what we need is a digital solution for analog cameras.

[gustav[] pEña]

I would like to use my rolley 35, my canonet gIII 17, and all leicas even the r4m in a digital way.

thats all I need. Do you think one day it will be posible? Maybe in the next 10 years?

There are to many analog cameras out there.

 

[Socke]

Slides and a slide scanner are my way to do it, probably the best solution we will get.

Digital SLRs are too cheap now and they will become even cheaper in the future.

 

[40oz]

what is "in a digital way?"

 

[ElrodCod]

No we don't.

 

[darkkavenger]

the current industry solution is to incorporate CCD sensors into a finished product that will have a 3-5 years lifespan, like most domestic appliances of today. This solution was chosen because at the time, there was no way to store digital data onto a film support. Maybe in the years to come, this might develop again, like for example the current breakthroughs in e-paper. Technically it may become possible to have in the future a film support that stores image data in a smart way. But will the industry follow ? What brings more benefits ? selling such a "roll of film" or selling a camera system that will become obsolete in a couple years ?

I wonder why I even reply, no offense, but we often talk about these things.

 

[amoz]

No we don't.

lol!......

 

[Socke]

E-Paper is a display, neither a storage nor a recording device.

If you want to show your pictures in pure black and white without greys at some 96dpi then E-Paper is a very expensive way to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_paper

 

[Jeroen]

Does anyone remember the E-Film cartridge? It was announced years ago, but never came into production: http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp

The company doesn't exist anymore, but I liked the concept. Hmm, anyone who can hack a 5D sensor into something similar?

 

[Socke]

Jeroen, the 5D sensor is thicker than film. You will have to modify your camera for this.

 

[Jeroen]

Oh well - but admit it, it *would* be nice.

 

[darkkavenger]

Socke: by slides, do you mean just color film slides, or do you also use inversible bw film ?

 

[pvdhaar]

The only practical solution for 35mm cameras is scanning film.

Putting money in E-film development is throwing money away. The problem is with the integration of the digital function with the analog camera. How to measure/sync/expose/store and all that when when the rest is mechanical? This would require kludge upon kludge to work at all. Not to mention handling the image crop factor, fitting it into an unsuited form, where to get the power from..

Then there's the market. You can buy a brand new DSLR for $500, kit lens included. How would a manufacturer compete with that?

Heck, you can buy an Epson RD1s for $2000. Not cheap, but you'd need to better that with an E-film cartridge to sell a single unit..

There are digital backs for modular medium format cameras, but they're complete units that replace an entire film back module.. But they're never even as compact as a film insert, let alone as a piece of film and spool..

 

[dmr]

I would like to use my rolley 35, my canonet gIII 17, and all leicas even the r4m in a digital way.

Yer preaching to the choir here. 🙂 I would love to see this too. I would love to have "digital" as one film option. Finish up with a roll of K64, pop it out, pop in the digital film, shoot some frames, pop it out and pop in a roll of Fuji 800.

I'm sure I've said this so many times here I'm sounding like a broken record! (Stuck CD for those who don't know what a broken record is!) 🙂

Do you think one day it will be posible?

Nope. 🙁

Maybe in the next 10 years?

Let me take that back. Yes, some day it will be possible, and that day is now, but I think the chances of it actually happening is about the same as Rabbi Bernstein getting elected Pope! 🙂

Why? -- I do think the technology is here already.

Yes, there are many film (analog?) cameras out there. Those have a half-life measured in decades. The problem for the camera business is that these things last forever and are viable forever.

Today's digital products, including cameras, have a half live measured in months. They depend on rapid obsolescence and recurrent re-purchase to keep their beancounters happy. They (industry) are not going to invest 6-7 figures to produce a product that supports another 50 year old product and may indeed diminish the demand for their current more lucrative products.

 

[Socke]

Socke: by slides, do you mean just color film slides, or do you also use inversible bw film ?

Colour slides, one of our electronics chains has Kodak E100 and/or Fuji Sensia 100 incl. processing for some 16 Euro/5 rolls. Only slightly more expensive than a CF card big enough for 180 pictures 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

Gustav, thanks for starting this thread. I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

I'm sure many will agree that just stating "no way" or "can't be done" is as useful as burying our heads in the sand and hoping somehow the world would come back to film in spite of digital.

I think it's high time for us to at least consider an alternative way to enable us to keep using our film cameras, most of which has higher quality in many regards compared to their currently produced descendants.

Why? -- I do think the technology is here already.

Yes, there are many film (analog?) cameras out there. Those have a half-life measured in decades. The problem for the camera business is that these things last forever and are viable forever.

Good thinking, I agree 100% that the technology is indeed here, we just need to bring it into commercial viability.

