Hey /p/, what do you think about the idea of a device that has the ability to turn any 35mm film camera into a digital camera?
http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/the-pseudo-film-canister-wants-to-turn-your-analogue-camera-digital
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pseudo-film-canister#/
>>2853521
The creator is either completely clueless or a scammer.
>>2853521
I think it's complex, technologically very difficult, and a final product is necessarily less easy to use, and worse quality, than just getting a digital camera. Especially with a lot of "retro styled" digital cameras coming out these days.
Timing the shutter with the sensor, battery life, space constraints, heat dissipation, the necessity to make a different cartridge for different shaped/designed bodies, etc.
>Micro Four Thirds or ASPC
lmaooooooooooooooooooo
>>2853527
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Anyway, I hope all these college dropout ''''''''''''designers''''''''''''' begging for money on their scam projects fucking get a clue, and die.
>>2853521
Nothing new.
They have been trying that since the 1990's.
Always fails miserably.
People have been doing this shit for YEARS and every time it flops or just falls into vaporware hell.
Just get a Leica R8/9 with the DMR if you want a 35mm that can pull double duty.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2004:04:18 22:34:01 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 640 Image Height 537
wouldnt the part of the canister with the sensor have to be as thin as a roll of film to fit properly?
>>2853624
yup, unless you modify the camera, which is stupid. its a fucking scam.
>>2853624
Not with my film cameras, no.
I'd still never buy one, though.
>>2853624
Yea and from the look of the concept images. It looks like it would not fit in with cameras that shot half frame like the Ricoh Auto Half or Canon Demi
sure hope it success
but i wont invest
finally a reason to post this again.
>>2853693
Yes, but those cameras are designed to be modular in a way that very few 35mm cameras are.
The mount for a film back on a hasselblad or Graflex is as standardised as the lense mount, thus the one product can be adapted to many different cameras.
The only standardised elements of 35mm camera design are the cartridge and frame size, and those things have no connection to the meter or shutter.
>>2853680
let your friendo know his tie is nice but his blazer is loud, exhibitionist crap
royal blue? why is he dressing an extravagant black man?
>>2853754
>nitpicking an irrelevant portion of the pic
I knew I couldn't just crop out the relevant portion of the screen, depriving the mandatory stalky anon of deconstructing every bit of the screenshot. Bless your soul, never change /p/.
This is the equivalent of drawing a car, writing "COMPLETELY SOLAR POWERED" on it, showing it to investors
>>2853987
Is that some kind of a joke? I would literally get the security to bring him back after I kicked him out, only to be able to kick him out again!
That piece of shit does not worth a penny.
>buy sony a7 (any model)
> buy adapter
> vsco presets
> muh digital film camera
>>2854165
>using an adapter
>not buying Pentax FF or Nikon Df
Anyone ever see one of these in person back in the day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_400_series
>>2854165
you mean Mastin Labs
nevuh
been done
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2011:02:07 14:20:28 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 660 Image Height 412
befo
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:04:04 10:00:06 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 555 Image Height 441
>>2853987
He couldn't even get a 3d printed mock up Seriously?
He also must be some sort of techno wizard if he thinks he can power even a micro 4/3 sensor with a single AAA.
>>2853521
Technical issues aside, it's completely useless.
You're getting literally every disadvantage of a digital camera (cost, short battery life, highlight clipping, dust issues) combined with every disadvantage of a film camera minus the 36 frames per roll limit. So the only person you can market this to is a rare hipster who's fond of his film camera but not fond of actual film.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2854881
id totally watch a camera themed sitcom.
>>2854884
unfortunately I can only give you camera themed harem anime
>>2854888
Link to moar please?
>>2854881
>So the only person you can market this to is a rare hipster who's fond of his film camera but not fond of actual film.
Isn't that pretty much every hipster who buys film, pays someone else to develop it, and then only ever looks at it in the form of digital scans and never prints it? I would say that is a pretty large group, maybe even the majority of the people currently shooting film.
