Digital sensor for 35mm film cameras

wiltw said:

I agree about then vs. now. Due to the higher quanitity of higher end film bodies with removeable backs, still in use back then with comprehensive list of lenses and accessories in possession of system owner, a digital conversion back was more feasible than it is today. Now, so much of that stuff has been sold off piecemeal to a retrograde crowd interested in the 'old photography' using film, who is not as heavily invested in 'the system'. The failure of the 'silicon film' effort, IMHO, was the manner of execution by Silicon Film, rather than the concept of digital conversion of film body.

Back then, I had conceptualized a digital conversion unit, where the electronics and battery were position below the body, like the auxiliary battery grips offered for dSLRs...kind like the old accessory motorized backs for 250 exposure film magazines bulk without the canisters for the bulk roll film. I was not in the market to take my idea to reality, so the effort was never made. I certainly could see how an engineer might find some key execution issues not easily solved.

Click to expand...

Wasn’t this what Kodak did with the first commercial pro digital camera, based on the Nikon F3? What stopped Kodak from producing better backs and sensors for film bodies?

Horatio said:

Wasn’t this what Kodak did with the first commercial pro digital camera, based on the Nikon F3? What stopped Kodak from producing better backs and sensors for film bodies?

Click to expand...

That is answered only by the executive management of Kodak. Perhaps they too narrowly viewed their business and never adapted the business model to broaden the defintion. The classic MBA Business School example is the railroad companies, who never broadened to see themselves as being in the 'transportation' business.

Just recently I had a discussion with the Kodak X-ray film products guy; I related that about 10 years after he stopped having that responsibility at Kodak, I entered in the business of OBSOLETING the use of X-ray film in Radiation Therapy. Where a company like Fuji saw the evolution of that business, Kodak did not. BTW, my business grew in size and profitability; Kodak's did the opposite.

His closing statement on the topic: "We were a chemical company. We were not advantaged in hardware manufacturing."
Pretty much summarizes the situation...Kodak lacked the necessary expertise in the right part of the organization at the time. Even when Kodak had hardware cability in office photocopiers and office printers.

I don't know why someone like Leica just doesn't make a digital camera that is basically like one of it's film cameras, but with a digital sensor.
Keep it minimal, no unnecessary stuff. It would sell really well.

It is getting where. With slick, global, electronic shutter board and processor you won't need camera shutter. Film camera would become cute housing for the sensor with appropriate lens holder in front of the shutter.
Just slide in similar thing as on the video, put camera on T and place sticky shutter release where you want on camera.

Ko.Fe. said:

It is getting where. With slick, global, electronic shutter board and processor you won't need camera shutter. Film camera would become cute housing for the sensor with appropriate lens holder in front of the shutter.
Just slide in similar thing as on the video, put camera on T and place sticky shutter release where you want on camera.

Click to expand...

And the simple stuff, like

• getting the aperture to close down during exposure, and open up again at end of exposure
• selecting the right AF point to use (such as eye detection for focus) and follow focus for moving subjects
• flash metering and commanding nTTL flash units to output the right amount of power
• ambient light metering automatic biasing algorithms (e.g.'evaluative' metering)
• automatic white brightness adjustment by camera

are all 'duck soup' and very easy to accomplish, once you have a global shutter. Not.

What you defined might aptly be named 'Kodak Global Brownie'...it takes a picture, with focus point uncontrolled by user, at a fixed aperture not under control of user, with White Brighness fixed to Daylight, and with full power flash for every shot. The good news is that you get to control the shutter speed, and controllable ISO sensitivity...an improvement over the original Brownie.

wiltw said:

And the simple stuff, like

• getting the aperture to close down during exposure, and open up again at end of exposure
• selecting the right AF point to use (such as eye detection for focus) and follow focus for moving subjects
• flash metering and commanding nTTL flash units to output the right amount of power
• ambient light metering automatic biasing algorithms (e.g.'evaluative' metering)
• automatic white brightness adjustment by camera

are all 'duck soup' and very easy to accomplish, once you have a global shutter. Not.

What you defined might aptly be named 'Kodak Global Brownie'...it takes a picture, with focus point uncontrolled by user, at a fixed aperture not under control of user, with White Brighness fixed to Daylight, and with full power flash for every shot. The good news is that you get to control the shutter speed, and controllable ISO sensitivity...an improvement over the original Brownie.

Click to expand...

Yet, global shutter still camera does exist, does exposure well and available for the purchase.

AF and TTL has nothing to do with many film cameras, BTW. My point is about cameras like these.

But despite your list, at one of the last Toronto SMPTE meeting before C19 we had a chat with camera manufactures and global shutter is in the works for video already.

Movie cameras need no AF, they prefer to set distance points and pull focus from one distance point to another, in pace with the action.
Movie cameras don't need meter in camera, with automatic exposure control...they need the brightness of shots to be consitent with one another...manually set.

AF and TTL have to do with almost all modern digital still photo cameras that are not point and shoots! Find one that lacks those features, and let me know if you find one.

It is hard to find a flash unit which is not 'dedicated' to the automation of one particular brand...including nTTL commands from the body.

Ko.Fe. said:

Yet, global shutter still camera does exist, does exposure well and available for the purchase.

Click to expand...

$3300 US for a 12 megapixel camera that requires my smartphone? And only has a 0.67x viewfinder?

Trying to solve the "problem" of the back display by offloading it to another device isn't really solving the problem-- it's passing the buck. It's an interesting device, but I can literally buy a Canon R6 with lens for that.

Hi, first time poster here but this is a topic near to my heart.

I go way back to the film days (Leica and Olympus for 35mm) and when I re-entered the trade I desperately tried to reuse my investment in digital. It was an abysmal failure - even digital Leicas that theoretically could take a M lens from my olde M3 would not work with my two favorite lenses- the 21mm f4 Super-Angulon and the 50mm DR Summicron are not usable on digital bodies.

I don't even want to talk about what a dissapointment 4:3 format was when mated to Olympus Zuiko glass. Stop down metering? Seriously? in 2012? My small format digital full frame stuff now is Canon - but I do use a Sinar P2 mated to a Phase One back regularly in studio (which is luxurious and awesome with a tethered workflow compared to shooting polaroids, then 'chromes, then farm them out to the lab and wait for feedback) and the little nuances of waking up the sensor are tricky. This to me sounds like something that might, maybe, attract a hobbiest with more money than sense but I can't think of any advantage to using a film camera to expose a digital sensor, and I can definitely think of a lot of drawbacks.