The Future of the Camera, August, 1940

<p><strong>The future of the camera, as seen in August, 1940</strong>.<br /><br />I'm trying to get a small sample of photomagazines from the past, mostly because the advertisements are often very helpful in tracking down information on old and not-so-old cameras. Occasionally, however, there is something in the other material that is of interest.<br /><br />In this case, this was a sort of cartoon feature by a Victor Wasson, who contributed regularly to <em>Minicam Photography</em> in the early 1940s. It was entitled "Foto Futurama: the Camera of the Future." <em>Minicam Photography</em> was what became <em>Modern Photography</em> in 1949. Wasson's hits are the topic of this post.<br /><br />Recently on another thread the problem of predicting the future was raised. I think we've all seen the 19th century predictions. The sky filled with aircraft, but all of them hydrogen balloons with steam-powered propellers, literally horseless carriages, but everybody still dressed in 19th c clothing, etc.<br /><br />Some things are fairly predictable. Moore's Law for computers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law ) is a good example. For another example, the progression of transportation from ancient times after animal power was harnessed to the late 18th c. shows a very stable situation in which the main variables were road quality and travel security, but the time from Rome to London in ca. 100 ACE and in 1750 or so would have been roughly comparable. Then came steam, and the whole course of history went into overdrive, and we haven't seen the end yet. <br /><br />The problem with prediction, of course, is that other things, like the introduction of steam, gasoline engines, electricity, and so on are unpredictable until they happen. Of course, seers can do no more than project from what is known, postulating evolutions, but not revolutions.<br /><br />Sometimes, however, people can look at needs, rather than technology. This seems to be what Wasson did, about whom I can find nothing except for his association with <em>Mincam Photography</em>.<br /><br />Here is Wasson's "Foto Futurama."</p><div></div>

<p>So what had Wasson wrought?<br /><br />The discussion below is mostly counterclockwise from left to right in the drawing, except for the built-in flash which is last.<br /><br />He predicted that the camera of the future would have<br /><br /><br /> <strong>1. Interchangeable magazines.</strong> <br />Many cameras do, but of course, he did not foresee the relative demise of film. This was easily postulated by projection from interchangeable backs already in use in 1940.<br /><strong>2. Streamlined shutter release.</strong> <br />This is interesting. As you can see in the drawing below, he put the release right where it is today on modern film and digital cameras. Made sense in 1940, and still does today, but few cameras except for some East German cameras adopted a front right position until after 1986.<br /><strong>3. Molded finger grips.</strong><br />This is very much like what most digital SLR cameras have today. Again, the mystery is why it didn't some sooner.<br /><strong>4. Finger-tip control wheels to centralize adjustments</strong><br />Wow. Although it's not built into the grip exactly as predicted, control wheels are very much with us, again, coming in the late 1980s and nearly ubiquitous in dSLRs today.<br /><strong>5. Built-in through the lens metering with viewfinder display</strong><br />Obvious, wasn't it? Now, that is. Perhaps technological constraints on the size of the sensor prevented this from coming sooner, but Mr. Wasson clearly put some thought into this simple exercise.<br /><strong>6. Plastic assembly zoom lens from wide-angle to telephoto.</strong><br />Ain't they all this way now? Pretty good for 1940. Of course, zoom lenses ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_lens ) go back in design to the mid-19th c., and some were made at the beginning of the 20th c. Pierre Angénieux designed and made one in the 1950s, and computers made a huge difference in the ability to design adequate zoom lenses.<br />Plastic in 1940 may have been still a 'new' material, perhaps not yet acquiring the negative connotations it still has for some today ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Man ).<br /><strong>7. Integral lens shade</strong>.<br />Yeah, why not?<br /><strong>8. Completely collapsible lens barrel</strong><br />Hmm, some Leica influence, no doubt. Nice as those old Elmars may be, not a hit for Mr. Wasson.<br /><strong>9. Combined view finder for range and composition</strong><br />Makes sense, but why were many RF cameras still not this way up into the 1950s? Today, I can't think of a actual Rangefinder that is not combined.<br />However. there is also<br /><strong>10. Ground glass screen for close-ups, etc</strong>.<br />This seems to imply a reflex mirror in there, so why not just make the whole thing a reflex camera. In small film formats, both the Exakta and Pratiflex were available in the USA by this time. <br /><strong>11. Automatic film transport motor wind key</strong><br />Wasson didn't foresee electrical winders that could be small enough (think A batteries) to fit. Otherwise, automatic film transport is essentially universal starting in the 1990s for film cameras.<br /><strong>12 Midget reflector and bulb, folding into camera will be instantly available</strong>.<br />Most consumer cameras today have a built in flash of some kind. I think when Wasson predicted this most electronic "strobes" weighed about 20 lbs with batteries.<br /> <br />Not too bad eh?</p>

