
>
> Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
> interesting comments.
The big problem is that the sensor has to be the same thickness as a
length of 35mm film and have the sensing surface exposed on the front,
with no intervening optics or filters or the like, and is going to have
to be durable enough to withstand handling. Going to be a long time
before that's doable.
The "defeat" was that they never actually managed to make one of the
things.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox,net > wrote in message
news:evbjd101ov6@news2.newsguy,com ...
> aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam,com > wrote:
>>> There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do
>>> early in the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size
>>> device with the CCD on what would have been the first frame of film
>>> that rested over the proper area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat
>>> idea and they had a working prototype. However, they never could get
>>> it working quite right. They had too little space to cram a lot of
>>> technology including batter for power also the need for a full size
>>> 35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they went belly up.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>> I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
>> medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
>> very expensive.
>> What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
>> cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
>> Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
>> have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
>> back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
>> replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
>> slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
>> did it the old fashioned way in the past.
>> Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
>> cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
>> People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
>> Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge? Then, add
>> a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
>> that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
>> My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
>> is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
>> way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
>> all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
>> consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
>> the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
>> no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
>> something that can be perceived as a competition.
>> Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
>> processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
>> the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
>> the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
>> etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
>> digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
>> nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
>> Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
>> M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
>> or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
>> It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
>> the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
>> to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
>> exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
>> sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
>> 35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
>> same way it did using regular 35mm film.
>>
>> Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
>> The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
>> the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
>> people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
>> to continue using it.
>> The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
>> of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
>> challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
>> drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
>> is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
>> This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
>> planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
>> that was the defeat.
>> To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
>> possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
>> on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
>> into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...
>>
>> Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
>> interesting comments.
>
> The big problem is that the sensor has to be the same thickness as a
> length of 35mm film and have the sensing surface exposed on the front,
> with no intervening optics or filters or the like, and is going to have
> to be durable enough to withstand handling. Going to be a long time
> before that's doable.
>
> The "defeat" was that they never actually managed to make one of the
> things.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
Yes, they did. They had 2 sample images available to show investors. The
problem was partly what you said and partly that they had too little space
to cram a whole lot of different things. Battery, processing, sensor, etc.
etc. etc. They couldn't mass produce them and they had very poor
performance. We are talking pictures the quality of the first consumer
digital cameras from like Logitech in 1990.
They wanted to do too much with too little space.
=(8)
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox,net > wrote in message
news:evbjd101ov6@news2.newsguy,com ...
> aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam,com > wrote:
>>> There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do
>>> early in the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size
>>> device with the CCD on what would have been the first frame of film
>>> that rested over the proper area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat
>>> idea and they had a working prototype. However, they never could get
>>> it working quite right. They had too little space to cram a lot of
>>> technology including batter for power also the need for a full size
>>> 35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they went belly up.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>> I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
>> medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
>> very expensive.
>> What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
>> cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
>> Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
>> have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
>> back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
>> replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
>> slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
>> did it the old fashioned way in the past.
>> Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
>> cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
>> People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
>> Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge? Then, add
>> a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
>> that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
>> My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
>> is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
>> way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
>> all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
>> consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
>> the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
>> no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
>> something that can be perceived as a competition.
>> Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
>> processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
>> the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
>> the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
>> etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
>> digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
>> nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
>> Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
>> M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
>> or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
>> It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
>> the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
>> to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
>> exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
>> sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
>> 35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
>> same way it did using regular 35mm film.
>>
>> Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
>> The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
>> the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
>> people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
>> to continue using it.
>> The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
>> of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
>> challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
>> drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
>> is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
>> This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
>> planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
>> that was the defeat.
>> To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
>> possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
>> on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
>> into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...
>>
>> Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
>> interesting comments.
>
> The big problem is that the sensor has to be the same thickness as a
> length of 35mm film and have the sensing surface exposed on the front,
> with no intervening optics or filters or the like, and is going to have
> to be durable enough to withstand handling. Going to be a long time
> before that's doable.
>
> The "defeat" was that they never actually managed to make one of the
> things.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
Yes, they did. They had 2 sample images available to show investors. The
problem was partly what you said and partly that they had too little space
to cram a whole lot of different things. Battery, processing, sensor, etc.
etc. etc. They couldn't mass produce them and they had very poor
performance. We are talking pictures the quality of the first consumer
digital cameras from like Logitech in 1990.
They wanted to do too much with too little space.
=(8)
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On 8 Apr 2007 12:19:21 -0700, aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
>Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
>cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
>People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
>Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge?
