«

Herewith follows a pretty pointless post, specifically for the bored..
(O;

I just had a trip down memory lane.. For those who don't know, there
is (?) a company called SiliconFilm, formerly ImageK, who, way back in
1998(-ish) had the proverbial `good idea`. They would simply make a
digital insert that you could load into your 35mm SLR, and hey presto -
no need to buy a new digital camera, just get digital film!!! The idea
hit a few snags, though. (grin)

1. The highest resolution they claimed for the device was just 1.3Mp
(yes, 1.3Mp!). Foveon supporters may well rejoice to hear this, but
I'm afraid it left me just a little cold, even when I first heard of it
in 2000....

2. The highest number of images per cartridge was to be 24. 24?????

3. There were many unanswered technical questions about the device,
mainly relating to how exactly it could interface with a conventional
camera's systems in a useful and effective way, esecially given how
many different types of SLR are out there...

Only one or two working devices were ever seen to my knowledge (which
makes you wonder why they wouldn't promise just a little better
specs..!) And despite getting investors all interested back in
1998-2000 when this sad saga began, and apparently even taking
`pre-orders` (from folks whose gullibility may well be immeasurable),
this amazing fantasy device remains just a feeble dream, lost in the
sands of time.

Or so I thought. Just on a whim I went to visit their website just
now, and it still sits there. Huh?? I thought they were shut down a
couple of years ago when a major investor came to their senses and
pulled out. But nope, they are still there. I noted with interest
that they have removed all traces of technical promises..! And to
prove how they grasp the technology they are dealing with, I note that
their front page banner image is a GIF file.... That GIF file - in a
curious coincidence - is in fact a large 1.3Mb (yes, 1.3Mb!!) image,
resized on the page to fit their banner. Sigh. These people were
developing a high-technology image capture device, and they have a
heavily resized gif on their front page. Does not exactly bode well..

Perhaps that webpage should remain there forever - as a testament to
the willingness of people to be parted from their wealth - maybe folks
are still putting their money into it as we speak...

Sadly, I can remember how initially I was excited by the idea, but then
as I learnt more about digital imaging I realised just how unbelievably
difficult it would be to produce something of this nature.
Pity, really. But...


...**** happens..

You forgot about the FOV crop of 2.7X. This bit of Fartware® still persists.
I guess they are trying to make it to www.snopes.com website. I just checked
and they still have a website. Here are today's specs.

Features
4.2 megapixel imager
(2480 x 1684)
Aspect ratio of 3:2
Dimensions 30mm x 20mm
File size
Raw file = 6+MB
8 bit RGB TIFF = 12MB
16 bit RGB TIFF = 24MB
Visually Lossless = 2.4MB
Fuzzy logic white-balance
and anti-aliasing
Proprietary color science

They seem to have a bigger sensor, and now the device is huge! It's almost
as big as the host camera. The original was the size of a film cassette.
This one is similar to the older Kodak DSC series cameras.


