Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / December 2003
"620" Film Questions
|
|
Thread rating:  |
- - 12 Dec 2003 16:08 GMT What is the difference between "620" film and "120" film, please? Can someone please point me to a website with specifications for "620" sized film? I need to know how wide this film is and what size image is typically produced on this film. 57mm-ish wide like most cameras that use 120/220 film?
Thanks in advance, Doug
 Signature Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format film: http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html
Nick Zentena - 12 Dec 2003 16:22 GMT > What is the difference between "620" film and "120" film, please? Can > someone please point me to a website with specifications for "620" sized > film? I need to know how wide this film is and what size image is typically > produced on this film. 57mm-ish wide like most cameras that use 120/220 > film? The only difference is the spool. The size of the image depends on the camera. It can go from 6x4.5 all the way to 6x9. It's possible to respool 120 film onto 620 spools.
Nick
- - 12 Dec 2003 16:52 GMT Thanks, Nick!
Doug
 Signature Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format film: http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html
> > What is the difference between "620" film and "120" film, please? Can > > someone please point me to a website with specifications for "620" sized [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nick Walt Kienzle - 12 Dec 2003 16:40 GMT You are correct. 620 and 120 films are identical to each other in size and frame area. 620 film was a Kodak invention, primarily for their low priced cameras (until the 1960's when roll film cameras were replaced by 126 Instamatic series for the consumer market). The difference between 120 and 620 was in the spool, which prevented cameras designed to use 620 film to accept 120 film. Kodak did this for marketing purposes, so they could provide the more professional lines of films in the 120 size, and limit the 620 size films to a smaller selection of consumer film types for the point-and-shoot crowd. Apparently Kodak feared that someone would try to run a roll of 1600 ASA "Royal-X Pan" (or was it 3200 ASA? I forget after all these years.) through their fixed aperture Brownie Hawkeye that was designed to use 80 ASA Kodacolor-X.
Disclaimer: The preceding was just my take on the history of 620 film.
Walt Kienzle
> What is the difference between "620" film and "120" film, please? Can > someone please point me to a website with specifications for "620" sized [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Doug KFritch - 12 Dec 2003 18:50 GMT I believe Royal X was ASA 1250
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 13 Dec 2003 03:30 GMT I don't buy this theory. Why would Kodak engineer the Chevron and the Medalist, two of Kodak's best cameras ever to take 620 film? To me it doesn't wash. If you've taken a look at early 120 spools, all they are is a wooden dowel with slots carved into both ends and metal caps slid onto both ends to block light from the edges. I don't know if Kodak invented the 120 spool, but I'm sure someone in their film division took a look at one and figured that they could "better" it and give it a slightly smaller profile. This is exactly what they did with 121 film - made it into 127 and with 35mm film - changing that into 828. 828 is more compact than 35mm, 127 is more compact than 121 and 620 is slightly more compact than 120. I believe they were all probably designed by the same guy, who wanted to improve what was already out there. Kodak has continued this tradition with 126, 110, Disc and finally APS.
> You are correct. 620 and 120 films are identical to each other in size and > frame area. 620 film was a Kodak invention, primarily for their low priced [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > film: > > http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html Q.G. de Bakker - 13 Dec 2003 12:44 GMT > I don't buy this theory. Why would Kodak engineer the Chevron and the > Medalist, two of Kodak's best cameras ever to take 620 film? To me it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > designed by the same guy, who wanted to improve what was already out there. > Kodak has continued this tradition with 126, 110, Disc and finally APS. Yes. Good examples, those. Eastman Kodak does indeed have a "habit" of producing new formats, marketing these new formats agressively, and start raking in the money the newly created market generates. The last time it really worked (and the made heaps of money) was when they invented the instamatic/126.
There is no (!!!) improvement, or even a wish to improve something, behind (most of) these new formats. Only marketing goals. That's not a bad thing, is it? We pick what we think we like, and ignore the things we don't (like "disc", and APS).
Bob Monaghan - 14 Dec 2003 00:28 GMT I'd say it is a bad thing for kodak to create formats which _reduce_ image quality, which is how I view the kodak disc (horrible quality), the no possibility it will be flat 126 format (and tiny 110 on top of that), and lately the APS (someday we will provide you with slide and B&W films - NOT!) which is smaller film size, but somehow costs a good bit more than 35mm ;-) ;-)
All of this is designed to make kodak money while shaving a few cents off the cost and amount of film and chemicals they sell us at the same high and higher prices.
Kodak stock continues to reflect the overall market's view of their game plan ;-)
grins bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Vince - 14 Dec 2003 03:18 GMT >lately the APS (someday we will provide you with slide and B&W films - >NOT!) They cut the guts out of APS not giving us the above.
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on e-bay under BOOKMAGS -------------------------------------------------------
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 14 Dec 2003 22:15 GMT Kodak makes a C41 B&W film for APS and Fuji makes an E6 film in the APS format but does not ship it to the US. The only thing I don't like about APS is the aspect ratio - it is too "wide" and is unsuitable for vertical shooting. To me the best "portrait" format is 645. I believe 35mm is too narrow and APS is even more extreme. To me APS, if properly designed, would have been a great "pro" film. If it had had a better vertical format, it would have taken off with photojournalists. Now APS SLRs are selling used and NOS for budget prices and it appears to be enjoying a (probably temporary) resurgence.
> >lately the APS (someday we will provide you with slide and B&W films - > >NOT!) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Check out new listings on e-bay under BOOKMAGS > ------------------------------------------------------- Vince - 15 Dec 2003 01:30 GMT >Kodak makes a C41 B&W film for APS and Fuji makes an E6 film in the APS >format but does not ship it to the US. The only thing I don't like about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >photojournalists. Now APS SLRs are selling used and NOS for budget prices >and it appears to be enjoying a (probably temporary) resurgence. I could never understand that business of making a camera or film for foreign markets only. Back in the 1970s everyone bitched about how bulky the KODAK instant E4 & E6 cameras were and yet they had a very nice E8 folding model that for some reason they didn't import into the USA. Well not officially as I did see the camera in some New York stories
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS AND our new E-BAY STORE.
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 15 Dec 2003 01:54 GMT Well the Fuji film is made in Japan and I suspect that it's available in Japan as well. But I do get your point, the Kodak APS 100 speed film is not available in the US, although British sources report that the box is stamped "Made in USA". Now that you've brought up the Kodak instant cameras, are any of them usable today? Were any of them any good?
> >Kodak makes a C41 B&W film for APS and Fuji makes an E6 film in the APS > >format but does not ship it to the US. The only thing I don't like about [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS > AND our new E-BAY STORE. Vince - 15 Dec 2003 05:11 GMT > Now >that you've brought up the Kodak instant cameras, are any of them usable >today? >Were any of them any good? How can they be usable when one can't get film?
I have either the E4 or E6 in my collection (The guy at the yard sale told someone you can still get film), They are too bulky except of course the E8
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS AND our new E-BAY STORE.
Walt Kienzle - 15 Dec 2003 14:24 GMT Film is no longer available. Kodak used a film pack that differed from what Polaroid uses. Even so, Polaroid took legal action against Kodak claiming that their instant film process infringed on Polaroid patents. This happened about 20 years ago. Polaroid won and Kodak had to withdraw all their instant camera products from the market. IIRC, they even provided camera owners with a $5 coupon if they returned their Kodak instant film camera. Most people didn't consider it worth the effort, particularly considering that the shipping had to be paid by the sender.