The idea sounds good, but the problem of interfacing that drop-in with
the camera fails miserably. Thgere's not even a way to tell the
drop-in when the camera opened the shutter.
Another point I brought up the last time this was suggested is a real
killer: heat. How do you get the heat out of the camera?
Plus, there's still the problem that the sensor is thicker than film
is.
A back is a far better solution (at least it has a chance), but backs
must be made specific for each individual make/model, and must still
interface with the camera electronically. It's easier and far cheaper
to make much more functional digital DSLRs from scratch.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
The White House gave John Kerry's
campaign nemesis Sam Fox, who funded
the Swift Boat Veterans, a recess
appointment to Belgium on Wednesday.
Nothing ever changes. John Kerry
insisted he was for the appointment
before he was against the appointment.
On 8 Apr 2007 12:19:21 -0700, aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
>Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
>cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
>People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
>Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge?
The idea sounds good, but the problem of interfacing that drop-in with
the camera fails miserably. Thgere's not even a way to tell the
drop-in when the camera opened the shutter.
Another point I brought up the last time this was suggested is a real
killer: heat. How do you get the heat out of the camera?
Plus, there's still the problem that the sensor is thicker than film
is.
A back is a far better solution (at least it has a chance), but backs
must be made specific for each individual make/model, and must still
interface with the camera electronically. It's easier and far cheaper
to make much more functional digital DSLRs from scratch.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
The White House gave John Kerry's
campaign nemesis Sam Fox, who funded
the Swift Boat Veterans, a recess
appointment to Belgium on Wednesday.
Nothing ever changes. John Kerry
insisted he was for the appointment
before he was against the appointment.
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there,com > wrote in message
news:6k6j13pkgphiovcm4icl5gnaps45eim2q6@4ax,com ...
> On 8 Apr 2007 12:19:21 -0700, aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
>
>>Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
>>cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
>>People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
>>Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge?
>
> The idea sounds good, but the problem of interfacing that drop-in with
> the camera fails miserably. Thgere's not even a way to tell the
> drop-in when the camera opened the shutter.
> Another point I brought up the last time this was suggested is a real
> killer: heat. How do you get the heat out of the camera?
> Plus, there's still the problem that the sensor is thicker than film
> is.
> A back is a far better solution (at least it has a chance), but backs
> must be made specific for each individual make/model, and must still
> interface with the camera electronically. It's easier and far cheaper
> to make much more functional digital DSLRs from scratch.
>
> --
> THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
> The White House gave John Kerry's
> campaign nemesis Sam Fox, who funded
> the Swift Boat Veterans, a recess
> appointment to Belgium on Wednesday.
> Nothing ever changes. John Kerry
> insisted he was for the appointment
> before he was against the appointment.
I don't disagree, they had too many problems to over come which is why they
didn't. However, they would stand a better chance now with nano-tech. But,
still I think it would be very hard and expensive. Also 35mm cameras are
sort of out of the picture for the most part.
They never did give a price estimated or otherwise. However, it would have
had to be $200 or less otherwise just by a digital camera. This was like
1995 someplace around there. By then we had MP cameras (1MP, but still).
=(8)
"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there,com > wrote in message
news:6k6j13pkgphiovcm4icl5gnaps45eim2q6@4ax,com ...
> On 8 Apr 2007 12:19:21 -0700, aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
>
>>Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
>>cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
>>People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
>>Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge?
>
> The idea sounds good, but the problem of interfacing that drop-in with
> the camera fails miserably. Thgere's not even a way to tell the
> drop-in when the camera opened the shutter.
> Another point I brought up the last time this was suggested is a real
> killer: heat. How do you get the heat out of the camera?
> Plus, there's still the problem that the sensor is thicker than film
> is.
> A back is a far better solution (at least it has a chance), but backs
> must be made specific for each individual make/model, and must still
> interface with the camera electronically. It's easier and far cheaper
> to make much more functional digital DSLRs from scratch.
>
> --
> THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
> The White House gave John Kerry's
> campaign nemesis Sam Fox, who funded
> the Swift Boat Veterans, a recess
> appointment to Belgium on Wednesday.
> Nothing ever changes. John Kerry
> insisted he was for the appointment
> before he was against the appointment.
I don't disagree, they had too many problems to over come which is why they
didn't. However, they would stand a better chance now with nano-tech. But,
still I think it would be very hard and expensive. Also 35mm cameras are
sort of out of the picture for the most part.
