On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:03:44 -0600, Kenneth Sloan <sloan@xxxxxxxxxxx> jammed
all night, and by sunrise was overheard remarking:
> Just a random thought - what would the market be, and what is the
> feasibility of, a "digital back" which converted a classic SLR to a
> digital camera?
Market-wise, I suspect it might be reasonable, at least if you got the
quality high enough. After all, beyond the snapshooter level, you're
talking major bucks for a 35mm-adapted digital (such as the Kodak/Nikon
and Kodak/Canons), something usually in the $5K-$15K range.
Technically, there are a few tricky bits here. Your CCD needs to be able
to trigger, naturally, from your normal shutter. How well this works
with the normal electrical interface between camera and back is a matter
of some question. It could be triggered from a photodiode, much like the
OM-4 OTF sensors. I don't know if a CCD could actually image the output
of a focal plane shutter not full open (eg, does the image get stored in
one shot, or could it accumulate like film). But even if you were
technically limited to 1/60 on the mechanical side of the shutter speed,
electronic speeds could go faster, you're on automatic anyway (even a
manual camera).
Naturally, you would have to wind the camera even though the digital
part doesn't need that, just to get the shutter re-cocked. Today's best
digitals will do a short sequence run, buffering this in RAM before
dumping it, with compression, to whatever mass storage medium they use.
You could do this, too, but you would basically have to leave the lens
open or sync up to a motor drive, so it could get a little weird.
The mass storage wouldn't be a big problem. Memory cards like Compact
Flash and Smart Media are very tiny, no problem fitting one in an
OM-sized back. A floppy is too large, but kinds of a nut-job solution
anyway, standard floppies aren't large enough for much storage at any
real resolution, and they're of course much slower than memory and
subject to failures due to physical shock. Yeah, I know Sony puts 30
seconds or whatever of postage-stamp-sized MPEG on theirs as well as
7-15 shots or whatever. I get 164 pictures on the 24MB CompactFlash in
my Canon digital point and shoot, best quality. Even at a decent
resolution, you need more than 1.44MB. I think something like the new
IoMega "Click" has potential for this; the format is very small compared
to a floppy, stores 40MB, uses a drive system supposedly designed for
very low power consumption, and would still give you a film-replacement
media (the problem with memory cards, of course, is that they're too
expensive to be permanent storage, floppies are not).
That brings up the other problem -- power. I think the best possible
digital back for an OM would also incorporate a motor drive unit. This
would provide space for the batteries, perfect sync between shutter and
the digital electronics, etc. You could then even have room for a small
LCD panel.
> How much would *you* pay for one?
for 1024x768, about $400. For something in the 1600x1200 range, maybe $
800. Of course, pending quality and feature evaluation, of course. I
have been thinking if making something like this would be a good hobby
project for awhile -- though I'm not free for this for at least six
months, based on my current project load.
--
Dave Haynie | V.P. Technology, Met@box Infonet, AG | http://www.metabox.de
Be Dev #2024 | NB851 Powered! | Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000, PIOS One
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|