What we need is a few film-photography-enthusiast prominent figures (for instance a fantasy team of Stephen Gandy in the US, Tom Abrahamsson in Canada, Mr. Kobayashi in Japan, and throw in someone like Herbert Kepler for some writing/publishing expertise) to pool resources from:

well-to-do film camera collectors

That catagory alone would include (but not limited to) *ALL* Leica collectors around the world, which I think I can safely assume that they know each other or have at least heard of each other.

Then we need to hunt down where the E-Film technology end up and revive it into a lab/manufacturing facility.

Today's digital products, including cameras, have a half live measured in months. They depend on rapid obsolescence and recurrent re-purchase to keep their beancounters happy. They (industry) are not going to invest 6-7 figures to produce a product that supports another 50 year old product and may indeed diminish the demand for their current more lucrative products.

Not necessarily, A 1-to-1 digital replacement for film would inherit the nature of digital photo equipments, namely short half-life. If professional camera makers can get away "rigging" their equipment to function within a certain number of "shutter-actuation", so can this.

Knowing how many of us would be willing to at least give it a try, I would say this is a pretty good business venture for those who had the resource (addressed above).

A dream? maybe, yes, but without a dream, where would we be?

Just think about it!

 

[VinceC]

This topic bubbles up every few weeks.

I think this will eventually become available. The market is not the consumer marketplace. The market is owners of classic 35mm cameras who want to keep using them in the digital world -- Leica 1s and Nikon SPs and the like.

In concept, the interface is like putting an x-sync contact onto a mechanical camera so that the sensor "knows" the shutter has been tripped. This is a basic open/close circuit.

Getting the capture, storage and electronics down to the size of a film cannister plus film leader is a major challenge. Putting it into a removable back is easier (but prevents Leicas from being easily adapted).

The most likely solution is a cottage industry of a camera enthusiast who can create an electronic camera back for specific models. Eventually, the film-canister-sized module will likely be feasible, too.

 

[dmr]

Then we need to hunt down where the E-Film technology end up and revive it into a lab/manufacturing facility.

I'm sure that the E-Film folks would gladly sell their research and their rights for the right pri$e. 🙂

namely short half-life.

Yeah, and unfortunately this probably means that you will be buying this e-film over and over and over as soon as the Latest And Greatest version comes along.

Seriously, if I may re-digress and reiterate my list of shortcomings that I saw on the vaporware products:

1. Less than full frame. AFAIC this is a deal breaker. This bothers me. I don't know why, but it just does, and if it's less than full frame I don't want it. BBZZZzzzzzt! Thanks for playing. 🙁

2. Not universal. One of the E-film things would fit ONE of my cameras but none of the others. One of the other ones wouldn't do any. Hey, if they can get film to fit in any brand, they should be able to make E-film do it! (Demanding, aren't I?)

3. Big honking add-on. What I really want is a 35mm cartridge, ok, with a "tail" that extends to the film plane and not a big heavy boat anchor I have to bolt the camera to with a digital screen and thousands of oh-so-teeny buttons and such. I want to pop out the 35mm cartridge, plug it into the laptop, and Photoshop away! 🙂

A dream? maybe, yes, but without a dream, where would we be?

If you never have dreams they will never come true! 🙂

 

[5:00 PM]

A very usable, essentially zero-effort film/digtial bridge exists today: it's called a Noritsu Koki QSS-29. You'll never own one because they cost as much as a 42' trawler yacht, but there's one at your local Costco. Take your 35mm cassette, cross out the print ordering boxes on the envelope, write "High Res Scans Please" in the instructions box, hand it to the nice person behind the counter and wait an hour. You get a CD with extremely sharp 4-6 MB scans for $2.99 plus the cost of processing the film.

The ease and low-cost of this process is why I'm now shooting almost as much film as digital now.

 

[Socke]

Since we're talking old rangefinders,

less than full frame is not an option, we want to use our lenses like we're used to, woudn't we?

Surgery on collector cameras is impossible, who wants to hack off the back of his Leica to get a sensor fitted, especialy when that means possible light leaks when used with film.

Ok, so we need something which is thin enough to be inserted into a bottom loading camera with a presure plate blocking the film gate, and it better be tough enough not to get scratched!
Then it should be full frame and the support electronics should fit into a film cartridge or two.

This rules out current Sensor technology as it is used in dSLRs, IR and AA filters are thicker than film and you need the sensor and packaging, too.

A digital back seems to be the only solution for cameras which can be equipped with one.

 

[VinceC]

>>1. Less than full frame. AFAIC this is a deal breaker.<<

Why this full-frame hangup? Look what it did to the Leica digital? The "gotta have fullframe" is precisely the same reason "full format" photographers a couple of generations ago refused to switch to miniature Leicas -- they demanded fullframe. Their magnificent fullframe TLRs and Speed Graphics are now pretty darned cheap on EBay because not many people want to use them.