aniMal
Well-known
Just checked UFRaw, been a while since last time... Clearly versatile, but no version for Windows. (Cygwin would not make windows-users particularly confident or happy!)
I work on open source daily, and know my Linux. I absolutely abhorr getting near a windows installation, and have been running OSX since its second year of existence. BUT: proper support for windows is just plain necessary in order for it to sell, and to be taken seriously. In many ways open source and linux is a stamp that stays forever, and acts like a "geek warning" for 98% of people... In marketing terms I suppose this is just the way things are, and would be very careful to challenge it.
There is an OSX version however, launching something like this with support for mac only should be possible even today I believe?
But of course, proof of concept - anything that gives a decent file! Then there will be people coming forward who will take care of the software, I am sure...
I work on open source daily, and know my Linux. I absolutely abhorr getting near a windows installation, and have been running OSX since its second year of existence. BUT: proper support for windows is just plain necessary in order for it to sell, and to be taken seriously. In many ways open source and linux is a stamp that stays forever, and acts like a "geek warning" for 98% of people... In marketing terms I suppose this is just the way things are, and would be very careful to challenge it.
There is an OSX version however, launching something like this with support for mac only should be possible even today I believe?
But of course, proof of concept - anything that gives a decent file! Then there will be people coming forward who will take care of the software, I am sure...
dan_a
Newbie
There is an installable Windows version of ufraw on http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Install.html
Am I correct in understanding that the idea here is almost to create a "digital film"? And that you would be able to switch one M camera between being a digital and a film camera by swapping the back door? Or would it be a permenant modification?
Am I correct in understanding that the idea here is almost to create a "digital film"? And that you would be able to switch one M camera between being a digital and a film camera by swapping the back door? Or would it be a permenant modification?
I believe the idea is a Digital Back for the Leica M, meaning it is not a permanent change which would precluse use with film.
I use an N8008s with film and Digital.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84251
I use an N8008s with film and Digital.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84251
aniMal
Well-known
Good, I must have browsed through too fast...
The only thing that would be a good idea when converting from DNG, is to have some automatic settings for converting wide-angles. Mainly removing cyan corners and vignetting from say a 15mm CV. Or perhaps users would be OK with cornerfix?
If the type of sensor limits how wide we could get, I would still be happy with a 35mm equivalent. My, and lots of others, original way of using an M was with 35-50-90, lots of the time just a 35 or 50.
These things all goes along with the same philosophy - no extras, keep it simple and sturdy - and concentrating on getting the actual images... All the people that start threads here about reducing the amount of gear to get better at photography will clearly be in the target group!
The only thing that would be a good idea when converting from DNG, is to have some automatic settings for converting wide-angles. Mainly removing cyan corners and vignetting from say a 15mm CV. Or perhaps users would be OK with cornerfix?
If the type of sensor limits how wide we could get, I would still be happy with a 35mm equivalent. My, and lots of others, original way of using an M was with 35-50-90, lots of the time just a 35 or 50.
These things all goes along with the same philosophy - no extras, keep it simple and sturdy - and concentrating on getting the actual images... All the people that start threads here about reducing the amount of gear to get better at photography will clearly be in the target group!
djonesii
Well-known
Has any one taken a look at this?
https://www.leopardimaging.com/
It seems that all you need to do is build a sensor board, and the rest of the bits are essentially done. That sensor board, needs to be APS-C or full frame (??), and be light tight when plugged into an M body. their current modules have the lens a sensor in a light tight package. The new daughter board would have the larger sensor only, and the M donor body would provide the lens mount. The tricky bits would seem to be the physical packaging and building the sensor board. Most of the other stuff seems done.
It looks like the main board costs about 85$ or so, and the software to tinker with it is in the public domain.
There is another development kit here:
http://www.terasic.com.tw/cgi-bin/page/archive.pl?Language=English&CategoryNo=53&No=296
That is essentially the same thing. For around $400 for the non touch screen kit, you get all the basics needed to build a point and shoot.
From what I have seen, both of these kits allow for the rapid prototyping and design of digital camera modules.
These kits are priced at levels where a small group of dedicated folks could start working out the practical details in a distributed development environment.
