Turning film cameras into digital cameras

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by aniramca, Apr 7, 2007.

  1. aniramca

    =\(8\) Guest

    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)
     
    =\(8\), Apr 10, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    dj_nme Guest

    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.
     
    dj_nme, Apr 10, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. The F3 doesn't have extensive electronic interfacing.
     
    Philip Homburg, Apr 10, 2007
    #43
  4. aniramca

    dj_nme Guest

    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.
     
    dj_nme, Apr 11, 2007
    #44
  5. 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.
     
    Philip Homburg, Apr 11, 2007
    #45
  6. aniramca

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 11, 2007
    #46
  7. 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
     
    Danepipesmoker, Apr 11, 2007
    #47
  8. 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.
     
    Philip Homburg, Apr 11, 2007
    #48
  9. aniramca

    dj_nme Guest

    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.
     
    dj_nme, Apr 12, 2007
    #49
  10. aniramca

    Jerry Guest

    I remember reading about this when they first announced it. At the time
    digital cameras were about a megapixel max and I was thinking it might
    be nice for my aging Canon F1, and a collection of FD lenses. I
    couldn't figure how they could package it, and make it work with any
    camera. How do you preview, display photos for a couple of good ones.
    It seems it would have to be camera specific to adjust for varying
    differences between the cartridge and the sensor, and how would it know
    when the shutter was about to fire. I supposed the sensor could be
    "armed" the shutter fire, and perhaps the cocking lever store the photo.
    Anyway, technology overtook the need for it, I bought the bullet, and
    a couple of EF and EFS lenses, as well as a Canon 300D since replaced
    with a 30d.
     
    Jerry, Apr 12, 2007
    #50
  11. aniramca

    jtur Guest


    Hello, Pat:

    The Nikon SLR "digital backs" were supplied by Kodak, however.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    jtur, Apr 14, 2007
    #51
  12. Nope. It is now generally recognised as a ploy to fool venture capitalists
    into giving someone a load of money.
    They do: http://www.leica-camera.de/photography/r_system/digital-modul-r/
    (site in German).
     
    Jeroen Wenting, Apr 14, 2007
    #52
  13. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest


    The Leica Digital Modul-R has been discontinued, because the main
    supplier (Imacon) insisted on a minimum order size that was considered
    much too large by Leica Camera (info from a Leica press release).
    Stocks of new Digital Modul-R backs are now very low.

    The relationship between Imacon and Leica has deteriorated to such an
    extent that it could be described as hostile. The problem started
    when Imacon merged with Hasselblad, with whom Leica Camera's
    relationship has been sour for some years.

    Look no further than the expensive and ultimately abortive development
    work done on Leica lenses for medium format, and the introduction of
    the Hasselblad X-Pan.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 14, 2007
    #53
  14. aniramca

    Mark Dunn Guest

    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.
     
    Mark Dunn, Apr 20, 2007
    #54
  15. You mean just like this stuff?
    http://www.sitmark.com/Portfolio/SiliconFilmOverview.pdf
    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 McEwen, Apr 22, 2007
    #55
  16. aniramca

    Mark Dunn Guest

    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).
    replying)
     
    Mark Dunn, Apr 23, 2007
    #56
  17. aniramca

    dj_nme Guest

    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.
     
    dj_nme, Apr 24, 2007
    #57
  18. 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 McEwen, Apr 24, 2007
    #58
  19. aniramca

    dj_nme Guest

    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.
     
    dj_nme, Apr 25, 2007
    #59
  20. 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".
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Apr 25, 2007
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.