If not, they should. I think it would be really helpful if you could take pictures digitally, then save them to either a memory card or film. Then, you would be able to have a roll of film with only pre-approved pictures. Is this possible? Does it exist? Thanks in advance.
Not as far as I know, though that is a long way from being equal to “no”. The closest I could find whilst googling is the opposite, a film camera that can take digital photos, there is a discussion on the technology here .
Bear in mind that was posted in 1999 and the lack of information (that I could find) on it since would suggest it fell by the wayside as digital cameras became so cheap that modifying your existing camera would liekly end up costing more.
I’m not sure if there would be much point in your idea being invented (if it hasn’t been already) because digital prints are of such high quality as it is. Also, they are far more convenient to obtain with the ATM style developing booths for digital cameras than handing over a roll of film to be developed.
What would be the point? The claimed advantages of film (dynamic range, color performance, etc) would be lost due to the use of the same CCD sensor as on a regular digital camera, and surely no-one is claiming that film is cheaper or easier to deal with than digital memory once the pictures have been taken? You’d also need an extra LED or LCD display (plus corresponding optics) in the camera to expose your film from the digital data. You’d have the disadvantages of both systems with (IMHO) no real advantages.
I could (sort of) see some point in having a camera with a beamsplitter sending the incoming light to both a CCD sensor and photographic film, to “get the best of both worlds”, but I can’t imagine much demand for such a bulky hybrid except under very unusual circumstances.
Hasselblad has a system:
It probably costs a fortune though. I don’t think this is what the OP had in mind anyway, but they do exist.
Polaroid’s 1200 system let’s you seek the pics before printing, and the old Olympus was a 2 meg camera and Polaroid:
What would be the advantage of having the film version over the digital one? As mittu said, if you are storing the image electronically before committing to film, you’ve already lost any possible advantage of going to film.
The “digital film” drop-in was vaporware from day one. They never had a chance of coming up with that. The Hassleblad system is basically two cameras that share the lens system.
Roughly 3 to 5 times the cost of the equivilent film Hassy. Yipper, that’s right. You can drop $20K or more on that in a heartbeat.
Gives you 132 meg 16 bit RGB files, tho. I’ve seen some beautiful end product from these babies. A regular client of mine is an ad agency photog and he’s let me play around with 'em. (He’s the one I got the pricing from, btw, so take it with a grain of salt.)
Than the equivilent 6x6 film V Hassy, i should say. The H is a 645 system. Interchangeable backs for either film or digital.
The outfit (body, lens, digiback) lists for over $30K, btw, I must have remembered him wrong. Or he remembered wrong. Damn, can you imagine? $30K just sittin’ there on your tripod or hanging around your neck?
The digiback for the V system (500 and 200 series) lists for $18K all by itself.
I found it interesting to hear about the (nonexistent) ‘digital film’ drop-in thing, because I pondered the very same idea many years ago; a 35mm canister with the guts of a digital camera inside; the sensor array being on a fake film leader permanently trailing out of the end where the film would be. I dismissed the idea as impractical, based on the following considerations:
-Size - fitting the image handling and storage hardware into a canister of that size is no mean feat - I reasoned that by the time we could, it would no longer be desirable to do it.
-Integration with a variety of cameras - I’m pretty sure not all 35mm cameras have exactly the same configuration for the film path - differences in the way the film is routed and the precise distance between the canister and shutter would mean that the fake film leader (the digital sensor) would have to be flexible and somewhat extensible
-The system would have to respond to mechanical camera events, such as the film being wound on, it would also have to generate mechanical events, such as stopping the sprockets when the memory is full and advancing the frame counter.
-The image sensor would have to be unusually large - inexpensive digital camera CCDs are nothing like the size of a 35mm film frame.
-The image sensor would be highly vulnerable to dirt and damage.
I’m sure there were other obstacles to implementation; it was a very long time ago.
The only thing I’ve seen similar to that is a regular film camera that had a digital display on the back, so you could review the picture after taking it, like you do with digital. The picture was already taken and stored on the film, of course, but you’d get the opportunity to retake a picture if the framing was off, or if someone closed their eyes.
Several medium format cameras have used interchangable film backs for many years. These are often now available with a digital back, sometimes from a third party of part of the system. They are designed for pros and priced accordingly
There were (are?) studio cameras built with a beam splitter to simultaneously take film and digital images.
Silicon Film attempted semi-generic system for 35mm SLR film cameras but I don’t think it’s ever gotten off the ground. There are several technical and logistic reasons that this approach is much less practical than just buying a digital SLR body. Leica makes a dedicated digital back for the R9 camera which gets around some of the drawbacks of the Silicon Film method but in any case you have a camera convertable to digital or film, not both at the same time.
Indeed, I have that old Olympus and I love it! It uses Polaroid 500 film (most of the “real” Polaroids use 600, so the 500 size is harder to find.) I can select the photo I want, print it to the film, and then give it to the subject or put it in my notes so I know exactly which photo to work on when I get back to the computer.
The only downside (aside from the cost of film) is that Polaroid photos, as a class, are no match for 35mm. Also, the camera is (understandably) large and heavy – about the same size as a regular Polaroid.
I think that might actually be the vapourware that mittu mentioned; the photos of the device on the linked site don’t look real to me.