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
In article <070420070612076848%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1175948332.142333.253820@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups,com >,
><aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the reference to the "silicon film", Honestly, I never
>> heard that before. Again, there are people out there who have thought
>> ideas like this. However, I wonder why this particular idea became
>> "cold". Could it be for one or more of the following reasons?
>
>the main reason is that it requires physical modification to the camera
>for it to work.
>
>the surface of film is light sensitive, whereas the surface of a sensor
>is not - it has the bayer filters, micro-lenses, anti-alias filter and
>infrared cut filter in front of the actual light sensitive layer.
>thus, one can't just put a filter up against the film rails and expect
>things to be in focus - it would need to fit further forward.
>
>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.
>
>if that problem was somehow solved, there would still need to be some
>sort of communication between the camera and the device so it knew when
>to read an image and store it.
>
>and then there's little things like a fixed white balance and fixed iso
>rating when it is the camera (just like film). or a readout for number
>of pictures available and battery level.
>
>other than that, it is a good idea. :)
All of these problems didn't prevent Kodak from making quite a few digital
backs for existing Nikon and Canon cameras (the backs were expensive
enough that you would get a body for free with the back, but the body
was essentially unmodified).
--
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 <070420070612076848%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1175948332.142333.253820@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups,com >,
><aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the reference to the "silicon film", Honestly, I never
>> heard that before. Again, there are people out there who have thought
>> ideas like this. However, I wonder why this particular idea became
>> "cold". Could it be for one or more of the following reasons?
>
>the main reason is that it requires physical modification to the camera
>for it to work.
>
>the surface of film is light sensitive, whereas the surface of a sensor
>is not - it has the bayer filters, micro-lenses, anti-alias filter and
>infrared cut filter in front of the actual light sensitive layer.
>thus, one can't just put a filter up against the film rails and expect
>things to be in focus - it would need to fit further forward.
>
>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.
>
>if that problem was somehow solved, there would still need to be some
>sort of communication between the camera and the device so it knew when
>to read an image and store it.
>
>and then there's little things like a fixed white balance and fixed iso
>rating when it is the camera (just like film). or a readout for number
>of pictures available and battery level.
>
>other than that, it is a good idea. :)
All of these problems didn't prevent Kodak from making quite a few digital
backs for existing Nikon and Canon cameras (the backs were expensive
enough that you would get a body for free with the back, but the body
was essentially unmodified).
--
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
On 7 Apr 2007 05:18:52 -0700, aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
: Thanks for the reference to the "silicon film", Honestly, I never
: heard that before. Again, there are people out there who have thought
: ideas like this. However, I wonder why this particular idea became
: "cold". Could it be for one or more of the following reasons?
: - it was not developed by a big corporation with big dollar. Would it
: make any difference if it was developed by Fuji or Kodak?
: - Big camera companies may oppose the idea, as they have their own
: agenda, or want to sell more digital cameras (therefore provide
: "barrier" instead of promoting it).
: - Expensive cost to develop, as well as to market against those
: selling digital camera. Remember those new 35 mm film system, which
: did not seem to "fly" just before the digital world take over... I
: even forget the name... the one that can be printed in various sizes?
: - Too restrictive of a product - i.e. the EFS (e-film) was only
: targetted for specific cameras only. The idea of the silicon film/e-
: film (after I read a PDF file from the developer in the web) was to
: have the product ready for only certain Nikon and Canon 35 mm cameras.
: My thinking was different. The product that I have in mind (similar to
: the EFS or silicon film), is not only that it looks similar to the
: existing 35 mm camera cartridge, it should function to ANY 35 mm
: cameras... not just certain brand of camera. If Kodak/Fuji can sell a
: 35 mm film cartridge and fit to any cameras, why the silicon film can
: work only for certain cameras?. I think this is the main drawback.
: Perhaps with newer technology, the idea can be re-introduced and
: improvement to the silicon film can be made? Or they "missed the
: train" already?
: I still think it is a neat idea, but it has to be relatively cheap to
: compete with the current market.