Clearly, the Android thought that I posted earlier was not quite on the right lines, but either of these kits looks pretty promising to me.
Hope this spurs some ideas.
Dave
https://www.leopardimaging.com/
It seems that all you need to do is build a sensor board, and the rest of the bits are essentially done. That sensor board, needs to be APS-C or full frame (??), and be light tight when plugged into an M body. their current modules have the lens a sensor in a light tight package. The new daughter board would have the larger sensor only, and the M donor body would provide the lens mount. The tricky bits would seem to be the physical packaging and building the sensor board. Most of the other stuff seems done.
It looks like the main board costs about 85$ or so, and the software to tinker with it is in the public domain.
There is another development kit here:
http://www.terasic.com.tw/cgi-bin/page/archive.pl?Language=English&CategoryNo=53&No=296
That is essentially the same thing. For around $400 for the non touch screen kit, you get all the basics needed to build a point and shoot.
From what I have seen, both of these kits allow for the rapid prototyping and design of digital camera modules.
These kits are priced at levels where a small group of dedicated folks could start working out the practical details in a distributed development environment.
Clearly, the Android thought that I posted earlier was not quite on the right lines, but either of these kits looks pretty promising to me.
Hope this spurs some ideas.
Dave
Last edited:
djonesii
Well-known
I have been poking around in the open source community a bit, and it seems that much of the imaging processing algorithms needs to make a digital camera work are in the public domain already. There is a huge platform of knowledge out there just waiting to be tapped for this project.
White balance, noise reduction, and sharpening already seem to have been addressed.
Dave
White balance, noise reduction, and sharpening already seem to have been addressed.
Dave
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I have been lurking around these forums for a couple of years before I joined; also other forums that seem to have been governed by “Though Police” Leica experts.
I am not one who posts asking advice on straps, bags, or showing off camera gears; nor bother to advise KISS [despite having 40 years experience sorting out more important things than such trivia]. That sort of things used to be done in cameras stores on a Saturday [you know who you are]…as if that would impress anybody. I am way past that in my own evolution.
Many of my initial posts were in discussions similar to this thread, but were always stomped on by some experts…very discouraging. :bang: I had seriously thought quitting; but then what is the harm just lurking and what is the cost?
Now I think I have lucked-out, being Frank i.e. [Thank you, Jim-st.]
Brian Sweeney is right about using a computer for many trivial things. I personally don’t mind formatting SD cards, setting up my camera for RAW, maximum resolution, and WB and go take pictures, just like loading films…take only couple minutes.
The camera is not meant to be a portable digital darkroom.
I don’t mind not chimping, or even not knowing whether the pictures were “in the can”…as we so say in $50k+ missions in the aerial imaging industry…or the daily life for the M- and other photographers, before digital.
However, I too, have fantasy ideas and here is one that had already been done by us 20 years ago in stereo-plotter retrofits:
If failing that, how about having just the diodes flash in the RF?
Benefit: the photographer can now keep his eye in the VF and shoot continuously, Leica-M style…but will have no time for histogram-chimping in every shot.
OK, we “don’t need no stinking [LCD]” then.
What about flashing brighter green if the perfect histogram had also been achieved?
Yes, of course, how far do we go?
Obviously, such a lighted frame-line feature is not easily DIY…or is it?
If not DIY, how about offering a sub-kit to the Leica CLA gurus for installation while changing oil?
Back to reality…
I am not one who posts asking advice on straps, bags, or showing off camera gears; nor bother to advise KISS [despite having 40 years experience sorting out more important things than such trivia]. That sort of things used to be done in cameras stores on a Saturday [you know who you are]…as if that would impress anybody. I am way past that in my own evolution.
Many of my initial posts were in discussions similar to this thread, but were always stomped on by some experts…very discouraging. :bang: I had seriously thought quitting; but then what is the harm just lurking and what is the cost?
Now I think I have lucked-out, being Frank i.e. [Thank you, Jim-st.]
Brian Sweeney is right about using a computer for many trivial things. I personally don’t mind formatting SD cards, setting up my camera for RAW, maximum resolution, and WB and go take pictures, just like loading films…take only couple minutes.
The camera is not meant to be a portable digital darkroom.
