Turning film cameras into digital cameras

On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" wrote:
There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do early in
the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size device with the CCD on
what would have been the first frame of film that rested over the proper
area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat idea and they had a working
prototype. However, they never could get it working quite right. They had
too little space to cram a lot of technology including batter for power also
the need for a full size 35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they went
belly up.

=(8)

I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
very expensive.
What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
did it the old fashioned way in the past.
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? Then, add
a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
something that can be perceived as a competition.
Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
same way it did using regular 35mm film.

Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
to continue using it.
The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
that was the defeat.
To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...

Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
interesting comments.

wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" wrote:
There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do
early in the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size
device with the CCD on what would have been the first frame of film
that rested over the proper area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat
idea and they had a working prototype. However, they never could get
it working quite right. They had too little space to cram a lot of
technology including batter for power also the need for a full size
35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they went belly up.

=(8)

I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
very expensive.
What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
did it the old fashioned way in the past.
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? Then, add
a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
something that can be perceived as a competition.
Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
same way it did using regular 35mm film.

Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
to continue using it.
The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
that was the defeat.
To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...

Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
interesting comments.

The big problem is that the sensor has to be the same thickness as a
length of 35mm film and have the sensing surface exposed on the front,
with no intervening optics or filters or the like, and is going to have
to be durable enough to withstand handling. Going to be a long time
before that's doable.

The "defeat" was that they never actually managed to _make_ one of the
things.

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

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.

--
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.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" wrote:
There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do early
in
the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size device with the CCD
on
what would have been the first frame of film that rested over the proper
area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat idea and they had a working
prototype. However, they never could get it working quite right. They had
too little space to cram a lot of technology including batter for power
also
the need for a full size 35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they
went
belly up.

=(8)

I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
very expensive.
What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
did it the old fashioned way in the past.
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? Then, add
a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
something that can be perceived as a competition.
Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
same way it did using regular 35mm film.

Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
to continue using it.
The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
that was the defeat.
To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...

Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
interesting comments.



I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size roll
of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in to the
35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like if you had
put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a back as it could
also be used with any type of 35mm camera.

=(8)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:01 pm, "=\(8\)" wrote:
There was of course the digital film insert a company tried to do
early in the digital camera days. It was basically a 35mm size
device with the CCD on what would have been the first frame of film
that rested over the proper area in the 35mm camera. It was a neat
idea and they had a working prototype. However, they never could get
it working quite right. They had too little space to cram a lot of
technology including batter for power also the need for a full size
35mm CCD was very expensive. In the end they went belly up.

=(8)

I am aware that there are digital backs that are available for the
medium format cameras. I assume the cost of this special attachment is
very expensive.
What I am thinking about is just a 35 mm film or a 120mm film
cartridge similar to the one proposed as the silicon film/e-film.
Nothing more and nothing fancier. If it becomes a device in which you
have to open the hinge of your old camera and attach a digital
back.... it does not serve the purpose. I am thinking about an exact
replica of 35 mm or 120 mm film cartridge, that you drop into the
slot, engage in with the lever device to cock the shutter, the way we
did it the old fashioned way in the past.
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? Then, add
a tiny battery source (rechargeable, just like that mini shuttle ipod
that clip in your shirt and play music.... they can do it).
My whole point of the start of my discussion is whether the technology
is now possible. I know, there are a lot of other obstacles on the
way, and perhaps the biggest one is not related to the technology at
all, but to the willingness of the industry to serve for the
consumer... (yep...that is all of us). The camera companies are now in
the business to sell new digital cameras, and they said their way or
no way at all. They have so much resources that can throw away
something that can be perceived as a competition.
Someone indicated that there may not be enough space for the
processing and storing of the data. However, it should be noted that
the camera body is the one that function to select the shutter speed,
the aperture, and other things (timer, synchronization with flash,
etc). The job of this 35mm cartridge is just simply to record into a
digital format, until it is ready to download into computer....
nothing else. If your old Minolta maxxum, Olympus OM1, Fujica ST 801,
Canon EF, Pentax K1000, Konica T3, Nikon F-1, Yashica MAT 124, Mamiya
M645, or others has their own disadvantages in their system, this 35
or 120mm cartridge are not supposed to change or help the camera body.
It is the job of the camera body to get the shutter speed to open (at
the right time and aperture). The camera will have the job to advance
to the next film using its lever. If the camera has a multiple
exposure feature (such as my old T3), when it will disengage the
sprocket to advance the film, so that the next shot, the e-film in the
35mm cartridge will be exposed twice or three times, etc.... just the
same way it did using regular 35mm film.