I'm having difficulty seeing the point. Such a device would be heavy and
probably expensive, and it's hard to see it doing a better job than today's
digitals. I can understand that it may be a nifty technical challenge, but why
would someone actually want to buy one? And assuming that it did sell, the
market is decidedly self-limiting, because fewer and fewer people will have
old film cameras worth converting.
Bob
On 7 Apr 2007 05:18:52 -0700, aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
: Thanks for the reference to the "silicon film", Honestly, I never
: heard that before. Again, there are people out there who have thought
: ideas like this. However, I wonder why this particular idea became
: "cold". Could it be for one or more of the following reasons?
: - it was not developed by a big corporation with big dollar. Would it
: make any difference if it was developed by Fuji or Kodak?
: - Big camera companies may oppose the idea, as they have their own
: agenda, or want to sell more digital cameras (therefore provide
: "barrier" instead of promoting it).
: - Expensive cost to develop, as well as to market against those
: selling digital camera. Remember those new 35 mm film system, which
: did not seem to "fly" just before the digital world take over... I
: even forget the name... the one that can be printed in various sizes?
: - Too restrictive of a product - i.e. the EFS (e-film) was only
: targetted for specific cameras only. The idea of the silicon film/e-
: film (after I read a PDF file from the developer in the web) was to
: have the product ready for only certain Nikon and Canon 35 mm cameras.
: My thinking was different. The product that I have in mind (similar to
: the EFS or silicon film), is not only that it looks similar to the
: existing 35 mm camera cartridge, it should function to ANY 35 mm
: cameras... not just certain brand of camera. If Kodak/Fuji can sell a
: 35 mm film cartridge and fit to any cameras, why the silicon film can
: work only for certain cameras?. I think this is the main drawback.
: Perhaps with newer technology, the idea can be re-introduced and
: improvement to the silicon film can be made? Or they "missed the
: train" already?
: I still think it is a neat idea, but it has to be relatively cheap to
: compete with the current market.
I'm having difficulty seeing the point. Such a device would be heavy and
probably expensive, and it's hard to see it doing a better job than today's
digitals. I can understand that it may be a nifty technical challenge, but why
would someone actually want to buy one? And assuming that it did sell, the
market is decidedly self-limiting, because fewer and fewer people will have
old film cameras worth converting.
Bob
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
<aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format...
Google for Leica's DMR. There's a post today on the AP bulletin board
suggesting that it's now been discontinued.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http :// www .teranews,com
<aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format...
Google for Leica's DMR. There's a post today on the AP bulletin board
suggesting that it's now been discontinued.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http :// www .teranews,com
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On Apr 6, 9:28 pm, anira...@yahoo,com wrote:
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
> just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
> camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
> take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
> complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
> your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
> in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
> again, just like the digital cameras.
> Some of you may said that is the same question whether there is a
> "back cartridge" that can be fitted into the old Hasselblad, Mamiya RB
> or M645, in which it changes into digital cameras. However, I heard
> that this speacil back is very expensive. Correct me if such a product
> exist for professional photographers, but at a very high costs! (such
> that it is just easier to throw away the old cameras and buy a new
> digital one).
> The next question is whether technically this is possible. Will people
> buy them, and use their old cameras (which some had invested heavily
> before the digital era came to play). This sounds like a crazy idea,
> but I sometime wonder that if it is possible. There are lots of smart
> people and inventors in this world, and I am sure they have the brain
> to create such a product. I am sure that this would not be welcomed by
> digital cameras' manufacturers, as it will compete with their product.
> Although some of the "players" are still the same (Kodak, Fuji, Nikon,
> Canon, Pentax, etc).
> Unfortunately, we are living in a world which are driven by narrow
> "track of minds", set by big corporations which decided upon our
> direction into the future.
> Thanks for sharing my "dream". I am now awake from my day dreaming.
> Thanks for the discussion.
