The concept of the open source camera.

[TheHans]

One issue that plagues my thoughts, when it comes to the future of film photography, is the viability of cameras in the future. We live in a time where used cameras, including many very good ones, are still plentiful and affordable. But that supply will eventually dry up, I don’t see the big dogs getting serious with film.

This has me thinking back to the early days of 3D printing, and the RepRap project. Not in the sense of 3d printing cameras, though that may play into things. More how modern 3D printing grew out of the grassroots open-source world.

How does this tie into film photography? It’s all about cooperation and standards. Is the idea of open-source photography viable? I think it is, and i don’t think we’re far from achieving it. Film Photography already has the technical problems solved. 3d printing didn’t.

For instance. Imagine if there was an electronics package out there, full schematics and board designs. We’re talking a fully viable camera control system. And it was all public domain. Anybody could download the details and get boards made, to build a camera around. Maybe even sell them pre-made as a business to supply to tinkerers or to somebody that hates electronics but has a 3d printer and a dream….

and that guys dream is a “universal” modular camera design. Maybe something with interchangeable lens mounts so you can natively use any old lens out there. And he cobbles together something but can’t quite figure out the shutter, though his film backs are the bee’s knees. and he makes me his stuff open-source too.

But guy number 3, he’s got a great idea for a shutter, but can’t quite figure out the electonics or the film mount. He can build on the first two guys work…..

and suddenly there’s a camera design floating on the internet that anybody can build and modify to their hearts content. Some folks may even decide to sell them as complete kits or built cameras.

the first generation may not be great, and some arrogant dude will say he can do better. and he tweaks in some improvements. The cycle continues, and while most of those first designs will be mediocre at best….. if there is critical mass of people tinkering, we will get some damn cool and original pieces of gear.

This process is why you have software like Firefox, open office, and gimp. It’s why we have 3d printers in our homes. linux is open source. so is arduino. Open source can work. Heck, i used an open source computer to convert an old jeep to fuel injection. It ran great!

the catch? most of it won’t earn anybody a dime. It’s all about tech nerds who want to share and make things better, and are ok with seeing somebody else selling their designs. But i love the idea of seeing cool new film camera gear that’ll never be obsolete or unrepairable, because i can just build it again if i need to.

 

[koraks]

The concept is tantalizing in some ways - as it always has been, regardless of the type of product. The question then becomes, why don't we see this happening all the time in various markets? And in the cases where we see movements in this direction, how come they struggle to gain dominance - or even to survive?

One of the key issues you're running into with this idea is that of interactive complexity/integratedness across various technology domains, i.e. an inherently limited degree of modularity. Then there's the variety of product features (think of e.g. various film formats etc.), and the proliferation and product life cycles of the parts used, which would involve a challenge w.r.t. versioning. The list of challenge is in fact very long and they're quite fundamental.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

This is an intriguing topic that boils down to two approaches for ensuring the availability of photographic equipment in the future.

1. A newly developed camera with modern capabilities and guaranteed service and spare parts availability. However, it likely won’t match the high technical standards of historical (SLR) cameras.
2. Service and repair for existing—historical—cameras using used original spare parts, with limited options and finite stock. Technologically advanced and mature.

I think we need both to secure the future of film, at least in the 35mm format.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Consequently, new lenses would also have to be designed to take full advantage of the capabilities of new SLRs.

I wonder whether the effort required for this can realistically be undertaken outside of industrial development and manufacturing.

Let me put it this way:

Programming a microcontroller to control the new SLR will require less effort than designing and manufacturing a lens from scratch.

Or should we rely on existing lenses?

But these are limited in number, and service and repair remain unresolved issues.

Perhaps our expert on optical systems @Dan Fromm can comment on this?

 

[koraks]

that boils down to two approaches for ensuring the availability of photographic equipment in the future.

That's probably part of it, but I'd like to ask @TheHans what he has in mind in terms of what he's trying to optimize for.

