Convert your film camera into a digital camera with your iPhone....Seriously!?

From DC Watch JP via google translate:

On January 26, Fireworks Co., Ltd. announced the "Digi Swap," an attachment that allows you to attach an iPhone to a film camera. It is scheduled to be sold on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter around the beginning of April 2022. The selling price starts from $ 199 for the main unit and $ 49 for the app (both prices are planned). The actual machine will be exhibited for reference at CP + 2022.

An attachment that allows you to "upcycle" a film camera to a digital camera using your iPhone. Remove the back cover of the camera and attach the attachment using the tripod screw. You can use the dedicated app to record photos and videos on your iPhone without using film. Compatible models are Phone X / XS / 11/11 Pro / 12/12 Pro / 13/13 Pro.

So, do you think this will be a success?

There is no standard back on these cameras. Every type, also within brands, will have to have a custom fitting made. So anyone investing in such a kickstarter project is sure to have lost money. Unless, of course, you happen to have the same camera the maker of this thingy happens to have.

And even then, why the hassle? Get a digital camera if you want to use a camera.

Stranger things have produced similar excitement. Remember "Silicon Film?" Who could forget that epic piece of vaporware:

Silicon Film Strikes Back?

Stranger things have produced similar excitement. Remember "Silicon Film?" Who could forget that epic piece of vaporware:

 

Silicon Film Strikes Back?

Silicon film actually made sense as an idea (to me anyway) - it just wasn't possible to realise the idea for technological, financial or whatever reasons.

This one.. the Digi Swap - I can't evnen fathom who will find it useful. It is probably a wise choice to test the concept on Kickstarter before starting the assembly line.

So, do you think this will be a success?

No, I'm pretty doubtful.

Stranger things have produced similar excitement. Remember "Silicon Film?" Who could forget that epic piece of vaporware:

Vaporware? Are you quite certain?

I actually sat down with a couple of those guys at the PMA show, and saw the so-called prototypes. At the place where I worked we were interested in a digital conversion, of sorts, to our long-roll studio cameras. We had an appointment with them to do some test shots the next morning, before the show opened. But later in the day they canceled, saying that the second prototype had now also failed.

As I recall the internet rumor mill later had it that their earlier demos had been faked. Were they? I dunno. I've never seen convincing evidence to support this. Could've been, I guess; I'm just not convinced one way or the other.

They did also present a technical paper at an IS&T conference, going through the technological issues. I didn't see anything that would have prevented success, within reason.

Fwiw "we" did actually end up building our own ground-up digital camera. Initially we hoped to have it as an interchangeable magazine, giving us the option of shooting either digital or film by just swapping magazines. But the physical layout of the sensor package was not conducive to this. (We were not willing to tap into only the central area of the frame as the silicone film, or whatever, people were doing.)

I really suspect that what ultimately killed the silicone film idea was the rapid drop in cost of digital cameras. At that time high-quality digital backs, in a nominal 35mm film frame size, were selling for around $25,000 US. But in only a couple of years DSLR cameras, same sensor size, dropped below $10,000 or so. As one's competition is dropping prices, the writing seems to be on the wall. What once might have been a financially lucrative product is now losing a lot of the glitter. Anyway, this is my guess as to why things didn't work out.

Regarding this current kickstarter project, it would seem to be essentially a field lens assembly inside of a box, with the image being photographed by a camera phone. Maybe they have an improved sort of field lens, or whatever, but I just don't see any viable future for it, other than just a fun gimmick.

What killed silicon film was a failure to deliver a working prototype. The small sensor and limited MP count. They could not pack enough battery in that drop-in contraption. And (as mentioned above) it took a custom model for every single camera model out there. Not even a model fitting a Nikon would fit all Nikons.

So would they be able to produce, as a commercialy viable product, a 1.3 MP, 2.5 and-them-some crop factor, low powered product for the many thousands of cameras that take a 35 mm film cannister?

Though the idea may have appeal, and can be presented as something not too difficult to do, there was and is no chance at all. And that was clear right from the beginning.

