Great news! You HAVE to use your old 35mm camera now!

[BAC]

The best chance to see something like this come about is if someone puts DIY instructions on the internet using readily available parts. I don't see it being commercially feasible with all the other options on the market.

[etimh]

Not 3000 photos but only 500 when back from vacation and still have the best set of 36 after selection And likely the digital images never make it to print or into a album.

One of the most important and overlooked issues with digital "photography."

I know two different people who came back from vacations with these thousands of pics and have never looked through them since returning. Why? Both said that: 1) they looked at them enough while on location (determining if the shots were "good enough" and scrolling through them in so-called "down time"); and 2) that they were intimidated about going through them all and having to organize them. One of the guys even said that his wife told him to "just take as many pictures of everything that you can," that they would "go through them and edit later" (which, of course, has yet to happen).

What kind of way is this to go through a vacation? The real beauty of traveling somewhere is taking it in for real and then maybe deciding on that one or few memorable or iconic shots to photograph and take home. And this only adds to the enrichment of the experience as you have to look at things multiple times and closely to come to your decision. Why spend your time looking at everything through an lcd screen and then scrolling through the images to see if you got something? This all seems so self-evident to me but I imagine this is the way many people work these days with their digital cameras and camcorders while "vacationing."

A true case where digital image-capturing is having a deleterious effect on human experience and quality of life.

Tim

[BAC]

Not 3000 photos but only 500 when back from vacation and still have the best set of 36 after selection And likely the digital images never make it to print or into a album.

One of the most important and overlooked issues with digital "photography."

I know two different people who came back from vacations with these thousands of pics and have never looked through them since returning. Why? Both said that: 1) they looked at them enough while on location (determining if the shots were "good enough" and scrolling through them in so-called "down time"); and 2) that they were intimidated about going through them all and having to organize them. One of the guys even said that his wife told him to "just take as many pictures of everything that you can," that they would "go through them and edit later" (which, of course, has yet to happen).

What kind of way is this to go through a vacation? The real beauty of traveling somewhere is taking it in for real and then maybe deciding on that one or few memorable or iconic shots to photograph and take home. And this only adds to the enrichment of the experience as you have to look at things multiple times and closely to come to your decision. Why spend your time looking at everything through an lcd screen and then scrolling through the images to see if you got something? This all seems so self-evident to me but I imagine this is the way many people work these days with their digital cameras and camcorders while "vacationing."

A true case where digital image-capturing is having a deleterious effect on human experience and quality of life.

Tim

That's exactly why I returned to 8mm film and watch it on a projector. It's an event when we set up the projector and sit down and watch movies. It's the same as listening to music on vinyl, your more engaged in it because you have to attend to the records and the equipment that you are listening to it on.

My wife was just going through old family photos and mentioned how overwhelming it is to organize them. But we are talking about 50 years worth of photos, not one vacation. I also found that putting my digital vacation photos into a bound book with one off those online services is the best way to view them. Guests actually come over to my house and look at it.

[super8man]

I like what BAC and Tim have said. It's so true. And I thought Tim was going to go down the route of "losing the hard drive and no backups" - so, there, I did! Haha...it happens.

Tangentally, that's the power of Facebook, at least for me. I use it to put together short movies (either shot digitally with my Canon S90 or super 8mm/regular 8mm) and put some music and titles and resolve it to Apple Ipod video standard (small rez) and then upload. It provides a calling card of sorts where I can call it up to show others (like my parent's property that's for sale and they see my kids playing in the yard on regular 8 or super 8). It works. But you have to WANT to do it. Most people do not. So, in some ways, I post to show off but also implore them to do the same. Now, avoiding all conspiracy talk of FB, I really don't care that they are on a server somewhere...in the end, I want to show people the media. FB works to that end. I also use Flickr (paid) to host photos and either present some of my "Best 36" there or I use it as a dumping ground for how-to's on pinball/arcade repair of web forums, etc, etc. Again, with a LITTLE work, Flickr is amazing.

