Electronic Film System Turns Conventional 35mm RFF Into a Digital Camera

[jlw]

Having read a lot about it at the time, my impression was that it was a legitimate project that simply ran into a lot of unanticipated problems and didn't pan out. I think most of the scam/hoax reaction came from consumers who had gotten their hopes up and were frustrated when those hopes were dashed.

Here's a link (click here) to a 2002 writeup on Imaging Resource that gives a good summary of the original project and the problems it encountered. I had forgotten that they DID eventually get a few working prototype units to the press, and that FCC certification was a major hurdle they didn't solve.

The writeup also makes a good point (even in 2002) that part of the appeal of the original idea was that there were no moderate-priced DSLRs available when the talk first started, so photographers were hungry for an alternative.

Now, five years later, with scads of very capable DSLRs available at prices many photographers can afford, I suspect the "silicon film" window of opportunity has closed -- unless some mass-market developer could come up with a version that would be cheap enough for casual experimenters.

 

[ZorkiKat]

@ vinceC:"It's also tricky, because it needs to "know" when the shutter is tripped, which then requires a complicated interface of some type."

Once you tip the shutter, there comes light on the chip. The electronic will realize and save your image. In fact a chip is the same than a film, it reacts on light! The only tricky thing is how to get the catrige in and out of your camera. Well, the first and the last image may be useless for you, because they may be a bit overexposed.

Perhaps I may be wrong or inaccurate, but my understanding is that the sensor doesn't sit behind the shutter 'on' all the time. It needs to be turned on to become light sensitive, unlike film, which remains such all the time.
The setup with digital sensors behind shutters is like synchronised flash- the sensor becomes active and receptive each time the shutter opens and goes to sleep again once it closes.

Hasselblad's digital backs let the sensor "know" that the shutter is tripped by a connection that plugs into the lens's shutter's PC plug.

As others have already stated, e-film and digital imaging is not simply the sensor and battery alone. There is a chain of steps which happens in the electronic innards of the camera, a series of signal conversions, data processing, and writing/storge steps. Plenty of components are needed to do that. The sensor only receives the exposure- the electrical analogue signals it creates based on the light exposure it got needs to be first converted to a form of binary data which the image processing engine can work with. Then it is written as a recognisable file format (eg jpg or raw) and then sized accordingly. And finally it's written on a storage media. Then there's also the buffer where the other captures are temporarily held, cued, while the previous capture is still being processed.

With all these involved, a digital E-film which fits an ordinary film camera just like an ordinary film does is unlikely to happen now, with all the miniaturisation and compacting involved to allow the necessary components to fit within a 35mm cassette.

 

[VinceC]

Connecting to the PC socket makes a lot of sense. But then it's hard to run a cord into the film chamber.

 

[pizzahut88]

No hope

No hope

Who is going to make that silicon film?
Not Nikon, not Canon, not Sony . . .

Perhaps Fuji if it gets squeezed . . . anymore by Nikon.

Ricoh? It doesn't make any sensors.

Maybe Epson, most likely Epson . . . no . . . they won't do it.
They will most likely sell another Epson R-D2.

Kodak?
Likely . . . could it do it? Slim chances.

Sigma? They have foveon.
I have not seen one of their dslr in store.
They might just do it. If their foveon dslr fails to catch any market.

Olympus? Their 4 third thingy is going quite good,
why let you digitize their older OM bodies?
Live preview will help them sell their dslr.
Panasonic? It's dependant on Olympus.
Not a chance.


Who could do it them?
Shrinking all that electronics into film cart is really tough!
Sony have the skills, but they will never do it.

It's bad for business.
It's so bad for business, I don't think any of the Japanese camera makers would do it.

Zeiss Ikon and Leica . . . isn't really good with digital.
They are both dependant on others.
Cosina could not do it . . . they have relied on Epson already.
The R-d1 is not called a Bessa, that because most likely Epson forked out most of the development costs.

In fact, Zeiss is nowhere near digital . . . only hints . . . . tsk tsk tsk

Contax Kyocera? Ah possible, they have the first full frame digital Contax SLR!
They were the leader! Could have translated that tech to theie Contax RF.
But they now call it quits!
Pity . . .

See, the future is grim for us . . .
Our best hope is to wait for another digital RF from Epson.
This time 10 mega pixel.

As for the Leica M8 . . . it grossly expensive.
The price of a second hand not so bad Mazda or Honda . . . . Gees
In fact, if I am going to spend that amount of money on a M8,
I rather make a one off early tiny lump sum mortgage repayment towards my house!
Reduce the interest.
Ok, don't flame me . . . The M8 is lovely. I just could not afford it.

 

[Sparrow]

Connecting to the PC socket makes a lot of sense. But then it's hard to run a cord into the film chamber.

They could use Bluetooth from the PC or hot-shoe perhaps

 

[pizzahut88]

More information here!!!

More information here!!!