This film canister thing would have to come with built in VSCO filters and fake dust and scratches, though.
>>2854901
Do you do a lot of home development and printing of your Velvia and Provia shots?
Do you genuinely waste your time and space developing color print film, knowing that if you do it perfectly, it will be exactly the same as from a lab, and if you fuck it up, it'll be worse in every way?
Darkroom printing is great when you do six prints a year and give some to your mom, but many people today want to share their art with the world, and to do that, you need to have it on the internet. I know it's hard to accept, but it's pretty much time to give in. 2008 is almost here, the world is moving on, very happily.
>>2854901
They still care about >muh physical negatives and >muh colors though. Those people who are content with VSCO imitation are already shooting digital cameras.
>fake dust and scratches
You don't need to fake dust, it'll come naturally - film cameras weren't engineered with all of the modern anti-dirt measures like dust traps and airflow deflectors, and I doubt the digital canister can include any kind of automatic sensor cleaning feature.
>>2853987
>This is the equivalent of drawing a car, writing "COMPLETELY SOLAR POWERED" on it, showing it to investors
Except he doesn't have to convince real investors.
He just has to convince some retarded hipsters.
Wouldn't be surprised if this is a scammer who has dozens of these "ideas" just to collect the money.
>>2854900
Photo Kano.
It's shit though.
>>2854911
Cleaning a removable digital back is easy.
The idea has 99 problems but dust ain't one.
>>2854915
>>2854915
Not if you get oil from the shutter on there though.
oh look it's this thing again.....
>>2853987
>>2853987
>>>2853987
>>>>2853987
>>2853987
>>2854912
Not to mention that the Indiegogo has flexible funding, which more or less means "I know I won't reach my goal but give me money anyways".
>>2854945
I have no clue anon.
>>2853579
This is my first time seeing this. What are your thoughts on this? Does it work well? I can google for any number of reviews but I'm looking for real-world unbiased stuff
>>2854945
People are throwing their money away. There are so many problems with a successful one of these it just isn't going to happen. It's also pretty clear the guy who is going to 'make' this hasn't really given thought to what he's trying to do and has done nothing to address the serious issues.
>>2854881
If it was cheap (which I doubt it would be) there'd be a niche. My only small camera is a 35mm rangefinder, so for day hikes where I don't want to fill a jacket with film it might be nice. I only got the thing because it was inexpensive and fun though, so if an accessory would double/triple the price I might as well just get an X100T or something.
That said, it's not like I use more than a roll or two when I'm just out with friends. So even then it would be more peace of mind than anything. And crop factor would be lame. Noise would likely be bad, as well. Hypothetically I'd pay, I don't know, a maximum of forty for something like that. Maybe a hundred if I was feeling dumb and rich.
>>2855716
If you're insane enough to pay the price of a brand new D5 for a non-autofocus SLR with a ten-year-old crop sensor, you shouldn't be concerned by how well it works.
Why are they still trying?
It's much cheaper to just get a film camera and a digital camera.
>>2856980
The idea of turning a film camera into a usable digital camera has been a dragon many have been chasing since the 90s.
Of course early digital cameras by Kodak were just Nikon or Canon film bodies with a huge NiCad tumor, there was the Leica DMR, and digital MF backs, but these are all either heavy or out of the reach of the regular photographer.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-E1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 83 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1200 Image Height 660 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:09:12 15:01:27 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 3.7 EV Exposure Bias 0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 352 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2857036
They also had one important thing in common: they only fit one particular camera (or standardized camera line, in case of MF backs).
One can safely disregard any "digital film" project that purports to be universal as vaporware.
>>2857152
That too.
I think it could be possible in a decade or so to see a digital sensor crammed into a film camera with little to no modification needed if sensors, batteries, and processors progress like they are; but for now it's just not possible.
Also by the time technology catches up with the concepts, camera technology will probably have made whatever sensor and processor you could fit into a film camera obsolete.