<p>Anyone here think they can do better in predicting what the future will bring? ;)</p>

<p>I personally predict that the mechanical mirror for dSLRs will be replaced by a some kind of electronic solid-state alternative (and not the Pellix, either).</p>

<p>So just about spot on then lol.</p>

<p>Actually pretty good really for its day.<br>

I would guess in the future the mirror has to go, maybe also deformable elements in lenses to do the focussing, doing away with having to move fairly large chunks of glass and metal. Possibly flexible sensors for the same reason. Built in ring flash on macro lenses?</p>

<p>For comparison, I give this "modern" APS-C digital SLR with 1940 features, mostly.</p><div></div>

<p>He did seem to get a lot of it right!</p>

<p>I made this copy from a section of a book (forget the name) on Canon camera history and it was this photo of a prototype made about 1985, by a designer on hire, that still intrigues me. Looks to me like a hybrid of the features of a camcorder and still camera. Why not? With video now becoming a must have feature on just about all DSLRs we are getting into accessory gadgets to help hold the camera and pan it and focus and zoom smoother. A fixed do it all zoom lens, with a rocker button on top to control the zoom, the idea of a one lens does it all is not so weird at all.<br /> At the time, just 25 years ago, too we did not have on board little flash like this has or very few in a high end model for sure.<br /> True, it looks like the space alien ships in War of the Worlds. Yet ergonomically, this Luigi Colano design for Canon was prescient don't we think?. Canon adopted the molded idea without the radical two handed deal at a time when fiber reinforced molded plastic was still derided. You know, 'plasticky, or the show me the metal...' comments. (Now we got the 6 grand mostly plasticky shells. )</p><div></div>

<p>I can see the mirror going away and a digital equivalent. Just as you can turn on an LCD and make it clear or opaque, I think that would work as a mirror. Just prior to the "shutter" working, the digital mirror changes state to allow light in the direction it's needed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> With camera's that do all the thinking people will not need professional photographers nor will they want to look at the pictures. The environment will become so saturated with fake pictures people will just ignore them. A large pixel camcorder will work fine for vidio or stills. Just stick it up in the air and scan the area. No worries about lighting as the camera will do all the thinking and photoshop will only need to be started up and it will do the rest. Just select the look you want from the list and click "edit". It will then scan all the files in a milisecond and generate the picture you choose from the menu. It will then automatically send a copy to the government for approval. Fines and imprisonment for illegal content of course.</p>

<p>However there will always be those guys with the round wire rimmed glasses and scraggly beards shooting B/W film on camera's that do not even have a light meter. A small but dedicated group of criminals that can see the light in front of them. It will be illegal to have an imagination or to possess a real photograh but they will not go away and their pictures will be bought and sold in the back room. Sometimes you will hear the words "M3" or "SLR" whispered but you won't know who uttered the hateful words. Citizens caught with a B/W photo manufactured from a chemical process will be imprisoned and will be forced to work in a sweatshop for Wallmart where Uncle Wally will beat you if he finds your Juki sewing machine sitting idle.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Are there any visionary Wasson's around that can predict the future of cameras starting from today ? </p>

<p>Interesting find, JDM!</p>

<p>Personally, I wonder why digital sensors do not mimic the human eye more closely. Instead of a flat sensor (think "film") make a half-spherical-like sensor like the back of our eyes. Lens designs would be much more simpler - all those tricks and exotic glasses for projecting a flat, undistorted and CA-free image would be unneccessary.</p>