How many more years, we have to wait ? This was already developed by a company called Silicon Film in 1999, but than probably got bought by a big camera manufacturer to sell us his crappy 2 Mio pixel cameras instead. Isn't it time to release this brilliant invention to us consumers? Lets say with 8 Mio pixel, ASA setting from 50- 1600 and SD card slot. Or are there any technical problems here?

More info here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021404pma04.asp#siliconfilm

I thought this was all vapourware . . .
but it was really working

Why didn't they sell it?
Would you buy one for your RF?
I would!

6mp would be good enough for me.
Pity . . . why did they abandon that project?

 

[Didier]

(...)However, I am convinced that a thicker sensor (i.e. normal silicon wafer thickness plus some coating) could replace the pressure plate in many cameras. This should already be possible today, implying a possible one-time upgrade of your existing film camera to a digital camera (...)
Roland.

Even this looks too unrealistic for me. The space of the can chamber and the wind-up area are likely to small to put all the electronic stuff in it. Probably, the flap-out door of a film SLR or a film Leica's back wall should be replaced, too.

The other question is how much sense this would make after almost all have switched to digital cameras...

Didier

 

[Sparrow]

Perhaps I may be wrong or inaccurate, but my understanding is that the sensor doesn't sit behind the shutter 'on' all the time. It needs to be turned on to become light sensitive, unlike film, which remains such all the time.
The setup with digital sensors behind shutters is like synchronised flash- the sensor becomes active and receptive each time the shutter opens and goes to sleep again once it closes.

Hasselblad's digital backs let the sensor "know" that the shutter is tripped by a connection that plugs into the lens's shutter's PC plug.

As others have already stated, e-film and digital imaging is not simply the sensor and battery alone. There is a chain of steps which happens in the electronic innards of the camera, a series of signal conversions, data processing, and writing/storge steps. Plenty of components are needed to do that. The sensor only receives the exposure- the electrical analogue signals it creates based on the light exposure it got needs to be first converted to a form of binary data which the image processing engine can work with. Then it is written as a recognisable file format (eg jpg or raw) and then sized accordingly. And finally it's written on a storage media. Then there's also the buffer where the other captures are temporarily held, cued, while the previous capture is still being processed.

With all these involved, a digital E-film which fits an ordinary film camera just like an ordinary film does is unlikely to happen now, with all the miniaturisation and compacting involved to allow the necessary components to fit within a 35mm cassette.

Are you sure? when you have striped all the bells and whistles it still won’t fit, if it’s a drop in unit what would you need? It could have a fixed ASA, a 50-100 10mp image capacity would be enough to keep the battery size down, the buffer would only need to keep up with a manual action, and I don’t need all the rest, if I have to change the WB I take out my “daylight 200iso” unit and slip in the 800iso tungsten one.
regards

 

[bsdunek]

As an engineer, I can tell you that the problem of making a thing like this universal is somewhere between impractical and impossible. I can see it fitting cameras with removable backs, but to fit inside and coordinate with the camera would require a model for each model camera.

The other consideration is the market. We rangefinder/film people are really in the minority today. Even with the film SLR's, this is a shrinking market. To invest in the engineering/ development, tooling, processing, marketing, etc. doesn't seem practical to me. Remember, companies are in business to make money. If they can't, they go broke.

I do think this device would be neat, but for the price of a digital camera, it's not practical.

Just IMHO,

 

[anselwannab]

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts, it makes my head hurt.

Is it April Fools day or Ground Hog Day?

I have the Silicone Film cartridge right here. I'll drive it over to your house in my 100mpg V8 car that GM mistakenly sold to me and I refuse to sell back, even for $1million.

What is your address, I'll have Elvis punch it into the Nav computer and well come over in our flying car if traffic is bad.

Before I bring it over I need to delete my pics of Big Foot, The Loch Ness Monster, Jesus Christ's last living descendant, and Jimmy Hoffa's grave. I'll leave the UFO and alien pictures on there, no one believes me anyway.

I really do have "Silicon" Film!

Sorry, all the PMA hype has made me a little "slap-happy".

Mark

 

[Sparrow]

As an engineer, I can tell you that the problem of making a thing like this universal is somewhere between impractical and impossible. I can see it fitting cameras with removable backs, but to fit inside and coordinate with the camera would require a model for each model camera.

The other consideration is the market. We rangefinder/film people are really in the minority today. Even with the film SLR's, this is a shrinking market. To invest in the engineering/ development, tooling, processing, marketing, etc. doesn't seem practical to me. Remember, companies are in business to make money. If they can't, they go broke.

I do think this device would be neat, but for the price of a digital camera, it's not practical.

Just IMHO,

I do realise it’s a fantasy……..but I’m a designer and “somewhere between impractical and impossible” from an engineer means difficult and/or expensive

 

[anselwannab]

I do realise it’s a fantasy……..but I’m a designer and “somewhere between impractical and impossible” from an engineer means difficult and/or expensive

I'm remodeling a house and it is really interesting how contractors do the same thing. I may be willing to spend money on somethings but not other things. But they don't even see it as an option, even though it is possible. Everyone of them (and us) applies our own value system to what we offer and suggest to people.