But if someone would be able to solve the issues, there is a fair market waiting. But that is not going to happen.

I believe I have seen traces of devices meant to cobble SLR lenses on iPhones before?

I am really not much of a phone- or (in my case) tablet shooter and rather quiet than "publishing" from such a tiny screen. Owning some digital ILCs, I 'd adapt heritage lenses to these. But I can kind of understand smartphoneographers who 'd like to explore the bokeh of grandpa's 80s consumer zoom on ME Super or the absence of AF in a Nikon FM without messing with film. So some fools will buy this and it might take amyear till it ends collecting dust in a corner. The market can't be big. Why should lovers of film cameras have contemporary iPhones at hand? What is the appeal of exposing thumb nails on a phone with a native film body instead of putting that heritage lens on a cheapo MILC and transfering a picture?

I believe I have seen traces of devices meant to cobble SLR lenses on iPhones before?

I am really not much of a phone- or (in my case) tablet shooter and rather quiet than "publishing" from such a tiny screen. Owning some digital ILCs, I 'd adapt heritage lenses to these. But I can kind of understand smartphoneographers who 'd like to explore the bokeh of grandpa's 80s consumer zoom on ME Super or the absence of AF in a Nikon FM without messing with film. So some fools will buy this and it might take amyear till it ends collecting dust in a corner. The market can't be big. Why should lovers of film cameras have contemporary iPhones at hand? What is the appeal of exposing thumb nails on a phone with a native film body instead of putting that heritage lens on a cheapo MILC and transfering a picture?

Why? Instant sharing potential. That's what matters. Capture device really no longer matters. Communication does. This or some refinement may be a hit.

If the "capture device really no longer matters", but "instant" does, why make life complicated and try such a contraption instead of using the phone alone?

So based on that too, this will not be a hit.

Reading the description above, you remove the back and attach it to the tripod socket.

That does seem to limit it to those with removable back, but otherwise it just needs to fit into

where the film would be. It can stick out (backwards) pretty far.

And this is to expect:

フィルムカメラでデジタル撮影。裏蓋部分にiPhoneを取り付ける「デジスワップ」　CP+2022に実機展示

This smacks of "snake-oil" to me.

Why "destroy" a perfectly good film camera for which film and processing may still be available in order to obtain inferior results , when a cellphone is so much more convenient to use.

Film camera backs also vary , will they produce a device that will work across the board , somehow I don't think so.

But there will be buyers no doubt.

As the American saying goes:- "There is a sucker born every minute".

;).

"Wouldn't it be wonderful?"

I still thinking "Apple ][ forever"

It's an interesting question and - as an exclusively 'digital' amateur photographer - it led me to browse why 'Digital Backs' for film cameras might appeal to some photographers. In general, my sense (from the internet) is that the 'analog (film) world and the 'digital' world are gradually merging. In the sense that film photographers are looking for ways to get their 'film' digitized more quickly and that digital photographers are looking to emulate the still elusive qualities of film.

Universal (independent of brand and model) 'Digital Backs' for film cameras is an interesting development. Some brands (including Hasselblad and Miyama) have offered brand-specific 'digital backs' for some years. A perhaps more well-known universal 'digital back' is the ''I'm back' start-up which is already into its 2nd generation.

From an (amateur) marketing perspective, I'm interested in the 'consumer groups' that these products are designed to appeal to. I'm also interested in how 'the optics' work.

My wild fantasy is that universal 'Digital Backs' for film cameras may appeal to:

a) film photographers (whose lenses can't be replaced by an iPhone) that occasionally want to shoot digitally. To enable them, for example, to change ISO values between shots without changing film or to quickly (digitally) share photos

b) people who already have - or can cheaply buy - good quality film cameras + lenses and for whom buying a 'Digital Back' is less of an investment than buying an equivalent quality digital camera

digital photographers are looking to emulate the still elusive qualities of film

I wouldn't be too stuck on this notion. I know digital photographers who are intent on exploring the unique properties of digital photography. That doesn't mean they don't also sometimes emulate the best of what film had to offer. It just means they've also moved on and are excited about new possibilities, much the same way artists have always been when new mediums and methods are emerging.

