Turning film cameras into digital cameras

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

Mark Dunn wrote:
> 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).

From memory, by the time Imagek had eventualy anounced their 1.2mp
Silicon Film insert there were already consumer digicams that could
out-resolved it anyway.
So it would seem to me that the extremely long devlopment time is partly
what ultimately killed it off.

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

In article
<462d6299$0$25462$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>, dj_nme
<dj_nme@hotmail,com > writes
>Mark Dunn wrote:
>> 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).
>
>From memory, by the time Imagek had eventualy anounced their 1.2mp
>Silicon Film insert there were already consumer digicams that could
>out-resolved it anyway.
>So it would seem to me that the extremely long devlopment time is
>partly what ultimately killed it off.

Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development time,
not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the same plane
of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no filter or
cover plate. Then there was the issue of synchronising the sensor with
the camera shutter.
--
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

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article
> <462d6299$0$25462$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>, dj_nme
> <dj_nme@hotmail,com > writes
>
>> Mark Dunn wrote:
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>>
>> From memory, by the time Imagek had eventualy anounced their 1.2mp
>> Silicon Film insert there were already consumer digicams that could
>> out-resolved it anyway.
>> So it would seem to me that the extremely long devlopment time is
>> partly what ultimately killed it off.
>
>
> Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development time,
> not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the same plane
> of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no filter or
> cover plate. Then there was the issue of synchronising the sensor with
> the camera shutter.

That is why it took so long to produce nothing, but a consumer (whether
they be pro photog or aunt betty taking snaps) shouldn't have to worry
about the "magic" that makes it possible, they just want a product they
can actualy use and if it ain't there they just don't care.

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > observed
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article
>><462d6299$0$25462$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>, dj_nme
>><dj_nme@hotmail,com > writes
>>
>>> Mark Dunn wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>
>>>
>>> From memory, by the time Imagek had eventualy anounced their 1.2mp
>>>Silicon Film insert there were already consumer digicams that could
>>>out-resolved it anyway.
>>> So it would seem to me that the extremely long devlopment time is
>>>partly what ultimately killed it off.
>> Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development
>>time, not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the
>>same plane of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no
>>filter or cover plate. Then there was the issue of synchronising the
>>sensor with the camera shutter.
>
>That is why it took so long to produce nothing, but a consumer (whether
>they be pro photog or aunt betty taking snaps) shouldn't have to worry
>about the "magic" that makes it possible, they just want a product they
>can actualy use and if it ain't there they just don't care.

Absolutely right. That was the remarkable success story of the Kodak
'Box Brownie'.

Amazing then that the PC has been such a success, since it isn't
anywhere near that stage yet.

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

In article
<462f1547$0$17194$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>, dj_nme
<dj_nme@hotmail,com > writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article
>><462d6299$0$25462$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>, dj_nme
>><dj_nme@hotmail,com > writes
>>
>>> Mark Dunn wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>
>>>
>>> From memory, by the time Imagek had eventualy anounced their 1.2mp
>>>Silicon Film insert there were already consumer digicams that could
>>>out-resolved it anyway.
>>> So it would seem to me that the extremely long devlopment time is
>>>partly what ultimately killed it off.
>> Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development
>>time, not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the
>>same plane of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no
>>filter or cover plate. Then there was the issue of synchronising the
>>sensor with the camera shutter.
>
>That is why it took so long to produce nothing, but a consumer (whether
>they be pro photog or aunt betty taking snaps) shouldn't have to worry
>about the "magic" that makes it possible, they just want a product they
>can actualy use and if it ain't there they just don't care.

The consumer never had to "worry about the magic that makes it
possible", however the designers did - and it was the impossibility of
that "magic" which meant the final product target too restricted a
market (ie. too few consumers) with far too little capability compared
to alternate solutions (eg. specifically designed dSLRs) at lower cost.

--
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

In article <pdLUOXAfphLGFwOO@kennedym.demon.co.uk>,
Kennedy McEwen <rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development time,
>not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the same plane
>of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no filter or
>cover plate.

That doesn't make any sense. Kodak produced an large collection of backs
for standard Nikon and Canon cameras. As far as I know, the Kodak backs
were quite popular. They also had to put any protective covers/filters
between the film plane and the shutter (though it is possible that Kodak
restricted themselves to camera with enough space).




--
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 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:42:31 +0200, philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

>In article <pdLUOXAfphLGFwOO@kennedym.demon.co.uk>,
>Kennedy McEwen <rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development time,
>>not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the same plane
>>of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no filter or
>>cover plate.
>
>That doesn't make any sense. Kodak produced an large collection of backs
>for standard Nikon and Canon cameras. As far as I know, the Kodak backs
>were quite popular. They also had to put any protective covers/filters
>between the film plane and the shutter (though it is possible that Kodak
>restricted themselves to camera with enough space).