Mind you, an open source design as such won't ensure future availability as such. There may (will) be critical parts in the design that will become obsolete in the future. The design will have to be adjusted to incorporate new replacements - if available. This may be minor updates to the design, or they will be quite fundamental. The advantage of an open source design is that it's at least in principle possible to perform these changes, provided sufficient expertise and availability of alternatives. However, if you compare this to a typical 1960s (mostly) mechanical camera, these are often documented quite well indeed and this approach would also be possible. Yet, it's not what is commonly done. Why? It's just too darn complicated for most people to re-engineer a part of an existing camera - even if the design spec is sufficiently accessible (e.g. through reverse engineering).

Or should we rely on existing lenses?

Then which mount and thus interface (mechanical, electrical) is going to be opted for? And wouldn't you then just fall back into the original problem of a closed-source, proprietary ecosystem for a crucial part of the system? Keep in mind what I said about integratedness and limited modularity. This is a major issue from an architectural viewpoint.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

To connect to @koraks

I think open source can generate tremendous momentum, driven by enthusiasm and motivation. Perhaps funding can also be secured to support such a project, though I’m not familiar with that aspect.

However, we should consider the enormous effort that major industrial players have invested over decades in the development and production of their SLRs, lenses, and system accessories.

I doubt that anything comparable can be achieved in today’s market, which is still sufficiently supplied with affordable used equipment.

But maybe we don’t need technical marvels like a Canon EOS-1V or Nikon F6?

A solid camera stripped down to the essentials—a sort of „Volkswagen for everyone“?

 

[koraks]

can generate tremendous momentum, driven by enthusiasm and motivation

It takes a pretty big community to maintain critical mass. That community will need to harbor a sufficient number of individuals who are willing to commit considerable time (and probably money) into the continued development effort. How big is the analog photography community and how big is the subset of people who could meaningfully play a role in this?

Perhaps funding can also be secured to support such a project

What's the business case? What's the return on investment? What's the rationale? And what's the funding going to be used for, exactly? How will this affect the project and how it's perceived by stakeholders?

How is this effort going to be coordinated? Who is/are going to be the system architect(s)? What governing mechanisms will there be to manage technical interfaces? How are version and release control going to be dealt with? How are functionality and quality going to be optimized? Mind you, I'm not talking about 'nice to haves' - this is about getting something off the ground that will work in the first place, however crude and simplistic.

Also, what film/image format is this about anyway? 35mm? Something medium format? Flexible/multiple?

 

[Andreas Thaler]

@koraks

I share your concerns to that extent.

On the other hand, we see with Lukas Fritz (Filmomat) and Matt Bechberger (Reveni Labs) what individual gifted developers are capable of. Both offer newly developed top-of-the-line equipment for film processing, exposure metering, and camera/lens service and repair. As a sole proprietor.

Perhaps the realistic path is to develop a simple yet capable open-source SLR that meets basic requirements? With adapters for common lens systems?

Not everyone wants to deal with sophisticated exposure programs and interchangeable viewfinders.

My impression is that (young) beginners in filmmaking prefer simple cameras. They just want them to be easy to use and fun.

I think the project presented here by @TheHans should be pursued further. It’s an interesting opportunity to do something to preserve film.

I have a great deal of admiration for idealists and entrepreneurial spirit. That should always be encouraged

Better than using up the existing equipment, which won’t be available forever—certainly not at affordable prices. And the attitude of discarding and replacing defective cameras is, unfortunately, widespread. This is an irresponsible use of resources that must be countered.

 

[Hassasin]

Isn't current supply of great used gear not going to last another 100-200 years? One could argue it would do just that. Interest in film isn't growing at all. It's become "trendy" in some parts of society, which is so small it has no consequence long term.

Will we see a film photography for that long (outside of alternative, mostly home made light sensitive material) ? Film production isn't about new gear being made, it's a medieval concept in the age of Ai and everything being served on a platter for most, and not likely to move outside of niche audience.

Highly doubtful there is market for a noble concept of (critically) new way of making new film gear. Aside all the challenges such a concept would gain any meaningful ground in scale large enough to prove itself, there is hardly a market as is today for new film cameras, and I'm not sure how, outside of dreams, any potential developer would see that to improve and last deep into the future.