I don’t mind not chimping, or even not knowing whether the pictures were “in the can”…as we so say in $50k+ missions in the aerial imaging industry…or the daily life for the M- and other photographers, before digital.
However, I too, have fantasy ideas and here is one that had already been done by us 20 years ago in stereo-plotter retrofits:
The floating cursor in the instrument ocular view is black (a 60u dot silver deposited on glass and back illuminated), which always got lost in image shadow areas.
How about illuminating it?
We did that easily by focusing a small color LED light from the front, refecting off the silver dot, and in any color you want (though the correct colour is green for colour imagery and yellow is best for B/W).
How about both and toggle switch where appropriate? No problem. The material cost…about $5; the engineering idea…priceless. Such a feature was not available from Leica unless you buy the new $250k machines.
Now, for the dMb, how about if the frame-line flash green once when a shot has been written to the SD card, and blinks red if trouble occurs? [For M-models that uses silver-deposit frame lines.] Or simply blink red only if trouble.If failing that, how about having just the diodes flash in the RF?
Benefit: the photographer can now keep his eye in the VF and shoot continuously, Leica-M style…but will have no time for histogram-chimping in every shot.
OK, we “don’t need no stinking [LCD]” then.
What about flashing brighter green if the perfect histogram had also been achieved?
Yes, of course, how far do we go?
Obviously, such a lighted frame-line feature is not easily DIY…or is it?
If not DIY, how about offering a sub-kit to the Leica CLA gurus for installation while changing oil?
Back to reality…
Last edited:
jearley
Newbie
This thread is being discussed over at the LUF as well. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...0904-digital-back-leicas-m3-m7-technical.html
Andy Piper has posted some interesting points - how do you get around them?
Just so we're clear - the "door" on the back of Leica M's was never intended for accesorizing - it is there to aid in film loading. Note that there was a 25-year-span when "data backs" were all the rage. Yet Leica never produced a data back for Ms.
Now - technical realities:
1) Are we talking a cropped sensor or full-frame? If the sensor is cropped, the mask for the framelines must be replaced so that the framing matches the image area (a la M8). That requires major surgery, so it would mean no fast swapping between digital and film. Basically a one-time conversion to digital - or at least a 2-3 week delay every time one wanted to change from digital to film or vice versa.
If the sensor is full-frame, the framelines do not need to be changed, but there would need to be permanent major surgery to the film rails and shutter opening, cutting them away to allow the sensor (with its glass overlayers) to fit into the correct plane of focus. Perhaps in combination with surgery to the lens mount, countersinking it into the body a bit. The idea being to retain the 27.78mm register or flange-to-focus-plane distance. The second would also require some kind of adjustment to the location of the rangefinder cam/arm - probably a new arm with a 'step" in it to move the cam back a mm or so.
But in either case, realistically, the camera would no longer be of use for film work, without equally major sugery to restore everything to original condition each time.
2) Electronic communication. At the very least, there needs to be a triggering signal to let the digital circuitry know that an exposure is coming. This needs to occur before the shutter opens, so using the "X" flash sync won't work - it only fires AFTER the first shutter curtain is open. Probably the best technique would be to borrow from the Hasselblad CFV backs, and use shutter button motion to arm the digital circuitry. The M4-2 and M4-P have a small opening in the inner bottom plate (the one with the film loading diagram printed on it) for use with motors. A shaft from the shutter button leads to this opening, where its vertical motion can signal the motor (or digital back) when the button has been pressed and then released. Probably possible to retrofit this to other M models.
Ideally, there should also be ways to communicate other data from the meter, lens, and so on for the best possible digital image - the 6-bit lens coding for the M8/M9 being one example. But, as with the lens coding list in the M9 menus, this could probably be manually set directly in the digital back, along with ISO and shutter speed info, although it would slow down operation significantly.
3) back to the sensor. Again - what size (or crop)? For anything above a 1.5x crop (based on my experience with Epson and M digitals) you really need the proprietary Leica/Kodak sensor design with offset microprisms to avoid vignetting. A generic "SLR" sensor just won't produce acceptable results with anything wider than a "32mm" view, in either size. Unless one uses SLR lenses with their long back focus (and no rangefinder coupling). Presumably not what we are after.
