If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote: In article , DoN. Nichols wrote: 5) Thus -- for a full frame sensor, you would need to machine away part of the film support -- which is also support for the focal plane shutter. At this point, you have an F3 (or whatever other camera) which is no longer capable of using film. Mounted slides are not full-frame either. Losing a millimeter or so should be no problem. It may well be significantly more than that. You first need the border of wire bonding pads around the active area of the sensor -- probably with an inner border of amplifiers for each line. Then, you need the surrounding row of wire bonding pads on the substrate to which the sensor is mounted. And the wire bonds need to be made between those (with 0.001" diameter (0.0254mm) wire -- usually gold.) And then, there needs to be the seal where the glass cover with the anti-aliasing filter included. That seal alone will probably be on the order of 2mm thick -- or 4mm added to the border of the sensor. I could probably open up the back of my NC2000e/c and determine how much border there is on that one -- but since it dates back to around 1995 or so, there have probably been improvements in the technology. I'm certainly not going to disassemble my D70 to see how much border there is on its sensor. Someone else want to volunteer one? Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
DoN. Nichols wrote: In article coh.net, Philip Homburg wrote: Mounted slides are not full-frame either. Losing a millimeter or so should be no problem. It may well be significantly more than that. You first need the border of wire bonding pads around the active area of the sensor -- probably with an inner border of amplifiers for each line. I opened up a Pentium 133 processor. Those wires are really on the edge of the chip. With CMOS, you can probably do buffer amplifiers on the sensor itself (and small enough that you can'tsee them with a naked eye). And then, there needs to be the seal where the glass cover with the anti-aliasing filter included. That seal alone will probably be on the order of 2mm thick -- or 4mm added to the border of the sensor. I don't think that you can put 2 mm glass in front of the focus plane without hitting the shutter. -- 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote: In article , DoN. Nichols wrote: [ ... ] And then, there needs to be the seal where the glass cover with the anti-aliasing filter included. That seal alone will probably be on the order of 2mm thick -- or 4mm added to the border of the sensor. I don't think that you can put 2 mm glass in front of the focus plane without hitting the shutter. I was not suggesting that the thickness of the glass was 2mm, but the seal would cover a 2mm border around the sensor and pads on the substrate. A narrower seal would be more likely to open up under thermal stresses (as the camera heats up and cools to match the environment), letting air and other contaminants into the focal plane sensor itself. O.K. I've just opened the NC2000e/c (built on a Kodak N90s, as I have mentioned before), and measured both the step from the surrounding reference plane (aluminum) to the top of the sensor cover (1.6mm), and the distance from the camera body's film plane to the shutter (barely touching at 2.5mm), so a 2mm thick cover plate (plus a little spacing to clear the sensor surface would fit without problems. While I was at it, I took some quick and dirty photos of the sensor and its surrounds. You can see them, with some comments at the following URL: http://www2.d-and-d.com/misc/SENSOR/index.html I retain my conviction that a reversible conversion of a film camera to a full 24x36 digital frame size is possible. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Aaron Blacksmith" writes:
Is there any powerful digital back for F3? Well, the original Kodak DCS (no number) used an F3 body. But you don't want it; it had a separate case with the disk drive and electronics, and offered only 1.3MP. See http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/ or http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9306cs.html. It would be a splendid thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are sold today. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bulk Loading 120 film? | Alan Smithee | In The Darkroom | 19 | April 29th 05 01:38 PM |
digital back on MF vs digital 35mm? | ColdCanuck | Digital Photography | 12 | January 14th 05 11:00 PM |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |