could this be a hoax
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- Atkinson0
it is a hoax is it not?
- ben_0
is hoax
- TheBlueOne0
I'm skeptical.
- utopian0
maybe
- utopian0
nice homepage design
- ernexbcn0
Domain belongs to this chap from Hamburg:
- fucking hamburgers!TheBlueOne
- my god look at the kerning on the big category typeset
- zenmasterfoo0
april fools joke.
- mikotondria30
It's a friggin shame.
I want this, and fuck - there's no real reason I can't have it, apart from the fact that no one's made it from the existing technologies available.
Pull you fingers out, engineers, christ. We design, you make, we consume, that's 2/3 of the cycle complete already, quit pissing around and do your bit.
- Projectile0
We need to make it economically viable for them to create this. but how? stop buying digital? pahaha
does make ya think, though... what amazing technology would we have available to us today is profit didn't drive progress?
Definitely flying cars...
- zenmasterfoo0
The economic viability lies within the dozens of 3rd world nations where digital photography isn't the market share. Film is still utilized heavily in nations like Vietnam, Cambodia Laos, Burma, India, Pakistan and others. That's tens of millions of dollars where camera gear can continue to be used without asking the photographers there to bear the expense of new gear every few years.
- Dodecahedron0
There is no economic viability to this product. It would need millions just to start the research and development let alone bring it to market. The only companies that would be capable and interested in a such a thing are canon, fuji and kodak etc and they are NOT interested in investing in products to be used with old film cameras.
There are a lot of technical difficulties too, namely a censor that would be able to fit and function properly in any old film camera. How do you stop the camera from advancing the 'film'? It would have to by-pass the grooves in the advance mechanism subsequently leaving nothing to stabilise it in the back of the camera. So many issues, clever idea but its too difficult to actually work.
Third world countries still using film? If you can substantiate that go for it but from what I've heard there are in fact more working photographers in third world countries because of digital, not film. Price and accessibility to quality is what has made it take off.
- ben_0
^ I think if it were produced there would be loads of interest, though it would cost quite a bit to develop. If it's economically viable to bring back polaroid film (impossible project) then I'd say this would have more legs to it.
Re: Film advancing: Cameras use a spool and sprockets to advance film, this idea doesn't reach the spool or have sprocket holes.
For cameras with DX sensors, that technology could in theory even communicate the iso/aperture/shutter speed set on the camera.
I think there's enough interest in older cameras to warrant a company to at least look into the viability of this. Cost and dust are the only major issues I see, keeping in mind the price of full-frame sensor cameras right now, this wouldn't be widely accessible.
- There is no interest in old cameras from the photo companies, thats the point. forget the few purists and hobbyiests.Dodecahedron
- hobbyists the companies arn't going to want to cater to them.Dodecahedron
- utopian0
No Good :(
http://re35.net
- Dodecahedron0
If it doesn't reach the sprockets how is it stabilized in the camera? Where are these amazing super slim and steady censors ?
- This is tech that is not close to being developed and they won't be used in products like this when they are.Dodecahedron
- it wouldn't fit unless you crushed it.Dodecahedron
- Also power and actually processing the information in such a small package. Plus add a usb input and a flash drive.Dodecahedron
- while we're speculating: I think the pressure plate on most cameras would hold it in place nicely.ben_
- then it would have to be as thin as film... not possible unless you use nano materials or somethingDodecahedron
- tgqt0
twas a good hoax
- ben_0
Dodec, everything you've said is valid, but it's silly to think that just because right now the technology isn't there to produce these things in a cost-effective manner, that it should be dismissed.
Fuji seems to have a vested interest in this sector of photographers, whether hobbyist or professional - the X100 and GF670 are evidence of this. The possibility to shoot film and digi in the same body is something that would entice more than a handful of purists.
- Dodecahedron0
If this ever had potential it was like 10 years ago before the entire commercial market completely changed to digital. But of coarse it was impossible then just like now. They tried according to the above article but it wasn't technically possible. Only then would people do what you are describing but I think its way late.
Not only is the tech not developed yet but nobody would be interested in developing it because its updating retro tech for no reason and with no real commercial market. You are saying possibly maybe some people might decide to start using their old 35mm again just because of this? Thats not enough and the potential market is still puny. How much do you think it would cost in the end? Probably like $2000+ considering the development and marketing costs, too much for average users. It is already at a dead end hypothetically. Totally un-practical and un-feasable.
The X100 is a fully digital camera with a hybrid viewfinder, it just looks like a nice old 35mm. The GF670 is a medium format camera, medium format is in a world of its own and can't be compared to 35mm, we're talking professionals with a substantial investment in gear and quality. 35mm is ultimately a consumer level product, it just happens to be a decent quality for some pros.
- Bring the dreamers down to earth!ben_
- haha, just saying. Real investors are heartless and would tear it apart .Dodecahedron
- for the record, I'd way rather drop 2k+ on this than 7k plus on an M9.ben_
- Dodecahedron0
YOu still have to fit a power supply, a processing unit, decent memory drive and a usb connection in it. Its funny they show the canisters with the sensor rolled up into it, there are no flexible camera sensors anywhere except at NASA or something.
- I'll repeat that its still a cool idea but not going to happen nor is it worth it.Dodecahedron
- Funny, I thought they could have fit all that in the canister, then leave the sensor rigid, allowing for a dust cover when not in use.ben_
- not in use.ben_
- tight fit either wayDodecahedron