If Leica is going to built this, fine. If a third party is going to make it, it is going to require either a lot of very expensive sensor development to replicate the Leica/Kodak sensor without violating patents - or living with a significant crop and buying off-the-shelf Sony SLR sensors (as Epson did).
Taking all of the above into consideration, a cropped sensor is about the only solution. As in the DMR, the Hassy V backs, and every other "back" produced to make digital cameras out of film bodies going all the way back (no pun intended) to the Kodak/Nikon DCS-100: Kodak DCS 100
4) Bulk - the DCS-100 is also probably a good example of how much bulk would be required. At the time, it actually required a whole shoulder-slung computer for image storage and viewing (note there is no LCD on the back) - but 20 years on, that could all be fitted into the camera, today. And, of course, we could do better than 1.5 Mpixels (!!)
So, if a 1.5x crop, a more-or-less permanent conversion (not a swappable back) and roughly the bulk of a DCS-100 (minus SLR-isms like the prism) is acceptable, we move on to commercial viability.
I would guess I could bread-board a working prototype out of an M body and a Nikon D300 for under $100,000. Essentially, it would be a 10-12 Mpixel Epson R-D1 in a much lumpier package. Most of the expense would be for a programmer to soothe the Nikon firmware so it doesn't panic when it finds most of its shooting data missing.
After that, and assuming the customer provides the M body, I'd expect production conversions to involve:
Buying a D300 (assuming one wants "new" electronics) - $1800. Maybe with a wholesale discount from Nikon for 100+ cameras - $1200-$1400. Maybe, if Nikon will sell partial D300 assemblies - $1,000.
Disassembly and rebuild of D300 parts to "fit" M body - $1,500
Partial disassembly of M body and frameline change - $1,000
Reassembly of "M300" camera - $1,500
New firmware installation: $500
Testing: RF calibration check, electronics test, etc. $1,200
Overhead/profit/whathaveyou: $1,500
So around $9,000 total + your old body. To get a lumpy Epson, not an M9.
Assuming my expense list is realistic (I may have forgotten something)
And I'd have to sell 75 conversions to break even on the initial prototype investment.
Andy Piper has posted some interesting points - how do you get around them?
Just so we're clear - the "door" on the back of Leica M's was never intended for accesorizing - it is there to aid in film loading. Note that there was a 25-year-span when "data backs" were all the rage. Yet Leica never produced a data back for Ms.
Now - technical realities:
1) Are we talking a cropped sensor or full-frame? If the sensor is cropped, the mask for the framelines must be replaced so that the framing matches the image area (a la M8). That requires major surgery, so it would mean no fast swapping between digital and film. Basically a one-time conversion to digital - or at least a 2-3 week delay every time one wanted to change from digital to film or vice versa.
If the sensor is full-frame, the framelines do not need to be changed, but there would need to be permanent major surgery to the film rails and shutter opening, cutting them away to allow the sensor (with its glass overlayers) to fit into the correct plane of focus. Perhaps in combination with surgery to the lens mount, countersinking it into the body a bit. The idea being to retain the 27.78mm register or flange-to-focus-plane distance. The second would also require some kind of adjustment to the location of the rangefinder cam/arm - probably a new arm with a 'step" in it to move the cam back a mm or so.
But in either case, realistically, the camera would no longer be of use for film work, without equally major sugery to restore everything to original condition each time.
2) Electronic communication. At the very least, there needs to be a triggering signal to let the digital circuitry know that an exposure is coming. This needs to occur before the shutter opens, so using the "X" flash sync won't work - it only fires AFTER the first shutter curtain is open. Probably the best technique would be to borrow from the Hasselblad CFV backs, and use shutter button motion to arm the digital circuitry. The M4-2 and M4-P have a small opening in the inner bottom plate (the one with the film loading diagram printed on it) for use with motors. A shaft from the shutter button leads to this opening, where its vertical motion can signal the motor (or digital back) when the button has been pressed and then released. Probably possible to retrofit this to other M models.
Ideally, there should also be ways to communicate other data from the meter, lens, and so on for the best possible digital image - the 6-bit lens coding for the M8/M9 being one example. But, as with the lens coding list in the M9 menus, this could probably be manually set directly in the digital back, along with ISO and shutter speed info, although it would slow down operation significantly.
