Dual Dig/Film Cameras?

<p>I was watching "Make Me a Top Model" recently, and it occurred to me that the photographer wants to see the shot "now" but might want a film version later. As a person who has worked with optical systems (lasers), beam splitters are commonplace. With a good sized camera it should be possible to "split" the incoming light, with half going on to a sensor and half on to film for later use.<br>

Does such a camera exist?<br>

If not, the copyright and patents are mine:)</p>

<p>There was a Kodak Advantix Preview, which allow you to preview the last photo taken on a LCD screen. This does not have any successor, so I'm not sure if there's a big demand for this type of technology.</p>

<p>...or take two cameras, one digi and one film.</p>

<p>Back in the 1900's when film was starting to displace glass plates several makers produced cameras which could be either film or plates.....but not both at the same time, so your idea is one up on those old cameras. And of course you could get glass plates for at least 40 years after film came in so film might have a good run to go.</p>

<p>Hmmm, wouldn't medium-format cameras with available digital backs qualify?</p>

<p>I think a Hasselblad with interchangeable backs, for both film and digital, is as dual as a dual dig/film camera can get, ( edit > like the poster right above already mentioned.... )</p>

As Falstaff aptly put it of Mistress Quickly, "She's neither fish nor fowl, a man knows not how to have her." It seems history has not favored the one tool does all. The compromises reduce the efficacy of both.

<p>I'm not sure if they are still using it, but Olin Mills had a film camera with a digital capture attachment. they used the digital as proofs to select shots and order prints.</p>

<p>A view camera can use either film or a scan back.</p>

<p>There used to be an outfit touting the imminent release of a digital sensor that would fit 35mm SLR cameras. This was pretty much vaporware. </p>

<p>A digital module exists for Leica R8 and R9 I beleive</p>

<p>I often lug a film SLR and a DSLR on some of my more important field outings. Occam's Razor logic applies (I have a 3-digit IQ).</p>

<p>I think Mamiya has a a medium format camera that shoots both film and digital, but you have to change the back, to do that. </p>

<p>seems like you could modify a twin lens reflex to do it somehow. (i have a four digit iq. i can state and prove lagrange's theorem about finite ordered groups)</p>

<p>I suppose it'd be the first "hybrid" camera - one that runs on both film & digital.</p>

<p>I politely think many missed the "point". I want a camera that simultaneously takes a dig and film shot. This is not rocket science in optics. But with such a camera a pro could preview photos but then use film and paper for the rest.</p>

<p>Wow, this makes me feel much less silly packing around my D200 and F100.</p>

<p>Dan Sutton's TLR idea seems plausible. I would buy one.</p>

<p>There are many examples of true stereo cameras (not two cameras glued together) which (in theory) can be modified to be hybrids. Vivitar made one in 2001 around this concept of using two separate lenses:<br>

<a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS01/982640658.html">http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS01/982640658.html</a><br>

<img src="http://www.imaging-resource.com/NPICS1/VIVITARDIGI35MM_1_L.JPG" alt="" width="429" height="263" /></p>

<p>I have an old Sony MVC-5000 SLR camera which contains two CCD sensors, one for Chrominance, the other Luminance - a variant of the 3-CCD camera (MVC-7000). It presumably uses a beam splitter which I imagine can be made into a hybrid, retaining the SLR format and shooting through a common lens. <br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00RUaK-88495584.jpg" alt="" width="620" height="412" /></p>

<p>Glue this:</p>

<p>"[WIKI] Lagrange did not prove Lagrange's theorem in its general form. What he actually proved was that if a polynomial in <em>n</em> variables has its variables permuted in all <em>n</em> ! ways, the number of different polynomials that are obtained is always a factor of <em>n</em> !. (For example if the variables <em>x</em> , <em>y</em> , and <em>z</em> are permuted in all 6 possible ways in the polynomial <em>x</em> + <em>y</em> - <em>z</em> then we get a total of 3 different polynomials: <em>x</em> + <em>y</em> − <em>z</em> , <em>x</em> + <em>z</em> - <em>y</em> , and <em>y</em> + <em>z</em> − <em>x</em> . Note 3 is a factor of 6.) ..."</p>

