Silicon eFilm no longer Vaporware
Eduardo Suastegui
At 1.3 megapixels, this technology is nearly useless for me, but I'm glad
another choice is finally come to market. With more pixels and greater
compatibility with film SLRs, this is a great concept. But unless more
pixels are added, the old vaporware will turn into poofware.
--
Eduardo Suastegui
"Test everything. Hold on to the good."
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com |
| My Photography: http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/c2020z |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Billy
>
> At 1.3 megapixels, this technology is nearly useless for me, but I'm glad
> another choice is finally come to market. With more pixels and greater
> compatibility with film SLRs, this is a great concept.
It depends on the price and the quality of the pixels.
I agree that it's probably a doomed product, particularly
in light of all the low-end digital cameras being announced
this week. However, if it's a really good quality 1.3
megapix, and can take long exposures, I could see this
being useful. I've gotten pretty good 5x7's and just
passable 8x10's from 1.3 megapix.
I think a product like this would have a market if the
sensor were larger, at least APS sized rather than 11x9mm.
And, the price would have to be about half what they're
projecting (currently $700).
If they got it up to 3 megapix, then I think they'd have
a $1000 product, although you'd still lose most of the
traditional digicam advantages, white balance, shot review,
switchable ISO, etc.
--
-Billy e-mail - billy_rpd at yahoo dot com checked weekly
Look - RPD FAQ - http://rpdfaq.50megs.com
Please support descriptive subjects by ignoring generic
posts!
Mark Morgan
investors.
A "beta", to hopefully be released soon???
Oh brother.
"Eduardo Suastegui" <esuas...@my-Deja.com> wrote in message
news:N1Wh6.13486$1%2.71...@sjc-read.news.verio.net...
Billy
>
> It depends on the price and the quality of the pixels.
I looked at some of their full sized pics. They're toast.
http://www.siliconfilm.com/SFT%20Gallery%20folder/SFT%20Gallery/portraits/index.htm
Not even as good as last years digicams. Incredible
noise and really soft images. Oh, and color balance? Ugh.
I see why they're not releasing the product, they're
busy drafting resumes!
Glenn Woodell
esuas...@my-Deja.com says...
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021201siliconfilmefs1.asp
>
>At 1.3 megapixels, this technology is nearly useless for me, but I'm glad
>another choice is finally come to market. With more pixels and greater
>compatibility with film SLRs, this is a great concept. But unless more
>pixels are added, the old vaporware will turn into poofware.
Check out the sensor size. Only 10.8 X 8.6 mm. That's a ratio of 2.85. of
course that makes a 200mm lens equilavent to a 570mm lens.*
* Their claims
Mark Morgan
Those are the most hideous pictures I've seen in a LONG TIME!
I can't believe they'd have the balls to release them...
"Billy" <Somewhe...@not.here.com> wrote in message
news:3A884BC8...@not.here.com...
Christopher Glaeser
> course that makes a 200mm lens equilavent to a 570mm lens.*
Wow, 2.85. Those who love the D1/D30 1.5x will be extatic. ;)
- Christopher
Billy
>
> Wow!
> Those are the most hideous pictures I've seen in a LONG TIME!
> I can't believe they'd have the balls to release them...
I'm sure the conversation went something like this:
"Look, our VC money is pullin' out tomorrow if you can't
produce a G-d***m product!"
"Ok, look, I got this old Mavica in the closet, I can
hack the sensor out of that and dummy up something
tonight."
"Alright, it don't gotta be pretty, just enough to
get the f**kin lawyers off my butt. Oh, the sheriff
will be here tomorrow to pick up a few more things,
maybe you better work from home, if you know what
I mean..."
Tony Porczyk
> I looked at some of their full sized pics. They're toast.
> http://www.siliconfilm.com/SFT%20Gallery%20folder/SFT%20Gallery/portraits/index.htm
> Not even as good as last years digicams. Incredible
> noise and really soft images. Oh, and color balance? Ugh.
The first three at the top are tolerable for an early product, but the
remaining ones are truly hideous. I don't understand why they would put
them on the web site and not try to find an "ideal" object first.
It is a pity, because as an idea it would be great. Frankly, I still
haven't found any modern digital camera body that I would like as much as
my old all-mechanical Canons. To be able to inexpensively convert them
into digital cameras would be paradise. Eh, I guess I'm dreaming.
t.
mopi
wrote:
As the e-film is specific to one camera model it's very unlikely they
will release a AE1 (or whatever) model - looking on the bright side,
your no worse off than EOS 7 owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul O'Mara Limerick, Ireland
New to this group ? Read http://rpdfaq.50megs.com
www.photo.net www.digitalkamera.de >> www.deja.com/usenet <<
Gareth Ingram
of 35mm film cameras out there that could take advantage of this. The
situation might not last for long. It'd be like offering a petrol engine
that could be used with the old horse and buggy rather than designing a
horseless carriage. It isn't the best way to engineer the solution. A
digital camera should be designed that way from the start. The opportunity
to retrofit into existing 35mm film cameras will evaporate very quickly when
people start to ask 'so where's the LCD viewer?' 'where's the compatibility
with industry standard digital storage media' 'why is the battery running
down so quickly' etc.
