Digital Film?

[steve_levine]

<p> I know a few years back this was the talk, and then it died. There is the Leica R offering that is essentially this. But now an engineer friend claims this is being reconsidered.</p>

<p>Are there any practical reasons why any removable backed film SLR, can't be made digital with a digital back? And my friend's words aside, is there any validity to this technology being produced?</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>What's in it for the camera makers?</p>

<p>Sure it's possible, but it's more profitable to sell you a new camera and by doing that additional mechanical and electrical features can be improved or added.</p>

<p>There are interchangable digital backs for some medium format cameras.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>some say that the silicon digital film: venture was just a scam<br>

to make money. apparently they tried and made a few aps type attqachments as a test.<br>

Technically it can be done- by a camera repairman or a technically able hacker.<br>

Just take apart enough digicams, and piece things together.<br>

( lots of parts will be destroyed in the process)<br>

WILL it be done? very UNlikely. the economic return would not be great.<br>

Possibly a skilled camera hacker, will cut a hole in an old slr,<br>

mount a sensor and electronics and announce to the workd<br>

that he has created " the worlds first digital canon ae-1 or pentax k1000.<br>

Would it work? probably, but with some limitations.<br>

I don't think we will ever see more than one or two of these hand built hybrids.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>The 'Digital Film' project is generally agreed to have been vaporware. Some tech geek in one of these forums has said the putative Digital Film back might have problems related to shielding or something like that. I don't know if that's true. Nonetheless, the Leica DMR back was, as you say, a similar solution for that specific platform. </p>

<p>If it were available, I'd pay a couple of thousand for a full-frame digital back for my Canon F-1s, but I'm not holding my breath. The idea of Canon producing something like this is laughable, and there wouldn't be much of a market for a third-party manufacturer to do so.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>You are pure fools or anti manufacturing if you think it was a scam, or vaporware. There have been several digital film projects were folks toiled with a moving target; worked unpaid hours with startups in these adventures. If you think it was vaporware or a scam you are anti-inventor; anti-manufacturing.</p>

<p>The whole concept_(s) goes back before Photo.net; ie early 1990's. One HUGE issue is the 35mm film cartridge to film gate is/was NEVER fixed; there are thousands of variations; thus the sensor has to be on a flex sheet with respect to the cassette; OR the gizmo has to be made only for a few models.</p>

<p>As Bob mentioned; there is NOTHING in it for a camera maker. The idea was being talked about almost 20 years ago; often by marketing chaps and dreamers with NO SENSE of details. In there minds one can swap add the gizmo to a Nikon F; Exakta; Canon EOS; Kodak Retina IIIc; Alpa and there is no packaging issues. In their brains too all engines in Detorit cars are swapable with ease too; with a universal mount.</p>

<p>MF backs and LF backs have been around now for 15 years for a reason; it was easier; PLUS one had only a few mechanical configs; instead of say 5 thousand with 35mm cameras. Even if one has a drop in digital 35mm cassette; on has to make a variant for each camera type; since the cassette to 24x36mm FILM GATE IS DIFFERENT on every model. Heck It might as well be a universal shoe that fits everybody. There can be no economy of scale in production with a zillion variants. Cheapskates have been bitching about MF and LF digital backs prices for 15 years; now how can a gizmo made in a hundred variants have any better pricing?</p>

<p>One could make an easier digital back with a Kodak Ektras removeable back than a 35mm digital cassette system.</p>

<p>Look at all the conflicts; a Leica M feeds the film/cassette in from the bottom; others from the back. The centerline of the 35mm casette to center of the 24x36mm gate has many hundreds of different dimensions. There never was any consideration of making this a constant; or the forward or away dimension either.</p>

<p>An old early 1990's notebook I have for an engineering feasabilty of this has a mess of variations. An Engineering consulting firm I was at in Ventura cty back then did a little project on this, funded by a Japanese company that was into cameras. We concluded that one would have to make a mess of variants; a manufacturing total nightmare. Today we have the dinky micro SD cards for cell phones that could fit with ease in a 35mm sized cassette.</p>

