I hate April Fools day!!!

[Phantomas]

People make up stuff like this and it's like pouring salt on my wounds:

http://www.re35.net/

[OurManInTangier]

Some things really are just too good to be true

Though if I could have anything, it would be for my M6 bodies or OM bodies to be digital, shame

[hans voralberg]

Quite some effort for a joke eh!

[berlincontemporary]

Originally Posted by Phantomas

People make up stuff like this and it's like pouring salt on my wounds:

http://www.re35.net/

Looks more like a design project rather than an April Fools joke.

[MV72]

That' a really good joke ! Some guys are really inventive, and know our soft spots...

[Sparrow]

... anybody pre-ordering? this could really hit x100 sales

[special.foto]

Would be so nice to be true. Still, let's not forget that in our history, sf movies and a vivid imagination inspired others to create into reality some products. Hope a gearhed sees it and 5 years from now i'll be loading my fed with a b&w digital cartrige

[Mr_Flibble]

I hope so too Vlad!

[Luddite Frank]

Hmmm - do they have a version for the Barnack "bottom-loader" ?

Does it have an extra-long tapered leader, or do I just use my ABLON ?

[special.foto]

Originally Posted by Luddite Frank

Hmmm - do they have a version for the Barnack "bottom-loader" ?

Does it have an extra-long tapered leader, or do I just use my ABLON ?

You're just being picky

[Gabriel M.A.]

Waaaay too much time on their hands. Which they could use to do some proofreading:

Set the ISO to 400 and your done

.

My done what?

[daneman]

Interesting concept.

I think it's technologically feasible too, if they use a conventional, solid sensor.

If there is enough demand, we might see it in this decade

Only problem I would see is battery life and syncing the sensor with the shutter (as you can't have the sensor on all the time, as would be the case for film)

[Luddite Frank]

It would be more like shooting film, as we would be "shooting blind" , w/o the instant feed-back of the LCD screen...

[unixrevolution]

Originally Posted by Luddite Frank

It would be more like shooting film, as we would be "shooting blind" , w/o the instant feed-back of the LCD screen...

The big things about digital that make it better than film, besides the instant preview, are:

1. Cost
2. Ammunition supply

both of which would be addressed by this cartridge.

If you wanted the full digital experience, you'd need to replace the entire back door of your camera, which with a Leica would be a serious trick and for other cameras would require that the makers of the digital cartridge explicitly support it. Film doors are not an industry-standard piece.

[kdemas]

Originally Posted by Double Negative

The sad part is, a product just like this almost made it to reality several years back.

So true. The product was called e-Film...they ran out of money before it hit the market.

They then changed their name to SiliconFilm but still never got the product out the door. The specs were very similar to the ones listed on the site mentioned above, with prices planned to start at $599 ( backin the day).

[shadowfox]

That is well done.
If full-frame sensors became ubiquitous, this may actually be feasible to produce.

Reality check: for the rest of the world, pea-size sensor is all they ever need/want/care.

[unixrevolution]

Originally Posted by kdemas

So true. The product was called e-Film...they ran out of money before it hit the market.

If I remember, E-film would have had to be ordered for the specific camera due to differences in the distance between the cartridge and the actual frame. Also, it had some sort of hellish crop-factor like 2.58x.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by kdemas

So true. The product was called e-Film...they ran out of money before it hit the market.

... or out of workable solutions. They never had any good concept for working around the fragility of high resolution sensors, the depth needed for a sensor/filters pack and the annoying issue that (from a marketing perspective at least then more desirable) recent AF/autowind cameras generally refuse to work when the "film" fails to wind on.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by sevo

... or out of workable solutions. They never had any good concept for working around the fragility of high resolution sensors, the depth needed for a sensor/filters pack and the annoying issue that (from a marketing perspective at least then more desirable) recent AF/autowind cameras generally refuse to work when the "film" fails to wind on.

Maybe they just need a "fixed" version (or versions, because there's hardly anything standard about the frame-edge-to-intake-spool distance, not to mention how the film is "grabbed" by the intake spool) rather than one that "rolls out" of a canister.

I would also think that as much as some people are stubborn, if the manufacturers clearly stated which cameras won't work with it (or, perhaps, the other way around, only which cameras would work) they shouldn't try it. Just like people wouldn't be trying to fit a Pentax mount lens on a Nikon camera. Yes, without the adapter. Sheez.

I also can just see people not reading the handling instructions carefully, and then running amok on the Intertoobes wailing about what a horrible design and that they paid so much money and now it's broken etc etc

[Pherdinand]

some years ago flexible electronics were not available.
Nowadays there are already flexible displays that can be rolled up. It's just a tiny bit until a, probably organic based, flexible sensor can be realized.
I mean an electronic one not a chemical one

[MC JC86]

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/s...=104061&page=2

Deja Vu?

[MC JC86]

Originally Posted by berlincontemporary

Looks more like a design project rather than an April Fools joke.

Definitely. Still though, a design project that was submitted on 4/1