Topic: Shhhhhh... this is very naughty

[zapsnaps]

OK. I admit it. I'm more wedded to film cameras than to film itself. I love certain cameras, but once Fuji stopped making Astia for nudes and Velvia for everything else, I have never become emotionally attached to any other film, apart from Tri X for mono. Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that this company will produce this 'film canister' anytime soon. If it ever succeeds, I'd put a roll of Astia on it coming from an existing company with deep pockets. But I love the idea. Would I buy one? In an instant. It would help keep my cherished 135 cameras alive.

If you haven't guessed what it is yet, click here. But don't say that I haven't warned you. http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/the-pseudo-film-canister-wants-to-turn-your-analogue-camera-digital

Let the howls start as soon as you wish 

[Sandeha Lynch]

To be honest, if they were talking about a TLR or a 120 folder I'd bookmark the page.   

[Indofunk]

I agree with you on being more wedded to film cameras than film itself (though, like you, I do have a fondness for Tri-X). I remember a similar attempt a few years ago that fizzled out, I wonder if this one will actually make it to completion. However, if it's not a full 35mm frame, I'm out And although I am by no means a pixel-peeper, its pixel count had better be at least competitive with modern digicams (ie, don't just take the micro 4/3rds sensor and stretch those pixels out into 35mm  )

[Indofunk]

To be honest, if they were talking about a TLR or a 120 folder I'd bookmark the page.   

And of course this. If they can make a 120 sized "pseudo roll film" that would be amazing. Though it seems they're having a hard enough time with 35mm...

[zapsnaps]

I agree. But think how many 135 cameras there are in the world, as opposed to 120s. Only one thing for it - I'd have to buy both.

Which creates another point. Do I like the look of my prints because the image has gone through expensive glass, or because it was recorded on film. (I only own disposable d*g*t*l cameras, so it isn't a fair comparison). I'd love to bang a roll through the Leica and the Blad and then take the same shot with the film can replacement and see the difference. That would be my first direct like-for-like comparison. Could I reliably see which was which at 6x4 or 5x5 proof print stage? Would I need to go to 10x8? And once scanned, could fellow FWs reliably tell the difference at screen res?

[Bryan]

I've seen this idea floating around for several years now, I have no interest in it.  I have a feeling it's just going to result in a bad digital camera that costs a lot more than it's worth.  I would bet that it will end up needing some modification to the camera.  If they can't get the sensor part close to the thickness of film it will either change the focus distance or need some modification to the pressure plate. 

[jharr]

It's a decent idea and I'm sure that the first person to market with a working model that produces images comparable to a DSLR will make some coin. However, this is only appealing to people who shoot primarily fresh/new film. For those of us enamored with the grain of expired film, this is just another instagram tech gadget that is incapable of producing the image I want. It also removes the "process" from photography which is for me a significant part of the pleasure. I don't think the "film vs digital" argument can be reduced to just the equipment and therefore be resolved by slapping a digital sensor in a Canonet.

[Indofunk]

I don't think the "film vs digital" argument can be reduced to just the equipment and therefore be resolved by slapping a digital sensor in a Canonet.

Oh, certainly not. This is just a "third" option falling somewhere between full-on film and Instaphone.

And as much as I too love the development process, I have to admit that coming back home after a trip with 15 rolls, each needing a slightly different dev scheme, is pretty daunting

[Indofunk]

Oh, also, I assume you can pull it out after any number of exposures, so it would be a good way to take out a camera without committing to a whole roll of film, or in my case, when I just can't decide what to put in there

[hookstrapped]

I'd like a digital to film conversion, like miniature sheet film holders that look like sensors

[jharr]

I'd like a digital to film conversion, like miniature sheet film holders that look like sensors

Awesome! +1 

[Indofunk]

I'd like a digital to film conversion, like miniature sheet film holders that look like sensors

Didn't we already talk about this? Glue a piece of film onto the sensor. It would completely destroy the sensor, of course, but you'd then have the world's most expensive film exposure (at least per square mm)

[jharr]

I'd like a digital to film conversion, like miniature sheet film holders that look like sensors

Glue a piece of film onto the sensor.

That has to be done in the dark. What we want is a 35mm single sheet film holder. The trick would be how to pull the tiny dark slide. 

[charles binns]

More crowd funded madness.  As far as I can see all that's happened is that a hipster has glued some card to a film canister and and now thinks he's half way to inventing a revolutionary new product.  Waste of time.

[Indofunk]

I'd like a digital to film conversion, like miniature sheet film holders that look like sensors

Glue a piece of film onto the sensor.

That has to be done in the dark. What we want is a 35mm single sheet film holder. The trick would be how to pull the tiny dark slide. 

Where exactly IS the sensor on, say, a DSLR? My impression, with absolutely zero knowledge of the cartography of a digital camera, is that it's buried so deeply within the inner guts of the camera that it's virtually impossible to get to. But that's probably wrong.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Just open the shutter on a DSLR and the sensor is right in front of you, though these days behind a number of screen or filter layers.  Which people can and do modify for things like dedicated IR cameras.

But the idea of a digital cartridge to slip into a film SLR first came up alongside the first digital sensor.  It's a very old idea and it's always been a non-starter.  OTOH, any dedicated techie could probably rip the camera out of an iPhone and stuff it inside a Minolta or a Yashicamat.  What's to lose?  Only there's not much to gain either.   

[Terry]

Give me a DSLR and a hammer and I'll find the sensor for you.

[Indofunk]

Give me a DSLR and a hammer and I'll find the sensor for you.