Several years ago the group was flooded with questions based on a
premature release of such a product. I seem to recall they called it
"silicon film". Never went on sale- the effort folded. I believe,
for one thing, that the development took so long that the resolution
was far bypassed by the pure digital cameras. But I think there were
other problems too.
On Apr 6, 9:28 pm, anira...@yahoo,com wrote:
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
> just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
> camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
> take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
> complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
> your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
> in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
> again, just like the digital cameras.
> Some of you may said that is the same question whether there is a
> "back cartridge" that can be fitted into the old Hasselblad, Mamiya RB
> or M645, in which it changes into digital cameras. However, I heard
> that this speacil back is very expensive. Correct me if such a product
> exist for professional photographers, but at a very high costs! (such
> that it is just easier to throw away the old cameras and buy a new
> digital one).
> The next question is whether technically this is possible. Will people
> buy them, and use their old cameras (which some had invested heavily
> before the digital era came to play). This sounds like a crazy idea,
> but I sometime wonder that if it is possible. There are lots of smart
> people and inventors in this world, and I am sure they have the brain
> to create such a product. I am sure that this would not be welcomed by
> digital cameras' manufacturers, as it will compete with their product.
> Although some of the "players" are still the same (Kodak, Fuji, Nikon,
> Canon, Pentax, etc).
> Unfortunately, we are living in a world which are driven by narrow
> "track of minds", set by big corporations which decided upon our
> direction into the future.
> Thanks for sharing my "dream". I am now awake from my day dreaming.
> Thanks for the discussion.
Several years ago the group was flooded with questions based on a
premature release of such a product. I seem to recall they called it
"silicon film". Never went on sale- the effort folded. I believe,
for one thing, that the development took so long that the resolution
was far bypassed by the pure digital cameras. But I think there were
other problems too.
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On Apr 6, 10:28 pm, anira...@yahoo,com wrote:
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product?
Forget that, simply replace the back of any SLR with one housing a
sensor. Just think of the ease of sensor cleaning! Swing the back
open! The idea of doing this with an Olympus OM-1 was bandied about,
but the logistics would have been daunting.
On Apr 6, 10:28 pm, anira...@yahoo,com wrote:
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product?
Forget that, simply replace the back of any SLR with one housing a
sensor. Just think of the ease of sensor cleaning! Swing the back
open! The idea of doing this with an Olympus OM-1 was bandied about,
but the logistics would have been daunting.
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On 6 Apr 2007 19:28:31 -0700, aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
>Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
>which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
>can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
>like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
>format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
>just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
>camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
>take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
>complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
>your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
>in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
>again, just like the digital cameras.
There is no way to make such a product as you describe, for reasons
already pointed out. Mainly, there just isn't room for the sensor
using the camera's original back, as the sensor is several times
thicker than film.
But the associated support hardware already fills purpose-made digital
cameras (have you ever seen cutaway or X-ray images of digital
cameras?). There is no way to fit the PCBs digital needs into film
bodies.
Plus, the logistics of even Silicon Film's back were too much for
actual production; each camera needs its own back (the production
nightmares of this are well imagined); cooling of the electronics is
seemingly ignored, upgrade paths are similarly ignored, connecting the
mandatory controls to the camera's shutter and aperture would be
different for each brand/model, to name just a few.
The idea sounds good at first, but quickly fails under the weight of
implementation.
--
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 6 Apr 2007 19:28:31 -0700, aniramca@yahoo,com wrote:
>Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
>which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
>can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
>like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
>format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
>just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
>camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
>take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
>complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
>your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
>in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
>again, just like the digital cameras.
There is no way to make such a product as you describe, for reasons
already pointed out. Mainly, there just isn't room for the sensor
using the camera's original back, as the sensor is several times
thicker than film.
But the associated support hardware already fills purpose-made digital
cameras (have you ever seen cutaway or X-ray images of digital
cameras?). There is no way to fit the PCBs digital needs into film
bodies.