Lastly, I love BAC's description of the "event" - that's what's lost these days. Blame FB or whatever, but it seems not many people want to slow down enough to have the presentation be "part" of the activity of viewing or taking in some media. In fact, I often have to remind myself of this very thing. So, related to the previous paragraph, I love the personal satisfaction from working movie clips or images into something to share. For me, that's 49% of the event. And if no one watches, it really does not matter.

Cheers,
Mike

[camera8mm]

thanks for the idea.
I think I will patent it now.
kinda of like this item.
maybe you can find it on flea bay.
70s ipod
very rare
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/06/proof-if-todays.php

[carllooper]

Really good points by etimh, Super8man and BAC.

Carl

[S8 Booster]

I did shoot some Video8 in the late 80s and into the 90s where i decided to turn all film from there for home moveing and some projects

The content of the video cassettes kind of interesting as those on film films , but apart from a few passes when new i have never touched them and do not really bother where they are. Possibly 3 carts

Havent shota lot of digital stills but result is same. Never look back,...

shoot...

[themagickite]

I've often thought about this idea of cramming a digital sensor into a super8 cart. I reckon it would be really awesome and really useful. there are two ways i can imagine it being done without modifying the camera to be used.

method 1
you create a cart that records a video stream, this cart can only be used on cameras which have a single frame bulb setting for long exposure. you open up the shutter and leave it open for the sensor to capture away

method 2
you create a cart that takes still images at high speeds, the pull down claw hits the capture button, would be the way to go as far as getting all the different shutter speeds but you'd have sync issues and the shutter mechanism would require a lot of engineering, you'd also need a really fast sensor/buffer/record medium
but you could probably shoot some really high res (>HD) stuff, with more colour information too.

range

However, with current technology the quality would be worse than a dedicated digital video camera. The reason is that sensors the size of the Super8 frame, (as you would need), would have far less pixels than a dedicated digital video camera (which have physically larger sensors).

super8 is somewhere between a 1/3" and a 1/2" sensor (closer to 1/2"), there are plenty of professional video cameras which have sensors in this size. The ex1 for example has 3 x 1/2" chips and that captures about as much resolution as is possible for a 1920x1080 camera (3 chips helps, which couldn't do done in an s8 cart). The bbc regard anything smaller than 1/2" as standard definition even if it shoots HD. I reckon you could go as far as 1/2" for S8 without vignetting. The cinegon has enough coverage for 2/3" but that's probably because it was adapted from a lens for 16mm.

it'd be nice to be able to pop in a digicart after you run out of film, or for test shots, but i don't think it's very moral to stop using film and still use S8 cameras to fulfill your distasteful digital desires

if kodak ever stop making super8 carts there sure as hell better make something like this as a conciliation prize

[MovieStuff]

I know two different people who came back from vacations with these thousands of pics and have never looked through them since returning. Why? Both said that: 1) they looked at them enough while on location (determining if the shots were "good enough" and scrolling through them in so-called "down time"); and 2) that they were intimidated about going through them all and having to organize them.

So true. I agree 100%. One of the tangible downsides to digital.

Roger

[Angus]

when I travel, sometimes I take digital cameras, sometimes film, sometimes both.

When shooting digital stills, I do find I can easily shoot 1000 shots in one day, especially somewhere like a wild animal park or museum or stage show (when it's allowed).

But I find I probably have a similar number of really good shots as when I shoot around 50 frames of film at the same location.

However, to the annoyance of my spousal unit, I do sift through the thousands of digital images and hours of HD video....tweaking and editing and then making slide shows out of the best.

[carllooper]

super8 is somewhere between a 1/3" and a 1/2" sensor (closer to 1/2"), there are plenty of professional video cameras which have sensors in this size. The ex1 for example has 3 x 1/2" chips and that captures about as much resolution as is possible for a 1920x1080 camera (3 chips helps, which couldn't do done in an s8 cart). The bbc regard anything smaller than 1/2" as standard definition even if it shoots HD. I reckon you could go as far as 1/2" for S8 without vignetting. The cinegon has enough coverage for 2/3" but that's probably because it was adapted from a lens for 16mm.