They never did give a price estimated or otherwise. However, it would have
had to be $200 or less otherwise just by a digital camera. This was like
1995 someplace around there. By then we had MP cameras (1MP, but still).
=(8)
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
<aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1176059961.768706.18750@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam,com > wrote:
>> There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do early
>> in
>> the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size device with the CCD
>> on
>> what would have been the first frame of film that rested over the proper
>> area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat idea and they had a working
>> prototype. However, they never could get it working quite right. They had
>> too little space to cram a lot of technology including batter for power
>> also
>> the need for a full size 35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they
>> went
>> belly up.
>>
>> =(8)
>
> I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
> medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
> very expensive.
> What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
> cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
> Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
> have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
> back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
> replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
> slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
> did it the old fashioned way in the past.
> Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
> cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
> People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
> Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge? Then, add
> a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
> that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
> My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
> is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
> way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
> all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
> consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
> the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
> no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
> something that can be perceived as a competition.
> Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
> processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
> the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
> the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
> etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
> digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
> nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
> Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
> M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
> or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
> It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
> the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
> to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
> exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
> sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
> 35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
> same way it did using regular 35mm film.
>
> Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
> The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
> the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
> people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
> to continue using it.
> The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
> of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
> challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
> drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
> is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
> This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
> planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
> that was the defeat.
> To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
> possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
> on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
> into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...
>
> Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
> interesting comments.
>
I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size roll
of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in to the
35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like if you had
put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a back as it could
also be used with any type of 35mm camera.
=(8)
<aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1176059961.768706.18750@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam,com > wrote:
>> There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do early
>> in
>> the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size device with the CCD
>> on
>> what would have been the first frame of film that rested over the proper
>> area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat idea and they had a working
>> prototype. However, they never could get it working quite right. They had
>> too little space to cram a lot of technology including batter for power
>> also
>> the need for a full size 35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they
>> went
>> belly up.
>>
>> =(8)
>
> I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
> medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
> very expensive.
> What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
> cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
> Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
> have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
> back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
> replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
> slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
> did it the old fashioned way in the past.
> Someone mentioned that there are too much things to put into that tiny
> cartridge. However, technology has changed in the past 6 years alone.
> People can now jam in 2 GB (or even 4 GB) data into that same SD card.
> Can we jam in a tiny memory chip into the 35 mm cartridge? Then, add
> a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
> that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
> My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
> is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
> way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
> all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
> consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
> the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
> no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
> something that can be perceived as a competition.
> Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
> processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
> the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
> the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
> etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
> digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
> nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
> Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
> M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
> or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
> It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
> the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
> to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
> exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
> sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
> 35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
> same way it did using regular 35mm film.
>
> Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
> The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
> the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
> people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
> to continue using it.
> The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
> of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
> challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
> drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
> is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
> This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
> planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
> that was the defeat.
> To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
> possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
> on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
> into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...
>
> Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
> interesting comments.
>
I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size roll
of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in to the
35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like if you had
put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a back as it could
also be used with any type of 35mm camera.
=(8)
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
=(8) wrote:
> I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size
> roll of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in
> to the 35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like
> if you had put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a
> back as it could also be used with any type of 35mm camera.
>
> =(8)
The first problem that I can see with a generic drop-in digital film
replacement is that every camera design put the film through a slightly
different path.
If the digital film sensor is aligned to fit into a Nikon F1, then it
probably wont fit properly inot a Canon T1 or a Pentax K1000 or a
Olympus OM1.
Then you also have the problem of interfacing the shutter mechanism with
the sensor so that it knows when to start and stop capturing, what may
work on a Pentax Spotmatic probably wont work with a Canon EOS 300.
If these were the only hurdles to designing and building a drop-in
digital film, then Imagek should have been able to solve it and not fail
and then vanish in a cloud of vaporware.
=(8) wrote:
> I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size
> roll of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in
> to the 35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like
> if you had put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a
> back as it could also be used with any type of 35mm camera.
>
> =(8)
The first problem that I can see with a generic drop-in digital film
replacement is that every camera design put the film through a slightly
different path.
If the digital film sensor is aligned to fit into a Nikon F1, then it
probably wont fit properly inot a Canon T1 or a Pentax K1000 or a
Olympus OM1.
Then you also have the problem of interfacing the shutter mechanism with
the sensor so that it knows when to start and stop capturing, what may
work on a Pentax Spotmatic probably wont work with a Canon EOS 300.
