"Digital Film?"

AgentX · 08-05-2009

Who thinks it will happen?

Or, rather, would it be relevant by the time it's technically and financially feasible?

I'm talking about a drop-in cartridge which fits into an existing film camera (35mm, 120, whatever they can make) with electronics/memory/battery where the film canister/roll would normally sit, with a semi-flexible film-thin digital light sensor which lays over the film gate. It would have to be able to understand separate exposures and record each one independently... (Perhaps thus no high FPS motor-drive shooting, but that would hardly seem to be the point...) Access to your photos and options (if any, such as ISO settings) could be by a wired or wireless PDA type device.

BillBingham2 · 08-05-2009

Dream that was tried about three years ago.

Perhaps it's another time to try in a year or two down the road.

B2

MP Guy · 08-05-2009

you mean like this from way back in 1999?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99...iliconfilm.asp

AgentX · 08-05-2009

Like that, but actually produced/sold...

I figured it was an idea out there...didn't know there'd been any attempts to actually make it.

dmr · 08-05-2009

I've been holding my breath for something like this for so many years!

I'm turning quite blue!

btgc · 08-05-2009

Quite inefficient, I guess. Imagine, people would buy one (in case it fits any film camera) or two cartridges (say, one for small, another for large cameras) and...what's next?

I mean, how force people buying new cartridge each one or two years like digital cameras go by?

BillBingham2 · 08-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP Guy

you mean like this from way back in 1999?

Was it that long ago, Damn I'm old.

Time flys when you are turning blue!

B2 (;->

AgentX · 08-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by btgc

Quite inefficient, I guess. Imagine, people would buy one (in case it fits any film camera) or two cartridges (say, one for small, another for large cameras) and...what's next?

I mean, how force people buying new cartridge each one or two years like digital cameras go by?

Nah, you could have upgraded resolution, memory, sensitivity (7200 ISO and a Noctilux!), video capacity...wireless live view from the sensor...plenty of doo-dads to add on over the years. And they'd probably only work for a year or three before needing replacement.

kermaier · 08-05-2009

Yeah, I followed that attempt for a while, hoping to make my Canon FD gear a bit more future-resistant, despite it's abandonment by Canon. Never happened, obviously.

I'm not sure it's really a worthwhile solution these days. In 1999, they were proposing to charge $800 for a 1.3 MP insert. What would a version with 6-12 MP go for today? Wild guess: $1500-$2000. Users of Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, Leica, Contax, etc. all have options for good digital bodies in that sort of price range. Pretty much the only folks with no digital body options are poor saps like me with Canon FD lenses.

I gave up hope and bought an R-D1, which is as close to the feel of a film camera as a digital body can get, IMO, and I'm loving it. I'm keeping an F-1N body and a couple of lenses for nostalgia, but my 35mm gear hasn't seen a roll of film in 3 years, and I wouldn't spend the price of a new DSLR to revive it.

::Ari

spiderfrank · 08-05-2009

This remembers to me the story of Preston Tucker and his revolutionary car. Did you see the movie?

AgentX · 08-05-2009

Yeah, I'm figuring by the time it'd be feasible it'd be sort of pointless...

hks3sgte · 08-05-2009

I would like to see digital backs. Polaroid backs were available, why not a digital back for, say, a Canon F-1, or Nikon F or... anything with a removable back???

Pickett Wilson · 08-05-2009

Besides the technical problems of interfacing a digital back to various cameras, just the very basic problem of dust on the sensor would make it impractical.

Jamie123 · 08-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by hks3sgte

I would like to see digital backs. Polaroid backs were available, why not a digital back for, say, a Canon F-1, or Nikon F or... anything with a removable back???

You mean like the Leica DMR? I'm sure you can still get one on the used market.