Don't buy their stock.
Gareth
Mark Schretlen
Oly 2020z, I would really prefer to take digital pictures with my conventional
film equipment and its wide assortment of quality lenses. Why should I fork
out for a 3030z when I all I really want is a 2020z with more pixels? With
the Silicon Film concept, all I would upgrade to is a new sensor and I keep
my trusty film camera. Heck, I don't want a 2020z with more pixels, I want my
film camera capable of digital photography with more pixels than the 2020z.
I don't expect 1.3 megapixel limitation to last too long, unless they want to
fail in the marketplace.
As to Mopi's point about limited model compatibility, I'm guessing that a
larger active film tongue (larger than a 35 mm frame) would easily take
care of a lot of incompatibility - and would mean a lot more pixels, too.
mopi wrote:
Mark Morgan
2.85x multiplication of focal length (meaning you have to GUESS at what tiny
part of your SLR view-finder is going to be captured.
AND... You really DO have to guess--since you won't have ANY way of viewing
the shot you just took.
AND... Where are you going to put storage capacity? In the
film-canister-size part?
Where are you going to put a long-life battery?
Can you add memory? No.
Can you mount any sort of extra power supply? No.
Can you upload images without exposing the CMOS sensor to the elements EVERY
TIME? No.
Can you review and delete bad shots? No.
Can you control compression, white balance, or ANYTHING AT ALL?? No!
What a joke!
Also...
...Don't forget that the thickness of the sensor compared with the thickness
of real film will cause soft-focusing problems, since your camera is
designed to pinpoint focus based on the exact distance to the film
plane...less than a millimeter in thickness, compared with the inevitably
thicker CMOS sensor and housing--which must sit on the same surface where
film would otherwise be.
The ONLY "digital" type feature is that it gets *an image of some kind* in
to digital form.
But N-O-N-E of the countless other advantages of digital get transferred to
this medium.
-Sorry to be a party poop...but it just doesn't work.
They have a lot of gall even showing up at PMA. I'd be embarrassed to work
their booth.
-MM
"Mark Schretlen" <mark_sc...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3A889524...@telusplanet.net...
Mike Russell
would do the trick. Many SLR's have removable screens.
Many of your objections would be alleviated by an external connection of
some kind, and there are many possible solutions to this. One simple one is
a ribbon cable thin enough to get through the door's light baffle, then
stick a thin, rectangular LCD screen with controls on the back of the
camera, and you're in business. Or an inductive coupler of some kind could
be used to transmit power and control signals.
The issue with thickness is not much of a problem either. If the sensor is
thin enough to fit under the pressure plate, its front surface will lie in
the same plane as the emulsion.
Besides, you're missing the most important issue - the cooliosity factor.
Digital is not simply a replacement for film, any more than the printing
press is a replacement for 40 underpaid monks in a cold room scribbling
their lives away. It's a whole new gig with dimensions to it that
conventional photography does not address. If you simply evaluate digital
as a subset of conventional photography, you are missing the point, and the
potential.
--
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
"Mark Morgan" <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:yJ1i6.71409$GV2.15...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
Tony Porczyk
>As the e-film is specific to one camera model it's very unlikely they
>will release a AE1 (or whatever) model - looking on the bright side,
>your no worse off than EOS 7 owners.
Oh, no, AE-1 is the *latest* of my Canons :-) It was the most
electronic camera I could stand. Just to think I switched to
computer networking :) Now, FTb truly rules :)
I know. In reality I am waiting for something resembling an old
fashioned SLR without the bells and whistles and digital filters
and EV adjustments... just let me set it myself, and don't charge
me for all the excess baggage (I still prefer a hand-held lightmeter).
I know, it's now going to happen...
t.
Tony Porczyk
> [A bunch of good points deleted for brevity]
> -Sorry to be a party poop...
Too late. You've done it now :-)
t.
Mark Morgan
Guess what you'd get with this little device?
**A 57mm focal length!!!!!!
OK... Lets say you've sprung for the 14mm ultra-wide lens at a costs of
hundreds of dollars...
With all it's distortion, you'd still only get a 40mm equivalent!
A ribbon cable sticking through the door on your SLR with an LCD "stuck" to
the back with controls??
That's pretty funny.
