ryan_warner

<p>D2x sensor size = 23.7 x 15.7 mm with a pp of 5.5 x 5.5. 12.2mp<br>

D3 sensor size = 36 x 23.9 mm with a pp of 8.45 x 8.45. 12.1mp<br>

D3x sensor size = 35.9 x 24 mm with a pp of 5.94 x 5.94 24.5 mp<br>

Leaf Aptus 10 = 56 x 36 mm with a pp 6.0 x 6.0(?) 56mp<br>

You are comparing 4 different sensors all with varying parameters. I would hope that the image quality has progressed as the technology progressed. <br>

I'm talking about the same sensor, I'm talking about (for instance) an 8mp sensor that at a smaller physical size preforms better on all levels then that same 8mp sensor at a larger physical size. <br>

Signal delay is an issue for large sensors. Why do you think it takes a full second for you leaf to capture one frame? It takes forever (in relative terms) to collect and process all that data. </p>

 

<p>Greg: Smaller sensor size is easier to keep dust off of, it's also cheaper and easier to make a cleaning system for. Smaller sensors with smaller photosites and improved microlenses can take higher quality images then a sensor of the same MP size. Look at the OmniVision 8850, it's 1.1 micron 8mp size can produce better images then the 1.4 micron 8mp. Larger sensors suffer from signal delays and signal failures mainly due to the distance the signal has to travel, smaller sensor equals less signal delay. There are many advantages to smaller sensors, in my opinion. </p>

<p>Zane: My opinion that "Sensors, from birth are designed to work better the smaller they are" is based on more then just the fact that they are cheaper to manufacture. They are also easier to keep clean, easier to power, easier to transport. The digital photography world will always progress towards smaller because smaller is better for business. Case-in-point, Micro 4/3's growing popularity. If a manufacturer can produce a camera that requires less raw material to produce but can deliver the same or greater image quality then a larger product they will take that route, because it's the better business choice. Less raw material equals more profit, especially when you are not loosing image quality. Besides, a digital sensor works more efficiently at a smaller size because it takes less electricity to power it which makes it run cooler which translates into efficiency. Smaller is beneficial for all battery powered electronic devices.</p>

<p>If you want to know more about the type of business model I'm talking about just look at "The Impossible Project" they do not rely solo on the sales of film to help sustain their companies financial needs. </p>

<p>BeBu: Although I agree that someone still needs to make 35mm, and that business venture is much less of a risk, I still feel there is a portion of 35mm users that want a digital option. As a business would go, I think it would be a great opportunity to use the revenue generated from film production to help cover the cost of the development for a digital replacement. <br>

If we are talking about the company that provides this alternative to 35mm, I truly think that one product can not be the only source of income for the business. You have to somehow approach this situation from all angles in order to squeeze every last penny of capital out of the market.</p>

<p>Jeff: Qualitative. I fail to see how the willingness of the general public to buy a technology from a tiny none financial guarantee business relates to the matter at hand or how that factor should be calculated into the my research.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>Mathew: I completely agree with you that a modular device that just plugs into the back of a camera is the solution, however it's technologically impossible for several reasons. The first being sensor size, digital sensors are made from materials that preform better at smaller sizes, smaller size equals more units per wafer, less waste, less defective units...the potential gains for making sensors smaller goes on and on. So from birth a sensor is destine to work better the smaller it is. Which fly's in the face of what is needed to capture digital images from a 24mmx36mm area. Now 24mmx36mm may sound small, but like Silicon Film found, it's not. 24mmx36mm is huge, and photographers don't want some quarter, or half frame digital sensor, they want full frame. Now in the case of the old Polaroids, like you mentioned, the issue of size becomes even more apparent.<br>

There are some other factors that put a heavy burden current technology, one that would never allow the product to take flight.<br>

So for now we have to concentrate on what is possible what is obtainable, and then work towards the goal of a self contained plug and shoot model.</p>

 

<p>Here's the way I see it. Yes there are a lot of people who say “it can't be done” or “it will never happen” or “the market just isn't there” Are they right? To a certain extent yes, they are right on all three counts. However, at some point in time 35mm film will become extinct, or become very costly to use. All these beautifully crafted 35mm cameras will become decorations, or worse trash. How do we, the film loving 35mm shooting community prevent that from happening? I for one don't want to see this happen. Now, I'm not saying “I know for sure without a doubt 100% that 35mm will die” I just can't stand the idea of 35mm being to expensive for a hobbyist to use and I can't stand the thought of all those 35mm rangefinder cameras going to waste. So, how do we prevent 35mm from dieing? How do we avoid wasting cameras with only one minor flaw? We fix that flaw with technology and thereby prolong the life of that camera. Do we have the technology that we need to fix this flaw? I believe the answer is no, we do not have that technology. The next question that we should be asking is how do we create the technology to fix this flaw? I believe that answer is simple, we fix that lack of technology by funding the development of the technology needed to replace 35mm film. We cannot procure the funding to develop that technology if there is no market to support funding that technology. I see it in the simplest form possible, I guess...</p>