3) back to the sensor. Again - what size (or crop)? For anything above a 1.5x crop (based on my experience with Epson and M digitals) you really need the proprietary Leica/Kodak sensor design with offset microprisms to avoid vignetting. A generic "SLR" sensor just won't produce acceptable results with anything wider than a "32mm" view, in either size. Unless one uses SLR lenses with their long back focus (and no rangefinder coupling). Presumably not what we are after.
If Leica is going to built this, fine. If a third party is going to make it, it is going to require either a lot of very expensive sensor development to replicate the Leica/Kodak sensor without violating patents - or living with a significant crop and buying off-the-shelf Sony SLR sensors (as Epson did).
Taking all of the above into consideration, a cropped sensor is about the only solution. As in the DMR, the Hassy V backs, and every other "back" produced to make digital cameras out of film bodies going all the way back (no pun intended) to the Kodak/Nikon DCS-100: Kodak DCS 100
4) Bulk - the DCS-100 is also probably a good example of how much bulk would be required. At the time, it actually required a whole shoulder-slung computer for image storage and viewing (note there is no LCD on the back) - but 20 years on, that could all be fitted into the camera, today. And, of course, we could do better than 1.5 Mpixels (!!)
So, if a 1.5x crop, a more-or-less permanent conversion (not a swappable back) and roughly the bulk of a DCS-100 (minus SLR-isms like the prism) is acceptable, we move on to commercial viability.
I would guess I could bread-board a working prototype out of an M body and a Nikon D300 for under $100,000. Essentially, it would be a 10-12 Mpixel Epson R-D1 in a much lumpier package. Most of the expense would be for a programmer to soothe the Nikon firmware so it doesn't panic when it finds most of its shooting data missing.
After that, and assuming the customer provides the M body, I'd expect production conversions to involve:
Buying a D300 (assuming one wants "new" electronics) - $1800. Maybe with a wholesale discount from Nikon for 100+ cameras - $1200-$1400. Maybe, if Nikon will sell partial D300 assemblies - $1,000.
Disassembly and rebuild of D300 parts to "fit" M body - $1,500
Partial disassembly of M body and frameline change - $1,000
Reassembly of "M300" camera - $1,500
New firmware installation: $500
Testing: RF calibration check, electronics test, etc. $1,200
Overhead/profit/whathaveyou: $1,500
So around $9,000 total + your old body. To get a lumpy Epson, not an M9.
Assuming my expense list is realistic (I may have forgotten something)
And I'd have to sell 75 conversions to break even on the initial prototype investment.
Oh, you would have to rain on the fantasy parade.
Some quick thoughts:
The film door does come off. It is big enough to be used for the equivalent of a Digital Back. The pins to hold it in place would have to be thought out. Agree it's not as easy as our Nikon F!
1) Are we talking a cropped sensor or full-frame? If the sensor is cropped, the mask for
the
>framelines must be replaced so that the framing matches the image area (a la M8). That
>requires major surgery, so it would mean no fast swapping between digital and film.
>Basically a one-time conversion to digital - or at least a 2-3 week delay every time one
>wanted to change from digital to film or vice versa.
If you use a 1.5x Crop, an APS sensor, the 75 lines take care of the 50mm lens, 50mm lines take care of the 35mm lens, etc. 1.3x crop factor- will mismatch. Either an external viewfinder for accurate framing, change masks, I'm not sure. I would consider a brightline mask for the eyepiece, as in a Canon P.
Not sure why the film rails need to be replaced for a full-frame sensor. This depends on the geometry of the sensor chosen. I need to look at the Datasheets of the Cypruss full-frame sensor.
>2) Electronic communication. At the very least, there needs to be a triggering signal to
>let the digital circuitry know that an exposure is coming. This needs to occur before the
> shutter opens, so using the "X" flash sync won't work - it only fires AFTER the first
>shutter curtain is open. Probably the best technique would be to borrow from the
>Hasselblad CFV backs, and use shutter button motion to arm the digital circuitry. The
>M4-2 and M4-P have a small opening in the inner bottom plate (the one with the film
>loading diagram printed on it) for use with motors. A shaft from the shutter button leads
> to this opening, where its vertical motion can signal the motor (or digital back) when
>the button has been pressed and then released. Probably possible to retrofit this to
>other M models.