What should have happened long ago (and there were attempts, all miserably failed) was a digital sensor insert into existing film bodies, which might have helped hanging onto film camera production with digital twist if one needed it. Yet even Pentax failed to do that on its great P645, probably the easiest body of old to make such a swap conversion possible.

This is a nice way to think, just not realistic for a larger scale production. Still, given even current state of production automation, 3D printing, and fast logistics, if a market ever develops for it, it won't take much to put into use, only money and market confidence is needed.

Also, not all open source works out as intended. Windows PCs made fast insurgence into computer world partly by dropping proprietary designs. Mac failed, and even its Intel based stint did not last long.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Isn't current supply of great used gear not going to last another 100-200 years? One could argue it would do just that.

See

What we’re currently seeing in forums and on social media are two widespread attitudes that are taking a toll on the scarce resource of photographic equipment:

1. If something breaks, get rid of it and replace it with something that works.
2. Professional camera repair is often said to be uneconomical.

As a result, it is foreseeable that the supply of affordable, still-functional photographic equipment will become scarcer over time. New products are not currently on the horizon, even though open-source solutions are being discussed.

The Friday Post from Vienna: DIY is one thing, but shouldn't we support professional repair technicians just as much?

To avoid overloading the forum as a frequent poster, I’ve joined Fridays as the day for new topics - aside from repair projects. At the very least, I aim to post a new topic for reflection on the topic of repairs here every week 🙂 Today I’m asking myself and you, whether it wouldn’t make...

www.photrio.com

Interest in film isn't growing at all. It's become "trendy" in some parts of society, which is so small it has no consequence long term.

See

Analyst Conclusion​

Conclusion

• The global photographic film market will extend considerably by 5% CAGR between 2024 and 2031.
• Wide photographic film is the dominating market type category, favored for its higher resolution and robust usage in professional photography, advertising, and artistic projects.
• Specialty stores lead as the primary distribution channel, offering personalized services and a broad range of high-quality photographic films for professionals and enthusiasts.

The global photographic film market size will be USD 2861.5 million in 2024.

Global Photographic Film Market Analysis size 2021 was recorded $2297.63 Million whereas by the end of 2025 it will reach $2761 Million. According to the author, by 2033 Photographic Film market size will become $3986.94. Photographic Film market will be growing at a CAGR of 4.7% during 2025 to...

www.cognitivemarketresearch.com

 

[Dan Fromm]

Consequently, new lenses would also have to be designed to take full advantage of the capabilities of new SLRs.

I wonder whether the effort required for this can realistically be undertaken outside of industrial development and manufacturing.

Let me put it this way:

Programming a microcontroller to control the new SLR will require less effort than designing and manufacturing a lens from scratch.

Or should we rely on existing lenses?

But these are limited in number, and service and repair remain unresolved issues.

Perhaps our expert on optical systems @Dan Fromm can comment on this?

Thanks for the entirely undeserved flattery.

The real question is what we want the hypothetical new 35 mm camera to do.

One answer can be taken from LF gear. New view cameras are still being introduced, albeit few if any make it to volume production. All seem to have the same capabilities as older cameras. I may be mistaken about this so I welcome corrections. AFAIK no new LF lenses are in production and the stock of old lenses that are good enough to use seems large. Availability and service of leaf shutters may eventually kill LF. And the production/availability of sheet film doesn't seem to be assured.

With respect to lenses for smaller formats, well, existing lenses seem to be good enough. Lenses for mirrorless SLRs might work well enough on hypothetical RF film cameras, won't work on hypothetical mirror reflex cameras. Many years ago I had an opportunity to play with a Periflex. Not a good solution.

 

[TheHans]

Wow, I didn’t expect such a robust response to something like this from a new poster.

To answer a few questions about where i am thinking on this….

I think lenses might come into play at some point, but for now I think the goal should be more basic. Just get images onto film. My mind is picturing a modular body with interchangeable lens mounts, at least intitially, so that if somebody wants to use his M42 lens, he puts that mount on. But can swap to his PK or Cannon if he wants to. At least initially I would only worry about mounting manual lenses with no communication. That can come later. AF lenses may be out of reach on this concept. But, if things really take off, new lenses may come later. The key is to keep the body shallow enough that it can accept as many lenses as possible from an optical standpoint.

