Combined film and digital camera

[AgX]

Kodak had an "Advantix Preview" that did this. Didn't store the image digitally, but could have.

It is even still listed on one of Kodak's servers...

http://wwwat.kodak.com/AT/de/consumer/produkte/advantix/cameras/advantixPreview.shtml

 

[StoneNYC]

To throw two wrenches in things, first, why is this discussion allowed since it contains digital, shouldn't this be a DPUG topic which covers hybrid technology?

Also, what about a film camera that shoots TWO KINDS OF FILM at once, so you could for example shoot a roll of 400TX and also shoot a roll of Portra400 at the same time, now to me that would make more sense for the film market

 

[DanielStone]

To throw two wrenches in things, first, why is this discussion allowed since it contains digital, shouldn't this be a DPUG topic which covers hybrid technology?

Also, what about a film camera that shoots TWO KINDS OF FILM at once, so you could for example shoot a roll of 400TX and also shoot a roll of Portra400 at the same time, now to me that would make more sense for the film market

because you can just shoot Portra 400, and then scan it, and work the grain effect in digital-post to simulate tri-x. Yes, it isn't the "true" thing, but it does the job perfectly fine.

-Dan

 

[Mark Feldstein]

I know, but I'm talking about both integrated in the same camera.

David G is exactly right. For example, Hasselblad for medium format, Linhof and Sinar Bron for view cameras, make interchangeable digital and film backs. Shoot digitally and hope the image doesn't disappear after awhile, and then switch backs and shoot the scene on film to preserve it forever.

Mark

 

[StoneNYC]

because you can just shoot Portra 400, and then scan it, and work the grain effect in digital-post to simulate tri-x. Yes, it isn't the "true" thing, but it does the job perfectly fine.

-Dan

Again not a traditional process... If you print optically this doesn't work.

But good input, however, using your example why not just shoot digital and make it look like film by adding grain in Photoshop?

see, all of a sudden doesn't sound as good.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alan Gales]

Well, the way I see it, 35mm and medium format film cameras are just about perfect. You can buy them as simple as can be with no meter, manual focus, and no auto exposure or you can buy them with matrix metering and complete automation. Your choice!

DSLR's have so much stuff on them that they can get confusing all ready. Now they all have video. What's next, a phone?

Why combine digital and film?

 

[wblynch]

Why combine digital and film?

If it brings more people to film then why not?

Just because you don't want it doesn't mean NO body wants it

Same as Lomo/Holga, a lot of people on here hate them but it brings an awful lot of people to film.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Well, the way I see it, 35mm and medium format film cameras are just about perfect. You can buy them as simple as can be with no meter, manual focus, and no auto exposure or you can buy them with matrix metering and complete automation. Your choice!

DSLR's have so much stuff on them that they can get confusing all ready. Now they all have video. What's next, a phone?

Why combine digital and film?

For a hint, maybe carry a film camera and a digital camera.
Yes, digis have a sort of phone capability at the moment called "Eye-Fi" for transferring files wirelessly, as I do with mine.

 

[Alan Gales]

If it brings more people to film then why not?

Just because you don't want it doesn't mean NO body wants it

Same as Lomo/Holga, a lot of people on here hate them but it brings an awful lot of people to film.

Bill, I'm all for bringing people to film but to combine digital and film in one camera, I think you would end up with a bulky, complicated camera that would be awkward at shooting film or digital. In the end you would be way better off using both a film camera and a digital camera. A Jack of all trades is a master of none. Just my opinion.

I have no interest in Lomo/Holga at all but I do agree that they have brought a lot of people to film.

 

[craig.knapp1]

03AUG2013

About 13 years ago, while stationed at Fort Belvoir's Night Vision Laboratory (PM-NV/RSTA), I checked in to getting a patent for a camera that would use a prism as a beam splitter, directing the image to a sensor and film simultaneously. I was told that a Japanese firm already had a patent for such a device, and that many patented devices never make it to the market, patents are used defensively to prevent others from marketing products.

My thought process was along the lines of forensic photography, capturing a digital image for immediate use and a film image as an unaltered original representation of the scene photographed.

 

[Alan Gales]

For a hint, maybe carry a film camera and a digital camera.
Yes, digis have a sort of phone capability at the moment called "Eye-Fi" for transferring files wirelessly, as I do with mine.

I do own a digital camera. My Nikon D300 has buttons all over it plus the menu's and I don't even own the S version with video. It's like they keep trying to make them more complicated. I'm a fan of KISS, keep it simple stupid.

And people told me large format was hard!

 

[cliveh]

03AUG2013

About 13 years ago, while stationed at Fort Belvoir's Night Vision Laboratory (PM-NV/RSTA), I checked in to getting a patent for a camera that would use a prism as a beam splitter, directing the image to a sensor and film simultaneously. I was told that a Japanese firm already had a patent for such a device, and that many patented devices never make it to the market, patents are used defensively to prevent others from marketing products.