This is why I liked the idea of a Photodiode to read the shutter opening. Again, 20ms travel time on the shutter is an eternity to a Photodiode and microcontroller. I would "breadboard" a PIC and Photodiode circuit as a realtime shutter-speed "tester". Either use the main processor or a PIC processor to read the Photodiode detecting light coming in and compute the shutter speed using the slit moving over the photodiode. The PIC is very low power, and can perform the necessary calculations. The main processor would have to wake-up to perform the calculations. A "wake-up" button could do this. If the PIC can be incorporated into the design, and the Main processor can power-up from "PCON" hibernation, that would be elegant. The 1.3x and 1.5x crop factor on a sensor means you have several milliseconds to wake up the main processor and start CCD integration. The shutter moves at "about" 2mm per millisecond.
>4) Bulk - the DCS-100 is also probably a good example of how much bulk would be
>required. At the time, it actually required a whole shoulder-slung computer for image
>storage and viewing (note there is no LCD on the back) - but 20 years on, that could all
> be fitted into the camera, today. And, of course, we could do better than 1.5 Mpixels
>(!!)
My DCS200 is a lot smaller, and has an 80MByte SCSI disk built in. I handled a DCS100. I waited for the DCS200 to come out. There is not much to it, lots of open space. And it was done in 1992. Things have gotten smaller since then.
I was figuring the project from breadboard/proof-of-concept to implementing the circuit board and housing at ~$300K to get to the production prototype. That would be from using the Cyprus development kit as a start and spinning a custom electronics board. My hardware designer has done similar projects for imaging sensors. And no cost for the PIC/Photodiode programming...
OH! The DCS100 was 1.3MPixels, used the KAF-1300. The DCS-200 is 1.6 MPixels "if" you write your own RAW convertor. The Kodak drivers threw away 12 rows and 12 columns of data unnecessarily!
The film door does come off. It is big enough to be used for the equivalent of a Digital Back. The pins to hold it in place would have to be thought out. Agree it's not as easy as our Nikon F!
1) Are we talking a cropped sensor or full-frame? If the sensor is cropped, the mask for
the
>framelines must be replaced so that the framing matches the image area (a la M8). That
>requires major surgery, so it would mean no fast swapping between digital and film.
>Basically a one-time conversion to digital - or at least a 2-3 week delay every time one
>wanted to change from digital to film or vice versa.
If you use a 1.5x Crop, an APS sensor, the 75 lines take care of the 50mm lens, 50mm lines take care of the 35mm lens, etc. 1.3x crop factor- will mismatch. Either an external viewfinder for accurate framing, change masks, I'm not sure. I would consider a brightline mask for the eyepiece, as in a Canon P.
Not sure why the film rails need to be replaced for a full-frame sensor. This depends on the geometry of the sensor chosen. I need to look at the Datasheets of the Cypruss full-frame sensor.
>2) Electronic communication. At the very least, there needs to be a triggering signal to
>let the digital circuitry know that an exposure is coming. This needs to occur before the
> shutter opens, so using the "X" flash sync won't work - it only fires AFTER the first
>shutter curtain is open. Probably the best technique would be to borrow from the
>Hasselblad CFV backs, and use shutter button motion to arm the digital circuitry. The
>M4-2 and M4-P have a small opening in the inner bottom plate (the one with the film
>loading diagram printed on it) for use with motors. A shaft from the shutter button leads
> to this opening, where its vertical motion can signal the motor (or digital back) when
>the button has been pressed and then released. Probably possible to retrofit this to
>other M models.