If these were the only hurdles to designing and building a drop-in
digital film, then Imagek should have been able to solve it and not fail
and then vanish in a cloud of vaporware.
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
"dj nme" <dj nme@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:4619f2e5$0$13121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au...
> =(8) wrote:
>> I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size
>> roll of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in to
>> the 35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like if
>> you had put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a back
>> as it could also be used with any type of 35mm camera.
>>
>> =(8)
>
> The first problem that I can see with a generic drop-in digital film
> replacement is that every camera design put the film through a slightly
> different path.
> If the digital film sensor is aligned to fit into a Nikon F1, then it
> probably wont fit properly inot a Canon T1 or a Pentax K1000 or a Olympus
> OM1.
> Then you also have the problem of interfacing the shutter mechanism with
> the sensor so that it knows when to start and stop capturing, what may
> work on a Pentax Spotmatic probably wont work with a Canon EOS 300.
> If these were the only hurdles to designing and building a drop-in digital
> film, then Imagek should have been able to solve it and not fail and then
> vanish in a cloud of vaporware.
See we all now understand why this thing never made it out of the prototype
stage and was basically stillborn. Interesting idea, but I don't think
feasible unless you want to make a different one for each camera make and
model and where's the sense in that. By the time they had the two sample
images out they were already behind what most mid priced digital cameras
could do at the time.
=(8)
"dj nme" <dj nme@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:4619f2e5$0$13121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au...
> =(8) wrote:
>> I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size
>> roll of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in to
>> the 35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like if
>> you had put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a back
>> as it could also be used with any type of 35mm camera.
>>
>> =(8)
>
> The first problem that I can see with a generic drop-in digital film
> replacement is that every camera design put the film through a slightly
> different path.
> If the digital film sensor is aligned to fit into a Nikon F1, then it
> probably wont fit properly inot a Canon T1 or a Pentax K1000 or a Olympus
> OM1.
> Then you also have the problem of interfacing the shutter mechanism with
> the sensor so that it knows when to start and stop capturing, what may
> work on a Pentax Spotmatic probably wont work with a Canon EOS 300.
> If these were the only hurdles to designing and building a drop-in digital
> film, then Imagek should have been able to solve it and not fail and then
> vanish in a cloud of vaporware.
See we all now understand why this thing never made it out of the prototype
stage and was basically stillborn. Interesting idea, but I don't think
feasible unless you want to make a different one for each camera make and
model and where's the sense in that. By the time they had the two sample
images out they were already behind what most mid priced digital cameras
could do at the time.
=(8)
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
=(8) wrote:
> "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:4619f2e5$0$13121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au...
>
>> =(8) wrote:
>>
>>> I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm
>>> size roll of film with a piece of film out sized package then went
>>> right in to the 35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the
>>> back just like if you had put a roll of film in it. This is totally
>>> different from a back as it could also be used with any type of 35mm
>>> camera.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>>
>> The first problem that I can see with a generic drop-in digital film
>> replacement is that every camera design put the film through a
>> slightly different path.
>> If the digital film sensor is aligned to fit into a Nikon F1, then it
>> probably wont fit properly inot a Canon T1 or a Pentax K1000 or a
>> Olympus OM1.
>> Then you also have the problem of interfacing the shutter mechanism
>> with the sensor so that it knows when to start and stop capturing,
>> what may work on a Pentax Spotmatic probably wont work with a Canon
>> EOS 300.
>> If these were the only hurdles to designing and building a drop-in
>> digital film, then Imagek should have been able to solve it and not
>> fail and then vanish in a cloud of vaporware.
>
>
>
> See we all now understand why this thing never made it out of the
> prototype stage and was basically stillborn. Interesting idea, but I
> don't think feasible unless you want to make a different one for each
> camera make and model and where's the sense in that. By the time they
> had the two sample images out they were already behind what most mid
> priced digital cameras could do at the time.
>
> =(8)
Unfortunately, that's about it.
Kodak did it's best with their DCS backs for Nikon and Canon SLR
cameras, but these were for only a limited number of highly advanced
film camera models that had extensive electronic interfacing already
built into them.
Such is life.
=(8) wrote:
> "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:4619f2e5$0$13121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au...
>
>> =(8) wrote:
>>
>>> I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm
>>> size roll of film with a piece of film out sized package then went
>>> right in to the 35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the
>>> back just like if you had put a roll of film in it. This is totally
>>> different from a back as it could also be used with any type of 35mm
>>> camera.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>>
>> The first problem that I can see with a generic drop-in digital film
>> replacement is that every camera design put the film through a
>> slightly different path.