Walt Kienzle
> Well the Fuji film is made in Japan and I suspect that it's available in Japan as > well. But I do get your point, the Kodak APS 100 speed film is not available in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS > > AND our new E-BAY STORE. Jeff Sumner - 15 Dec 2003 15:50 GMT > Film is no longer available. Kodak used a film pack that differed from what > Polaroid uses. Even so, Polaroid took legal action against Kodak claiming [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Walt Kienzle Last week I scanned a number of pictures for a younger friend (~25) for his parents- therein were two (rather green) Kodak "Polaroids." I'd not seen 'em for a long time, and didn't think they were that popular at all.
Walt Kienzle - 15 Dec 2003 17:57 GMT You are correct. I worked at a store that sold them at the time, alongside Polaroid products. The Polaroid model was a very nice, folding SLR model with auto-focus - one of the first AF cameras I had ever seen for "point and shoot" consumers. It was a bit expensive (around $200 IIRC), but took very nice, glossy finish prints. The Kodak camera was big and clunky (as previous posts confirm), took 2 expensive, odd, flat batteries (which amazingly are still available, the comparable Polaroid put the battery in the film pack, so it was replaced with each film) and the prints were oddly textured and always looked a bit fuzzy. I didn't recall any problems with the way the colors looked, except that they were a bit dull. The green tint may very well be due to color shifting after 20 years.
BTW, the other Polaroid product they were selling was a movie camera and movie player. Sold as a set for nearly $1000. It was 8mm Polaroid transparency film in a cartridge. After exposing it in the camera, you put it in the player to develop it (that would take several minutes) and then you could play the very grainy movie. That system pretty much was a flop.
Walt
> > Film is no longer available. Kodak used a film pack that differed from what > > Polaroid uses. Even so, Polaroid took legal action against Kodak claiming [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > his parents- therein were two (rather green) Kodak "Polaroids." I'd not > seen 'em for a long time, and didn't think they were that popular at all. Vince - 16 Dec 2003 02:29 GMT >BTW, the other Polaroid product they were selling was a movie camera and >movie player. Sold as a set for nearly $1000. It was 8mm Polaroid >transparency film in a cartridge. After exposing it in the camera, you put >it in the player to develop it (that would take several minutes) and then >you could play the very grainy movie. That system pretty much was a flop. Oh yeah that was a bad one. Another very interesting, but limted item was the "FISHER-PRICE" kid's video camera that used an audio tape, only the images were black & white. Anyone remember that one?
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS AND our new E-BAY STORE.
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 16 Dec 2003 13:26 GMT That's a collectible now and is worth big bucks. Or so I've read.
> >BTW, the other Polaroid product they were selling was a movie camera and > >movie player. Sold as a set for nearly $1000. It was 8mm Polaroid [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS > AND our new E-BAY STORE. Walt Kienzle - 16 Dec 2003 13:39 GMT Yes, I remember that one. I never saw one in action, though. I heard that the images weren't all that clear, but still impressive considering they were using a Philips audio cassette to record the video.
> >BTW, the other Polaroid product they were selling was a movie camera and > >movie player. Sold as a set for nearly $1000. It was 8mm Polaroid [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS > AND our new E-BAY STORE. Ken Hart - 15 Dec 2003 18:29 GMT > Film is no longer available. Kodak used a film pack that differed from what > Polaroid uses. Even so, Polaroid took legal action against Kodak claiming [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > camera. Most people didn't consider it worth the effort, particularly > considering that the shipping had to be paid by the sender. IIRC, Kodak sent out checks ranging from $3 to $5, depending on the model camera they bought; no return was needed. The process was different from Polaroid's and, IMHO, yielded much better results. The courts blew it big time when they found for Polaroid over Kodak. Ken Hart
Vince - 15 Dec 2003 19:17 GMT >Film is no longer available. Kodak used a film pack that differed from what >Polaroid uses. Even so, Polaroid took legal action against Kodak claiming [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >camera. Most people didn't consider it worth the effort, particularly >considering that the shipping had to be paid by the sender. I also read "way back when" about some cash KODAK was offering for the disk cameras which never took place.
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS AND our new E-BAY STORE.
Nick Zentena - 15 Dec 2003 01:57 GMT > I could never understand that business of making a camera or film for foreign > markets only. Back in the 1970s everyone bitched about how bulky the KODAK > instant E4 & E6 cameras were and yet they had a very nice E8 folding model that > for some reason they didn't import into the USA. Well not officially as I did > see the camera in some New York stories You need to make more money then you're spending. Every new market means more costs. Translate the manual. Even if the new country uses the same langauge [UK/US/Canada for example] words can mean different things. You may need testing lab approvals. You need somebody to sell the product. Products that sell well in one country sit on the shelf in a second one. Some times the new product would take sales away from a more profitable product. You may not have the production capacity to make enough for the whole world. You need a repair system. Spare parts etc.
Odds are it's never one thing but a combination of things. Nick
Vince - 15 Dec 2003 05:11 GMT > You need to make more money then you're spending. Every new market means >more costs. Translate the manual. Even if the new country uses the same [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Odds are it's never one thing but a combination of things. I understand all of that Nick, but in the case of the E8 camera it should have been available state side, but small matter since Polarold shut them down.
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS AND our new E-BAY STORE.
Norman Worth - 13 Dec 2003 17:05 GMT Yes, Kodak did invent the 620 spool (and 616 at about the same time). As far as I can tell the format dates from the 30s. It was used for both box cameras and advanced cameras made by Kodak and a few others. The official reason was that it was slightly smaller than the 120 spool and would result in smaller cameras. The real reason was probably to have a proprietary lock on the film for their cameras. Kodak continued to make its full line of medium format films in 620 until almost the time it was discontinued. I'm sure it was a prestige thing, supporting the fairly large number of Meadalist and Chevron users out there. Finally they limited production to Kodacolor and Verichrome Pan, then nothing.
> I don't buy this theory. Why would Kodak engineer the Chevron and the > Medalist, two of Kodak's best cameras ever to take 620 film? To me it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > > film: > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html Bob Monaghan - 13 Dec 2003 02:09 GMT see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfilms.html on obsolete film specs etc.
see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/620.html on respooling film for 620 cameras, also tricks for trimming 120 spools to fit some 620 cameras etc. etc.
IMHO, 620 was yet another attempt by Kodak to create a proprietary film system so that once you bought the camera, you had to go to kodak for film...
hth bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
JRF - 13 Dec 2003 03:03 GMT > see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfilms.html on obsolete film specs etc. > > IMHO, 620 was yet another attempt by Kodak to create a proprietary film > system so that once you bought the camera, you had to go to kodak for > film... My guess is you're half right. It seems reasonable to assume that, if Kodak made consumer point-and-shoot 120 cameras, there would be a continuing problem (and customer complaining) over buying 120 with film speed entirely wrong for consumer use. Putting the consumer-oriented film on a 620 spool that is incompatible with 120 solves that problem, and helps the consumer. It's only an amazing coincidence that the consumer would then keep going back to Kodak for film. :^D
Bob in Las Vegas
Bob Monaghan - 14 Dec 2003 00:37 GMT HuH? ;-) I don't see why this is a problem, Bob, nor is it correct.