Plus, the logistics of even Silicon Film's back were too much for
actual production; each camera needs its own back (the production
nightmares of this are well imagined); cooling of the electronics is
seemingly ignored, upgrade paths are similarly ignored, connecting the
mandatory controls to the camera's shutter and aperture would be
different for each brand/model, to name just a few.
The idea sounds good at first, but quickly fails under the weight of
implementation.
--
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
Kodak used to make digital backs for some Nikon film bodies.
At the link below is a photo of my Nikon N90s fitted with
a Kodak DCS 460 digital back:
http :// hannemyr,com /photo/dcs460.html
It was somewhat bigger than a film cartridge, tho'.
The Leica R8 and R9 also has a replaceable back, and can be fitted
with the DMR ro shoot digital, or a film back to shoot film.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http :// hannemyr,com /photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak used to make digital backs for some Nikon film bodies.
At the link below is a photo of my Nikon N90s fitted with
a Kodak DCS 460 digital back:
http :// hannemyr,com /photo/dcs460.html
It was somewhat bigger than a film cartridge, tho'.
The Leica R8 and R9 also has a replaceable back, and can be fitted
with the DMR ro shoot digital, or a film back to shoot film.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http :// hannemyr,com /photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On Apr 7, 11:21 am, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+n...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> Kodak used to make digital backs for some Nikon film bodies.
> At the link below is a photo of my Nikon N90s fitted with
> a Kodak DCS 460 digital back: http :// hannemyr,com /photo/dcs460.html
> It was somewhat bigger than a film cartridge, tho'.
>
> The Leica R8 and R9 also has a replaceable back, and can be fitted
> with the DMR ro shoot digital, or a film back to shoot film.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http :// hannemyr,com /photo/]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wondering about this very thing a few days ago. Your Kodak
conversion makes pretty good images.
I would give my bad eye ;) for an F3hp viewfinder on my digital
Nik... If the current crop of DSLRs follows the same price curve...a
d200 will sell for 50$ in ten years... and so will a cheesburger OY!
Jazz
On Apr 7, 11:21 am, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+n...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> Kodak used to make digital backs for some Nikon film bodies.
> At the link below is a photo of my Nikon N90s fitted with
> a Kodak DCS 460 digital back: http :// hannemyr,com /photo/dcs460.html
> It was somewhat bigger than a film cartridge, tho'.
>
> The Leica R8 and R9 also has a replaceable back, and can be fitted
> with the DMR ro shoot digital, or a film back to shoot film.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http :// hannemyr,com /photo/]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wondering about this very thing a few days ago. Your Kodak
conversion makes pretty good images.
I would give my bad eye ;) for an F3hp viewfinder on my digital
Nik... If the current crop of DSLRs follows the same price curve...a
d200 will sell for 50$ in ten years... and so will a cheesburger OY!
Jazz
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On 7 Apr 2007 09:35:02 -0700, "jazzology" <jazzology101@gmail,com > wrote:
: I would give my bad eye ;) for an F3hp viewfinder on my digital
: Nik... If the current crop of DSLRs follows the same price curve...a
: d200 will sell for 50$ in ten years... and so will a cheesburger OY!
For my last Nikon (an F-2 film SLR), I bought a replacement prism that
incorporated a split-image rangefinder with a Fresnel ring around it, set in
the middle of the ground glass. If I could have that in my XTi, I'd probably
never turn on AF again.
Bob
On 7 Apr 2007 09:35:02 -0700, "jazzology" <jazzology101@gmail,com > wrote:
: I would give my bad eye ;) for an F3hp viewfinder on my digital
: Nik... If the current crop of DSLRs follows the same price curve...a
: d200 will sell for 50$ in ten years... and so will a cheesburger OY!
For my last Nikon (an F-2 film SLR), I bought a replacement prism that
incorporated a split-image rangefinder with a Fresnel ring around it, set in
the middle of the ground glass. If I could have that in my XTi, I'd probably
never turn on AF again.
Bob
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
<aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product?
