[HN Gopher] A 20MP Sensor in a Film Canister Reinvigorates Vinta...
___________________________________________________________________
A 20MP Sensor in a Film Canister Reinvigorates Vintage Analog
Cameras
Author : mikece
Score : 58 points
Date : 2023-10-06 19:40 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (petapixel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (petapixel.com)
| philjohn wrote:
| When the transition to digital was starting I was relatively
| young, and idly thought "Surely someone bould put a digital
| sensor into a film form factor to convert cameras.
|
| Lo and behold, a few decades later someone's done it!
| cmgriffing wrote:
| I think they are missing something about their target market.
| They say they went with micro 4/3 because of cost, but camera
| enthusiasts would happily pay a premium for a full-frame sensor.
| I know I would, at least.
| cfr2023 wrote:
| I'd love to test something like this. It doesn't matter if the
| end result or the experience are not that great compared to using
| film or a purpose built digital camera.
|
| The idea of manually replacing physical film with a sensor that
| fits inside that footprint is just so damn cool that it's
| entertainment on its own.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| It would be interesting to see what digital photos would look
| like if it was nothing but you and the subject and the lens,
| with no intermediate processing. Without Samsung drawing a fake
| moon and whatnot.
| astrange wrote:
| If you saw the raw image from a phone sensor, you'd
| understand why you'd want ML moon enhancement.
|
| It's very difficult to photograph the moon with a small
| sensor. It's not true they're trying to "idealize" your
| photos; they're trying to make it look like something at all.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| DSLR and mirrorless do mostly that. The RAW file stores the
| number of photons that hit each photodiode. It's phones that
| take these liberties.
|
| Samsung and Google in particular are not concerned with
| capturing the moment as it were, if you can even say such a
| thing, but an idealized (and pasteurized, perhaps) version of
| it.
|
| The thing is, it's often what most people want. I think
| there's no turning back.
| HughIngram wrote:
| This might be interesting to you -
| https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/105272/79282
| mongol wrote:
| This is not a new idea. I saw it in the 90s. But obviously,
| sensors have become infinitely better since then.
| vannevar wrote:
| I remember sketching out the idea for something like this when
| digital cameras came out in the 90s. I'm surprised it's taken
| this long for someone to do it, seems like it would've made more
| sense back when everyone had film cameras. I always assumed there
| was some technical barrier I wasn't aware of.
| mcpherrinm wrote:
| They've been around for a very long time for medium and large
| format cameras:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back
|
| This product definitely looks like it would be challenging to
| design an manufacture. Without having seen this post, I
| wouldn't have imagined it would be possible to fit a sensor and
| associated electronics in the small space meant for film!
| zoomablemind wrote:
| My first question was... dust!
|
| Film always presented a new frame from the canister, so
| reasonably it would be free of dust for capture.
|
| With such open sensor the dust accumulation may soon become
| an issue.
| extragood wrote:
| There was one in '99 - $800 for a whopping 1.2 MP image [1]. It
| did not do well [2], although to be fair there were a number of
| issues with that implementation:
|
| > The lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to
| change ISO, White Balance or any other image setting, and the
| need to indicate a crop in the viewfinder if anything less than
| a full frame sensor is used, are all difficult to get around,
| especially considering that this had to work in more than one
| model of camera. And that made the large assumption that many
| modern photographers would be willing to live without a rear
| LCD to check their images.
|
| [1] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3149799436/siliconfilm
| [2] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4804601936/faded-dream-
| blo...
| nicolashahn wrote:
| First, this is a cool project and I'm glad they're doing it, for
| the people who want this thing.
|
| However, I see it as combining the main downsides of film and
| digital. The reason most people shoot film these days is the look
| that film gives the image which digital just can't seem to
| reproduce. People shoot modern digital cameras primarily because
| of the huge amount of features and improvements over film
| cameras. This gives you neither.
|
| The main reason I can see for someone to want one of these is
| that you really want to shoot using a film body but you don't
| want to pay for or deal with the hassle of film. I wonder how
| many people that's actually going to end up being when this
| ships.