<p>To paraphrase <a href="http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html"><strong>Vernor Vinge</strong></a>: Due to the accelerated technological progress there is an opaque wall moving closer and closer from the future to the present. Behind that "wall" things are completely unknowable (and unforeseeable). This makes it harder and harder to extrapolate any future farther than, um -- "soon"...</p>

<p>With this I want to express that I find it extremely difficult to make any meaningful predictions regarding a "camera of the future". There is still so much change in camera/digital technology that I cannot even say what a "dSLR"(?) in 2020 will be like. Is 3D the next big thing? New sensor technology? Breakthroughs in liquid lens designs? Viewfinder/mirror alternatives? Or -- *gasp* -- the beginnings of cybernetic interfaces...?</p>

<p>I recall Keppler in Modern Photography, c1970's made reference to a "future camera" design, that used film. But looked eerily like many digital cameras of today. He also mentioned that "someday", using the same technology as c 1970's copy machines. That "electronic cameras" will be possible in the future. He was right.</p>

<p>Certain cameras do have completely collapsible lens barrels, though... think the ubiquitous digital point-and-shoot models that retract the lens back into the body when turned off... if they extend it at all... but that Colani prototype is unreal.</p>

<p>Does anyone else want to see it in copper?</p>

<p>You're right of course, about the collapsing lenses. I've even owned a couple of them myself, so clearly I was befuddled by thinking too much about SLRs (according to the latest <em>Pop Photo</em>, only 9% of the camera market).</p>

<p>If you want to see the camera of the future, take a walk through the cel-phone department at your local big box store. Cel-phone, PDA, Internet device, Still camera, Video Camera, GPS, MP3 player...</p>

<p>And, why not, when you get down to it cameras are just a communications device themselves. Compare what is there now, to what was there five years back. The SLR is only going to last until good electronic viewfinders get cheap enough.</p>

<p>If you go far enough in the future your total electronics package is going to wind up being... You credit card. On the other hand, they could kill all the scientists and engineers, and burn all the libraries and hospitals next year. But of course not the financial institutions, even the most fundamentalist fanatic values money. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I personally predict that the mechanical mirror for dSLRs will be replaced by a some kind of electronic solid-state alternative (and not the Pellix, either).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you and John. This would be great even for film cameras. I'd love a Leica M with an LCD shutter.</p>

<p>Funny thing about the control wheels: I am not necessarily a fan of them. I loved how Nikon kept exposed dials for the F4 - Canon went with control wheels long before the F5 as released. I wonder if Nikon should have kept control wheels for the high end cameras.</p>

<p>Motor car manufacturers tried for a brief time to replace dials with digital read-outs. Drivers eventually saw that dials were better. It didn't take long.</p>

<p>One thing I'm sure of: that top LCD is redundant and should have gone long ago.</p>

<p>RE Colani Canon: it reminds me of the Epoca. Not a desirable camera but I'm sure some liked its handling.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With camera's that do all the thinking people will not need professional photographers nor will they want to look at the pictures. ... Fines and imprisonment for illegal content of course.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Scary thought, although people put too much stock in post-processing software. It's like PowerPoint: mostly unnecessary, often counter-productive but used heavily by those who want to use it for its own sake.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is 3D the next big thing? New sensor technology?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>3D? It will have a short-lived run as the 'next big thing' but most of us are already wise to the fact that it's not that great. New sensor technology? I think so. ;-)</p>

<p>I have a sermon to preach wherever I can: digital cameras should have image encryption hard-wired into them. Anyone who steals your camera will never be able to use its output.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, they could kill all the scientists and engineers, and burn all the libraries and hospitals next year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is what theocrats would do if they had the chance. But there's little chance of that, thank God - it isn't like all we have is the Library of Alexandria.</p>

<p>It's the <em>back</em> LCD that I could almost live without. Is nice to chimp when taking something difficult, but otherwise mine is off all the time, and I only look in the VF and at the top LCD. It's amazing how long a battery charge lasts when you use the cameras this way. When I use my XTi, I really miss the back wheel and top LCD.</p>

<p>Some weather-proofed EOS film cameras had more buttons and less dials, to help keep things dry, I suppose.</p>