First, the same emulsions were generally available in 620 as 120 from Kodak, including the fast ones (Royal X IIRC). If you had a box camera with a single shutter speed, you bought the recommended films for the expected lighting (Daylight, indoors..). Some high end 620 cameras like the Kodak medalist (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/medalist.html) could and did use the full range of film stocks and speeds in 620 film.
the size savings from the film spools being smaller were also spurious, about 1/4" around the spool trimmed from 120, hardly a major factor in camera size. The length of the film was the same, as was the backing etc. and the width. The only difference was the film spool.
Again, the same image size and film size/length, and the same films, and a trivial reduction in size of the spools from 120 to 620; in short, a minor change aimed at creating a market for a proprietary product, IMHO ;-)
Are you sure you aren't thinking of 828 bantam film or something similar?
bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
JRF - 15 Dec 2003 00:53 GMT > First, the same emulsions were generally available in 620 as 120 from > Kodak, including the fast ones (Royal X IIRC). My recollection, always suspect (memory is the last thing to go), is that Gramps could only find consumer film for his 620 camera, and that a far larger variety was available in 120. Perhaps that was just a distribution anomaly in Vermont in the 1950's (a distinct possibility - I didn't actually put a hand on a rotary dial phone until the 1960's).
I certainly defer to your more extensive knowledge in this area.
Bob in Las Vegas
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 15 Dec 2003 01:56 GMT It baffles me why Kodak doesn't produce at least TMX and an E6 film in the 620 size. After all the only difference is the spool size.
> > First, the same emulsions were generally available in 620 as 120 from > > Kodak, including the fast ones (Royal X IIRC). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bob in Las Vegas Dennis O'Connor - 15 Dec 2003 13:09 GMT Maybe because none of the drugstores or supermarkets want it...
> It baffles me why Kodak doesn't produce at least TMX and an E6 film in the 620 > size. After all the only difference is the spool size. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > Bob in Las Vegas Bob Monaghan - 16 Dec 2003 01:24 GMT B&H still makes some 620 films available, including E6, tri-x and tmax 400 B&W, plus X, portra color 160, several ektachromes (") and fuji velvia 50, see http://www01.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=CatalogActivator_A Catalog_html__336__SID=E24c76ADCF0 or go to film and storage, other film formats, 110,127,620&828
prices are about $8-12/roll w/o processing (readily available from 120 labs)
this partly reflects a growing demand for older films (and requires a huge minimum order on the part of B&H, I'm told) by fans of these older cameras, many millions of which are in consumer hands thanks to kodak's marketing ;-)
grins bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 16 Dec 2003 02:30 GMT I belive this is all hand rolled, probably by FFC (Film for Classics). Come on? How much effort would it take Kodak to produce a few popular emulsions in the format? I think Kodak is losing money by not re-starting production on 828, 620 and 127.
> B&H still makes some 620 films available, including E6, tri-x and tmax 400 > B&W, plus X, portra color 160, several ektachromes (") and fuji velvia 50, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * > ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* Bob Monaghan - 16 Dec 2003 03:19 GMT yes, there is a market for older films. However, Kodak played a "dirty trick" in getting rid of 620. They evidently decided they didn't want to support 620 sales, then arranged to move the 620 film listings from their standard film listings used by dealers, and buried the 620 film listings in another specialty films catalog section, per some past film store staff posters. Then, when sales dropped off because it was hard for store clerks to find these 620 listings, Kodak noted the drop in film demand and cut 620 film support even further ;-) Catch 22 ;-)
I think this is going to get worse, now, with ALL the top current Kodak execs being new blood brought in by the digital-oriented CEO etc., and essentially few old film stalwarts left in high places. Film is seen as a cash cow to be milked in its decline, with minimal R&D spent on film etc. They have already hinted at reducing film availability even more, and have removed some films without replacements (Ektar 25, kodachromes, and so on)
good things there is still Fuji and Ilford ;-)
bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Vince - 16 Dec 2003 04:24 GMT >to produce a few popular emulsions in the format? I think Kodak is losing >money by not re-starting production on 828, >620 and 127. I guess Kodak sees things otherwise, the company has marketing experts who know which films sell.
Certain films have stayed around many years after they stopped making cameras for them. Case in point a friend give me a 616 camera, back around 1975. The film was still being made, but only in KODACOLOR (remember that name?) as were other old sizes.
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS AND our new E-BAY STORE.
Nick Zentena - 16 Dec 2003 04:38 GMT > I guess Kodak sees things otherwise, the company has marketing experts who know > which films sell. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > film was still being made, but only in KODACOLOR (remember that name?) as were > other old sizes. J&C announced 116 film-)) And they show some 620 film. Nick
Vince - 16 Dec 2003 20:03 GMT > J&C announced 116 film-)) And they show some 620 film. > Do they now? Well I guess Kodak feels otherwise. Make no mistake while I use Kodak film from time to time, I'm not a fan of their marketing.
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS AND our new E-BAY STORE.
Marv Soloff - 16 Dec 2003 08:19 GMT I'm not sure what all this steam about 620 film is about. I have a Medalist II - it took 620 film. It now takes 120 film after being professionally modified. I have a batch of Kodak Tourist & Tourist II cameras. They took 620 film. They now take 120 film after I modified them. Who cares about 620 film? If you can't buy 620 film when you need it, modify the equipment to take something you can buy.
Regards,
Marv
> I belive this is all hand rolled, probably by FFC (Film for Classics). Come on? How much effort would it take Kodak > to produce a few popular emulsions in the format? I think Kodak is losing money by not re-starting production on 828, > 620 and 127. > >SNIP Dennis O'Connor - 16 Dec 2003 13:25 GMT I have old 620 cameras... When I want to shoot a roll through them I simply hand roll a 120 off it's spool and back onto a 620 spool... No biggie...
Denny
> I'm not sure what all this steam about 620 film is about. Bob Monaghan - 18 Dec 2003 23:02 GMT not everyone is handy or confortable modifying cameras, esp. when it takes some fairly careful machining as with the old medalists, which is one reason that such 620 to 120 conversions cost several hundred dollars US$ when done commercially (Bald Mountain etc.).
the medalist is a very good example of a great camera that deserves to continue in service thanks to rugged construction and fine optics. I suspect your medalist will outlast the company that built it, as the digital market shakeout continues (cf Kodak's stock price declines...)
I could understand dropping 620 if it were some complex product with high costs and modest sales or profits. But it is the same film stocks as 120 on a different spool. Since Kodak can make 620 films for bulk minimum orders (e.g., $10k-ish, cf B&H), there isn't any technical reason Kodak can't make film in 620 formats. My suspicion is that 620 was dropped to appease calls for reducing inventory count, without any input on what customers wanted and needed.
Now that ALL the top Kodak execs are digital types (i.e., brought in by the new CEO from digital corp. backgrounds), I expected even less film oriented customer service. The recent Kodak press announcement which said they were effectively turning film into a sunset cash-cow and not investing in more R&D and planned on reducing products and film offerings was no surprise given the top mgmt orientation.