Nope! Besides, you're several years too late. There was a company planning
on doing just that, but it never came to be. Too many limitations. You
can't see what you just shot for one thing. Can't delete bad photos on the
fly either. When it was discussed back a few years ago, it was an
interesting idea because DSLRs were astronomically priced - well over $5k.
Now that they can be had for under a grand, the idea isn't even remotely
interesting anymore.
Mark
<aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product?
Nope! Besides, you're several years too late. There was a company planning
on doing just that, but it never came to be. Too many limitations. You
can't see what you just shot for one thing. Can't delete bad photos on the
fly either. When it was discussed back a few years ago, it was an
interesting idea because DSLRs were astronomically priced - well over $5k.
Now that they can be had for under a grand, the idea isn't even remotely
interesting anymore.
Mark
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
"Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:Guydnf9Xz4rgi4fbnZ2dnUVZ qyjnZ2d@comcast,com ...
>
> <aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote in message
> news:1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
>> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
>> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
>> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
>> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
>> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product?
>
> Nope! Besides, you're several years too late. There was a company
> planning on doing just that, but it never came to be. Too many
> limitations. You can't see what you just shot for one thing. Can't
> delete bad photos on the fly either. When it was discussed back a few
> years ago, it was an interesting idea because DSLRs were astronomically
> priced - well over $5k. Now that they can be had for under a grand, the
> idea isn't even remotely interesting anymore.
>
> Mark
>
Mark it certainly did come to be. They had a working prototype and had
released to potential investors two sample images (less than 1 MP at the
time). However, you are correct there were too many problems with the idea
and it never made it out of the prototype stage. But, they were actively
trying to get partners for funding further development and I am guessing
that didn't go well either. I had the two sample images up until a few years
ago. Just like the images from the old Logitech digital cameras from 1990 I
tossed the images thinking I wouldn't ever need them. The quality just
wasn't very good even by the standards of the regular digital cameras of the
time.
=(8)
"Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:Guydnf9Xz4rgi4fbnZ2dnUVZ qyjnZ2d@comcast,com ...
>
> <aniramca@yahoo,com > wrote in message
> news:1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
>> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
>> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
>> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
>> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
>> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product?
>
> Nope! Besides, you're several years too late. There was a company
> planning on doing just that, but it never came to be. Too many
> limitations. You can't see what you just shot for one thing. Can't
> delete bad photos on the fly either. When it was discussed back a few
> years ago, it was an interesting idea because DSLRs were astronomically
> priced - well over $5k. Now that they can be had for under a grand, the
> idea isn't even remotely interesting anymore.
>
> Mark
>
Mark it certainly did come to be. They had a working prototype and had
released to potential investors two sample images (less than 1 MP at the
time). However, you are correct there were too many problems with the idea
and it never made it out of the prototype stage. But, they were actively
trying to get partners for funding further development and I am guessing
that didn't go well either. I had the two sample images up until a few years
ago. Just like the images from the old Logitech digital cameras from 1990 I
tossed the images thinking I wouldn't ever need them. The quality just
wasn't very good even by the standards of the regular digital cameras of the
time.
=(8)
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On Apr 6, 9:28 pm, anira...@yahoo,com wrote:
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
> just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
> camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
> take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
> complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
> your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
> in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
> again, just like the digital cameras.
> Some of you may said that is the same question whether there is a
> "back cartridge" that can be fitted into the old Hasselblad, Mamiya RB
> or M645, in which it changes into digital cameras. However, I heard
> that this speacil back is very expensive. Correct me if such a product
> exist for professional photographers, but at a very high costs! (such
> that it is just easier to throw away the old cameras and buy a new
> digital one).
> The next question is whether technically this is possible. Will people
> buy them, and use their old cameras (which some had invested heavily
> before the digital era came to play). This sounds like a crazy idea,
> but I sometime wonder that if it is possible. There are lots of smart
> people and inventors in this world, and I am sure they have the brain
> to create such a product. I am sure that this would not be welcomed by
> digital cameras' manufacturers, as it will compete with their product.