Traut · 08-05-2009

As digital technology becomes more ubiquitous I can forsee someone taking a sensor with micro electronics and a builit in memory, battery or solar power supply and just being able to tape it over the shutter. Probably the most difficult thing will be to communicate between the camera's shutter and advancing the memory cartridge. It's reminiscent to me of the movie (story) Benjamin Button - as one technology moves ahead to where its simple and doable the need (film camera) will be aging in the other direction. There might be a small time window where it will all come together - in someone's garage workshop probably. Many of the obstacles in 1999 have been overcome, specifically in sensor design and production. What would really be cool though is a scanner/processor wherin you could insert an exposed 35mm film cartridge and get scanned negatives ala what Polaroid came out with 30 years ago.

dmr · 08-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie123

You mean like the Leica DMR? I'm sure you can still get one on the used market.

That thing is/was HUGE! That with a 35mm SLR would be like carrying around a press camera!

I did look at it. Other than the obvious coincidence, it really did not appeal to me.

spiderfrank · 08-05-2009

I think with the actual technology the digital film should be possible, but not convenient for the big brands, that want to sell the entire camera, not only a sensor

Pickett Wilson · 08-05-2009

Leica abandoned the DMR. Enough said.

Mephiloco · 08-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by kermaier

Yeah, I followed that attempt for a while, hoping to make my Canon FD gear a bit more future-resistant, despite it's abandonment by Canon. Never happened, obviously.

I'm not sure it's really a worthwhile solution these days. In 1999, they were proposing to charge $800 for a 1.3 MP insert. What would a version with 6-12 MP go for today? Wild guess: $1500-$2000. Users of Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, Leica, Contax, etc. all have options for good digital bodies in that sort of price range. Pretty much the only folks with no digital body options are poor saps like me with Canon FD lenses.

I gave up hope and bought an R-D1, which is as close to the feel of a film camera as a digital body can get, IMO, and I'm loving it. I'm keeping an F-1N body and a couple of lenses for nostalgia, but my 35mm gear hasn't seen a roll of film in 3 years, and I wouldn't spend the price of a new DSLR to revive it.

::Ari

I sold my AE-1 Program, but still shoot with my t90 regularly. The lenses are so inexpensive, the camera can take a beating (moreso than a leica), and it has a spot meter. I don't think I'll ever completely abandon the FD system.

wgerrard · 08-05-2009

As B2 suggests, market forces are the real stumbling block. (Ignoring, for the moment, the problem of fitting the thing in all kinds of cameras.) Unless it was a one-shot affair like a roll of film, the price might be surprising.

I don't see any chip makers being convinced that there are enough people using old cameras.

j_fletcher · 08-05-2009

MP guy, that link is, with hindsight, the most depressing thing I've ever read!!

DougFord · 08-05-2009

Or some variation of ‘digital film’.
Perhaps some sort of substrate; film like transducer that had similar light gathering properties of B&W film, using particles (equivalent to silver crystals in film) that held latent image info temporarily, passing the info to a second transducer that was located beneath the substrate which converted the analog data before re-setting the particles for the next capture.
This would allow for very short register distances like film because the light gathering particles would be larger multifaceted shapes like those used in film. This would allow the transducer to be used in any film camera without worry of register distances or focal length. Available now with improved high iso ORGANIC grain!

AgentX · 08-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougFord

Or some variation of ‘digital film’.
Perhaps some sort of substrate; film like transducer that had similar light gathering properties of B&W film, using particles (equivalent to silver crystals in film) that held latent image info temporarily, passing the info to a second transducer that was located beneath the substrate which converted the analog data before re-setting the particles for the next capture.
This would allow for very short register distances like film because the light gathering particles would be larger multifaceted shapes like those used in film. This would allow the transducer to be used in any film camera without worry of register distances or focal length. Available now with improved high iso ORGANIC grain!

You actually just answered my back-of-the-mind question of why a sensor is so much different than film when it comes to wide-angle lenses situated close to the focal plane... Thx!

40oz · 08-05-2009

I just wish someone would invent a high resolution sensor, perhaps mounted on an inexpensive and flexible backing, that was durable, tolerant of wide temperature ranges, had zero power consumption, fit in a wide range of existing cameras, able to function with a wide variety of lenses, sensitive over a wide range of lighting conditions, and preferably, cheap.

Oh, wait....

AgentX · 08-05-2009

If they'd make it forever, that'd be nice, too.

Corollary: I wish someone would make film with super-fine grain! Oh, wait, no, that'd be abhorrently "plastic."