What's going to power this screen? The three or four button-sized batteries
in the film-canister-sized housing? ...or is there also going to be a
battery "stuck" to the back of the camera?
:-)
I like your enthusiasm, but I'm afraid I can't see that it adds up to
anything more than delusion.
Did you buy stock in this company by chance?
:-)
"Mike Russell" <ge...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:L32i6.6908$y03.4...@news.flash.net...
tto...@bio.vu.nl
>
> They might be wasting their time all the same. So what if there are a bunch
> of 35mm film cameras out there that could take advantage of this. The
> situation might not last for long. It'd be like offering a petrol engine
> that could be used with the old horse and buggy rather than designing a
> horseless carriage. It isn't the best way to engineer the solution. A
> digital camera should be designed that way from the start. The opportunity
> to retrofit into existing 35mm film cameras will evaporate very quickly when
> people start to ask 'so where's the LCD viewer?' 'where's the compatibility
> with industry standard digital storage media' 'why is the battery running
> down so quickly' etc.
'Why can I only use a tiny center portion of my viewfinder' - 'How can I
change the color balance settings or sensitivity' - 'Why is it so
vulnerable when I change batteries'.
It may have been a nice idea in the era of the Apple Quicktake camera.
But now it just isn't, I think.
Thomas
tto...@bio.vu.nl
> I know. In reality I am waiting for something resembling an old
> fashioned SLR without the bells and whistles and digital filters
> and EV adjustments... just let me set it myself, and don't charge
> me for all the excess baggage (I still prefer a hand-held lightmeter).
All the extras are for free with a digital camera. It is software that
can get re-used from consumer to pro model. In the olden days of
mechanical cameras, every feature may have been mappleable to a lever or
wheel somewhere.
Software is muhc cheaper to reproduce.
I feel we need better autofocus and better controls mainly, so we can
use the thing without looking.
Thomas
Daniel Pead
Porczyk <hwy...@best.com> writes
>It is a pity, because as an idea it would be great. Frankly, I still
>haven't found any modern digital camera body that I would like as much as
>my old all-mechanical Canons. To be able to inexpensively convert them
>into digital cameras would be paradise.
Quite honestly, that would be a better line of attack - go for the old
obsolete cameras.
Target customers for eFilm are probably going to want to use digital and
35mm side-by-side for a while (...especially if the digital is grotty!)
& they won't want to tie up their main camera. Go for their Dad's old
manual SLR!
Half the design headache of eFilm must be getting it to fool the
automatics - especially the power loading & winding system - in
"electronic" cameras.
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Olympus C1400L examples on http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/etcetera/
Daniel Pead
<mmor...@san.rr.com> writes
>A ribbon cable sticking through the door on your SLR with an LCD "stuck" to
>the back with controls??
>That's pretty funny.
Sounds to me like a job for a wireless communication system like
"bluetooth" (trouble is, that's been "coming Real Soon Now" for years,
too). Beam the images straight to your "Glasstron" specs and/or PDA.
As for batteries - I wonder how much power you can draw from the DX
code-reading contacts in a 35mm camera? What about a dynamo that
generated power from the film being rewound? =:-O
It's still no good unless they can come up with a much larger sensor to
fix the focal length problem - working with peoples' existing lens
collections is 95% of the deal.
Joe Blow
wrote:
>mopi <tot...@bogus.com> writes:
You must be a real show stopper at family gatherings with everyone
waiting for you to get ready to take those snapshots (before they die
of boredom) :)
John G. Mankos
<Somewhe...@not.here.com> wrote:
>Billy wrote:
>>
>> It depends on the price and the quality of the pixels.
>
>I looked at some of their full sized pics. They're toast.
>http://www.siliconfilm.com/SFT%20Gallery%20folder/SFT%20Gallery/portraits/index.htm
>
>Not even as good as last years digicams. Incredible
>noise and really soft images. Oh, and color balance? Ugh.
>
>I see why they're not releasing the product, they're
>busy drafting resumes!
Just for kicks...I printed out one of these..
It is really, REALLY bad. Anywhere closer than 3-4 feet to the
picture, and you can see the defects.
I'll stick with my E-10, thank you very much
Darrell A. Larose
a 1 megapixel sensor with a 2.85x image magnification factor.
The insert are camera model dependent, and 3 of the SLRs they
are designed to fit have been discontinued.
Tony Porczyk
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:08:35 GMT, hwy...@best.com (Tony Porczyk)
>wrote:
>>Billy <Somewhe...@not.here.com> writes:
>>> I looked at some of their full sized pics. They're toast.
>>> http://www.siliconfilm.com/SFT%20Gallery%20folder/SFT%20Gallery/portraits/index.htm
>>The first three at the top are tolerable for an early product, but the
>>remaining ones are truly hideous. I don't understand why they would put
>>them on the web site and not try to find an "ideal" object first.