>> If the digital film sensor is aligned to fit into a Nikon F1, then it
>> probably wont fit properly inot a Canon T1 or a Pentax K1000 or a
>> Olympus OM1.
>> Then you also have the problem of interfacing the shutter mechanism
>> with the sensor so that it knows when to start and stop capturing,
>> what may work on a Pentax Spotmatic probably wont work with a Canon
>> EOS 300.
>> If these were the only hurdles to designing and building a drop-in
>> digital film, then Imagek should have been able to solve it and not
>> fail and then vanish in a cloud of vaporware.
>
>
>
> See we all now understand why this thing never made it out of the
> prototype stage and was basically stillborn. Interesting idea, but I
> don't think feasible unless you want to make a different one for each
> camera make and model and where's the sense in that. By the time they
> had the two sample images out they were already behind what most mid
> priced digital cameras could do at the time.
>
> =(8)
Unfortunately, that's about it.
Kodak did it's best with their DCS backs for Nikon and Canon SLR
cameras, but these were for only a limited number of highly advanced
film camera models that had extensive electronic interfacing already
built into them.
Such is life.
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
In article <461b4d4c$0$13150$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>but these were for only a limited number of highly advanced
>film camera models that had extensive electronic interfacing already
>built into them.
The F3 doesn't have extensive electronic interfacing.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
In article <461b4d4c$0$13150$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>but these were for only a limited number of highly advanced
>film camera models that had extensive electronic interfacing already
>built into them.
The F3 doesn't have extensive electronic interfacing.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <461b4d4c$0$13150$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
> dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>>but these were for only a limited number of highly advanced
>>film camera models that had extensive electronic interfacing already
>>built into them.
>
>
> The F3 doesn't have extensive electronic interfacing.
A good point, it must have had enough interfacing to tell the digital
back when to start and stop capturing.
Either that or the DCS controls the shutter mechanism, as there is an
additional shutter-grip that is part of the DCS back.
The descriptions online of the original DCS aren't detailed enough to
draw any solid conclusion.
Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <461b4d4c$0$13150$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
> dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>>but these were for only a limited number of highly advanced
>>film camera models that had extensive electronic interfacing already
>>built into them.
>
>
> The F3 doesn't have extensive electronic interfacing.
A good point, it must have had enough interfacing to tell the digital
back when to start and stop capturing.
Either that or the DCS controls the shutter mechanism, as there is an
additional shutter-grip that is part of the DCS back.
The descriptions online of the original DCS aren't detailed enough to
draw any solid conclusion.
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
In article <461cd18c$0$13137$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>A good point, it must have had enough interfacing to tell the digital
>back when to start and stop capturing.
>Either that or the DCS controls the shutter mechanism, as there is an
>additional shutter-grip that is part of the DCS back.
>The descriptions online of the original DCS aren't detailed enough to
>draw any solid conclusion.
I doubt that the F3 reports when the shutter is released.
Controlling both the back and the F3 using a separate shutter release sounds
like a reasonable approach.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
In article <461cd18c$0$13137$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>A good point, it must have had enough interfacing to tell the digital
>back when to start and stop capturing.
>Either that or the DCS controls the shutter mechanism, as there is an
>additional shutter-grip that is part of the DCS back.
>The descriptions online of the original DCS aren't detailed enough to
>draw any solid conclusion.
I doubt that the F3 reports when the shutter is released.
Controlling both the back and the F3 using a separate shutter release sounds
like a reasonable approach.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article
> <461cd18c$0$13137$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
> dj nme <dj nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> A good point, it must have had enough interfacing to tell the digital
>> back when to start and stop capturing.
>> Either that or the DCS controls the shutter mechanism, as there is an
>> additional shutter-grip that is part of the DCS back.
>> The descriptions online of the original DCS aren't detailed enough to
>> draw any solid conclusion.
>
> I doubt that the F3 reports when the shutter is released.
>
> Controlling both the back and the F3 using a separate shutter release
> sounds like a reasonable approach.
How was the release arranged on F3s with motor drives? Was there a
separate release or did the regular release activate the motor? If the
latter, that interface could probably be used for the sensor.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article
> <461cd18c$0$13137$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
> dj nme <dj nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> A good point, it must have had enough interfacing to tell the digital
>> back when to start and stop capturing.
>> Either that or the DCS controls the shutter mechanism, as there is an
>> additional shutter-grip that is part of the DCS back.
>> The descriptions online of the original DCS aren't detailed enough to
>> draw any solid conclusion.