In short, film may be dying at kodak, but only because that's how the top brass wants it. Others are going to continue to serve this market, as per Fuji ;-)
my $.02 ;-) bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
JRF - 19 Dec 2003 03:07 GMT > In short, film may be dying at kodak, but only because that's how the top > brass wants it. Others are going to continue to serve this market, as per > Fuji ;-) I find this to be a very reasonable viewpoint. Digital is enjoying great popularity today, but many of today's buyers won't replace the digital camera with another - they'll go back to film. The camera industry makes its money from the mass market, selling to masses of people who are NOT passionate about photography. After a few years of having to make their own prints, sit at the computer to fiddle with images, sit at the computer to ensure the pictures get saved, etc., many will opt for the ease of film. The only real advantage that digital offers the user is the ability to see the image immediately, and it requires work from the user that film doesn't. The novelty of instant viewing will wear off, and film will have a resurgence as the 1st generation owners have to replace malfunctioning digitals.
And Kodak's apparently thoughtful decision to see no future in film creates some fancy opportunities for other film companies. Depends on which of them are gamblers.
Bob in Las Vegas
stacey - 19 Dec 2003 03:16 GMT > In short, film may be dying at kodak, but only because that's how the top > brass wants it. Wouldn't be the first time kodak has done something stupid.
 Signature Stacey
Winfried Buechsenschuetz - 19 Dec 2003 23:13 GMT > > In short, film may be dying at kodak, but only because that's how the top > > brass wants it. > > Wouldn't be the first time kodak has done something stupid. Yes, I remember an article in a german collectors magazine featuring a prototype of a very advanced SLR designed by Kodak. This project was cancelled. Their bright managers thought that 35mm film would die soon because the 126 format would take its place, so it would be useless to invest into 35mm cameras any more.
Winfried
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 20 Dec 2003 02:15 GMT They wouldn't have been able to compete with the Japanese anyway. Heck Bell&Howell couldn't even compete with their Foton against the Germans, even before Japan had become a major player. Kodak made big bucks off of their 126 product - a beautiful combination of novelty and poor quality.
> > > In short, film may be dying at kodak, but only because that's how the top > > > brass wants it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Winfried Dan Fromm - 20 Dec 2003 15:29 GMT > They wouldn't have been able to compete with the Japanese anyway. Heck Bell&Howell couldn't even > compete with their Foton against the Germans, even before Japan had become a major player. Kodak > made big bucks off of their 126 product - a beautiful combination of novelty and poor quality. Um, Steven, pictures taken on the same emulsion with a good grade of 35 mm SLR and an normal lens and with a good grade of Instamatic are indistinguishable. Poorer grades of Instamatic are another matter.
Cheers,
Dan
Dennis O'Connor - 20 Dec 2003 16:29 GMT Unlikely ... Show me the prints that prove that statement <prints not digital poop off a scanner>....
"Dan Fromm" <danielwfromm@att.com> wrote in pictures taken on the same emulsion with a good grade of
> 35 mm SLR and an normal lens and with a good grade of Instamatic are > indistinguishable. Lassi =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hippel=E4inen?= - 20 Dec 2003 17:04 GMT > Unlikely ... Show me the prints that prove that statement <prints not > digital poop off a scanner>.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 35 mm SLR and an normal lens and with a good grade of Instamatic are > > indistinguishable. The good grade Instamatics were made for Kodak in Germany, and they had lenses from Rodenstock or Schneider...
-- Lassi
jjs - 20 Dec 2003 17:09 GMT In article <3FE48133.541E4CA@ieee.orgasm-research.invalid>, Lassi =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hippel=E4inen?= <lahippel@ieee.orgasm-research.invalid> wrote:
> The good grade Instamatics were made for Kodak in Germany, and they had > lenses from Rodenstock or Schneider... And a film-flatness problem made in hell.
Bob Monaghan - 21 Dec 2003 03:42 GMT Bingo! yes, that is the sad problem with the instamatic cameras, the plastic cart didn't hold the film flat and at the precise distance to ensure maximum performance from often very good lenses. Sigh! Another example of kodak creating a new format which reduced the quality of images!
On the plus side, I might point out what nifty macro lenses you can make for bug photos from those kodak disc cameras with glass lenses that now sell for $1 or so (as no disc film etc.). About all you can do with 'em, but the focal length is less than anything you are likely to find for this price from a TV lens or 8mm or 16mm film lens, though those lenses are often more highly corrected/coated/filter ring mounts better for lesser magnification needs...
grins bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Vince - 20 Dec 2003 21:09 GMT >Um, Steven, pictures taken on the same emulsion with a good grade of >35 mm SLR and an normal lens and with a good grade of Instamatic are >indistinguishable. Poorer grades of Instamatic are another matter. I used to get some very fine photos with my KODAK Instamatic 404 with its plastic lens and all, and I'm sure my friend with his 804 (glass lens) did better.
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS AND our new E-BAY STORE.
Q.G. de Bakker - 20 Dec 2003 12:23 GMT > Now that ALL the top Kodak execs are digital types (i.e., brought in by > the new CEO from digital corp. backgrounds), I expected even less film [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > brass wants it. Others are going to continue to serve this market, as per > Fuji ;-) People seem to forget that Kodak has just finished a restructuring of their film division, which they could not do without investing in this no-sense-in-putting-more-money-towards product, and that film, believe it or not, is already just about as good as we need it to be. The latter thing is in large part due to the very sloppy way people handle photo-technique. No sense in producing ever higher resolution films, for instance, when people still boast about how they can handhold their cameras at low shutterspeeds. It would be nonsensical to do even as long as people insist on handholding their cameas at any speed.
Now i'm not saying photographers in general should get their act together and be more quality oriented when photographing, for there are many valid reasons to, say, handhold. Just that because of that, we don't need higher resolution films than the ones we have. (Besides, we had higher resolution ones, but noone seemed to care.)
The same reasoning applies to other quality aspects of film. Grain, for instance, is something still very much in demand.
And the third thing people forget: "digital" still needs a lot of attention, a lot of investment before it too is as good as we ever need it to be.
Bob Monaghan - 21 Dec 2003 03:51 GMT Yes, it is true that technique limits most of us much or all of the time ;-)
but it is also true that many films, esp. color print, don't allow us to get the most out of our lenses, and film is the limiting factor in system resolution, given lens aerial resolutions in the 300+ lpmm range in MF and 35mm
the new films being produced now are various coupler and formic acid enhanced film chemistries which are delivering extra stops of speed without noticeably greater levels of grain. This is very MUCH needed by the majority of shooters with zoom lenses, esp. P&S long zooms that start at f/6.3 at the wide end and end up over f/11 at the long end ;-) ;-) We have velvia 100 with grain of velvia 50 and better colors and more coming
Kodak's "new" film plants were many years in the building, and their "new" film versions are mostly minor, often overcoat changes in their prior film products (in B&W esp. I'm told). The proliferation of films with various color signatures at the same film speed is mostly tweaking color mixes. My real concern is their cutting basic R&D investments in new film technologies to put the $$ into digital marketshare efforts.
Then again, after Kodak crashes a bit more, Icahn may chop up and spin off Kodak's film division (as the profitable part of the corp? ;-), so the new entity may be lots more interested in film development than the old parent?
grins ;-) bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 21 Dec 2003 14:47 GMT I've heard from those who know more than me, that the "new" Tri-X is much improved i.e. greater d-Max .