<p>actually a lot of the older telephoto lenses did have built in filters. my FD lenses, 80-200 F4 and 400 F4.5, both have a built in hood that slides out.</p>

<p>That fold out flash is a much better idea than the usual prism mounted flip up flash.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I wonder why digital sensors do not mimic the human eye more closely. Instead of a flat sensor (think "film") make a half-spherical-like sensor like the back of our eyes. Lens designs would be much more simpler - all those tricks and exotic glasses for projecting a flat, undistorted and CA-free image would be unneccessary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the last 2 years they have developed the first protoype curved sensor drive at least in part by development of a 'prosthetic eye' for blind people. But they are starting to think about applications to camera design.<br /><a href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/07/eye-shaped-camera-uses-curved-sensor/">http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/07/eye-shaped-camera-uses-curved-sensor/</a>#<br /><a href="http://www.optoiq.com/index/photonics-technologies-applications/lfw-display/lfw-article-display/330736/articles/laser-focus-world/volume-44/issue-6/world-news/focal-plane-arrays-curved-sensor-array-to-help-simplify-cameras.html">http://www.optoiq.com/index/photonics-technologies-applications/lfw-display/lfw-article-display/330736/articles/laser-focus-world/volume-44/issue-6/world-news/focal-plane-arrays-curved-sensor-array-to-help-simplify-cameras.html</a><br />Including Nikon patents:<br /><a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2010/06/20/interesting-nikon-patents-curved-image-sensor-and-more.aspx">http://nikonrumors.com/2010/06/20/interesting-nikon-patents-curved-image-sensor-and-more.aspx</a></p>

<p>I am not sure how long this would take to get into camera design - although lenses should (in theory) be lighter and smaller it would require a whole new production line that will, I think, be more limiting. It is a fascinating prospect, though.</p>

<p>Very well predicted by that chappie indeed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A small but dedicated group of criminals that can see the light in front of them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dystrophic projections take on new significance and urgency in these times. How about after digital toys quit working shamans of the ancient practice of film gain high regard. Study the banned Zone System. Memorize AA's Reciprocity Effect Sermon at Sunrise.<br>

I don't care how automated and refined picture-making becomes. I know that a pencil scrawl or a few words can have great expressive power. Making photgraphy no more than a casual gesture expands rather than contracts one's intellectual depth and expressive capabilities. <br>

The prospect of discarding a lifetime's cherished and refined mode of expression is a scary proposition on the down slope. I don't know if I have the energy or a fresh enough feeling for the broader contemporary arts or culture. I don't know if I should be content with what small niche I've gotten used to. Reminds me of the skepticism and badly disguised disdain for certain specialized art pursuits like painting on canvas when I was in school. " Is painting dead?" I know now my world view vis-a-vis art is more informed by painting than any other medium.</p><div></div>

<p>Um, Mr. Zinn,<br /> Did you intend <em>this</em> post for <em>this</em> thread?</p>

<p>Seems like you may have inadvertently wandered in off another post. Not that all inputs aren't welcome, but this seems more than usual to be responding to voices that had not been heard here.</p>

<p>Did you mean it for <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00YN09">here</a>?</p>

<p>I totallly get Mr. Zinn's point (I think). I actually paint as well as take photographs (which I work strictly in film). In painting there has been a point in which 'older' technology is actually the best way to work and there isn't much interest in 'new technology'. Every exhibition I have had photographs in, the gallery has asked if I have taken my shots digitally or on film because they prefer film. There is just something that seems so much more expressive and Artful about it.<br>

The point I think Mr. Zinn makes, that I have to agree with is that maybe their isn't much more in the future, or at least no big innovation, because the way cameras work now is pretty much efficient. As technology advances, we have to learn less because the technology is there to replace many things we used to have to do. Innovations often develop through need. It seems as if cameras may have reached a point people are ultimately happy with what they can do. They may become more powerful and often have the odd gimmick (such as 3D which I can't see being anything more than a fad)<br>

What I would like to see is more companies realising that many people still love film and not every photographer is interested in the digital race. I want to see more cameras like the leica m7 being released. A camera designed for those that love film and want to feel really connected to your photographs liek you do with film. Especially a camera that doesn't cost just shy of £3000. It won't happen, but I can dream.</p>