I have been looking at some of the efforts on the MF and LF side, and those are a good start. But they are also all essentially a lifeless body that somebody attaches existing lenses, shutters, and film backs too. Some folks are developing backs now too which is good. But that realm is dependent on the supply of good shutters, and the Copal supply is now dried up.

And i think shutters is what needs to be focused on next. But an electronically controlled shutter is a lot easier than mechanical. It just needs the right person to get a working concept out there. Some folks are getting close.

There will be a limit to how far the community can take a concept like this. I don’t think there will be a push to a full featured AF SLR. I think that potential customer has gone digital and won’t come back. But something that can somewhat equate to an AE-1 or FE, or Bronica, should be the technical target at capabilities. Manual focus lens, auto metering, and reliable. Fancy can come later if people want it.

But for the short term, just a proof of concept is needed. Prove the idea works, get the right guys in hats talking about it on Youtube, and start it moving forward under its own momentum.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Thanks for the entirely undeserved flattery.

Thanks, Dan!

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Wow, I didn’t expect such a robust response to something like this from a new poster.

That will change after the second post at the latest

Thanks for the interesting topic!

 

[Chan Tran]

Consequently, new lenses would also have to be designed to take full advantage of the capabilities of new SLRs.

I wonder whether the effort required for this can realistically be undertaken outside of industrial development and manufacturing.

Let me put it this way:

Programming a microcontroller to control the new SLR will require less effort than designing and manufacturing a lens from scratch.

Or should we rely on existing lenses?

But these are limited in number, and service and repair remain unresolved issues.

Perhaps our expert on optical systems @Dan Fromm can comment on this?

Progamming all the function of a camera is not a problem. Building the mechanical shutter or the reflex viewfinder is a problem. What open source is going to help in this respect????

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Progamming all the function of a camera is not a problem. Building the mechanical shutter or the reflex viewfinder is a problem. What open source is going to help in this respect????

Good point.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

What about competition from the remaining SLR cameras of yesteryear? Why should I use an open-source camera when proven, high-performance technology is (still) widely available?

Some of these cameras have since achieved cult status; with a gem from Leica, Nikon, or another manufacturer, you don’t just take to the streets to take pictures, but also to be seen with it. At least sometimes.

 

[TheHans]

What about competition from the remaining SLR cameras of yesteryear? Why should I use an open-source camera when proven, high-performance technology is (still) widely available?

Some of these cameras have since achieved cult status; with a gem from Leica, Nikon, or another manufacturer, you don’t just take to the streets to take pictures, but also to be seen with it. At least sometimes.

You’re thinking today, when they are available. I’m thinking 2030 when they aren’t. For right now it’s more going to be a realm of people who want to tinker due to an idea that won’t leave their brain. Which is fine. I want there to be an option when those glorious old cameras are rare and expensive and people are afraid to take them out.

Remember, in the 1980’s you could find good old muscle cars on every used car lot, and people were chopping up ferraris for parts. Until they couldn’t and now you can’t afford that Pontiac GTO.

When it comes to shutters, it all depends on how fancy you want. But i have been doing a lot of digging into 1950’s cameras to
that purpose. There are people with working, though not quite polished, ideas out there. I think a cloth shutter similar to Exakta / Pentax might be the way to get started. Possibly even just copy them in modified form as patents are decades expired.

 

[Chan Tran]

You’re thinking today, when they are available. I’m thinking 2030 when they aren’t. For right now it’s more going to be a realm of people who want to tinker due to an idea that won’t leave their brain. Which is fine. I want there to be an option when those glorious old cameras are rare and expensive and people are afraid to take them out.

Remember, in the 1980’s you could find good old muscle cars on every used car lot, and people were chopping up ferraris for parts. Until they couldn’t and now you can’t afford that Pontiac GTO.