Someone also mentioned that perhaps no one want to use the old camera.
The question would be if there are lots of people still want to use
the old cameras. Well... this is just a discussion perhaps these
people already invested and was happy with their old gadgets and want
to continue using it.
The point is to make the new e-film as simple and as close a replica
of the old film cartridge. Of course there are perhaps many other
challanges..... However... if in the past you buy a 35mm cartridge and
drop into your camera.... it is supposed to work, right? whether it
is a Nikon, a Fuji, A Ricoh, a Leica, a Praktika or other brands.
This is exactly the idea. That e-film or silicon film introduced/
planned in 2001 was only limited to specific cameras.... and I think
that was the defeat.
To make it work this time, the cartridge has to be as simple as
possible (perhaps can only be used for limited number of times, depend
on the wear and tear of the e-film. It has to be able to be dropped
into a $1000 camera, or a $30 vivitar old camera...

Thanks anyway for all the discussion.... it has been a very
interesting comments.

The big problem is that the sensor has to be the same thickness as a
length of 35mm film and have the sensing surface exposed on the front,
with no intervening optics or filters or the like, and is going to have
to be durable enough to withstand handling. Going to be a long time
before that's doable.

The "defeat" was that they never actually managed to _make_ one of the
things.

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



Yes, they did. They had 2 sample images available to show investors. The
problem was partly what you said and partly that they had too little space
to cram a whole lot of different things. Battery, processing, sensor, etc.
etc. etc. They couldn't mass produce them and they had very poor
performance. We are talking pictures the quality of the first consumer
digital cameras from like Logitech in 1990.

They wanted to do too much with too little space.

=(8)

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
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.

--
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.


I don't disagree, they had too many problems to over come which is why they
didn't. However, they would stand a better chance now with nano-tech. But,
still I think it would be very hard and expensive. Also 35mm cameras are
sort of out of the picture for the most part.

They never did give a price estimated or otherwise. However, it would have
had to be $200 or less otherwise just by a digital camera. This was like
1995 someplace around there. By then we had MP cameras (1MP, but still).

=(8)

=(8) wrote:
I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size
roll of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in
to the 35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like
if you had put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a
back as it could also be used with any type of 35mm camera.

=(8)

The first problem that I can see with a generic drop-in digital film
replacement is that every camera design put the film through a slightly
different path.
If the digital film sensor is aligned to fit into a Nikon F1, then it
probably wont fit properly inot a Canon T1 or a Pentax K1000 or a
Olympus OM1.
Then you also have the problem of interfacing the shutter mechanism with
the sensor so that it knows when to start and stop capturing, what may
work on a Pentax Spotmatic probably wont work with a Canon EOS 300.
If these were the only hurdles to designing and building a drop-in
digital film, then Imagek should have been able to solve it and not fail
and then vanish in a cloud of vaporware.

wrote in message
oups.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

"dj_nme" wrote in message
...
=(8) wrote:
I wasn't talking about a digital back. I was talking about a 35mm size
roll of film with a piece of film out sized package then went right in to
the 35mm camera film compartment. You then closed the back just like if
you had put a roll of film in it. This is totally different from a back
as it could also be used with any type of 35mm camera.

=(8)

The first problem that I can see with a generic drop-in digital film
replacement is that every camera design put the film through a slightly
different path.
If the digital film sensor is aligned to fit into a Nikon F1, then it
probably wont fit properly inot a Canon T1 or a Pentax K1000 or a Olympus
OM1.
Then you also have the problem of interfacing the shutter mechanism with
the sensor so that it knows when to start and stop capturing, what may
work on a Pentax Spotmatic probably wont work with a Canon EOS 300.
If these were the only hurdles to designing and building a drop-in digital
film, then Imagek should have been able to solve it and not fail and then
vanish in a cloud of vaporware.


See we all now understand why this thing never made it out of the prototype
stage and was basically stillborn. Interesting idea, but I don't think
feasible unless you want to make a different one for each camera make and
model and where's the sense in that. By the time they had the two sample
images out they were already behind what most mid priced digital cameras
could do at the time.

=(8)

"Mark B." wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
oups.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)