I'm also interested in how 'the optics' work.

Hi, I've explained it before, but the depth of the explanation really depends on how much understanding the "explainee" has of general image-forming optics. AND how much effort they are willing to put into it.

If you really wanna get some understanding, try doing this... take a camera lens, by itself, and set it in some sort of stand. For example, perhaps a folded towel on your kitchen table. Most photographers realize that the lens can form an image on the film/sensor inside of the camera. But if the lens is removed from the camera it will still project such an image. If there is nothing there, such as a piece of film, or a white card, etc., to intercept such an image, it is known as an "aerial image." An aerial image cannot generally be seen UNLESS you get directly behind it and preferably view it with some sort of magnifier. If you know roughly where the image is, and roughly where your magnifier is focused, it should be easy enough for you to see it through the magnifier. (You will only see it against the clear aperture of the camera lens.)

This is essentially what these cell phone digital "camera backs" are doing - they are photographing an aerial image formed by the film camera's lens.

But... the size of such an image is severely limited. To understand this part you probably need to sketch some light rays coming from the lens. Most simply, draw some straight lines coming from an object (say a tree, or candle, or cereal box, or whatever suits your fancy) and passing through a pinhole lens. Next, sketch in a representation of your magnifier and eye. You can probably realize that all of the image-forming rays that miss your magnifier cannot possibly be seen. Right? So this explains why you can only see a small part of the aerial image.

Finally, the part that most photographers won't be able to understand... the use of a so-called field lens - it increases the field of view. If you made a sketch of the light rays earlier, now put in a large diameter lens where the image is ideally formed. This lens will ideally bend the peripheral rays - those that missed your magnifier - back where the magnifier can see them. Because the field lens is placed on the image plane it essentially doesn't change magnification, etc. - it primarily enlarges the field of view. That's the whole gist of the thing, but you need to have a rudimentary grasp of ray-tracing to understand it.

From DC Watch JP via google translate:

 

On January 26, Fireworks Co., Ltd. announced the "Digi Swap," an attachment that allows you to attach an iPhone to a film camera. It is scheduled to be sold on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter around the beginning of April 2022. The selling price starts from $ 199 for the main unit and $ 49 for the app (both prices are planned). The actual machine will be exhibited for reference at CP + 2022.

 

An attachment that allows you to "upcycle" a film camera to a digital camera using your iPhone. Remove the back cover of the camera and attach the attachment using the tripod screw. You can use the dedicated app to record photos and videos on your iPhone without using film. Compatible models are Phone X / XS / 11/11 Pro / 12/12 Pro / 13/13 Pro.

 

 

So, do you think this will be a success?

I did it. Simply taking a picture with the IPhone thru the SLR viewfinder. I can use any lens that can go on the SLR.

Clever, but stupid. A real chore to use the viewfinder unless you have removable prisms.

Hmm.

A right angle viewfinder, or extender (with appropriate optics) would also work.

There aren't quite as many viewfinder attachments as there are camera backs.

Some cameras have easily removable backs. For others, it might take some screws.

Hi @Bill C, many thanks for taking the time to explain things so clearly (again)! The concept of 'aerial images' was new to me but I now understand the principle of how 'digital phone backs' for film cameras photograph 'aerial images'. Fascinating!

I didn't find it easy to find more information on 'aerial images' via Google because most search of the top results refer to images taken by aerial photography. But I did find a few (by including optics and physics in the search). Interestingly, one of these, written by a teacher giving classes in optics, advocated starting optics courses by introducing students to 'aerial images' much as you explained!

One of the first references I came across via Google was to Wikipedia page on 'aerial images'. This was just a so-called 'stub' with just a couple of lines and no references. So I'll include the 'sources' I found as a result of your explanation on the Wikipedia page.

Thanks!

Mike

Hi, I've explained it before, but the depth of the explanation really depends on how much understanding the "explainee" has of general image-forming optics. AND how much effort they are willing to put into it.