<p>Such a dual full frame camera would be the Beast of the East. Able to do two things not se well. [Ken, I.Q. of 100+]</p>

<p>They used to make polaroid backs for the nikon pro cameras, like the f4 etc. Polaroids are also commonly used for previews in large format cameras. I dont really see that there would be a difference in digital vs polaroid previews.</p>

<p>in galois group theory, lagrange's theorem states that if G is a group and H is a subgroup of G, then the order of H divides the order of G (Suppose H≥G, then |H| divides |G|). There are several corollaries and this is considered the most important theory of finite groups. You have quoted one about lagrange polynomials, which i have not studied. also, if you're quoting wikipedia, that's cheating. </p>

<p>re:michael chang, there seems to be three dials on that monster of a lens there. i suppose one is a focus wheel, one would be to push/pull or rotate focal length, and there seems to be one near the camera... what is the third wheel for?</p>

<p>as to teh original point of the question, then, undoubtedly the cheapest way to just preview the shot would be a cheap point and shoot and perhaps a small photo printer, teh setup costing perhaps only 200. of course, this is just a preview of composition and not the actual framing.</p>

<p>Dan, the ring near the camera body is a detented 1/8 rotation to get into the macro mode. It's essentially a really big TV lens, 9.5-123.5mm, 1:1.8 made by Canon for Sony. I believe the camera sensors are 1" and the front filter thread is 82mm. There are 8 contacts for auto-iris control and the lens is manual focus and zoom. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I politely think many missed the "point". I want a camera that simultaneously takes a dig and film shot. This is not rocket science in optics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Gordon, it is...</p>

<p>Are your laser beam splitters pairs of 45 degree prisms (essentially solid glass cubes)? That common design would require that the lens be designed to operate with 24mm of solid optical glass (index of refraction around 1.5) in the optical path. That means you have different path lengths for the chief rays and marginal rays, resulting in spherical aberration. Some fast lenses are uncomfortable with just 3mm of high index of refraction optical material (the AA filter, IR blocking filter and sensor cover glass) between lens and sensor. Imagine what 24mm would do: all the lenses would need to be recomputed.<br>

<br /> Other beam splitters, such as pellicle mirrors, have a long history of problems in photographic applications.</p>

<p>There's also the issue of increased optical path length (the beam splitter makes it 1.5x longer) behind the lens requiring a corresponding increase in the retrofocus design of wide angle and normal lenses. That's a lose-lose proposition: weight, size, and cost increase, but quality still usually manages to decrease.</p>

<p>Considering that in 5 years the entire flim industry will consist of small factories in Eastern Europe running only B&W flims of considerably less sophistication than Kodak T-Max, I don't think we'd see a camera manufacturer tooling an entire brand new lens line to support flim...</p>

<p>One could very very easily shoot two cameras at the same time, one running film and the other digital, by the same kind of split cable release that stereo cameras use. Nikon, Pentax, Canon and Minolta/Sony all have film and digital variants that take the same lenses. In medium format, Hasselblad and Mamiya both offer cameras with digital and film backs. As far as model photographers needing both at the same time.... I doubt it. When you can burn through 100 + exposures in an hour and 99% of them are better than what Joe Schmoe could come up with, you don't need it. Serious photographers PLAN their shots, and they work with serious models who work very hard to bring consistency and professionalism to their shoots. And aside from all of that, many photographers shoot video of their shoots from a different angle. The reason is exactly what you are talking about, you can look at the video and see what was happening as well as capture things that didn't make it to film. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And of course you could get glass plates for at least 40 years after film came in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can still buy glass plates.</p>

<p>I think some movie cameras have a video output so the director can preview what will be on the film.</p>

<p>Having worked with lasers and optics for decades, I would call the engineering quite easy, I really just wanted to know if someone made one!</p>

<p>I am pretty sure there is no such camera. I don't think there's much demand for simultaneous capture of this kind, and as Patrick says, it can be done with two cameras in tandem if required. This solution would also be cheaper and more flexible than an all-in-one digi-film camera. The Olin Mills device mentioned above only would have provided a proof-quality digital image (something like a contact print) which I suspect is not what you are talking about.<br>

If you really want one, I suppose the way forward is to build it yourself.</p>