<p>Camera makers sell camera bodys to sell lenses is what the Japanese do. Canon COULD make a digital body for old FD lenses; but that would be bad business.</p>

<p>A crafty 3rd party chap/shop could take canon 5D's and butcher one to hold FD lenses; but the cost would probably too high for the average FD user.</p>

[rick_dorn]

<p>I generally agree with Kelly (except for the harsh comment that some of us are fools and Luddites <grin> ). This was a reasonable concept and approach for early digital development, when 35mm film bodies still dominated, and indeed is still valid in medium format with products like Leaf. But the time for building a digital back for 35mm bodies has passed. There is no business case that can be made for it, and the highly evolved control layouts and camera ergonomics that have gone into creating digital bodies by now have obsoleted it from a user perspective as well. The handling of such a camera would be very awkward as compared to the access of controls on, say, a 5DII. I would much prefer to shoot an F6/D700 pair with an integrated lens set, than go back to this early concept.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>But think how wonderful it would be to pop open your Contax S, or your Nikon F, take out the spools and substitute a replacement part with a sensor on a thin strip where the film would go (remove the pressure plate) and the circuitry in two film canister-sized modules, and then to shoot away with your favorite old 35-mm camera! Film advance lever or knob would save and reset.</p>

<p>If it would've happened ever, it woulda already happened, alas.<br>

There just aren't enough people who want to combine digital technology with old film classics.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>So now the film also has to be retractable. Hmmmm... well, with some of the materials they're working on these days, it's not inconceivable that it becomes a cheap Chinese item in 10 years but I wouldn't bet on it.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p> $1K for a full frame digital back for my old SLR's, and I'd be lined up to buy one.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

About 15 years ago or so, there was a company, Efilm I believe, that was said to be producing a drop in digital cartridge for use in film cameras. This one was for the Nikon F5: <a href="http://jdainis.com/efilm.jpg"><U>Click here</U></a>. They were said to have a working prototype but nothing ever came of it. Stock in the company rose to $25 a share and then fell to nothing. At the time it was said that the practical technical limit to digital cameras would be 3MP and that the electronics needed for efilm could not fit into that small cartridge. With today's tiny cell phone cameras and credit card size digital cameras, who is to say that it would not now be feasible?

[dave_s]

<p>LOL, this thread is good comedy. The 'Digital Film' project of siliconfilm.com was repeatedly on <em>Wired</em>'s list of <a href="http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/01/57023?currentPage=all">'vaporware-of-the-year'</a>. (Yep, those anti-manufacturing Luddites at <em>Wired </em>again!) It epitomized vaporware. It was the Chuck Norris of vaporware.</p>

<p>You can see the old siliconfilm.com web page <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20021120045109/http://siliconfilm.com/">here</a> on the internet archive. (That link is to the 2002 version-- the website was up for about eight years.) The company presented the product as more or less a <em>fait accompli</em>, with a mockup of the modified camera and tables of specifications. Cynics will note that they were soliciting investors at this time.</p>

<p>From looking at their website, you'd expect this product would be in the shops in a month or two. However, after a working model was <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS01/982172823.html">presented at PMA</a>, the project never materialized The Silicon Film web page remained up for several years, but their tone became guarded, and I suspect the company was sold, product or no product. You can see the 2006 version <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060712014249/www.side.com/AboutUs.html">here</a>. The project became the butt of <a href="http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t410653-most-persistent-vaporware-siliconfilm-a-minor-update.html">considerable internet derision</a>, and faded from sight.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Hah! So they did have it. Maybe. Conspiracy theorists can now ponder of what happened to it. Would one dare to suggest that some big companies with vested interest in not seeing it on the market bought it out? You know, the same as the 100 mile per gallon carburetor and the 100 year light bulb.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>*****It really was/is NOT a business issue; it was one of a technical nature.*****</p>