<p>Funding = Market = Technology = The Fix. (this isn't 100% true, sometimes the technology creates the market which then creates the funding, but you get the idea)</p>

<p>But we can't just start at the beginning, we can't start at the holy grail of 35mm replacement. Silicon Film learned this the hard way. Other industries and technologies have learned that lesson the hard way. Technology doesn't just happen over night, it's a journey it's an adventure, it's a long and often bumpy path wrought with failures and lessons learned. But unless you can prove that the technology is worth the cost of that journey, no one will ever try.</p>

<p>After reading all the messages and chatting with a number of people I firmly believe that the technology to replace 35mm film does not exist. But there is a hunger for that technology, but it is ever so slight. It's just a miniscule little speck at this point. Does it have the potential to grow? I believe so, and my research points in that direction. However, the product which will grow that market needs to be simple and affordable. It needs to show people the potential for what that technology could do, it needs to give you just enough to make you want more.</p>

<p>I do not have the knowledge to create the “Holy Grail” to create the technology to replace 35mm film. However, I feel I have the knowledge to create a product that will make people want to create that technology, or at the very least prove that there is that miniscule finite speck of hunger for that technology.</p>

<p> </p>

JDM the April event that you reefer to

is an April fools day joke. But the

response they got was apparently very

large. Still trying to determine if it's

worth my time.

 

Thanks Bob.

<p>the 5mp version would be 2592Hx1944V dpi.<br>

Well Vick the hard part is determining the market, how big would a low quality market be vs a high quality market. All the research that I've been able to do so far leads me to believe that the market for such a product depends greatly on it's price. I think the per unit cost for a low quality version could be about the same as a Point and Shoot, where a higher end version could tip the "pro-sumer" end of the DSLR scale. I've also been researching a way to produce a very basic version...but I don't know how much I want to pursue that version.</p>

<p>Les. In order to answer the question of how much will it cost, I first need to know how much of a market there is. So, in turn I can then determine how much money I am willing to risk in further development of said product. But just to give you an idea of it's potential numbers. 3-5mp Full Frame .RAW output, ISO range 50-1600.</p>

<p>Thank you for your input. I have looked at Leica and their approach and solution with the R. I would love to share more with you about the product and it's capabilities, but that will have to wait until I find out if there really is a market for this product. In the meantime you can go to the Rangefinder forum and read what other people have been saying.<br>

<a href="../leica-rangefinders-forum/00ZYNl">http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00ZYNl</a><br>

However, I'm a bit hesitant to share this information as it could effect my research...if there isn't a viable market for this product I will be making an in-depth release of all my research and the development phases in hopes that one day the market will be there.</p>

<p>I asked this question in the Rangefinder Leica forum and got some really excellent feedback, but I'm looking at expanding my research.<br>

I'm just trying to get a feel for the desire of a product that I'm working on. It's been no small task to this point, and lets just say to continue I need to be convinced that it's worth my time. So, I'm asking this question or various forums to help judge the interest from the film community.<br>

<br />What if you could record digital images with your film camera? I know it's been tried before but I feel my approach is a bit different. Imagine being able to simply place this device on the back of your film camera and shoot digital images, then quickly swap back to film. Is that a product that you would want to buy? How much would you be willing to pay?<br>

<br />I'm not talking about a device that could replicate the quality of film, or the simple joy of film, but rather a tool that you could use in place of film. Something you could use to inexpensively put that film camera to use.<br>

<br />You could use this device to sharpen your rangefinder skills, to learn how to better implement the use of your rangefinder. I mainly have rangefinders in mind due to the fact that if you want to use that old SLR (with a removable lens) you can just buy an adapter for your DSLR body. If I plan to provide this type of device for that market I think the price point would have to be less or equal to an Infinity Converter.<br>

<br />So what do you think?<br>

This is not like the silicon film disaster, my approach in how the product works, it's capabilities and limitations differ greatly. It is also nothing like the April Fools joke of e-film or whatever they called it.</p>

<p>Ryan</p>

 

<p>Thanks for all the input, I greatly appreciate it.</p>

<p>I agree that to replace 35mm film with this system is out of the question. Like I've said it will be more of a lower quality then say a D700. It is currently capable of 5mp images.</p>

<p>Holy Balls is that thing huge! I don't know if you could make on to fit the F3 or F4 and have better resolution then the D700. The cost of the actual digital sensor would be astronomical.</p>

<p>Well I do have a solution for the limited space between the film gate and the pressure plate...although it does need some fine tuning.</p>