 

If you really wanna get some understanding, try doing this... take a camera lens, by itself, and set it in some sort of stand. For example, perhaps a folded towel on your kitchen table. Most photographers realize that the lens can form an image on the film/sensor inside of the camera. But if the lens is removed from the camera it will still project such an image. If there is nothing there, such as a piece of film, or a white card, etc., to intercept such an image, it is known as an "aerial image." An aerial image cannot generally be seen UNLESS you get directly behind it and preferably view it with some sort of magnifier. If you know roughly where the image is, and roughly where your magnifier is focused, it should be easy enough for you to see it through the magnifier. (You will only see it against the clear aperture of the camera lens.)

 

This is essentially what these cell phone digital "camera backs" are doing - they are photographing an aerial image formed by the film camera's lens.

 

But... the size of such an image is severely limited. To understand this part you probably need to sketch some light rays coming from the lens. Most simply, draw some straight lines coming from an object (say a tree, or candle, or cereal box, or whatever suits your fancy) and passing through a pinhole lens. Next, sketch in a representation of your magnifier and eye. You can probably realize that all of the image-forming rays that miss your magnifier cannot possibly be seen. Right? So this explains why you can only see a small part of the aerial image.

 

Finally, the part that most photographers won't be able to understand... the use of a so-called field lens - it increases the field of view. If you made a sketch of the light rays earlier, now put in a large diameter lens where the image is ideally formed. This lens will ideally bend the peripheral rays - those that missed your magnifier - back where the magnifier can see them. Because the field lens is placed on the image plane it essentially doesn't change magnification, etc. - it primarily enlarges the field of view. That's the whole gist of the thing, but you need to have a rudimentary grasp of ray-tracing to understand it.

Hi @Bill C, many thanks for taking the time to explain things so clearly (again)! The concept of 'aerial images' was new to me but I now understand the principle of how 'digital phone backs' for film cameras photograph 'aerial images'. Fascinating!

 

I didn't find it easy to find more information on 'aerial images' via Google because most search of the top results refer to images taken by aerial photography. But I did find a few (by including optics and physics in the search). Interestingly, one of these, written by a teacher giving classes in optics, advocated starting optics courses by introducing students to 'aerial images' much as you explained!

 

One of the first references I came across via Google was to Wikipedia page on 'aerial images'. This was just a so-called 'stub' with just a couple of lines and no references. So I'll include the 'sources' I found as a result of your explanation on the Wikipedia page.

 

Thanks!

 

Mike

Do not let this make you believe that there is something special going on. 'Aerial image' means nothing else than that the image produced by a lens is not in the same location as something else, such as a screen, film or sensor. It just 'floats in air'.

Special things can happen when you can put a (tiny) object at the same position, making both it and the aerial image the subject, allowing you to get a sharp photo of both, say, an ant and the landscape. Something dof will never allow.

And that really is not that special too. It is what is also known as front- or rear projection, but then without a screen.

Thanks for this comment! I've never understood much about optics (other than convergent and divergent lenses;)) and I've never really thought much about these in relation to photography (or anything else). I've always just assumed that lenses with (a range of) different focal lengths do basically the same job of allowing photographers to manually or automatically focus an image on whatever medium (different film formats or digital sensor sizes) that they prefer.

Up until now, I've never questioned the principle of substituting camera exposures recorded on film by those recorded on like-sized 'traditional' digital sensors. So for example when a 35mm film camera is (temporarily) fitted with a 35mm (full-frame) digital sensor and memory 'back'. I have the impression that the main market for this kind of 'digital backs' has until recently been mostly professional large-format photographers.

But - ever curious - I was intrigued by 'the optics' of how a tiny iPhone camera could capture a 'reasonable image' that would normally be projected onto a film or digital light sensor many times the size. From browsing the internet on 'digital backs' based on digital phones, my impression is that there's much more information on 'what' the products do than 'how' they actually do it.