<p>The whole concept was thought up when digial was brand new; say Photoshop 1 and 2 era; ie like 386 and 486 days.</p>

<p>like the 100MPG carb; folks dream about them. It works in their heads.</p>

<p>***(1) Cassette to film gate dimensions vary with each camera</p>

<p>I was working on a disc drive project and also dabbled for a tad with measuring all the 35mm cameras I could find for where the cassette is with respect to the film gate. I remember flying into the twin cites to vist "Hutch"/Hutchinson,MN (drive head flextures) a few weeks before Halloween of 1992 and driving down to Ames Iowa to see an old girlfriend; and bought a Signet 35, and Canonet Q for about 15 bucks each at a thrift store. Ames had mostly Bill Clinton for President signs on folks lawns; along with dressed up scarecrows and farm Halloween stuff. Iowa State played Kansas in Ames and lost by 3 points; About a month later Iowa State beat Nebraske; a total upset.</p>

<p>Most all folks were using film when digital film for 35mm was being tinkered with. The concept from a non engineering point flys; from an engineering standpoint making a mechanically different variant for each camera model is completely a total nightmare; absurd; ie mess.</p>

<p>***(2) Sub full frame sensor issue</p>

<p>Besides a mechanical nightmare with a different product for each different camera model; it was sub full frame too. What folks would record would be less; ie cropped. Thus one might have to bundle in a slr screen fro an F1/2 F3 or F4 with a rectangle marked on it; and non removeable slrs would have to just guess.</p>

<p>***(3) Third party and small companies get last years sensors to buy.</p>

<p>With the sensors being considered in the later 1990's had to be last year's sensor; the stuff the top camera makers were past. The camera makers have looked at this; but it makes better sense to just make a digital body than a Kludgey hokey retrofit(s). Thus a non camera maker might get 1.3 megapixel sensors and plan for 2 or 3; when an actual camera maker is selling a 3 MP.</p>

<p>***(4) EMI issues to pass with every camera made; some shield poorly, thus the device itself has to do most of the shielding.</p>

<p>***(5) Issues with dust on the sensor and warranty and support. The gizmo has to be removed each time to get to the images to download them; there was no micro/mini SD cards then. The main why folks download was a serial cable. USB did not really get into some computers until about 1996 with 4 grand IBM's with 200Mhz Pentium Pros that had NT; or 166 Pentiums on IBM's that sported Win95. USB support in software and OS's was an add one and clunky in the NT & Win95 days. It was an add on late in the WIN95 days; one would have to reboot often to have the computer "find" the device; a royal pain. One did not even have the mini/small USB connectors yet too.</p>

<p>Making a universal digital cassette that fits all 35mm cameras is like making a universal shoe size; wall wart with one connector; or air filter; or oil filter; it DOES work in the dreamers mind that ignores things called *details* ; what engineers deal with; it reality. Thus one can have fancy sketch artist make concept drawings of a Hogwarts digital film cassettes; or shoes; or air filters; or oil filters; or codecs; or lens mount; or fishing lure that fits all.</p>

<p>****Folks confusion is over what is wanted; versus what is practical. Technically challenged folks never get this.</p>

<p>You want a camea body that will hold any lens made; you want one single AC wall wart; you want one shoe size that fits all your kids and you too; you want Walmart to stock only one air and oil filter that fits all cars; you want all lenses to use the same filter size; you want all cordless drills to use a universal battery pack!</p>

<p>Maybe some day once sensors mature and drop alot somebody in China will make variants for some FD cameras; some Nikons; some Leicas. Manufacturing is frowned on in the USA today; labor rates are too high; thus China is what folks want.<br /> The fact that this "digital 35mm cassette" has been tinkened with for 18 YEARS ALREADY with NO products that are easy to make ie cost effective; is NOT A GOOD SIGN. Today one has dinky SD micor/mini cards; dinky USB sockets and cheaper sensors; BUT a declining base of film cameras in usage.</p>

