Turning film cameras into digital cameras

In article ,
dj_nme 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

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article
,
dj_nme 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 message
.phicoh.net...
In article .com,
wrote:
Why use that old camera, if you can get a new one
cheap?

Why indeed. Why use an old camera with some kind of digital kludge if you
can get a new one that performs better, costs less, and is more
convenient?


--
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


You have to remember that when digital film for 35mm cameras was being toyed
with the cost of a cheap digital camera was between $600 and $1000. So if
you could just pop in a cartridge that looked like a roll of 35mm and get
digital for about $200 it would have been a hot seller. But, it just wasn't
meant to happen. Fortunately digital cameras even at higher prices caught on
and then we had the digicam flood of the late 1990's and early 2000's and
the prices dropped and the quality kept going up.

=(8)

? ?????? ??? ??????
oups.com...
On Apr 10, 12:57 pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
wrote:
? "Bill Funk" ?????? ???
??????news:6k6j13pkgphiovcm4icl5gnaps45eim2q6@4ax. com...

On 8 Apr 2007 12:19:21 -0700, 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.

--

I agree absolutely-to succesfully engineer something a good idea is not
always enough-you have to think how you can built what you need from
parts
already existing on the market-custom build parts cost a lot.You must
also
do this according to mass production, and there must be people that will
buy
your goods, enough so you have profit.Just think of records and audio
cassetes-their market share is shrinking on and on, so most companies
cease
production or in the better case serious limit it.Before cd burners
people
used to tape cds, and in the 80s TDK made 4 flavours of normal bias
tapes.My
point is that just very few people would be interested to refurbish
their 20
year old film camera so that it will take at best mediocre digital
photos.And, as most previous posters have indicated, there are
difficulties
that would make realisation almost impossible-energy source, processing
and
flash memory in the size of a film cartridge, and sensor squeezed in the
film plane and the interface between camera and sensor?Why not just give
away the sucker and buy a brand new fully functional dSLR, for less than
1000 euros, complete with kit lens and cruise control?

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

I have a different point:
It takes about 4 tons of gold ore to produce 1 oz of gold in the
mining industry. However, it only takes 0.5 tons of computer junks
containing circuit boards to produce the same of gold. I am familiar
with the mining industry, and people go to the end of the earth to
move mountains to get those precious but minute quantity stuff.
We are in the west have been squandering the earth's natural
resources, burning gas and energy through endless wars, and know
little about the meaning of recycling. In the far east, for example
people utilize the coconut tree from its leaves, its trunks, its
fruit, and even its husk for many generation. Similar thing with the
complete consumption from banana trees.
Here, however, as long as we can get some work to do, and spend and
spend money at the same time, it is considered good for the economy
and well-being. Why use that old camera, if you can get a new one
cheap?

But I am using my old camera!(Kodak CX 7300 3.2 MP).Altough I have a steady
job and enough money,I'm not getting a more modern Sony S-600 or Nikon
Coolpix L-70 for (~169 euros)with at least 6.0 MP for the reasons you just
described.As long as my Kodak is happily working,I will keep it (my sister
has a Canon A-40,2.2 MP and she's not changing it).I don't fancy very much
the throwaway doctrine, but sometimes it's unevitable (or even
necessary;think of hygiene and one use injection needles:how would you feel
if you had a shot with a used and sterilized needle?)Here, we have soda in
plastic bottles in the summer, and most people drink with their mouth from
the bottle, without a glass.How would you feel if the company reused these
bottles?While steel can be easily (or almost)recycled, PCB (printed circuit
boards)not so.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

On Apr 6, 9:28 pm, 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

In article ,
=\(8\) wrote:
You have to remember that when digital film for 35mm cameras was being toyed
with the cost of a cheap digital camera was between $600 and $1000. So if
you could just pop in a cartridge that looked like a roll of 35mm and get
digital for about $200 it would have been a hot seller.