> Kodak's "new" film plants were many years in the building, and their "new" > film versions are mostly minor, often overcoat changes in their prior film > products (in B&W esp. I'm told). Bob Monaghan - 22 Dec 2003 00:08 GMT yes, and quoting Patrick Bartek (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmp.html): "Primarily, TX Pro has a retouching tooth of [sic: on] the back of the film base, and is designed primarily for portraiture. And when developed as directed, it produces a higher contrast negative and is more suited to enlargements with a diffusion head enlarger..." So there are improvements or changes, but they aren't so much from new film research as changes in coatings (e.g., at rear of film in case of Tri-X pro) and not so much the film structure or chemistry (as you might have implied from the PR blurbs)
These announcements were back when kodak still had some top execs who were from the film end of things, not imported digital types as today ;-) and they wanted to reassure their film users that we weren't being abandoned.
grins bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Q.G. de Bakker - 22 Dec 2003 00:41 GMT Bob Monaghan wrote (while still not quoting bits of what he's replying to. It's not as if it takes great effort to not delete those bits, is it? ;-)):
> Yes, it is true that technique limits most of us much or all of the time > ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resolution, given lens aerial resolutions in the 300+ lpmm range in MF and > 35mm Indeed.
But how many of us do (or did) actually care about the extra resolution films like Ektar 25 or Technical Pan could/can deliver enough to "mend our ways" and stop doing the things that will waste even the lowly resolution our not-quite-so-good films can produce if only we would let them? Yes, that's right: not very many. ;-)
We apparently rather have "bad" films, and screw them up even more, than take care, focus accurately (which indeed translates to: "do not use auto-focus"), use a tripod, and low ISO film. And still we're quite happy...
Yes, 126 instamatic (mentioned somewhere in this thread, i believe) was not good. Still sold in unprecedented numbers (70 million cameras in no time at all). And for some unknown reason Instamatic owners used twice as much film as the average shooter. Now that succes is still waiting to be equaled (and Kodak sure tried to... ;-)). A success too that ended Kodak's involvement (apart from making film) in "upper end" 35 mm photography (they tried, and failed, to reenter the low end of that market segment later). So do "we photographers" really care about quality...? Are we waiting for Kodak's next "new and improved" film?
And yes, "digital" is not good. They still sell in ... etc. ;-)
So why would any manufacturer bother producing things we will not sell no matter what? ;-)
Which, by the way, is a very worrying thing for us here in the MF group. The same reasoning obviously applies to format. Why would any manufacturer bother producing MF equipment when so many/most don't care about the (medium) format advantage? I'm certainly glad some still do, though. But how long can they keep it up?
The key factor in all this is, i think, convenience. We don't want to use tripods. We don't want to change lenses. We don't want to expose carefully. We don't want to focus accurately. Etcetera, etcetera. It all boils down to: we don't want quality. No. We want convenience! That's what we want to put money towards. And, all in all, huge amounts of money too.
> the new films being produced now are various coupler and formic acid > enhanced film chemistries which are delivering extra stops of speed > without noticeably greater levels of grain. This is very MUCH needed by > the majority of shooters with zoom lenses, esp. P&S long zooms that start > at f/6.3 at the wide end and end up over f/11 at the long end ;-) ;-) We > have velvia 100 with grain of velvia 50 and better colors and more coming Yes. Convenience driving film technology. Not demand for quality, is it?
> Kodak's "new" film plants were many years in the building, and their "new" > film versions are mostly minor, often overcoat changes in their prior film > products (in B&W esp. I'm told). The proliferation of films with various > color signatures at the same film speed is mostly tweaking color mixes. > My real concern is their cutting basic R&D investments in new film > technologies to put the $$ into digital marketshare efforts. That's what i mean: it's not that Kodak hasn't invested in film. They only think they have done so sufficiently. For a while at least. As you, and i, and many others know, that does not equate to Kodak abandoning film. Which is what a very vocal few seem to believe. The product is "plenty good enough as it is", so investment has focussed on "streamlining" production. That finished, there is nothing left to do but wait and see when (if?) we will start demanding things the current product can't deliver.
Meanwhile, they do good focussing on other things happening in photography. No cause for concern, i think. Certainly not compared to our apparent disregard of quality.
Bob Monaghan - 22 Dec 2003 01:13 GMT yes, I agree; actually, in an earlier posting on scanners I noted they were "good enough", as with digital imagery, and so the higher quality from MF and film was perhaps wasted when 40 lpmm or 50 lpmm was the quality "limit" whether with poor technique with film or using scanners on film (40 lpmm), or autofocus limits (50 lpmm limits).
Now I am starting to get worried; Larry's recent posting on 620 film thread re: 70mm film noted that only 4% of Kodak's film production was going to still films as used by amateurs/pros in this NG and 35mm etc.
This makes it easy to understand why the lower sales ektar 25 and kodachrome 25/100 have been cut, along with verichrome pan (sob!) and other films. It suggests that many more are likely to be trimmed, esp. if film sales continue to decline faster than expected?
drat! bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Nick Zentena - 20 Dec 2003 18:21 GMT > In short, film may be dying at kodak, but only because that's how the top > brass wants it. Others are going to continue to serve this market, as per > Fuji ;-) Kodak seems to trying a two headed attacked. North America etc will get Kodaks effort on digital. China etc will get Kodaks effort on film. Also from what I've seen of Kodaks digital moves lately they really don't seem aimed at the photographic market. Kodak is aiming more at the medical and other imaging markets. That is one thing that makes sense. Digital is moving down market very quickly and any company that tries to move consumer digital is going to face some serious issues. I can't see photo cell phones not killing off much of the lower end of the market.
Nick
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 20 Dec 2003 23:09 GMT Not to mention the tremendous amount of second hand "pro" digital bodies that will hit the aftermarket when 10MP becomes the standard, and then when 15MP becomes the standard, and then when 20MP becomes the standard, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
> Digital is moving > down market very quickly and any company that tries to move consumer digital > is going to face some serious issues. I can't see photo cell phones not > killing off much of the lower end of the market. > > Nick Nick Zentena - 21 Dec 2003 12:50 GMT > Not to mention the tremendous amount of second hand "pro" digital bodies that > will hit the aftermarket when 10MP becomes the standard, and then when 15MP > becomes the standard, and then when 20MP becomes the standard, etc., etc., ad > nauseum. I'm not sure you will see the old style amatuer buying of used pro bodies in the digital world. With film pro bodies you could buy a 10+ year old camera have it CLA stick a fresh roll of film in the back and suddenly you've got a camera that you can boast about. The digital world is going to be more like PCs. Nobody boasts about having a five year old PC. How many people here are thrilled to have high quality cameras built in the 1970s or 1980s? I'll wager the number of people in 2010 who will want to buy the best 2004 digital camera will be pretty close to zero.
Nick
Bob Monaghan - 22 Dec 2003 00:24 GMT Do you think Nikon will be making F-mount film camera bodies for much longer? They are 80% digital+ now in sales, right? They want to sell us all new lenses and accessories, not make it easy for us to use our old stuff, right? ;-)
I think there will be a number of film types (ahem) who will be glad to pick up a decent DSLR which can use our current investment in lenses, perhaps along with a film based similar model (F100..)?
I am hoping someone like Sigma comes out with a digital body which can be used with different lens lines (preferably using an adapter), esp. up to 16 MP sized sensors.