<p>Still dreamers and assumers will dream about a drop in digital cassette; 100 MPG carb; whatever; it is all part of a make believe dreamers 1st grade childs mindset; you ignore details. ALOT of stuff gets invented this way; one ignores details at first with the dream. It all sounds so SIMPLE to a childs viewpoint; you sel;l a 100 MPG carb; you bolt in on anybody's car; you now get 100 MPG. There has to be some insane dreaming away from the Engineers detailed word at times to break out of a rigid mindset. BUT when it comes to making a product in manufacturing; all those fancy sketches do not magically make concerns (1) to (5) go away. This frustrates the simpleton illustrator; he wants to draw the landing gear in have have it appear like that B17 movie where the cartoonist was stuck in the ball turret.</p>

<p>One has LF scan backs being around for 15 years now for a reason; one has a defined film holder for 4x5. My two Phase One 4x5 backs will fit a 1940 Speed Graphic with a spring back; or 1947 with a Grafloc back; or my 4x5 View camera too.</p>

<p>Look at MF backs too; early ones for the Hassleblad were 32mm square; 4 megapixels about 1995/96 and folks bought them. This was 3 to 4 years AFTER some companies dabbled in 35mm digital cassettes. MF and LF digital backs are still around after 15 years as real products; while dreamers with Hogwarts wands and still trying to make a 35mm digital cassette.</p>

<p>Hermione aims a wand at a Nikon F and say "Reducio" and a mini digital 35mm cassette appears that Muggles in China can build for`100 bucks; and B&H can sell for 150 bucks. EIGHTEEN YEARS plus is how long this dream has gone on. Folks 5, 10 year from now will "discover this invention" and make nice sketches; and ask why again. It is a part of dreaming. It would be a nice product if it could be made.</p>

<p>I actuall got paid by a Japanese camera company in 1992 for some Engineering work on a 35mm digital cassette idea. Thus the lay/stupid/childish/dreamer folks on this thread seem to think that somehow it all was a scam or vaporware. An engineering study that shows a product is a complete nightmare is not a scam or vaporware; it is a valid study of the feasabilty of making an actual product. Todays anti invention; anti manufactuing stance in the USA shows on this thread. Ideas that are not viable products is thus called vaporware; completely insulting those of us engineers who worked on the damn things.There are many companys who experimented with this 18 years ago; the lay public reads about one and thus calls it a scam; basically a stupid laymans call.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The concept of a digital 35mm cassette was in a vast doubt back in 1992 when I dabbled on the feasiblity of it for a Japanese camera maker. The doubt was it was a mechanical nightmare; plus the other 4 reasons I mentioned. I worked on this for Kyocera and later Mats. the conclusions were it was not a product before Silicon Film got started in SoCal. They later just tried and failed. An old friend worked from them for awhile. If somebody told him to his face that it was a scam; you probably would get punched. It is abit rude and an ahole to imply that others jobs they gave their life blood into was wrong. But with America's anti manufacturing; anti invention stance of today; dissing failed attempts is an in thing. Thus while todays Govenment grows; manufacturing drops; the USA hates manufacturing.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Kelly, I am amazed at how you were able to boil that all down. Pretty short for you, I guess?</p>

<p>Sorry, couldn't resist a jab in the ribs ;)</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>If somebody told him to his face that it was a scam; you probably would get punched. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Well, like I said: the Chuck Norris of vaporware. (Remember: there is no chin behind Chuck Norris's beard. There is only another fist.) :>D</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p> If you think about it, not only would it have been a wonderful (if impractical) idea for turning a film camera into a digital camera, but it would also have been a great way for digital bodies to swap out their outdated sensors for new ones. Too bad.</p>

<p>One can envision equally SF methodologies, like something that was like film but which didn't actually work the same way, a digital film like digital paper displays which would create an image when exposed to light and wind up into a cartridge! Never happen though but it's fun to think about. I would have liked a back for my RTS III.</p>