So, when Kodak was selling digital cameras based on 35mm film cameras
for $10000 or more, you assume that somebody would have been capable of
producing a far more difficult 'digital film' for $200?

Somehow that doesn't strike me as realistic.

Even today, assuming you can get an older APS-C sized sensor almost for
free, I doubt that you can retail such a digital film cartridge for $200.


--
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 ,
J. Clarke 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

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke 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.

wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:28 pm, 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?

Do a search on "Silicon Film". It's a lengthy saga, with little sign
of any real product despite a lot of calls for investors...

It's a nice idea, but has some *very* significant practical
difficulties, which is largely why digital backs are not made for the
35mm market.

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.

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
? ?????? ??? ??????
oups.com...
On Apr 10, 12:57 pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
wrote:
? "Bill Funk" ?????? ???
??????news:6k6j13pkgphiovcm4icl5gnaps45eim2q6@4ax. com...

On 8 Apr 2007 12:19:21 -0700, 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.

--

I agree absolutely-to succesfully engineer something a good idea is
not always enough-you have to think how you can built what you need
from parts already existing on the market-custom build parts cost a
lot.You must also do this according to mass production, and there
must be people that will buy your goods, enough so you have
profit.Just think of records and audio cassetes-their market share
is shrinking on and on, so most companies cease production or in
the better case serious limit it.Before cd burners people used to
tape cds, and in the 80s TDK made 4 flavours of normal bias
tapes.My point is that just very few people would be interested to
refurbish their 20 year old film camera so that it will take at
best mediocre digital photos.And, as most previous posters have
indicated, there are difficulties that would make realisation
almost impossible-energy source, processing and flash memory in the
size of a film cartridge, and sensor squeezed in the film plane and
the interface between camera and sensor?Why not just give away the
sucker and buy a brand new fully functional dSLR, for less than
1000 euros, complete with kit lens and cruise control?

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

I have a different point:
It takes about 4 tons of gold ore to produce 1 oz of gold in the
mining industry. However, it only takes 0.5 tons of computer junks
containing circuit boards to produce the same of gold. I am familiar
with the mining industry, and people go to the end of the earth to
move mountains to get those precious but minute quantity stuff.
We are in the west have been squandering the earth's natural
resources, burning gas and energy through endless wars, and know
little about the meaning of recycling. In the far east, for example
people utilize the coconut tree from its leaves, its trunks, its
fruit, and even its husk for many generation. Similar thing with the
complete consumption from banana trees.
Here, however, as long as we can get some work to do, and spend and
spend money at the same time, it is considered good for the economy
and well-being. Why use that old camera, if you can get a new one
cheap?

But I am using my old camera!(Kodak CX 7300 3.2 MP).Altough I have a
steady job and enough money,I'm not getting a more modern Sony S-600
or Nikon Coolpix L-70 for (~169 euros)with at least 6.0 MP for the
reasons you just described.As long as my Kodak is happily working,I
will keep it (my sister has a Canon A-40,2.2 MP and she's not
changing it).I don't fancy very much the throwaway doctrine, but
sometimes it's unevitable (or even necessary;think of hygiene and one
use injection needles:how would you feel if you had a shot with a
used and sterilized needle?)Here, we have soda in plastic bottles in
the summer, and most people drink with their mouth from the bottle,
without a glass.How would you feel if the company reused these
bottles?While steel can be easily (or almost)recycled, PCB (printed
circuit boards)not so.

You have to be a young fellow.

The main thing I feel getting a shot with a used and sterilized needle
is pain--the doctor can't get them as sharp by hand as the factory does
with their tightly controlled mass production process (not to mention
that sharpening needles is an inefficient use of
physician/nurse/paramedic time) so after they've been in use for a while
they get dull and _hurt_ going in.

And glass soda bottles have always been reused. Both steel and glass
can be heated to temperatures at which no known organism, virus, prion,
or other contagion can survive.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)