Well yes, that's right, you could only get an SD signal (less pixels) compared to a dedicated camera that could give you HD (more pixels). Although I suspect that I'm somewhat behind the latest advances in sensor tech. But the main point still holds: whatever you can get with a Super8 digital cart you can therefore get better with a dedicated camera (which need not have the size restriction). Nothing wrong with that of course. Just an observation.

In relation to film, of course, that's another issue. Apples and chalk. Oranges and cheese.

Now I suspect a 3 CCD system could be be designed for an S8 cart. As in the case of a larger sensor it would require additional optics within the cart. Note that 3 x SD sensors, if arranged correctly, and their signal integrated correctly, will give you more pixels (not just an interpolated signal but additional tonal and spatial information). Of course, if you introduce additional optics then you could also introduce a larger sensor (or sensors).

But lets look at some numbers and currently available sensors. For Super8 the size we would want (if mating to the film plane) is a 1/2.5" sensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg. The question then is how many sensor cells can we fit on such.

Not that this is typical but it's an example I found:

http://www.sumix.com/products/cameras/smx-11m5c.html

While the pixel count is 2592 x 1944, the count at the nearest fps rate for movie making reduces the count to 1024 x 768. Nevertheless it is better than SD but not yet HD.

But the mobile device market (amongst others) will no doubt deliver (if they haven't already) 1080p + capable sensors of a size suitable for a Super8 cart. So it's not out of the question a HD S8 cart.

Carl

[carllooper]

2006 version of the idea:

http://www.mystyk.de/blog/2006/02/digit ... -pt-2.html

[aj]

2006 version of the idea:

http://www.mystyk.de/blog/2006/02/digit ... -pt-2.html

There is no progress on the project since then. Which is no wonder.

The housing was the least of the task. Getting that sensor in the focal plane is one big, likely impossible, task.

Unless the camera is modified i.e. the gate taken out or reduced in height. Otherwise it would need something like the polaroid backs for 35mm still cameras. Which is a few millimeters of parallel light transport which brings the sensorplane to the focalplane. You don't want HD after that

The circuit needs triggering too. Of course it must use the camerashutter otherwise there is no point in using a S8 camera. Shooting continious through the old optics and an opened shutter is not going to produce anything filmlike. A Beaulieu with opened shutter has no viewfinder image at the same time and would render it useless.

Then there is a battery power demand.

[super8man]

I really was hoping for someone to invent a cart or canister that would allow you to "Set the ISO to 400 and your done - your camera will now take high quality digital pictures."

Sigh...

[aj]

The best chance to see something like this come about is if someone puts DIY instructions on the internet using readily available parts. I don't see it being commercially feasible with all the other options on the market.

I don't think full size sensors are readily available

But maybe a Kodak/Nikon DCS14n can serve as parts spender. These cost only some $500 nowadays. Since most space is spent on the battery and controls it may be prove to be the right stuff. But if you have this camera you might just as well use it. As it is about the same a F80 with an extra batterypack. Had they only used an F100 as basis Apparently that ($1200 over $400) was too expensive for a $6000 camera at the time.

Assume that the cartridge must operate without connection to the camera. Then:

The sensorplane needs to be in the focalplane. As there is no reviewing it needs no algorithms it can save the raw pictures. That saves parts, power and time. The processing can be done in the docking station or in the PC when the images arrive there.

The cartridge must be permanently on when in the camera as it must act instantly when the shutter opens. It cannot rely on light to detect opening as it could be aimed at the night sky or waiting for flash. So it must work with a lightreflecting detector/trigger on its 4 sides. 4 because there cameras can open from all curtain sides When triggered it must prime the sensor and wait for the shutter to close. This may be 1/1000 or 10 seconds. Then it must save the image and be ready in 1/4 of second. Some cameras have standard motordrive...

Sufficient are 36 exposures (or24/12) as many cameras have trouble with more then 40. Either they cannot go past 40 or they don't function at all as the shutter cannot be primed when there is no film on the sprocket.

It may all be doable but you need a manufacturing facility and development lab with a few good designers/enigneers.

The business prospect may be there but the price must certainly be less then $300.

I recall the Leica R8 back didn't go well and nearly broke the camel's back. And that thing was several thousands? Of course on a camera of even more thousands