Following @Bill C's explanation, I did track down a 2013 reference to 'photographing a screen'. The 'screen' was presumably the equivalent size of a film frame or digital sensor. I have no idea whether this technique is still used today.

One of the main insights for me from @Bill C's explanation is that it's possible (with the right equipment) to photograph 'aerial images' before they reach any physical medium. I've also learned that 'aerial images' may - in the future\- play a role in 'virtual reality applications'. In the sense that images and videos remain 'invisible' until people walk/drive into certain locations at which point relevant images/videos suddenly become visible.

All in all, the concept of 'aerial images' - and their potential applications - is something that, even at my advanced age, interests me.

Mike

Do not let this make you believe that there is something special going on. 'Aerial image' means nothing else than that the image produced by a lens is not in the same location as something else, such as a screen, film or sensor. It just 'floats in air'.

 

Special things can happen when you can put a (tiny) object at the same position, making both it and the aerial image the subject, allowing you to get a sharp photo of both, say, an ant and the landscape. Something dof will never allow.

And that really is not that special too. It is what is also known as front- or rear projection, but then without a screen.

Thanks for this comment! I've never understood much about optics (other than convergent and divergent lenses;)) and I've never really thought much about these in relation to photography (or anything else). I've always just assumed that lenses with (a range of) different focal lengths do basically the same job of allowing photographers to manually or automatically focus an image on whatever medium (different film formats or digital sensor sizes) that they prefer.

 

Up until now, I've never questioned the principle of substituting camera exposures recorded on film by those recorded on like-sized 'traditional' digital sensors. So for example when a 35mm film camera is (temporarily) fitted with a 35mm (full-frame) digital sensor and memory 'back'. I have the impression that the main market for this kind of 'digital backs' has until recently been mostly professional large-format photographers.

 

But - ever curious - I was intrigued by 'the optics' of how a tiny iPhone camera could capture a 'reasonable image' that would normally be projected onto a film or digital light sensor many times the size. From browsing the internet on 'digital backs' based on digital phones, my impression is that there's much more information on 'what' the products do than 'how' they actually do it.

 

Following @Bill C's explanation, I did track down a 2013 reference to 'photographing a screen'. The 'screen' was presumably the equivalent size of a film frame or digital sensor. I have no idea whether this technique is still used today.

 

One of the main insights for me from @Bill C's explanation is that it's possible (with the right equipment) to photograph 'aerial images' before they reach any physical medium. I've also learned that 'aerial images' may - in the future\- play a role in 'virtual reality applications'. In the sense that images and videos remain 'invisible' until people walk/drive into certain locations at which point relevant images/videos suddenly become visible.

 

All in all, the concept of 'aerial images' - and their potential applications - is something that, even at my advanced age, interests me.

 

Mike

The thing is that lenses change the direction of rays of light passing though them. Behind the lens, that light is not invisible. But it only forms a sharp (and upside down) image at one exact distance behind the lens. The image gradually grows into sharpness and out of sharpness again, with growing distance from the the rear of the lens. The unsharpness you see through a viewfinder when focussing a lens is the unsharpness of the image seen from the incorrect distance.

When that light hits a diffusor, such as a focussing screen, it it scattered in all directions, the screen thus acting as a source of light that is easy to focus on for our eyes. Without such a diffusor, our eyes do not know where to focus, and it is rather difficult, but by no means impossible, to see and focus on the aerial, sharp image. There are also clear glass 'screens' that only bear marks (lines) to give the eye something to focus on, used to focus equimpment (cameras, microscopes) that only transmit very little light. It helps, there, that the image often is at high magnification, and the depth of it is very shallow. So when the eye sees the image, it probably is almost in focus as far as the focus setting of the equipment is concerned. But for critical focus, you must sure both the markings and the image are in the exact same plane. You use perspective, parallax, to achieve that (as long as the markings move relative to the image when you move your eye, they are not in the same plane).

Using and capturing an aerial image is not really special. But i do not know what they do to focus the iPhone on the aerial image. Nor how the iPhone lens matches the task of capturing the image at the distance required (poorly, judging by the amples. Bad vignetting).