<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Herewith follows a pretty pointless post, specifically for the bored..
> (O;
>
> I just had a trip down memory lane.. For those who don't know, there
> is (?) a company called SiliconFilm, formerly ImageK, who, way back in
> 1998(-ish) had the proverbial `good idea`. They would simply make a
> digital insert that you could load into your 35mm SLR, and hey presto -
> no need to buy a new digital camera, just get digital film!!! The idea
> hit a few snags, though. (grin)
>
> 1. The highest resolution they claimed for the device was just 1.3Mp
> (yes, 1.3Mp!). Foveon supporters may well rejoice to hear this, but
> I'm afraid it left me just a little cold, even when I first heard of it
> in 2000....
>
> 2. The highest number of images per cartridge was to be 24. 24?????
>
> 3. There were many unanswered technical questions about the device,
> mainly relating to how exactly it could interface with a conventional
> camera's systems in a useful and effective way, esecially given how
> many different types of SLR are out there...
>
> Only one or two working devices were ever seen to my knowledge (which
> makes you wonder why they wouldn't promise just a little better
> specs..!) And despite getting investors all interested back in
> 1998-2000 when this sad saga began, and apparently even taking
> `pre-orders` (from folks whose gullibility may well be immeasurable),
> this amazing fantasy device remains just a feeble dream, lost in the
> sands of time.
>
> Or so I thought. Just on a whim I went to visit their website just
> now, and it still sits there. Huh?? I thought they were shut down a
> couple of years ago when a major investor came to their senses and
> pulled out. But nope, they are still there. I noted with interest
> that they have removed all traces of technical promises..! And to
> prove how they grasp the technology they are dealing with, I note that
> their front page banner image is a GIF file.... That GIF file - in a
> curious coincidence - is in fact a large 1.3Mb (yes, 1.3Mb!!) image,
> resized on the page to fit their banner. Sigh. These people were
> developing a high-technology image capture device, and they have a
> heavily resized gif on their front page. Does not exactly bode well..
>
> Perhaps that webpage should remain there forever - as a testament to
> the willingness of people to be parted from their wealth - maybe folks
> are still putting their money into it as we speak...
>
> Sadly, I can remember how initially I was excited by the idea, but then
> as I learnt more about digital imaging I realised just how unbelievably
> difficult it would be to produce something of this nature.
> Pity, really. But...
>
>
> ..**** happens..
>

On 27 Jan 2005 02:48:26 -0800, wrote:

>Perhaps that webpage should remain there forever - as a testament to
>the willingness of people to be parted from their wealth - maybe folks
>are still putting their money into it as we speak...

Since 28-Jun-2002, the current owner of Silicon Film's technology and
patents, Voyager One, has spent another $2.5 million dollars. They
claim to have a built a four MP prototype in May of 2004, but it was
not in a commercially feasible form.

Yes, they are still trying to get people to put more money in. See:
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/...-04-002935.txt
http://tinyurl.com/436ox

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Ah, well, I wish them good luck, I guess, but I can't help thinking..
too late.. there is so much far better technology around now in the
way of DSLR bodies for most of the major `marques` that it is hard to
see how they could succeed even if they managed to get a decent 6-8Mp
sensor in there, along with decent storage capacity.
The fat lady sings on.

wrote:

> Ah, well, I wish them good luck, I guess, but I can't help thinking..
> too late.. there is so much far better technology around now in the
> way of DSLR bodies for most of the major `marques` that it is hard to
> see how they could succeed even if they managed to get a decent 6-8Mp
> sensor in there, along with decent storage capacity.
> The fat lady sings on.

It's still not a bad concept, the idea to be able to shoot digitally
with any of the millions of existing film cameras out there... in
theory, a flexible enough design would allow the module to be dropped
into even an old point-and-shoot camera, or - dare I say it? - the likes
of my old Argus C-3 brick? Now that would be a trip!

The technology is getting more feasible with constantly shrinking
electronics, improving sensor technology, increasing memory
capacities... it would be good to see them make it work.

Matt Ion wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Ah, well, I wish them good luck, I guess, but I can't help thinking..
>> too late.. there is so much far better technology around now in the
>> way of DSLR bodies for most of the major `marques` that it is hard to
>> see how they could succeed even if they managed to get a decent 6-8Mp
>> sensor in there, along with decent storage capacity.
>> The fat lady sings on.
>
>
> It's still not a bad concept, the idea to be able to shoot digitally
> with any of the millions of existing film cameras out there... in
> theory, a flexible enough design would allow the module to be dropped
> into even an old point-and-shoot camera, or - dare I say it? - the likes
> of my old Argus C-3 brick? Now that would be a trip!
>
> The technology is getting more feasible with constantly shrinking
> electronics, improving sensor technology, increasing memory
> capacities... it would be good to see them make it work.

An Argus C-3 with a digital back. What a concept. Nostalgia strikes again.


--
Ron Hunter