My thought process was along the lines of forensic photography, capturing a digital image for immediate use and a film image as an unaltered original representation of the scene photographed.

Sounds interesting, so the Japanese firm presumably never developed this? Such a camera would have uses in the legal area of proof.

 

[AgX]

Outside of the consumer world such beam-splitter concept, though in the beginning analogue, had been applied in cinematography to gain an real-time video of the scene.
It can be used for instant control, assesment after taking a scene, comparing scenes or for editing.

 

[Mr Bill]

A bit of history on equipment for the portrait business - in 1988 the Kodak Prism came on the market. It used both electronic and film cameras, using a beam splitter so they had the same virtual viewpoint. The general idea of two cameras and beam splitter was well known at the time - the patent-worthy idea was in the electronic camera. At the time, camcorders used "interlaced" CCD output, which could not capture a complete image under flash. Kodak's system temporarily interrupted the interlaced output, captured a complete flash image, then resumed normal (interlaced) output.

This was the first time it was possible to sync both a film camera (your own) and electronic camera to the same flash event. In essence, it was an instant proofing system. No more risk of completing a portrait session, then finding out later (after processing and printing) that someone blinked on every shot, etc. It was now possible to complete sessions with a minimal number of shots, being confident that you had good expressions and poses. If you're good, you don't really need such a system, but it allowed relatively untrained people to shoot portraits. To me, that was the real value of such a system.

These systems, as well as muliple knock-offs, went out of style in commercial operations when full-digital cameras became "adequate". But if you do portraiture, especially on larger film sizes, and don't mind working from a heavy-duty camera stand with a large contraption, the same advantages are still there.

And as Bill Lynch has pointed out, a modern (tiny) digital could act as a notebook of sorts, and even a proofing system, if piggybacked onto a film camera. It's not something I see myself using, but certainly some people might. Remember, before the Kodak Prism system came out, few people realized how much they would want something like that.

 

[AgX]

Thank you! Never heard of a Kodak Prism before.

 

[arpinum]

Here you go. Digital camera, photo editor, and polaroid printer all in one: http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-C-211-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B00004Y2TT/ref=pd_ybh_2

 

[AgX]

But no film intermeditate. (If that would be important.)

 

[wblynch]

LOL. Camedia takes Smart Media cards which do not exist anymore.

I can still get film for my 1951 Brownie Hawkeye Flash.

 

[pdeeh]

an interesting project (for those who are interested) Dead Link Removed

 

[cliveh]

an interesting project (for those who are interested) Dead Link Removed

Why was this not developed years ago by large camera companies?

 

[pdeeh]

It would not surprise me to learn that it was, but was found wanting, either technically or in terms of market. These days, however, niche products can be made profitable (film for instance)

An initiative like this could perhaps be made a modest (in terms of volume) but nevertheless profitable success.

After all, the Lomography crew seem to be doing quite well out of selling crappy overpriced plastic cameras and heavily marked up film, so there's clearly a market for slightly kitschy stuff (I'm not being snitty about this, they're a success story and good for them too)


I wouldn't want one, as I'm happy with my digital and film cameras being separate, but there will be those who will.

The idea that you could have a genyouwine film camera (but be able to get real digital photos out of it) has real potential, it seems to me. I just think he should have used Kickstarter where he'd probably find a higher profile with one of the markets that really matters - the US; I bet it would go down a storm in Japan too ...

 

[k.hendrik]

A bit of history: If you're good, you don't really need such a system, but it allowed relatively untrained people to shoot

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today in the presence of TS, to join film and digital in matrimony, which is commended to be honorable among all systems; and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, advisedly and solemnly. Into this holy estate these two systems present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.
Hey, I'm against it ! Their not suited together; let them go their own ways. We still got fresco and oil painting, pencil and etching, lithography and screen printing; those two systems never intervened. Let them go; if after some 50 years nobody uses film anymore, so be it. My students are 18 now; due to "financial crisis" I hope they retired by then and have the time(and the money) to pick up what I've told them how to write in light. Moreover, I think they can then make film and camera's as easy as we can make developer now.

 

[AgX]

an interesting project (for those who are interested) Dead Link Removed

It won't be full-frame.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Why was this not developed years ago by large camera companies?

Early on in digital history (about '92 or '93), a very similar product was being developed and shown at trade shows. I don't remember who it was that was trying to do this.

 

[cliveh]

Early on in digital history (about '92 or '93), a very similar product was being developed and shown at trade shows. I don't remember who it was that was trying to do this.

Yes, I remember this and it never got off the ground. I assumed it was marketeers who thought more money could be made by selling completely new cameras, with no end to bells and whistles on future new models. But I always thought the digital cassette with an image receptor on a film leader type configuration was the way to go.