It makes sense as a "back" is different from an insert to take the
place of the film.
Backs can be made to fit a particular model (or line of similar
models), but that's just not the same thing.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

The View on Disney-owned ABC dropped Rosie
O'Donnell, even after she agreed to stop
talking about George Bush. The president
has no leverage over ABC. Disney is not a
defense contractor, unless you count the
war rationales we buy from Fantasyland.

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

In article <in0733tdt8jtgcti1jiubl6dnosmomgj5k@4ax,com >,
Bill Funk <BigBill@there,com > wrote:
>It makes sense as a "back" is different from an insert to take the
>place of the film.
>Backs can be made to fit a particular model (or line of similar
>models), but that's just not the same thing.

Having a product is better than having no product. If there is a large
class of cameras that do have enough space and a few cameras don't, then
it makes sense to focus on the products you can sell.

It is like Leica where it is better to sell cameras with a weak IR filter,
than not selling any digital M. (However, Leica should have warned people
in advance about this problem).


--
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 <in0733tdt8jtgcti1jiubl6dnosmomgj5k@4ax,com >,
> Bill Funk <BigBill@there,com > wrote:
>
>>It makes sense as a "back" is different from an insert to take the
>>place of the film.
>>Backs can be made to fit a particular model (or line of similar
>>models), but that's just not the same thing.
>
>
> Having a product is better than having no product. If there is a large
> class of cameras that do have enough space and a few cameras don't, then
> it makes sense to focus on the products you can sell.

I'm not sure if that is realy true, a good example I can think of in the
digital SLR marketplace is Pentax Vs Contax (Kyocera using the Zeiss
trademark).
Both companies developed a DSLR body to put around a Dalsa 6.1mp 24x36mm
sized sensor.
Pentax realised during the development phase that the IQ from the chip
wasn't up to snuff (Dalsa also put the price up) and canned the project
before going beyond (what software develpoers call) "alpha testing" of a
few finished prototype camera.
The Contax version of the story is different and they pushed it out the
door, even though it had "issues" with noise at anything other than it's
base ISO setting.
The cost of manufacture and the bad press (and the hit to sales of an
already "niche" product) that came off the back of the noisy sensor is
what killed off Contax as a digicam brand.

> It is like Leica where it is better to sell cameras with a weak IR filter,
> than not selling any digital M. (However, Leica should have warned people
> in advance about this problem).

Leica is the only game in town for using their M lenses on a digital
body, Epson stopped making their RD-1 or RD-1s about a year ago.

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

In article <46340849$0$17221$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> In article <in0733tdt8jtgcti1jiubl6dnosmomgj5k@4ax,com >,
>> Bill Funk <BigBill@there,com > wrote:
>>
>>>It makes sense as a "back" is different from an insert to take the
>>>place of the film.
>>>Backs can be made to fit a particular model (or line of similar
>>>models), but that's just not the same thing.
>>
>>
>> Having a product is better than having no product. If there is a large
>> class of cameras that do have enough space and a few cameras don't, then
>> it makes sense to focus on the products you can sell.
>
>I'm not sure if that is realy true, a good example I can think of in the
>digital SLR marketplace is Pentax Vs Contax (Kyocera using the Zeiss
>trademark).
>Both companies developed a DSLR body to put around a Dalsa 6.1mp 24x36mm
>sized sensor.
>Pentax realised during the development phase that the IQ from the chip
>wasn't up to snuff (Dalsa also put the price up) and canned the project
>before going beyond (what software develpoers call) "alpha testing" of a
>few finished prototype camera.
>The Contax version of the story is different and they pushed it out the
>door, even though it had "issues" with noise at anything other than it's
>base ISO setting.
>The cost of manufacture and the bad press (and the hit to sales of an
>already "niche" product) that came off the back of the noisy sensor is
>what killed off Contax as a digicam brand.

Obviously, there no point in making a product that nobody wants to buy.

But suppose that you can make a 'digital film' that fits lots of Nikon and
Canon bodies.

Are you just going going to wait until can make something that fits all
35mm cameras ever produced? Or are you just going to ship when the
market is big enough to support the product you can make?

>> It is like Leica where it is better to sell cameras with a weak IR filter,
>> than not selling any digital M. (However, Leica should have warned people
>> in advance about this problem).
>
>Leica is the only game in town for using their M lenses on a digital
>body, Epson stopped making their RD-1 or RD-1s about a year ago.

Even then, the image quality has to be reasonable. Otherwise, there is
no point in using it.


--
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:
<snip>
> Obviously, there no point in making a product that nobody wants to buy.
>
> But suppose that you can make a 'digital film' that fits lots of Nikon and
> Canon bodies.

The problem with this now is that all of the major SLR makers now make
their own DSLR cameras and it is possible to buy a DSLR which you can
use their lenses on for even less than the projected cost of the
Imagek/Silicon Film product.

> Are you just going going to wait until can make something that fits all
> 35mm cameras ever produced? Or are you just going to ship when the
> market is big enough to support the product you can make?