When it comes to shutters, it all depends on how fancy you want. But i have been doing a lot of digging into 1950’s cameras to
that purpose. There are people with working, though not quite polished, ideas out there. I think a cloth shutter similar to Exakta / Pentax might be the way to get started. Possibly even just copy them in modified form as patents are decades expired.

I understand all the great cameras we have today will eventually die and the need for new cameras is real but I can't see how open source is going to help? The technology of the digital cameras don't help as they are going away from the viewfinder and shutter so you can't take advantage of the common parts. You could use the lenses but still it's becoming difficult because you no longer have lenses for SLR's.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I had been looking for rangefinder cameras from the 70s lately and noticed that you need a lot of knowledge about cameras in general and particularly about used ones to judge the condition of these that are on offer. Most of them have issues which are not addressed properly in the descriptions. Some of these issues make them beyond repair.
So buying a used camera will be most likely a frustrating experience for the general public newly taking an interest in film photography.

 

[lumoStoria]

As a software developer, I'm an advocate of open source and the way people work together to achieve a common goal on a non-profit base.

However, I still not buy the idea that the "extinction" of working film cameras will endanger or even kill film photography within the next decades (certainly not in 2030). Compared to the number of film photographers (that do not just shoot two rolls and then leave the hobby) there are plenty of film cameras still out there. Of course, there are certain, specific models that are the grail cameras for some that might be scarce (like certain Nikons, Leicas, Rolleiflexes). But if the question is just to get a decent film camera then I do not see any shortages soon. Even if we exclude the electro-mechanical cameras, there are millions of pure mechanical cameras that are very durable. Even if they break, just a CLA and possibly a replacement of the shutter curtains can bring them back to life.

The question is: Who is the target group of 3D-printed, open source film cameras? Is this target group large enough that there will be enough volunteers to put their precious spare time in developing these cameras (or even lenses)? Will someone who is frustrated to not get his grail camera (due to scarcity and price) be satisfied with a 3D-printed plastic camera? I don't think so.

Could creating a film camera from scratch at home using 3D printers and advanced microprocessor technology be an interesting endeavour? Definitely. Will this solve the shortage of film cameras? Not in my opinion because there will be none as long as we live.

I know a lot of collectors that sit on 50+ or even 100+ film cameras (me included). If film cameras would become scarce and prices go up I would definitely liquidate part of my collection to get money for other joys of life. This could satisfy the demand for cameras for quite some time.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

I know a lot of collectors that sit on 50+ or even 100+ film cameras (me included). If film cameras would become scarce and prices go up I would definitely liquidate part of my collection to get money for other joys of life. This could satisfy the demand for cameras for quite some time.

You'll make a good deal there. And so will others.

Less supply, higher prices—that's also a result of the throwaway mentality we're seeing these days (if it's broken, replace it).

 

[lumoStoria]

Less supply, higher prices—that's also a result of the throwaway mentality we're seeing these days (if it's broken, replace it).

I'm not sure if it's mainly a problem of "throwaway mentality" when it comes to technical devices (other areas, like fashion, are another cup of tea). It is also caused by manufacturers that don't grant you a right-to-own (like, devices stop working when the manufacturer's server or remote service is switched off) or a right-to-repair (no service manuals or spare parts for "non-authorized" people). This combined with designed/planned obsolescence. In my opinion, we should start blaming the manufacturers more and the consumers / younger generation less.

 

[Chan Tran]

There is little need for advanced microprocessor in a practical film camera. You need a good shutter which could benefit from microprocessor but not all that much. You don't need any metering or automation like autofocus at all.

 

[TheHans]

There is little need for advanced microprocessor in a practical film camera. You need a good shutter which could benefit from microprocessor but not all that much. You don't need any metering or automation like autofocus at all.

pretty much along the lines of what i was thinking, but a good nikon style auto exposure should be easy to integrate if you already have the shutter control. Center weighted would be fine. And pretty much any basic modern microcontroller could do that. The math is established and known.

I wouldn’t bother with autofocus. Too complex for this kind of project and lenses start getting too complex and proprietary.

same thought with camera controlled aperture, i wouldn’t go that direction either.