 

[Francois]

When I saw this this morning, I couldn't believe that this old idea made yet another comeback...
Personally, I've always been a bit ambivalent about those things. I always thought it would be easier to actually hire a good design and engineering team and actually make a good camera from scratch (at least better than the stuff we're being fed by the big two) than build this adapter.

I'm still wondering why when all the limitations given by a flat and large film plane the designers have literally dropped the ball and begun making cameras that are either dreary or horrible?

[John Robison]

One of the reasons we use film is because that is what the cameras we like use. There is simply no comparison between handling a classic 35 such as my OM-1 and a OMD EM5. One is a lovely creation of mechanical prefection the other is a plastoblob computer with more controls than the space shuttle.

That said I believe that about the same time this happens I'll flap my arms and fly to the moon.

[jojonas~]

Looking at Leica X, it'd make an interesting half frame camera or why not square exposure on 35mm?

[Flippy]

Here's an article about a very similar project that nearly made it to market over ten years ago: http://www.theinspiredeye.net/converting-film-cameras-to-digital-efs-1-the-technology-that-almost-was/

This new take looks clumsier and at least as they've drawn it wouldn't work in most cameras.  Maybe they need to get in touch with the guys who built the ones in the link and buy their tech.

[Late Developer]

Of the photography-related crowdfunding projects out there, this is one I wouldn't support as I would't want anything other than film in my film cameras.  I'm not anti-digital at all, however, I like to keep some degree of separation rather than trying to multi-purpose things.

I don't know if anyone remembers (or had one) but, in 2005, Leica released the "Digital Modul R" (DMR) for their R8 and R9 cameras. This was a replacement back system and it worked pretty well.  I never found out how much one would cost as I would have needed to switch systems entirely to be able to achieve something that I could do by simply buying a Nikon DSLR to supplement my film cameras and lenses.

Hasselblad V-series cameras also take digital backs and, if I was ever to want a multi-purpose rig, I'd probably go down this route as, down the years, I've er.... "invested" in their gear and, were film ever to go out of production altogether, I could still get to use it.

[Aksel]

Anything less than a full frame sensor would be a waste of good lenses and I`m asking myself how much would I be willing to pay?
Given the price on a quality FF camera such as a Nikon DF, taken in to calculation the low volume this product would sell in, anything less than $1000 would not be realistic, more likely $2000 + for a quality product. That´s a lot of film!

I had and used the DMR on my R8´s for a while and found it frustrating as I used another R8 body alongside with film - the sensor had a crop factor meaning jumping between cameras / lenses was not as straight forwards as I had wished for. The quality was very usable and the concept pretty cool, from analogue to digital in 30 seconds. When I sold it about 4 years back I got €2000 for the DMR + R8 body which I think is a bit to much for such a dinosaur, to day the prices are even higher!

[Late Developer]

Anything less than a full frame sensor would be a waste of good lenses and I`m asking myself how much would I be willing to pay?
Given the price on a quality FF camera such as a Nikon DF, taken in to calculation the low volume this product would sell in, anything less than $1000 would not be realistic, more likely $2000 + for a quality product. That´s a lot of film!

I had and used the DMR on my R8´s for a while and found it frustrating as I used another R8 body alongside with film - the sensor had a crop factor meaning jumping between cameras / lenses was not as straight forwards as I had wished for. The quality was very usable and the concept pretty cool, from analogue to digital in 30 seconds. When I sold it about 4 years back I got €2000 for the DMR + R8 body which I think is a bit to much for such a dinosaur, to day the prices are even higher!

Aksel, the lens issue is a point well made.  One of my biggest frustrations (pre full-frame sensors) was having to second guess which lens I needed to have on the camera. However, l agree completely with the point you make about having to use a second film-only body to avoid faffing about swapping from film to digital and back - however quick that might be achieved.

I might be wrong but, if they make it to production, I can see these new gizmos having a novelty value for a while and then being consigned to the accessory drawer, or the big auction site.  I wish the manufacturers well but, from a pricing perspective alone, I ask myself who is going to spend that much money on adding basic digital capability to a £100 film camera body?

[Indofunk]

I might be wrong but, if they make it to production, I can see these new gizmos having a novelty value for a while and then being consigned to the accessory drawer, or the big auction site.

This is probably 100% accurate for me. I may jump at the prospect of having a new toy, but then it'll go into the drawer for good 

[charles binns]

This will never happen. All that has happened is that someone has glued some cardboard to a film canister. No different to me painting an empty cereal box blue and saying I'm planning to build the tardis.

[Indofunk]

You're going to build a Tardis???   

[Francois]

One of the things that always annoyed me with these designs is the thickness of the "film" part.
I feel it's akin to putting a glass plate in a 35mm body...

[jharr]

One of the things that always annoyed me with these designs is the thickness of the "film" part.
I feel it's akin to putting a glass plate in a 35mm body...

Miniaturization marches on. It might take a while to get a sensor down to .17mm thick though. Taking out the pressure plate would hurry things along, but I don't see any film photogs modding their Leica (or even their Fed) so they can implant a gadget in it. It has to be 'as film' to be marketable.

[charles binns]

You're going to build a Tardis???   

I'm going to look for funding on whatever website simple minded folk give money to deluded day dreamers like me and in 6 months you'll have a tardis.  Honest.

[Sal Santamaura]

...once Fuji stopped making...Velvia...

When did Fuji stop making 135 Velvia?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/512063-USA/Fujifilm_15757464_RVP_135_36_Fujichrome_Velvia.html