>Think a little. Now, I'm not saying I'm a fan of the product in any
>fashion. If you'd think a bit you'd see
> http://www.siliconfilm.com/SFT%20Gallery%20folder/SFT%20Gallery/
>which at least provides a few better (relative terms) subjects.
I am thinking. I was clearly referring to the portraits gallery. An
"ideal" object would be someone dressed in colors which compliment the
sensor capabilities, and an object which is lit properly. Yes, there are
better objects in other galleries, but the portraits gallery was
incredibly bad.
t.
Tony Porczyk
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 06:08:07 GMT, hwy...@best.com (Tony Porczyk)
>wrote:
>>I know. In reality I am waiting for something resembling an old
>>fashioned SLR without the bells and whistles and digital filters
>>and EV adjustments... just let me set it myself, and don't charge
>>me for all the excess baggage (I still prefer a hand-held lightmeter).
>>I know, it's now going to happen...
>You must be a real show stopper at family gatherings with everyone
>waiting for you to get ready to take those snapshots (before they die
>of boredom) :)
Actually, the old cameras were just as fast or faster at such events
than modern autofocus. In low light manual focus is frequently
more reliable as well. Remember, you set those cameras before you
take pictures. Outside they beat the pants off most modern ones
in terms of speed. It does require a tiny bit of preparation,
though, and a lot of people just don't like it. Besides, I do
carry a little Olympus Stylus Epic anyway... Yeah, yeah... :)
t.
Billy
>
> Yes, there are better objects in other galleries, but the
> portraits gallery was incredibly bad.
Uhhh, I'm confused. They can get better images at the
beach than in a studio? Right. Also, there were no full
sized images in the other galleries. Now, if I were of a
cynical and suspicious nature, I'd reach the conclusion
that the images in the other galleries had spent a fair
amount of time in PhotoShop.
Fortunately, I'm as gullible as their investors seem to be,
so I'm sure the few poor quality shots in the studio were
due to unforeseen technical problems with those particular
shots, and the production unit is going to be much better
and gosh I don't know how those poor images even wound
up on the web site since they must have tons of better
images elsewhere!
Billy
>
> You're forgetting some key component to why the idea is a poor one...
> 2.85x multiplication of focal length (meaning you have to GUESS at what tiny
> part of your SLR view-finder is going to be captured.
<<snip good stuff>>
> The ONLY "digital" type feature is that it gets *an image of some kind* in
> to digital form.
> But N-O-N-E of the countless other advantages of digital get transferred to
> this medium.
> -Sorry to be a party poop...but it just doesn't work.
> They have a lot of gall even showing up at PMA. I'd be embarrassed to work
> their booth.
I've met too many salesmen that could care less about
their product.
Mark, you are absolutely correct, this company is doomed.
Nice try, but no cigar. If they'd come up with a 6 megapix
APS sized sensor (or, better yet, 36x24) with a replacement
back that completely replaced the film door with a digital
back, which any competent camera shop should be able to do
in 20 mins, maybe it could work. You'd also need a battery
pack, maybe it could attach to the tripod mount like a
motor drive on conventional SLR's. As far as using the
camera commands for autofocus, exposure and the like, that
shouldn't be too bad, that stuff is read off the mirror,
not the film plane. You'd need a mirror lock up to use
most of the digital preview functions, but most decent
SLR's have this. If they did something like this that
really combined the advantages of digital with a SLR body,
then they'd have something. And I bet they could sell it
as an upgrade to your SLR for $1500-$2000 USD and sell a
boatload.
Dave Martindale
>Sounds to me like a job for a wireless communication system like
>"bluetooth" (trouble is, that's been "coming Real Soon Now" for years,
>too). Beam the images straight to your "Glasstron" specs and/or PDA.
Bluetooth would be fine for providing a control link to an external
control panel, but it's too slow for transferring image data in a
reasonable amount to time.
Dave
Christopher Glaeser
> >"bluetooth" (trouble is, that's been "coming Real Soon Now" for years,
> >too
Bluetooth is shipping now is some products.
> Bluetooth would be fine for providing a control link to an external
> control panel, but it's too slow for transferring image data in a
> reasonable amount to time.
True, Bluetooth is relatively slow. However, it may make inroads into some
photo gear. For example, suppose it is possible to transfer the photos
wirelessly to a storage device in your camera bag while you are taking
pictures. When you finish taking the equivalent of a roll or two of
pictures, you toss the camera into the camera bag and the transfer
continues. When you get home, you check the camera and it reports that the
transfer is complete. Then you connect the storage device to USB, firewire,
or high-speed wireless. Just one of many possibilities. I expect the
actual uses have yet to be dreamed up.
- Christopher