Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Michael, I like so many others is also searching for the holy grail of digital -- a digital recording device in the shape of a 35mm cassette with the sensor area the shape of film in the film gate. Bob Shell gave a very good explanation last month on the Contax mailing list why this is currently impractical. I don't have all the technical details memorized, but it boils down to the unfortunate fact that even if a CCD chip of the correct size were available at a reasonable price, it wouldn't fit in the film gate of most cameras. First off, it is thicker than film. Second, there are all sorts of wires coming off the chip on all sides. This makes it bigger than the film gate. Perhaps at the rapid pace of technology development it won't be too many years until we get such a device. Until then, I am going to be getting a semi-digital setup consisting of my existing film cameras, a good service to scan slides and negatives (35mm and MF) to Kodak Photo CD format, a more powerful computer, Photoshop, and an Epson printer (perhaps one of the new ones with more permanent inks). I have a big investment in top quality Leica and Zeiss lenses. It wouldn't make sense to use this sort of glass on a small resolution CCD sensor. Cheap lenses work well for that. In fact, I had a photo ID card made a couple months ago and I was curious at the little digital camera the place was using. I couldn't see who made the lens, but on the front it boldly proclaimed "Glass Lens". Now, THAT, is scary! John "M.E.Berube - GoodPhotos" wrote: > > At 12:01 AM 7/9/00 -0700, Austin Franklin wrote: > >one does not need to spend $2000 for a lense that will give > >the best possible results with a 640x480 CCD...perhaps around $40 would be > >sufficient. > > Despite siliconfilm (-formerly imagek-) being thus far vapor-hardware, my > initial post was that I would rather see a digital solution for the > camera's that I already carry, than to have to carry yet another body with > me if I wanted to capture digital images from the snap of a shutter. IF > such a solution cost much more than a Fujileica Digilux, I would as soon > get one of those as a toy. > > Regardless, I completely agree with Mark that a good scanner is the best > way to go when you want a digital image of any quality at the technology's > current point of development. Considering how long it has taken the best > digital technology to advance to just over half the image quality of the > cheapest disposable 35mm camera (pixel-wise), the quality scanner route is > likely the best way to go for a while. But still, an affordable working CCD > option for my M would be a cool toy. > > Carpe Lumen, > Michael E. Berube > http://www.goodphotos.com