<p>Again I'm not talking about replacing film with digital, I'm talking about an alternative...a low cost and lower quality then 35mm alternative.</p>

<p>Yes and no. Yes I have thought about what the product should be, and no, not an engineering genius by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a tinkerer.<br>

Yeah I've done a little research on Silicon Film and from what I can tell they wanted to replace 35mm film with a digital system. One of the many issue they ran into was the cost of a digital sensor that would replicate 35mm film results...at least that's how I understand it?<br>

Again, I don't think replacing 35mm film with a digital sensor will happen for quite some time, at least not cost effectively. This device would not replace 35mm film but rather provide you with a cheap alternative, or another creative outlet.</p>

<p>I'm just trying to get a feel for the desire of a product that I'm working on. It's been no small task to this point, and lets just say to continue I need to be convinced that it's worth my time. So, I'm asking this question or various forums to help judge the interest from the film community.<br>

What if you could record digital images with your film camera? I know it's been tried before but I feel my approach is a bit different. Imagine being able to simply place this device on the back of your film camera and shoot digital images, then quickly swap back to film. Is that a product that you would want to buy? How much would you be willing to pay?<br>

I'm not talking about a device that could replicate the quality of film, or the simple joy of film, but rather a tool that you could use in place of film. Something you could use to inexpensively put that film camera to use.<br>

You could use this device to sharpen your rangefinder skills, to learn how to better implement the use of your rangefinder. I mainly have rangefinders in mind due to the fact that if you want to use that old SLR (with a removable lens) you can just buy an adapter for your DSLR body. If I plan to provide this type of device for that market I think the price point would have to be less or equal to an Infinity Converter.<br>

So what do you think?</p>

<p>Ryan</p>

<p>^ awesome Paul, just the info I needed. I'll keep an eye out for a folding Polaroid Model 100 - 400 seeing as how I do not want to go messing with my mint 80A. Thanks again man I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>If you are referring to the Model 80A, then no it is not. However, I just bought a Model 80A in the leather case with all the accessories i.e. two flashes, close-up filters, orange filter, light meter for $5. It's just missing the filter set, I'll be taking pictures of it today or tomorrow. But anyways, no those are not from the 80A because it's a bit more tricky to remove the back. Those are from a Rigid Body Colorpack, not a land camera as I first stated.</p>

<p>I'm not really sure if this is the right forum to post this question in, so if you can think of a better one please let me know.<br /> I collect and use older cameras so I have several different types, Polaroid, Kodak TLR's, Voigtlander folders...so on and so forth. I've tried and rather enjoyed doing some TTV (through the viewfinder) but I want to take it a step farther and shoot through the lens of these older cameras. I tried this last night but couldn't get the results that I wanted.<br /> Here is what I did. I took an old polaroid land camera, I chose this one for two reasons, one I can completely remove the back without damaging anything and two because the shutter will stay open (if youhold the button just right) I have an m42 to EOS adapter that allows me to shoot without a lens on the body. With the adapter attached I placed and aligned the Polaroid camera lens to the sensor of the EOS and tried to focus the Polaroid, I couldn't get anything to focus. Next I took an older lens that I have, removed the rear element and "bracket" attached that tot he m42 adapter and then placed the Polaroid in front of that. The results where nice, but not what I wanted. What I ended up with was a fixed focus macro lens. I was hoping to have a aged fix focal length lens.<br /> So the questions are, what did I do wrong? is it possible to shoot through an old camera and get the results that I want? What else do I need to do?<br /> I can't understand why it doesn't work. I know that the digital sensor is further back from the film plane, but that shouldn't make it a fixed focus lens, that should just make it a "macro" lens? Right?<br /> here are the results...</p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/TheWhiteLion777/Photographs/16.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/TheWhiteLion777/Photographs/19.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="/img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/TheWhiteLion777/Photographs/18.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Legs already broken, so I think I'll pass ;-) Thanks man, I appreciate it</p>

<p>The shoot is scheduled for this weekend, I'll post some from the shoot once I have em. She did reference this style <a href=" and we did a quick test shoot <a href="http://ryan-warner.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d32fypo">http://ryan-warner.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d32fypo</a><br /><br /></p>

<p>Well I finally had a chance to speak with her again. And we sorted everything out as to what she meant by high contrast. Basically, she is looking for Mid-Key High Contrast more along the lines of 1:0 like this </p>

<p>which gallery on bbp?</p>

<p>@ Harry Joseph: That's part of my issue. I'm not sure if she means < 5:1 or 1:0.</p>

<p>@WW: Well I've been in contact with the teacher in charge of the yearbook and she is pretty set in her ways. So I'm just going to advertise in the yearbook and keep my fingers crossed.</p>

<p>@ Jim Ducey: Very true, thank you for the input.</p>