I think that 2004-5 will be the critical year, with 5 MP cameras hitting $300-400+, and costs of DSLR bodies plummeting well below $1k. But my worry is the mfgers will try to make us replace old lenses with new ones (Nikon G, IX etc.).
Finally, I suspect that the now 2 MP cameras in cell phones may also improve, and at some point rival most of today's midrange digicams with easier uploading and remote printing etc. At that point, the mass of consumers are going to NOT want digicams but digicamera-cellphones, and the market for much of the current digital stuff will collapse (new and esp. used).
As it is, I have picked up a number of digicams for about the sales tax on the original kit, only 3 or so years after initial purchase. I am quite willing for the pioneer (the guy with arrows in his back ;-) to pay for the steep depreciation. But I think we will see a huge price drop as newer and network/phone linked digicams make digital photography less like current photography and more like current email and cellphone use ;-)
my $.02
bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Nick Zentena - 22 Dec 2003 01:20 GMT > I think that 2004-5 will be the critical year, with 5 MP cameras hitting > $300-400+, and costs of DSLR bodies plummeting well below $1k. But my > worry is the mfgers will try to make us replace old lenses with new ones > (Nikon G, IX etc.). The wonder I have is how many new lenses will they have to sell to make a lens mount economical? In the past they could make a major change and be certain of a number of years of sales. Today? I'm personally suprised we aren't seeing digital lens mounts.
> Finally, I suspect that the now 2 MP cameras in cell phones may also > improve, and at some point rival most of today's midrange digicams with > easier uploading and remote printing etc. At that point, the mass of > consumers are going to NOT want digicams but digicamera-cellphones, and > the market for much of the current digital stuff will collapse (new and > esp. used). That's what I think will happen but not just cellphones. Camera PDAs. Camera laptop computers. Camera cars-)) That kills all but the pro, high end amatuer and the decoration camera buyer. The pro market will pay what it takes to make money. But the rest?
Nick
Bob Monaghan - 22 Dec 2003 02:27 GMT that's the problem with digital's future for serious amateur/pro photography.
we don't have the volume. It takes a multibillion $ fab plant setup to make bigger sensors, e.g., 64 MP.
Let's say the mass market is delighted now with 5 MP for up to 8x10" prints, and even the MF backs are only 16 MP, with 35mm DSLRs now hitting 11 MP and 14 MP and foveon's 16 MP prototypes etc.
My belief is that at 16 MP we may hit a "sweet spot", where few users will want more for web images or home prints - bigger is slower to send via email and so on from cellphone camera etc. Smaller sensors mean more noise too, and larger sensor site sizes mean bigger sensors at higher MP ranges
So where is the demand for 64 MP sensors? What will drive down the costs to affordable levels?
This is the same issue with high prices of medium format gear; we only sell about 25,000 rigs per year in USA, so the numbers don't justify rapid changeovers and prices remain high per unit.
But the difference with digital sensors is the multibillion $$ cost of the fab plant and hence very high cost of 64 MP sensors to pass inspection etc. It may be much cheaper to have three 16 MP sensors, for example, with prisms, to record an image (as with digicams at high end). Or they will take multiple shots and merge in software (if not action).
that's why I wonder if this isn't the golden age of digital amateur photography too, with lots of products for the transition from film. Once we get to the other side, it may be that cameras are part of many things such as cell phones and computers, but the low cost requirements seem to preclude the kinds of sensors and optics which we currently expect for high quality DSLR digicam use (i.e., 16 MP or less not more etc.)?
regards bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Nick Zentena - 22 Dec 2003 13:38 GMT > that's why I wonder if this isn't the golden age of digital amateur > photography too, with lots of products for the transition from film. Once > we get to the other side, it may be that cameras are part of many things > such as cell phones and computers, but the low cost requirements seem to > preclude the kinds of sensors and optics which we currently expect for > high quality DSLR digicam use (i.e., 16 MP or less not more etc.)? I think the other end is likely facing worse problems. Right now you'll see many people that would never of setup a darkroom getting printers etc. Are these people going to keep up the hobby? I doubt it. Cheap video cameras didn't turn the whole world into movie makers and sooner or later many of those who've setup home digital printing setups will decide they've got better things to do with thier time.
Nick
Bob Monaghan - 23 Dec 2003 00:43 GMT Nick - that's a good point re: abandon printing at home as time consuming
our local ads now push one minute photo prints from your digital camera at kiosks in malls and minilabs; one hour is too long ;-)
wolf camera just intro'd a recycle-able digital camera $15+ and you pay more for 4x6" prints, but just drop off and pickup prints with short delay
I suspect folks will find the Frontier processors delivering better results faster with less software and computer glitches etc. too, yes? ;-)
But even more critical to agreeing with you is that PMAI stats show 89% of digicam users NEVER made prints, but simply posted to web (ebay etc.?) or mostly emailed images to family and friends and so on. With digital cameras in cell phones making this even easier, I suspect that only a tiny fraction of users will be doing today's processes to get digital prints, and will simply look at stuff online with few if any prints.
again, this is why Kodak's stock has tanked 70%+; they are losing $ on the digital cameras and rebadged printers/etc., and killing off their cash cow of films and paper sales ;-)
regards bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 23 Dec 2003 03:31 GMT I've been futzing around with that Frontier contraption for over year. It hasn't impressed me yet and I've gone to several labs, both pro and consumer. In side to side comparisons with inkjet outputs i.e. a friend's consumer grade Canon and my lowly Epson C82, most people prefer the inkjet output. The paper's better on a Frontier, but IMHO, the inkjet's got it beat.
> I suspect folks will find the Frontier processors delivering better > results faster with less software and computer glitches etc. too, yes? ;-) John F. Opie - 24 Dec 2003 07:42 GMT >that's the problem with digital's future for serious amateur/pro >photography. > >we don't have the volume. It takes a multibillion $ fab plant setup to >make bigger sensors, e.g., 64 MP. Hi -
You don't need to spend billions to build a 64MP sensor.
Let's look briefly at the costs. First you have the design, debugging a software version of same and taping the design out. That'll cost you around $350k for a 64MP sensor. This is actually pretty simple stuff, compared to CPU design. Does take time, nonetheless, but it's good training for younger engineers (or keep busy work for older ones...).
Let's make life simple for us all: let's plan a 64 MP sensor with a sensor size of 6x6cm so that we can all keep on using our Hasselblads and not go nutty trying to figure out conversion factors. That means a 8kx8k sensor with a pixel with edges of 0,072 mm (7200 nm, if I did this right. Otherwise 720nm...). With that sort of resolution size we don't need 130nm fabs (they do cost billyuns and billyuns), but can live quite nicely with one of the older, depreciated fabs. Chips are made in batches, like cookies, on wafers. Let's be extravagant and go for a single sensor on a wafer: we can go to one of the older fabs with 3" wafer processing capability resolving down to, say, 500nm.
Let's say we want a first batch for test purposes. Let's make 30 or so: since we've taped everything already (i.e. there's a computer tape with all the proper design and processing sequences available), we can probably get that done for around $20k or so, especially if we're holding out the chance to make 20k or so of the things.
So, ball park (correct me people if I'm off here by any orders of magnitude: I don't think I am, but it's been a while since I've done this sort of stuff) we've spent less than $400k for an initial batch of 30 or so 64 MP sensors.