| jnovek wrote:
| So this is just me, I don't speak for all film shooters.
|
| I actually really prefer the interface of a film camera. It's
| hard to explain, but I feel like there's an additional layer of
| abstraction between me and the final image. I spend less time
| thinking about the camera and more time thinking about the
| photograph.
|
| But I don't see myself spending $650 on a m4/3 sensor to
| digitize that process. If I wanted a new digital camera with a
| similar experience I'd rather put that money towards a film-
| like digital, e.g. a Fuji XPro3.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Sony user here, but my understanding is that Fujifilm cameras
| have a much more analog look & feel. I had someone ask me to
| take a photo for them in the spring on one, and there were
| the typical film knobs and a feeling of solidity I'd quite
| forgotten in cameras. It sounds silly, but pressing the
| button felt like such a clear solid action, had such great
| feel.
| jnovek wrote:
| Yup! I have an X-E1 and I love it to death, but it's quite
| long in the tooth these days. I'd love to get a modern X100
| or Xpro but Fuji is still recovering from supply chain
| issues and prices are through the roof.
|
| No shade re Sony's mirrorless cameras, btw. Great cameras.
|
| I'm pragmatic about what I shoot and, honestly, the number
| one reason why I pick up a mirrorless instead of my
| rangefinder is because I often don't want to spend my
| weekend processing and scanning 10+ rolls of film. :-)
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| check out the new nikon zf, unlike the fijifilm retros, The
| zf has a full frame sensor and can hold its own with any of
| nikon's other professional cameras.
| dmbche wrote:
| I don't shoot film anymore because there's gelatin in the film
| and I don't care for that one bit.
|
| At a certain level of hobby, the aesthetics are personal
| preference and it more becomes ergonomics and - very important
| - lenses! A lot of old glass is on mounts that are a pain (or
| impossible) to mount on most cameras.
|
| So this can let you use cameras and lenses you assumed were
| done for good, if you got off the film train.
|
| PS: I'm also not sure why the image would be that bad? M4/3 is
| a wonderful sensor that caught gorgeous images. With old glass
| that has character, it could be real neat!
| jnovek wrote:
| I have several old lenses that are much easier to shoot on
| digital because they have a flange distance too short for an
| SLR (e.g. industar 69).
| ncann wrote:
| I remember about 15 years ago there was a very convincing april
| fools called "Re-36" about this exact digital film concept, with
| website and fancy product pictures and all. Strange that I can't
| find any mention of it on google now. Does anyone remember this?
| Perhaps I remembered the name wrong?
|
| Edit: found it! It's called RE 35:
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popphoto.com/news/2011/04/r...
| jonah wrote:
| I remember some prototypes of that same packaging many, many
| years ago. Cool to see someone finally "bring it to market".
| anonymousiam wrote:
| "The I'm Back Film's 20-megapixel Four-Thirds sensor can work
| alongside a wide-angle adapter to ensure the smaller-than-full-
| frame sensor covers a whole 35mm-format image area. Or users can
| take advantage of the crop factor enabled by a Micro Four Thirds
| sensor (2x crop factor compared to a full-frame image sensor).
|
| As for why I'm Back Film uses a Micro Four Thirds sensor instead
| of a full-frame sensor, the team behind the product says it comes
| down to cost. A Four-Thirds sensor offers "excellent image
| quality at a more affordable cost compared to a full-frame
| sensor." Further, as mentioned, when combined with a wide-angle
| lens filter, users can achieve the same field of view on their
| lens as they would have when using a 35mm camera sensor."
|
| As someone with a bunch of 35mm equipment, this concept is
| appealing to me, but why not also offer a full-sized sensor at a
| higher cost for those who want one? This product will always
| cripple the camera so it's no longer WYSIWYG. The viewfinder will
| no longer represent what the photo will look like, even with the
| "wide-angle lens filter" attached. Yeah, when you add their
| magnifier (what it should have been called) the CCD sensor will
| "see" the same area that normal 35mm film would see without it,
| but the photographer will continue to see a larger viewfinder
| frame than the CCD will see. This makes it a non-starter for me.
|
| Does anybody know of a similar product with a full-size 35mm
| sensor?
| et-al wrote:
| Supposedly the company already made a full-frame version, but
| it's a lot clunkier than the newer m43 offering:
| https://imback.eu/home/35mm/
|
| https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/524587-digital-back-for-3...