I believe that history has passed them (Imagek/Silicon Film) by.
Unless you're talking about the constantly shrinking pool of users (most
I would guess would have moved on to DSLR cameras made by Nikon, Pentax
or Canon) for manual focus Minolta (MD/MC) and Canon (FD) cameras and
lenses.

>>>It is like Leica where it is better to sell cameras with a weak IR filter,
>>>than not selling any digital M. (However, Leica should have warned people
>>>in advance about this problem).
>>
>>Leica is the only game in town for using their M lenses on a digital
>>body, Epson stopped making their RD-1 or RD-1s about a year ago.
>
>
> Even then, the image quality has to be reasonable. Otherwise, there is
> no point in using it.

The IR contamination problem seems to have been squashed with two
methods by Leica, giving M8 users 2 free IR block lens filters and
offering a firmware upgrade that corrects it for in-camera jpeg files.

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

In article <46373292$0$17235$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet,net .au>,
dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail,com > wrote:
>I believe that history has passed them (Imagek/Silicon Film) by.
>Unless you're talking about the constantly shrinking pool of users (most
>I would guess would have moved on to DSLR cameras made by Nikon, Pentax
>or Canon) for manual focus Minolta (MD/MC) and Canon (FD) cameras and
>lenses.

I think I would pay something like $1000 for a good 1.3x (maybe also for 1.5x)
sensor that works well in a Nikon F/F2/F3/F4.

>> Even then, the image quality has to be reasonable. Otherwise, there is
>> no point in using it.
>
>The IR contamination problem seems to have been squashed with two
>methods by Leica, giving M8 users 2 free IR block lens filters and
>offering a firmware upgrade that corrects it for in-camera jpeg files.

You left out the third method: convert the image to B/W.

Using filters is good way to turn an excellent lens in an average one.

I don't believe for one moment that either IR or aliasing issues can be solved
in software.


--
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 Tue, 1 May 2007 08:36:44 +0200, philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

>Obviously, there no point in making a product that nobody wants to buy.
>
>But suppose that you can make a 'digital film' that fits lots of Nikon and
>Canon bodies.
>
>Are you just going going to wait until can make something that fits all
>35mm cameras ever produced? Or are you just going to ship when the
>market is big enough to support the product you can make?

Let's suppose you could solve the problem of actually fitting a sensor
between the current camera's back and shutter.
You will still need to do some modifications to the camera to allow
communication between the camera and the insert.
Then, there's the problems of where to put the battery, how to get rid
of heat, and storage/retrieval of the images.

How would one determine the size of the market? I don't think there
are enough owners of cameras who would seriously want to spend for the
insert plus the mods needed, when DSLRs that are much more capable
already exist at what may well be the same or lower cost. (But I could
be wrong.)

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign office
stopped using her maiden name last week and now
simply refers to her as Hillary Clinton. She's
completely dropped the name Rodham. It's a sure
sign that one of her brothers is about to get
indicted again.

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 08:36:44 +0200, philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)
> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, there no point in making a product that nobody wants to buy.
>>
>> But suppose that you can make a 'digital film' that fits lots of Nikon and
>> Canon bodies.
>>
>> Are you just going going to wait until can make something that fits all
>> 35mm cameras ever produced? Or are you just going to ship when the
>> market is big enough to support the product you can make?
>
> Let's suppose you could solve the problem of actually fitting a sensor
> between the current camera's back and shutter.
> You will still need to do some modifications to the camera to allow
> communication between the camera and the insert.
> Then, there's the problems of where to put the battery, how to get rid
> of heat, and storage/retrieval of the images.
>
> How would one determine the size of the market? I don't think there
> are enough owners of cameras who would seriously want to spend for the
> insert plus the mods needed, when DSLRs that are much more capable
> already exist at what may well be the same or lower cost. (But I could
> be wrong.)

I'd think another problem would be a variance in the distance between
the film cannister and the centre of the sensor, which would likely vary
between cameras. With film this isn't critical, with a digital insert
it would need to be precise.

Re: Turning film cameras into digital cameras

In article <esivf5cl5itcq3q15coscvm4e6@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh,net >,
Philip Homburg <philip@ue.aioy.eu> writes
>In article <pdLUOXAfphLGFwOO@kennedym.demon.co.uk>,
>Kennedy McEwen <rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development time,
>>not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the same plane
>>of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no filter or
>>cover plate.
>
>That doesn't make any sense. Kodak produced an large collection of backs
>for standard Nikon and Canon cameras.
>
The Kodak backs only fitted very specific Nikon and Canon bodies and
certainly weren't interchangeable across the Nikon & Canon range.

>They also had to put any protective covers/filters
>between the film plane and the shutter (though it is possible that Kodak
>restricted themselves to camera with enough space).

Precisely. Many film cameras have the shutter blind very close to the
film plane and would compete with the sensor filter for space.

A generic "one size fits all" digital sensor to replace film is
impossible for this reason, and others that I mentioned. That was
eventually accepted by Imagek/SiliconFilm who announce that their
product would be specific to only one Nikon body type shortly before
they ceased trading.
--
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)