The processing and peripherals are gonna kill you. If I make 25k of these sensors, I'll probably pay $5 for each one gross, and might end up paying $10 net if I have really, really tight quality control and do things like testing color curves and the like. Let's do that. That means I've spent $350k + $250k = $600k for 25k sensors, or around $25 a sensor for the sensor chip.
Now is where the problems come up: you've got a kick-a.s super sensor that meets all of your specs, but what do you do with it? You've got to dump close to 200 MB of data (12 bits for sensor and three colors) across probably a 16-bit interface to some sort of storage. Then you've got to be able to view it in one way or the other.
That's where you end up with a $4k camera body. You need, probably, an PIII class processor, 1 GB of RAM, and accompanying electrics and electronics, all in a super tiny compact no-maintenance package.
>This is the same issue with high prices of medium format gear; we only >sell about 25,000 rigs per year in USA, so the numbers don't justify rapid [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >regards bobm I just bought a 5MP camera (Nikon Coolpix 5k) for that exact reason: I want to see if I can cobble something together using mosaics to replace my P67 for most purposes. I'm not sure I would call it the golden age, but certainly the market is starting to get interesting...
John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen things you newbies wouldn't believe. Attack-morons aflame off the shoulder of rec.arts.sf.written. I watched Cancel posts glitter in the ether near the waikato.ac.nz gateway. All those moments will be lost in time - like beers in the rain. Time to unsubscribe...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Monaghan - 25 Dec 2003 05:48 GMT Hi John!
I wish that were the case; but if so, and given it is all older 3" wafer technology etc., why hasn't someone done so? I mean, a 64 MP sensor would blow away 11 MP and even foveon's 16MP chip. People are already paying $25,000 for various leaf backs for medium format to get 1/4th or less the resolution? For a major mfger, $1 million for 25,000 64MP sensors would be modest. Even if the readout were slowed and compressed before transmission, it would still be vastly improved over the current 16 MP, yes?
I hope you are right; but I am afraid 64 MP may be overkill, and so remain a specialty big $$ sensor. And it would be easier and cheaper to use a beam splitter and 16 MP sensors (under $10 per Foveon's projections 2 years ago, but yet to get here ;-( ) and combine the 3 RGB colors for 48 MP than go with a 64 MP device, I suspect too?
the other issue is camera size/weight; I think folks are going to push for cameras in cell phones and PCs and so on, as Neil (IIRC) and others noted, not want to carry around a big medium format sized lens to impress folks ;-)
regards and happy holidays ;-) bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
John F. Opie - 25 Dec 2003 22:42 GMT >Hi John! > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >regards and happy holidays ;-) bobm Hi -
The reason that nobody's done it is that the constraint, as I pointed out, isn't on the price of the sensor and the need to build a new fab to make it: the constraint is in scaling the rest of the system to manage the sort of data streams you are talking about: this is not a trivial task for any system that can be meaningfully used in the field. That is what turns a $25 chip into a $25k system: high-scale integration, royalty fees to use IEEE 1394, smale-scale production, etc.
It'll be affordable (ca $1k) by around 2015 or so. Of course, that assumes that Moore's law will continue for this kind of technology until then, and that the entire system can be placed on a single ASIC or PGA that allows for mass production, coupled with FlashRAM price at the pennies per Gigabyte.
But then again, I like making conservative estimates.
:-) John -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen things you newbies wouldn't believe. Attack-morons aflame off the shoulder of rec.arts.sf.written. I watched Cancel posts glitter in the ether near the waikato.ac.nz gateway. All those moments will be lost in time - like beers in the rain. Time to unsubscribe...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
steven.sawyer@banet.net - 27 Dec 2003 00:21 GMT Do you think we could see digital retro-fitting of older cameras? Once full-frame sensors become common, I could see some smart camera repairmen loading them into older rangefinder cameras that do not have interchangeable lenses but do have superb optics. Or even loading them into "plate back" cameras with superb optics of yesteryear. Am I dreaming, or could this become a reality?
Bob Monaghan - 27 Dec 2003 03:07 GMT yes, you are dreaming! ;-) just kidding!
somebody might be able to mount the sensor at the focal plane point on a MF SLR, say, with a flex cable or by hacking the camera body (lens removed etc.) so the sensor now sees what the MF lens is projecting at the focal plane.
The big pain here is that most MF SLRs with interchangeable backs put this point dang close to the camera body (few mm.) so matching up is problem prone and doesn't allow much slack for sensor cabling & mounting.
One solution is to do as with a polaroid back, using a fused and polished plate of parallel fiber optic fibers to conduct the original image to the sensor some distance away from the camera focal plane. Problem here is the fused fiber plate is big $$ by itself ;-(
my preferred solution is to use a lens to re-image the aerial image from the focal plane onto an existing digicam lens, allowing you to use the existing MF slr.. lenses at full format, but at whatever the resolution of the digicam might be, and reading out on the digicam LCD screen.
Sort of like taking a photo with your camera thru an afocal telescope at the Grand Canyon, but here something like a closeup lens is allowing the digicam to see the aerial image at the focal plane (say 6x6cm SLR). If you can remove the lens from the digicam, this might be even easier to setup and do, esp. if you have a full range of camera controls and some way to interlink to the MF SLR to trigger the digicam.
finally, if there is a big enough market, something like silicon film's idea (a drop in cartridge shaped digital sensor and electronics?) might work, esp. for those cameras with removable backs or inserts? But at 25,000 MF sales per year in USA (per NYIP estimate), that isn't much of a market, esp. when you consider all the models out there, and low volumes kill you on cost with leading edge sensors and custom electronics and software ;-(
this is why I would like to see someone like Sigma/Foveon (16 MP device) come up with a digital camera that use _just_ the lenses of popular cameras (preferably using a simple adapter for auto diaphragm operation etc.), including not just 35mm RF/SLR but also adapters for MF and LF mounts too. Such a design would be like third party lenses in reverse, anybody with any lens could buy this DSLR, and use it with the right adapter and preserve their investments in their lenses, yes? For MF folks, the adapter might include a deluxe adapter option, with some shift/tilt function, to take advantage of the larger coverage of MF optics?
The 22 MP sensors (Sinar..) are 45x60mm with an active area of about 39mm x 50mm. That kind of chip might be close enough for many 645/6x6 users (some are paying big $$ today for it ;-) in MF depending on the price? And again, 22 MP may be "good enough" for many MF users and needs too ;-)
grins bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Q.G. de Bakker - 26 Dec 2003 03:18 GMT > So where is the demand for 64 MP sensors? What will drive down the costs > to affordable levels? Well, i, for one, wouldn't mind even more MP sensors. I have encountered situations that really stretched my 80 MP scanned files to the limit. Could have cut quality and make do with less MP, but... ;-)
But yes, what indeed will drive the cost down to affordable levels?
As things are now, i would get me a 14 MP Kodak full frame 35-format digital camera for $5,000 in a jiffy, but/and not even consider considering buying a $20,000 - $30,000 16 MP digital back for a MF camera. Apparently digital technology is evolving significantly, with (!) price levels going down rapidly, in one segment of the market, but stagnant and still ridicuously overpriced in another segment. Is there any rational explanation for this at all? I doubt it.
