Hybrid Rangfinder/Film Camera

[elcud35rc]

Is the technology out there where it possible to fuse the joy of traditional film photography and the technology of digital photography?

I mean having the ablility of shooting with the flexibility of film along with having a preview of what you just shot. But still going through the processing of film. The digital aspect is strictly for PREVIEW (seeing if the shot was good)

It's the best of both worlds...possibly?

Please give me your thoughts.

 

[kmack]

Interesting concept.

Focus on a large glass plate, you get to see exactly what your composition will look like.
Then you load up the carrier, expose, develop and scan.

You would love traditional large format. 😀

 

[dmr]

I would think that somebody would make some kind of a universal digital back for film cameras.

There was talk on the net about a digital sensor and the electronics in a 35mm cartridge a while back, but I don't think that ever made it to market.

 

[Silva Lining]

I do believe Kodak made some (shortlived) cameras that did this right when digital cameras were just coming onto the market.

The cameras recorded on film but allowed you to preview what you had shot on a screen.

I always thought it was a pretty useless idea, but hey! what do I know!!!

 

[bmattock]

I would think that somebody would make some kind of a universal digital back for film cameras.

There was talk on the net about a digital sensor and the electronics in a 35mm cartridge a while back, but I don't think that ever made it to market.

In answer to the first - yes, there is one, sort of. Bad news - it is for MF 6x6 cameras such as the Hassy SLRs with removeable film backs, and they cost upwards of 20K for now.

On the second question, that company went blammo after sucking up a lot of venture capital.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[eric]

I do believe Kodak made some (shortlived) cameras that did this right when digital cameras were just coming onto the market.

/QUOTE]
I remember the commercial well. A couple, who wanted to take the same exact picture that their parents did in Italy. So they had to preview it on the camera before they took the picture.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Kodak made a P&S like this and nobody bought it.

People don't want or need prints most of the time;
passing around the digital camera and viewing
the pics on that tiny LCD screen is good enough.

That's why cellphones will replace digicams.

People prefer toys and gizmos to real cameras.
Preferably something with lots of tiny buttons...

Excelsior, you fatheads!
-Chris-

 

[Silva Lining]

I mean having the ablility of shooting with the flexibility of film along with having a preview of what you just shot. But still going through the processing of film. The digital aspect is strictly for PREVIEW (seeing if the shot was good)

It was called the Kodak Advantix Preview. It was an APS camera that provided a preview of the picture you just shot onto film on a low res. 1.8 inch screen on the back of the camera.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004XP73/102-6751756-9716940?v=glance&n=502394&v=glance

 

[KoNickon]

Silva Lining has the same recollection as I -- I can't think of the name of the model, but a Kodak camera definitely had this feature. Of course, it would show you the mistakes you had made -- no way to erase it from film. But at least you'd know you made a mistake (finger in front of the lens, no flash, etc.) and give you a chance to redo it. Problem is, you'd need a really good LCD screen in order to see subtle errors.

How's this for a future idea -- a digital camera that, assuming you "accept" the image, will go ahead and burn it on film in the camera as well as save it in a digital file. When film becomes more expensive because it's a rarer commodity, we'll be able to avoid wasting it.

 

[dkapp]

I remember the commercial well. A couple, who wanted to take the same exact picture that their parents did in Italy. So they had to preview it on the camera before they took the picture.

I know the commercial your talking about. I don't think I've ever seen the camera in person...

 

[Tin]

How's this for a future idea -- a digital camera that, assuming you "accept" the image, will go ahead and burn it on film in the camera as well as save it in a digital file. When film becomes more expensive because it's a rarer commodity, we'll be able to avoid wasting it.

Recently, I have been dreaming of a gadget that is made of a camera body (any camera body) that accepts film, but without shutter, veiwfinder or lens, that would accept digital input from a computer to archive digital images that I want to keep. But yours is a better idea.

 

[dmr]

On the second question, that company went blammo after sucking up a lot of venture capital.

That's too bad, cuz that product looked interesting. I would think that it would be a viable concept. The one thing I didn't figure out was if they could make the digital sensor small enough, more like flat enough to go where the film normally sits.

I remember looking at a page on the web a while ago and wondering why somebody didn't think of that before.

 

[Kin Lau]

Polaroid type 55 p/n 4x5, you get a print _and_ a negative.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'll share my thoughts: the DMR proves that this is possible and a reality.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

People prefer toys and gizmos to real cameras.
Preferably something with lots of tiny buttons...

Excelsior, you fatheads!

Hi, thinhead here: I think that it is a paradox that the market seems to prefer "toys and gizmos" to real cameras, and that is because the "regular user" doesn't usually either understand, want to understand, or has the time to understand what is required to take a "good picture" (actually, a good exposure). Therefore the simplification and abundance of "point & shoot" cameras.

The reason why there are "lots of tiny buttons" is, in my opinion, the stubborn need of the designers (an oxymoron in many cases) to spell every single feature (because "the more features, the better"), readily accessible at the press of a button. There is poor Human Interface investment; they don't teach that in schools, only in specialized college or post-graduate degrees.

Hence the perception that people prefer toys and gizmos to real cameras. It's a dog chasing its own tail.

 

[elcud35rc]

Vivitar Capture 35
I found a hybrid camera that downloads your pictures to your computer. 'PDFmanual
It is also on ebay.

 

[taffer]

Actually we don't need a digital review or preview of the final image, but an in-camera meter that could be able to offer you an approximated histogram on a screen, that would be another thing.

Another thing that probably is next to impossible, you can't have light values for every pixel until you get the pixels themselves...

 

[kbg32]

Wasn't there a company some years back, late 90s or so - Lee Digital (?), that was designing digital backs for 35mm film SLRs? I believe they were only 2 or 3 megapixels backs at the time. As far as I remember, they couldn't, or current companies would not help fund their development, for obvious marketing reasons.