> Although some of the "players" are still the same (Kodak, Fuji, Nikon,
> Canon, Pentax, etc).
> Unfortunately, we are living in a world which are driven by narrow
> "track of minds", set by big corporations which decided upon our
> direction into the future.
> Thanks for sharing my "dream". I am now awake from my day dreaming.
> Thanks for the discussion.
My father has an old Hasselblad that he is looking into getting a
digital back for and we were just in a photography shop in downtown
Chicago doing some pricing for it, as well as online. Yes it is a
small fortune to do so!
It is the convenience factor that is so appealing, being able to slip
a SD card from the camera to the PC or Mac is just far too appealing
these days;)
Kind regards,
Danepipesmoker
www .iansforest,com
On Apr 6, 9:28 pm, anira...@yahoo,com wrote:
> Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
> just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
> camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
> take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
> complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
> your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
> in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
> again, just like the digital cameras.
> Some of you may said that is the same question whether there is a
> "back cartridge" that can be fitted into the old Hasselblad, Mamiya RB
> or M645, in which it changes into digital cameras. However, I heard
> that this speacil back is very expensive. Correct me if such a product
> exist for professional photographers, but at a very high costs! (such
> that it is just easier to throw away the old cameras and buy a new
> digital one).
> The next question is whether technically this is possible. Will people
> buy them, and use their old cameras (which some had invested heavily
> before the digital era came to play). This sounds like a crazy idea,
> but I sometime wonder that if it is possible. There are lots of smart
> people and inventors in this world, and I am sure they have the brain
> to create such a product. I am sure that this would not be welcomed by
> digital cameras' manufacturers, as it will compete with their product.
> Although some of the "players" are still the same (Kodak, Fuji, Nikon,
> Canon, Pentax, etc).
> Unfortunately, we are living in a world which are driven by narrow
> "track of minds", set by big corporations which decided upon our
> direction into the future.
> Thanks for sharing my "dream". I am now awake from my day dreaming.
> Thanks for the discussion.
My father has an old Hasselblad that he is looking into getting a
digital back for and we were just in a photography shop in downtown
Chicago doing some pricing for it, as well as online. Yes it is a
small fortune to do so!
It is the convenience factor that is so appealing, being able to slip
a SD card from the camera to the PC or Mac is just far too appealing
these days;)
Kind regards,
Danepipesmoker
www .iansforest,com
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
At least you CAN with a Hasselblad. Snag is, the cheapest back costs three
time much as a new 500CM (or whatever it's called now) and it still isn't
full-frame.
"Danepipesmoker" <iannweeks@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:1176328003.787706.151290@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 6, 9:28 pm, anira...@yahoo,com wrote:
> > Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> > which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> > can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> > like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> > format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
> > just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
> > camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
> > take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
> > complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
> > your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
> > in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
> > again, just like the digital cameras.
> > Some of you may said that is the same question whether there is a
> > "back cartridge" that can be fitted into the old Hasselblad, Mamiya RB
> > or M645, in which it changes into digital cameras. However, I heard
> > that this speacil back is very expensive. Correct me if such a product
> > exist for professional photographers, but at a very high costs! (such
> > that it is just easier to throw away the old cameras and buy a new
> > digital one).
> > The next question is whether technically this is possible. Will people
> > buy them, and use their old cameras (which some had invested heavily
> > before the digital era came to play). This sounds like a crazy idea,
> > but I sometime wonder that if it is possible. There are lots of smart
> > people and inventors in this world, and I am sure they have the brain
> > to create such a product. I am sure that this would not be welcomed by
> > digital cameras' manufacturers, as it will compete with their product.
> > Although some of the "players" are still the same (Kodak, Fuji, Nikon,
> > Canon, Pentax, etc).
> > Unfortunately, we are living in a world which are driven by narrow
> > "track of minds", set by big corporations which decided upon our
> > direction into the future.
> > Thanks for sharing my "dream". I am now awake from my day dreaming.
> > Thanks for the discussion.