It's like the line in the movie "Blast from the Past" -"It's amazing what you can get done when you say, "I don't care what it costs," and you actually mean it."

Mark

 

[Socke]

How many more years, we have to wait ? This was already developed by a company called Silicon Film in 1999, but than probably got bought by a big camera manufacturer to sell us his crappy 2 Mio pixel cameras instead. Isn't it time to release this brilliant invention to us consumers? Lets say with 8 Mio pixel, ASA setting from 50- 1600 and SD card slot. Or are there any technical problems here?

First of all it was a very small sensor with a small pixel count, then it needed a different back because a sensor is thicker than film.

If they ever had something, nobody has seen it in reality.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Silliness....

I'd have my 200 mpg car right now if Exxon hadn't killed that guy who invented it and burned all the designs.

The reason that product isn't on the market is that there are better ways of tackling the problem...and THOSE products ARE on the market.
I'm sure it can be done in time. With enough money and time, anything can be done, but it won't be done because it will never make financial sense.

 

[FrankS]

Isn't it time to release this brilliant invention to us consumers? Lets say with 8 Mio pixel, ASA setting from 50- 1600 and SD card slot. Or are there any technical problems here?

I'd say that's the issue.

 

[Socke]

Fujitsu Develops World's First Film Substrate-based Bendable Color Electronic Paper featuring Image Memory Function


- are you guys talking about a similar technology? It sounds positively fascinating.

No, electronic paper is a display, a small one with a very limited number of greys.

 

[Sparrow]

I'm remodeling a house and it is really interesting how contractors do the same thing. I may be willing to spend money on somethings but not other things. But they don't even see it as an option, even though it is possible. Everyone of them (and us) applies our own value system to what we offer and suggest to people.

It's like the line in the movie "Blast from the Past" -"It's amazing what you can get done when you say, "I don't care what it costs," and you actually mean it."

Mark

You’ll have to excuse me, I’ve spent my working life saying “what if we did it like this” sometimes the answer is cheap simple and elegant solution, and sometimes it’s not, but it is always worth asking the question and it isn’t always a good idea to agree with the answer you get.

 

[IGMeanwell]

More info here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021404pma04.asp#siliconfilm

I thought this was all vapourware . . .
but it was really working

Why didn't they sell it?
Would you buy one for your RF?
I would!

6mp would be good enough for me.
Pity . . . why did they abandon that project?

Siliconfilm vaporware went belly up shortly after that because they couldn't get investors and the technology was not up to specs

I am really surprised they haven't revisited it with new technology

They managed to get one to fit Canon and Nikon SLRs ... so you can probably think if a big company took up this project could come up with something for each manufacterer

The big problem is who would buy it ... enthusiasts would if it were good enough but largely people would say "I would rather buy a digital camera"

I think the technology is there, hell alot has changed in 6 years

but who is willing to to invest in it?

 

[VinceC]

It's an engineering problem. You break it into achievable milestones:

Goal: Digital module for classic/historic RF cameras.

Two solutions --
Solution 1: Achievable to some extent with existing technology

For Nikon/Kiev RF/Later Canon: develop/modify a camera-specific removable back incorporating sensor, battery, image processor. Consider option of removable LCD screen. Interface with shutter via PC socket and/or motordrive actuator.

For Leica/other bottom-loaders: develop a camera-specific removable bottom plate that incorporates sensor, batter, image processor into bottom of camera while adding minimum height to finished package. Challenges: sensor thin enough to fit into film-gate area.

Solution 2: Film-canister-size module (Challenges existing technology)
Incorporate battery, sensor and image processor into compartment containing film cannister, pressure plate and take-up spool.

Notes: Existing technology allows large storage in confined space. Possible modification of camera required for interface with PC sync, modify pressure plate for thicker sensor.

Considerations: Battery life. Fragile thin sensor. Consider minimally invasive modifications to the camera body to allow attachment of module on bottom of camera, via tripod socket, containing battery and image processor.

---

I think in a few years the technology will be affordable enough that there would be the viable possibility of a cottage industry to modify camera-backs/bottoms for digital use on most common classic RF designs. It's already achievable, but perhaps not at an affordable cost. Drop-in cannister is more problematic ... likely to have such a high cost as to discourage development .

I have four Nikon RF cameras with removable backs. Would I spend $1,000 to $2,000 to have a back converted to digital, likely with a reduced sensor size? I probably would strongly consider it.

 

[VinceC]

Silicon Film's marketing/development flaw was to try to make state-of-the-art film SLRs competitive with DSLRs, marketed to the mainstream.

The real market is for classic cameras/collectors/specialists and other customers who have a compelling personal reason to adapt a classic camera to the digital era. I would be surprised if anyone at Silicon Film had even heard of Leica or Nikon RFs.