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| > this concept is appealing to me, but why not also offer a
| full-sized sensor at a higher cost for those who want one?
|
| I'm seriously baffled by the decision as well. full frame is a
| highly sought after feature in higher end cameras. I myself
| chose a z5 over the zfc because of full frame.
|
| That said, the new nikon Zf blows this out of the water if you
| want a high end sensor paired with the retro aesthetic.
| ncann wrote:
| I like the Df better than the Zf. That aside, there's a
| certain satisfying feeling with using the film advance lever
| and the other mechanical sounds that it's hard to replicate
| with digital.
| sottol wrote:
| The only full-frame image sensor I'm aware of that you can buy
| in small quantities off Mouser and the likes are the CMV20000
| CMV50000 (20 and 47.5 mpix) costing $2000-$4500 per sensor.
| Last I checked APS-C and especially M43 sensors were 1/4 to
| 1/10 the price.
|
| So imo it boils down to price.
|
| If I had $1M to burn, I'd love to make the same product in
| full-frame - with Leica-style microprisms so that it would work
| well with range-finders. Maybe now that film is getting really
| pricey, maybe there's more of a niche to use old cameras with
| digital sensors.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| No way to overlay crop lines on a viewfinder?
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Not without modifying the camera. The traditional 35mm camera
| has a mirror and prism so the viewfinder sees what the film
| will see. The crop lines would need to be added somewhere in
| the mirror/prism/viewer path.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera
| galago wrote:
| Its micro four thirds so its a major crop of the 35mm frame. A
| normal lens will have the image angle of a telephoto. Its cool
| that they actually have it working though.
| jnovek wrote:
| This is a big problem because there aren't many ultrawide
| lenses for older cameras and those that exist are often slow,
| bulky, expensive and have mediocre rendition.
| redundantly wrote:
| It's full 35mm. The sensor isn't directly exposed to the light
| from the lens. They've got a projector screen + periscope
| configuration going on.
|
| https://petapixel.com/2023/10/06/a-20mp-sensor-in-a-film-can...
|
| Not sure how I feel about this configuration, I'd like to know
| more about the amount of light lost with this set up, image
| distortion, etc.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Intriguing idea, and something I might consider. Once it is
| shipping, and not just a marketing announcement.
| sottol wrote:
| I'd like to echo that Micro 4/3 sensor just makes this really not
| that useful imo unless it's for toying around, but then you might
| as well get an older M43 or Fuji digital camera.
|
| M43's crop factor changes the field of view and thus the lenses
| character. Which imo is the main reason to shoot older cameras -
| the lenses. Along with the qualities of the film itself. It
| undoes both imo.
| neilv wrote:
| During the transition from film digital, there were "digital
| backs" for some specific models.
|
| That this 35mm roll form factor works with any camera is neat.
|
| A different idea to keep in mind is that a lot of the value in a
| camera system is not from the body, but from the lenses. Nikon
| DSLRs will take old film-era Nikkor lenses, and there are also
| various adapters for using older lenses on modern DSLRs. There
| also at least used to be a cottage industry of modifying some old
| lenses that couldn't be used as well with adapters (such as if
| the adapter introduced too much distance between rear element and
| sensor, or if there was a protruding motor shaft).
| redundantly wrote:
| There's value in the body as well, at least from some bodies
| the exposure level and auto focus options.
|
| However, $600 USD for a 20MP? That had better be a high quality
| sensor...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-06 23:01 UTC)