This is why I liked the idea of a Photodiode to read the shutter opening. Again, 20ms travel time on the shutter is an eternity to a Photodiode and microcontroller. I would "breadboard" a PIC and Photodiode circuit as a realtime shutter-speed "tester". Either use the main processor or a PIC processor to read the Photodiode detecting light coming in and compute the shutter speed using the slit moving over the photodiode. The PIC is very low power, and can perform the necessary calculations. The main processor would have to wake-up to perform the calculations. A "wake-up" button could do this. If the PIC can be incorporated into the design, and the Main processor can power-up from "PCON" hibernation, that would be elegant. The 1.3x and 1.5x crop factor on a sensor means you have several milliseconds to wake up the main processor and start CCD integration. The shutter moves at "about" 2mm per millisecond.
>4) Bulk - the DCS-100 is also probably a good example of how much bulk would be
>required. At the time, it actually required a whole shoulder-slung computer for image
>storage and viewing (note there is no LCD on the back) - but 20 years on, that could all
> be fitted into the camera, today. And, of course, we could do better than 1.5 Mpixels
>(!!)
My DCS200 is a lot smaller, and has an 80MByte SCSI disk built in. I handled a DCS100. I waited for the DCS200 to come out. There is not much to it, lots of open space. And it was done in 1992. Things have gotten smaller since then.
I was figuring the project from breadboard/proof-of-concept to implementing the circuit board and housing at ~$300K to get to the production prototype. That would be from using the Cyprus development kit as a start and spinning a custom electronics board. My hardware designer has done similar projects for imaging sensors. And no cost for the PIC/Photodiode programming...
OH! The DCS100 was 1.3MPixels, used the KAF-1300. The DCS-200 is 1.6 MPixels "if" you write your own RAW convertor. The Kodak drivers threw away 12 rows and 12 columns of data unnecessarily!
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The whole idea is just impractical, and it doesn't take a lot of pondering to see that. I guess these threads are a harmless way to pass a few dull hours of the day, though. Maybe someone should actually have taken a ruler and measured some stuff being discussing digital arcania ad nauseum.
Impractical maybe as a marketable item, but certainly not an engineering problem. If someone wanted to do this, and expended the resources to do so, it's not a hard problem to solve. It's not Rocket Science. But that was the late 80s for me.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
That's the problem, though. Most of the folks following this thread wanted a practical solution (which doesn't exist), not an engineering exercise, and imagined themselves buying such a product in a year or two. Old film M Leicas aren't ever going to be anything but old film Leicas.
All we have to do is get one rich dude that wants a Digital M3 really bad.
I plan on wimping out and getting an M9. But I did get a few hundred lines of PIC assembly written and working this week, along with a new breadboard.
I plan on wimping out and getting an M9. But I did get a few hundred lines of PIC assembly written and working this week, along with a new breadboard.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Agreed!....and seven or eight paragraphs of bragging and airing of 'dubious knowledge' doesn't do any harm ( when taken with the obligatory 'grain of salt'! ) and certainly must pass the time - for those with plenty on their hands!The whole idea is just impractical, and it doesn't take a lot of pondering to see that. I guess these threads are a harmless way to pass a few dull hours of the day, though. Maybe someone should actually have taken a ruler and measured some stuff being discussing digital arcania ad nauseum.
Dave.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
All we have to do is get one rich dude that wants a Digital M3 really bad.
quote] ....should not be too difficult!....there are plenty on internet forums - with more money than sense!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Here's a couple more quick thoughts, sort of as an engineering pastime.
Regarding sensor sizes: I agree that full frame probably requires surgery to the film rails because the sensor's sensitive area is recessed behind the glass. Framelines are a problem; crop 1.5 would leave the raw numbers applicable, but of course a 35mm lens doesn't bring up the 50mm framelines just because there's a different sensor behind it. So it's either using the lever a lot, or modifying the camera, or modifying the lens, or ignoring it, or using lots of LTM lenses and changing adapters.
Another option would be to put a couple of goggles in front of the viewfinder to enlarge it (the way some longer Leica lenses do to step up from 90 to 135, for example). This would require some geometry work to figure out whether there can be a one-size-fits-all set of goggles for "crop 1.3" or "crop 1.5" that keep the accuracy of the rangefinder. The disadvantage is, of course, that goggles suck.