Bob Monaghan - 21 Dec 2003 03:57 GMT Kodak execs in 10K and other comments also noted that china had a film usage rate of about a roll a year per family, vs. 4 or so for the developed world, and with a billion+ people, think of the market. This ignores that 850 million chinese are peasants making $350-400 US$ per year in the hinterlands, no local minilabs etc. ;-) Yes they will sell more film in the third world, but those profits will be used to fund their effort to buy digital marketshare. Kodak has said they don't intend to put $$ into film R&D and will use film as a cash cow for digital efforts etc.
predictions are that 2004-5 will be the shakeout year for digital, with many corp., including probably #5 Nikon and #6 Kodak being squeezed out of the digital marketshare by more competitive efforts, as prices collapse with influx of $300+ 5 MP digicams by year's end (next year, obviously ;-)
grins bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Nick Zentena - 21 Dec 2003 13:02 GMT > predictions are that 2004-5 will be the shakeout year for digital, with > many corp., including probably #5 Nikon and #6 Kodak being squeezed out of > the digital marketshare by more competitive efforts, as prices collapse > with influx of $300+ 5 MP digicams by year's end (next year, obviously ;-) I still think the real risk is the non camera camera. Things have gotten cheap enough to stick a camera in a cell phone. How long until you can stick a basic camera into almost anything? When that happens the low to mid market camera market gets killed. Not that long ago people spent real money on clocks for the house. Today the microwave has a clock. The VCR. The Stove.
Nick
stacey - 13 Dec 2003 03:21 GMT > IMHO, 620 was yet another attempt by Kodak to create a proprietary film > system so that once you bought the camera, you had to go to kodak for > film... True but as an owner of a bunch of folding cameras, -some- of the 620 film ones are slightly smaller. The duo-620 is an example of a camera that is smaller than 120 film cameras. But then again why did the medalist use 620 if it was a "pro film" concern like some people suggest?
 Signature Stacey
Peter Irwin - 13 Dec 2003 04:58 GMT >> IMHO, 620 was yet another attempt by Kodak to create a proprietary film >> system so that once you bought the camera, you had to go to kodak for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > smaller than 120 film cameras. But then again why did the medalist use 620 > if it was a "pro film" concern like some people suggest? As far as I know Kodak didn't make any 120 cameras between the mid 1930s and the mid 1950s. Kodak appear to have decided that as far as they were concerned 620 was a replacement for 120. There wasn't anything particularly "professional" about 120 in 1932 when Kodak introduced 620. The "pro" nature of 120 comes from its use in the Rolleiflex which was just changing over from 117 to 120 when 620 film was introduced.
Kodak made lots of non-box camera emulsions for 620 at one point including Panatomic-X and E-2 process Ektachrome. Lots of other manufacturers made 620 film in the 1950s when Kodak was still making high quality cameras which used the film. My 1957 British Journal Photographic Almanac lists colour films from Agfa (West Germany), Lumiere (France), Ansco(USA), Dufay (UK), Ferrania (Italy), Gevaert (Belgium), British Pathe (UK), Raycolor (UK), Tellko (Switzerland), as well as Kodak available in 620 format. The Japanese companies and the Communist manufacturers do not seem to have any 620 films listed, but most of the others did.
Peter. --- pirwin@ktb.net
Vince - 13 Dec 2003 04:45 GMT >IMHO, 620 was yet another attempt by Kodak to create a proprietary film >system so that once you bought the camera, you had to go to kodak for >film... Well I knew a number of other brands of 620 over the years, just as there were other brands of 127.
Vince Take out words goodguy to e-mail Check out new listings on e-bay under BOOKMAGS -------------------------------------------------------
Bob Monaghan - 14 Dec 2003 00:46 GMT yes, Vince, a good point; however, I believe that kodak had the patents on this proprietary technology. So kodak could make royalties from others using 620 spools to fit their cameras, yes? And they could achieve a major share of the overall market starting out, thanks to having invented the format and the cameras that used it ;-) Even if they didn't or couldn't exclude competitors (Sherman Act in USA), they could control the market and by continually bringing in new formats and camera systems, encourage consumers to switch over, even though as I have noted the new formats were often no better and sometimes lots worse than the old ones (e.g., disc, 126 vs. 35mm, 110 vs 126, APS vs 35mm, 620 vs. 120 etc.).
Stacey is right that some 620 cameras may be marginally smaller than a similar 120 model, but again, we are only dealing with a 1/4" or so difference around the rim of the 120 spool vs. 620. I am guessing that many 120 cameras are larger not because they have to be, but because that wasn't a major design criterion at the time (1930s on). All the camera had to do was fit in a man's jacket pocket, back when all men wore jackets with pockets ;-)
grins bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Tim Smith - 14 Dec 2003 03:59 GMT >see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfilms.html on obsolete film specs etc. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >system so that once you bought the camera, you had to go to kodak for >film... My first camera (a loan from my Dad, a Kodak exec at the time) was a folder, made by Kodak, and called the <mumble, mumble> Duo 620. IIRC, it had a good quality f/3.5 lens, about a 45mm equivalent in modern 35mm terms. I took it to East Africa, and could not get film for it (this was in 1961).
I, ahem, dropped it in the Red Sea (forgive me father), and was able to buy a new Leica M2 with a 50mm Summicron in the PX for $140 (1960's dollars!).
It's been mostly downhill since then. But I have seen the light (in more ways than one). My most recent camera purchase was a used Mamiya 7, and picture taking is fun again
Bob Monaghan - 16 Dec 2003 01:32 GMT yikes! see http://www.agribiz.com/economy/histcpi.html on consumer price increase table - that's a five-fold+ increase since early 1960s, so in today's dollarettes, that Leica M2 and 50mmf/2 summicron should cost new about $700 or so, right? ;-) Ooops! ;-)
the other way around, it is impossible to get the quality of precisely machined camera gear today at an affordable price which was available cheaply in the past. You may get more features and automation, but if you want just a basic, really rugged camera (cf Leica M2) with affordable fixed focal lenght lenses, then you are out of luck.
This is also why it is soooo annoying that the still working cameras are sidelined by the lack of film spools or mercury batteries or other minor issues, aimed at forcing us to "upgrade" to the newest thing ;-)
grins bobm
 Signature *********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Tim Smith - 16 Dec 2003 05:42 GMT >yikes! see http://www.agribiz.com/economy/histcpi.html on consumer price >increase table - that's a five-fold+ increase since early 1960s, so in >today's dollarettes, that Leica M2 and 50mmf/2 summicron should cost new >about $700 or so, right? ;-) Ooops! ;-) Those inflation indices that are based on the CPI of course show wildly different increases for various things. Cars and houses have increased in price 10-30x, while other things (men's clothing is one) have increased slightly less than that 5x average, and food is about on par with it.
Also, that $140 was a US military PX price, close to cost. I think that a Leica M2 with a 50mm Summicron was going for about $300 in the US at that time. Still, an M6 with a 50mm Summicron costs about $2600 these days (don't ask me how I know). Better camera? A little, but not by much.
>the other way around, it is impossible to get the quality of precisely >machined camera gear today at an affordable price which was available >cheaply in the past. You may get more features and automation, but if you >want just a basic, really rugged camera (cf Leica M2) with affordable >fixed focal lenght lenses, then you are out of luck. |
|