>
> My father has an old Hasselblad that he is looking into getting a
> digital back for and we were just in a photography shop in downtown
> Chicago doing some pricing for it, as well as online. Yes it is a
> small fortune to do so!
>
> It is the convenience factor that is so appealing, being able to slip
> a SD card from the camera to the PC or Mac is just far too appealing
> these days;)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Danepipesmoker
> www .iansforest,com
>
At least you CAN with a Hasselblad. Snag is, the cheapest back costs three
time much as a new 500CM (or whatever it's called now) and it still isn't
full-frame.
"Danepipesmoker" <iannweeks@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:1176328003.787706.151290@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 6, 9:28 pm, anira...@yahoo,com wrote:
> > Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> > which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> > can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> > like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> > format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
> > just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
> > camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
> > take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
> > complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
> > your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
> > in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
> > again, just like the digital cameras.
> > Some of you may said that is the same question whether there is a
> > "back cartridge" that can be fitted into the old Hasselblad, Mamiya RB
> > or M645, in which it changes into digital cameras. However, I heard
> > that this speacil back is very expensive. Correct me if such a product
> > exist for professional photographers, but at a very high costs! (such
> > that it is just easier to throw away the old cameras and buy a new
> > digital one).
> > The next question is whether technically this is possible. Will people
> > buy them, and use their old cameras (which some had invested heavily
> > before the digital era came to play). This sounds like a crazy idea,
> > but I sometime wonder that if it is possible. There are lots of smart
> > people and inventors in this world, and I am sure they have the brain
> > to create such a product. I am sure that this would not be welcomed by
> > digital cameras' manufacturers, as it will compete with their product.
> > Although some of the "players" are still the same (Kodak, Fuji, Nikon,
> > Canon, Pentax, etc).
> > Unfortunately, we are living in a world which are driven by narrow
> > "track of minds", set by big corporations which decided upon our
> > direction into the future.
> > Thanks for sharing my "dream". I am now awake from my day dreaming.
> > Thanks for the discussion.
>
> My father has an old Hasselblad that he is looking into getting a
> digital back for and we were just in a photography shop in downtown
> Chicago doing some pricing for it, as well as online. Yes it is a
> small fortune to do so!
>
> It is the convenience factor that is so appealing, being able to slip
> a SD card from the camera to the PC or Mac is just far too appealing
> these days;)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Danepipesmoker
> www .iansforest,com
>
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
In article <1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com >,
aniramca@yahoo,com writes
>Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
>which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
>can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
>like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
>format, instead of into film,
>It is
>just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
>camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
>take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
>complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
>your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
>in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
>again, just like the digital cameras.
You mean just like this stuff?
http :// www .sitmark,com /Portfolio/SiliconFilmOverview.pdf
>would you buy such a product?
Nobody did.
It started life as a great idea from Irvine Sensors Corporation, a
company that has survived for decades conning cash from the gullible in
government and private finance. It was spun out to an independent debt
laden company called Imagek which had to change its name to SiliconFilm
because nobody wanted to invest in or work for something called "I'm A
Geek". From something that was hailed to fit in all 35mm SLR bodies it
soon became Nikon FM-2 specific and finally debued at PMA in 2001 where
it was already too little too late and eventually did the decent thing
and disappeared into the mists of time to be quietly fogotten about...
until you asked! ;-)
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0001/00010604siliconfilm.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0012/00121501efilmagain.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0102/01021201siliconfilmefs1.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0102/01021404pma04.asp#siliconfilm
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0105/01050703siliconfilmships.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0109/01091702siliconfilmvaporizes.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0209/02091903siliconfilmagain.asp
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
In article <1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com >,
aniramca@yahoo,com writes
>Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
>which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
>can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
>like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
>format, instead of into film,
>It is
>just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
>camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
>take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
>complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
>your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
>in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
>again, just like the digital cameras.
You mean just like this stuff?
http :// www .sitmark,com /Portfolio/SiliconFilmOverview.pdf
>would you buy such a product?
Nobody did.