>
> I doubt that the F3 reports when the shutter is released.
>
> Controlling both the back and the F3 using a separate shutter release
> sounds like a reasonable approach.
How was the release arranged on F3s with motor drives? Was there a
separate release or did the regular release activate the motor? If the
latter, that interface could probably be used for the sensor.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
In article <evj46j02hlt@news3.newsguy,com >,
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox,net > wrote:
>How was the release arranged on F3s with motor drives? Was there a
>separate release or did the regular release activate the motor? If the
>latter, that interface could probably be used for the sensor.
The motor drive advances after the shutter release. You can use that
signal to detect when the shutter has closed, but you also need a signal
when the shutter is about to open.
The motor drive doesn't need to know then the shutter opens, and the flash
gets signaled when the shutter is open, instead of when the shutter is
about to open.
I don't know about the data back signals.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
In article <evj46j02hlt@news3.newsguy,com >,
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox,net > wrote:
>How was the release arranged on F3s with motor drives? Was there a
>separate release or did the regular release activate the motor? If the
>latter, that interface could probably be used for the sensor.
The motor drive advances after the shutter release. You can use that
signal to detect when the shutter has closed, but you also need a signal
when the shutter is about to open.
The motor drive doesn't need to know then the shutter opens, and the flash
gets signaled when the shutter is open, instead of when the shutter is
about to open.
I don't know about the data back signals.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <evj46j02hlt@news3.newsguy,com >,
> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox,net > wrote:
>
>>How was the release arranged on F3s with motor drives? Was there a
>>separate release or did the regular release activate the motor? If the
>>latter, that interface could probably be used for the sensor.
>
>
> The motor drive advances after the shutter release. You can use that
> signal to detect when the shutter has closed, but you also need a signal
> when the shutter is about to open.
>
> The motor drive doesn't need to know then the shutter opens, and the flash
> gets signaled when the shutter is open, instead of when the shutter is
> about to open.
>
> I don't know about the data back signals.
My best guess is that the shutter release that is built into the DCS
back triggers the back which then triggers the actual camera shutter and
then the winder activates as on a normal motor-drive to recock the shutter.
I could be wrong, though.
Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <evj46j02hlt@news3.newsguy,com >,
> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox,net > wrote:
>
>>How was the release arranged on F3s with motor drives? Was there a
>>separate release or did the regular release activate the motor? If the
>>latter, that interface could probably be used for the sensor.
>
>
> The motor drive advances after the shutter release. You can use that
> signal to detect when the shutter has closed, but you also need a signal
> when the shutter is about to open.
>
> The motor drive doesn't need to know then the shutter opens, and the flash
> gets signaled when the shutter is open, instead of when the shutter is
> about to open.
>
> I don't know about the data back signals.
My best guess is that the shutter release that is built into the DCS
back triggers the back which then triggers the actual camera shutter and
then the winder activates as on a normal motor-drive to recock the shutter.
I could be wrong, though.
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On Apr 7, 8:04 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol,com > wrote:
> "Summer Wind" <summer-w...@theworld,net > wrote:
> > "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> that means either milling the film rails or fit the whole unit within
> >> the film opening so the focal plane is physically in the right place.
> >> unfortunately, there's a shutter mechanism that gets in the way of
> >> doing that.
>
> > Could it work with medium format TLRs? The shutter is in the lens. That
> > old Rolleiflex in the closet could have a new life as a digital camera.
>
> My 50s Rollei TLR produces lovely 77MP files without any modifications
> whatsoever.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
This is like how digital image files measure as larger the more noise
they contain. Recording every little grain on the film probably takes
a huge amount of memory, yet the pictures contain (likely) no more
visible resolution than a high megapixel DSLR.
On Apr 7, 8:04 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol,com > wrote:
> "Summer Wind" <summer-w...@theworld,net > wrote:
> > "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> that means either milling the film rails or fit the whole unit within
> >> the film opening so the focal plane is physically in the right place.
> >> unfortunately, there's a shutter mechanism that gets in the way of
> >> doing that.
>
> > Could it work with medium format TLRs? The shutter is in the lens. That
> > old Rolleiflex in the closet could have a new life as a digital camera.
>
> My 50s Rollei TLR produces lovely 77MP files without any modifications
> whatsoever.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
This is like how digital image files measure as larger the more noise
they contain. Recording every little grain on the film probably takes
a huge amount of memory, yet the pictures contain (likely) no more
visible resolution than a high megapixel DSLR.