Incidentally it's true that most of the other digital adaptations mentioned (Hasselblad V, Leica DMR, Kodak DCS) used crop sensors, but the film rails weren't always the reason. If you look at the Hasselblad A20 back, you see that the film plane is recessed enough to fit in a full-frame 6x6 sensor - however, those are hideously expensive. There actually was a full-frame Kodak DCS (the 14 series), but I doubt that much of the original film mechanics of the original Nikon or Canon was left in place. The DMR, if anything, shows that a 1.3 crop sensor can be made to fit in there.
Regarding signalling: It's true that the X sync contact fires too late. Either implement Brian's photodiode solution, which is very elegant and requires little more than a speck of paint on the curtain (and you get accurate shutter speed in the EXIF data for free). Or take an older Leica that has an M sync terminal (my M5 still has one) which fires when the curtain starts to move.
Regarding engineering pastimes vs. practical products: Product development often starts from an engineering idea. Everybody wants practical products, but if you start out insisting on polished gadgets you can only give up right away If those that insist on finished products just sit back and let the engineers play around a bit, maybe there's something for everybody in the end. Or maybe not. But in the meantime at least the engineers can have fun, nobody gets hurt, and we get a nice discussion thread
Regarding sensor sizes: I agree that full frame probably requires surgery to the film rails because the sensor's sensitive area is recessed behind the glass. Framelines are a problem; crop 1.5 would leave the raw numbers applicable, but of course a 35mm lens doesn't bring up the 50mm framelines just because there's a different sensor behind it. So it's either using the lever a lot, or modifying the camera, or modifying the lens, or ignoring it, or using lots of LTM lenses and changing adapters.
Another option would be to put a couple of goggles in front of the viewfinder to enlarge it (the way some longer Leica lenses do to step up from 90 to 135, for example). This would require some geometry work to figure out whether there can be a one-size-fits-all set of goggles for "crop 1.3" or "crop 1.5" that keep the accuracy of the rangefinder. The disadvantage is, of course, that goggles suck.
Incidentally it's true that most of the other digital adaptations mentioned (Hasselblad V, Leica DMR, Kodak DCS) used crop sensors, but the film rails weren't always the reason. If you look at the Hasselblad A20 back, you see that the film plane is recessed enough to fit in a full-frame 6x6 sensor - however, those are hideously expensive. There actually was a full-frame Kodak DCS (the 14 series), but I doubt that much of the original film mechanics of the original Nikon or Canon was left in place. The DMR, if anything, shows that a 1.3 crop sensor can be made to fit in there.
Regarding signalling: It's true that the X sync contact fires too late. Either implement Brian's photodiode solution, which is very elegant and requires little more than a speck of paint on the curtain (and you get accurate shutter speed in the EXIF data for free). Or take an older Leica that has an M sync terminal (my M5 still has one) which fires when the curtain starts to move.
Regarding engineering pastimes vs. practical products: Product development often starts from an engineering idea. Everybody wants practical products, but if you start out insisting on polished gadgets you can only give up right away
If those that insist on finished products just sit back and let the engineers play around a bit, maybe there's something for everybody in the end. Or maybe not. But in the meantime at least the engineers can have fun, nobody gets hurt, and we get a nice discussion thread reklats
Newbie
I thought using/accepting raw data was implied, but there's always the question of what the raw data is since you actually need to measure it and how that is done changes it.
Yes. The idea was just to help with PP by putting the parameters needed for correcting vignetting because of the sensor in the DNG. Then nothing is done to the data in camera and the user can choose to ignore the correction parameter if wanted.Frankie said:
Well, being an engineer I can't really help myself thinking about the engineering first.Frankie said:
/back to lurking
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
If JFK was an engineer, man would never have landed on the moon.
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Use a 1.33 crop. Like Leica did on the M8. Have the RF cam adjusted for it.
With 1.33, all lenses move up one focal length approx:
12 -> 16
15 -> 20
21 -> 28
28 -> 29.3
35 -> 46.6
50 -> 64.7
75 -> 100
90 -> 120
If you would use a 28 and 35 lens, you'd have quite accurate 35 and 50 lenses.
With 1.33, all lenses move up one focal length approx:
12 -> 16
15 -> 20
21 -> 28
28 -> 29.3
35 -> 46.6
50 -> 64.7
75 -> 100
90 -> 120
If you would use a 28 and 35 lens, you'd have quite accurate 35 and 50 lenses.