It started life as a great idea from Irvine Sensors Corporation, a
company that has survived for decades conning cash from the gullible in
government and private finance. It was spun out to an independent debt
laden company called Imagek which had to change its name to SiliconFilm
because nobody wanted to invest in or work for something called "I'm A
Geek". From something that was hailed to fit in all 35mm SLR bodies it
soon became Nikon FM-2 specific and finally debued at PMA in 2001 where
it was already too little too late and eventually did the decent thing
and disappeared into the mists of time to be quietly fogotten about...
until you asked! ;-)
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0001/00010604siliconfilm.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0012/00121501efilmagain.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0102/01021201siliconfilmefs1.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0102/01021404pma04.asp#siliconfilm
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0105/01050703siliconfilmships.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0109/01091702siliconfilmvaporizes.asp
http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0209/02091903siliconfilmagain.asp
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras
1280x1024p. Snigger (with hindsight of course). This thing kept threatening
to appear at Photokina but there was never anything more than dummies
(products, that is, not buyers).
"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xgACxlD1N8KGFwWH@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com >,
> aniramca@yahoo,com writes
> >Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> >which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> >can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> >like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> >format, instead of into film,
> >It is
> >just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
> >camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
> >take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
> >complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
> >your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
> >in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
> >again, just like the digital cameras.
>
> You mean just like this stuff?
> http :// www .sitmark,com /Portfolio/SiliconFilmOverview.pdf
>
> >would you buy such a product?
>
> Nobody did.
>
> It started life as a great idea from Irvine Sensors Corporation, a
> company that has survived for decades conning cash from the gullible in
> government and private finance. It was spun out to an independent debt
> laden company called Imagek which had to change its name to SiliconFilm
> because nobody wanted to invest in or work for something called "I'm A
> Geek". From something that was hailed to fit in all 35mm SLR bodies it
> soon became Nikon FM-2 specific and finally debued at PMA in 2001 where
> it was already too little too late and eventually did the decent thing
> and disappeared into the mists of time to be quietly fogotten about...
> until you asked! ;-)
>
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0001/00010604siliconfilm.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0012/00121501efilmagain.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0102/01021201siliconfilmefs1.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0102/01021404pma04.asp#siliconfilm
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0105/01050703siliconfilmships.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0109/01091702siliconfilmvaporizes.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0209/02091903siliconfilmagain.asp
>
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
replying)
1280x1024p. Snigger (with hindsight of course). This thing kept threatening
to appear at Photokina but there was never anything more than dummies
(products, that is, not buyers).
"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xgACxlD1N8KGFwWH@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <1175912911.202486.130280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups,com >,
> aniramca@yahoo,com writes
> >Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product
> >which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120 film cartridge, and you
> >can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
> >like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
> >format, instead of into film,
> >It is
> >just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
> >camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
> >take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
> >complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
> >your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
> >in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
> >again, just like the digital cameras.
>
> You mean just like this stuff?
> http :// www .sitmark,com /Portfolio/SiliconFilmOverview.pdf
>
> >would you buy such a product?
>
> Nobody did.
>
> It started life as a great idea from Irvine Sensors Corporation, a
> company that has survived for decades conning cash from the gullible in
> government and private finance. It was spun out to an independent debt
> laden company called Imagek which had to change its name to SiliconFilm
> because nobody wanted to invest in or work for something called "I'm A
> Geek". From something that was hailed to fit in all 35mm SLR bodies it
> soon became Nikon FM-2 specific and finally debued at PMA in 2001 where
> it was already too little too late and eventually did the decent thing
> and disappeared into the mists of time to be quietly fogotten about...
> until you asked! ;-)
>
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0001/00010604siliconfilm.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0012/00121501efilmagain.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0102/01021201siliconfilmefs1.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0102/01021404pma04.asp#siliconfilm
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0105/01050703siliconfilmships.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0109/01091702siliconfilmvaporizes.asp
> http :// www .dpreview,com /news/0209/02091903siliconfilmagain.asp
>
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
replying)
