$7.50 CCD found wanna give an opion?

codeviper · 2012-02-21 21:05

http://www.eio.com/p-2595-toshiba-tcm8240md-cmos-camera-1300x1040.aspx
this little bugger looks awsome at first glance but an opinions thin i could read it with a PROP and send the data to an SD card?

i left the old topic request so you can see how i started.

Ok this is not a help me now or anything like that.
but does anyone have a clue how to use any CCD cell with ANY paralax product?
I want to put a CCD in an old camera like a 110 and read the image to put on an SD card as a bitmap why?
i have antique camera collection and people pay me to take pictures with the old things. why i dont know the old cameras and good new ones have equal quality when you have the skill.
so i thought i could test out putting a CCD in say a mamiya TLR box camera first as its a roomy old camera.

and i have never soldered SMD so yeah i may not get SMD related terms.

Heater. · 2012-02-22 00:11

I have no idea but it occurs to me that the lens in a medium format camera is designed to project an image on a huge piece of film at the back of the box. What is it 4 by 4cm?
Any image sensor is going to be much smaller than that and ony "see" a very small part of the image.
I suspect the optics part of this concept is as difficult as the electronics part.

codeviper · 2012-02-22 00:30

i already tested this with a pen cam if i put the CCD close to where the image inverts i can still fucus it on the ccd.
i suppose i should have mentioned that

the concept is to make my own modual you can put in a digital camera seems silly but the lens on a good film cam is so audacious it feels worth it to try even if i fail.
thanks

mindrobots · 2012-02-22 00:46

What Heater said. The CCD size to cover the image circle at the medium Format lens' focal plane would be massive. The subsequent pixel count for a descent image quality is also massive in terms of a Propeller's ability to handle data.

Film and the lenses from antique cameras do have qualities that make them unique. No ways many of thes can be rather faithfully recreated in post-processing of a digital image. It is the combination of film and lens design and quality. Change the imagining medium in this equation and you will still need to post process to recreate some of the film properties.

There are ways to use older camera lense either through adapters for interchangeable lens digital cameras or through building a contraption to allow the digital camera to focus on the focusing screen of an old camera or to allow it to sit at the focal plane of an old camera. I've played with all three techniques and often use older lenses on my dSLRs.

Optically, a modern "digital" lens is designed so that the light rays are bent to be parallel at the focal point so the strike the CCD image sites at as close to a 90 degree angle as possible, film lenses were not designed this way so you introduce a new optical artifact when using film lenses on digital cameras.

Stick with film in the antique cameras....it's still a wonderful way to take pictures or learn to post-process to make your digital images look like film....it's wonderful fun either way!!

mindrobots · 2012-02-22 00:55

If you have an Olympus digital Pen, then there are a number of adapters to use various film lenses on it...and yes, you can get some awesome classic lenses and still have all the digital wonders of the modern backend. The short flange depth (lens mount to image plane distance), you are able to use many,many old types of lenses because their being designed to create an image plane at a greater flange depth. Your problem is the wide angle focal lengths disappear and everything becomes a longer focal length lens exhibiting telephoto optical properties - increased depth of field, image compression, etc plus you are using the optical sweet spot of the lens and much of the beauty of an old film lens occurs out near the edges.

GordonMcComb · 2012-02-22 09:02

As the others have said the lens in the camera is all wrong for this. Most affordable CCD imagers are 1/4" or 1/3", compare to 2-1/4" in a medium format camera like the Mamiya, so you'd need adapter optics that will end up lowering the image quality.

A 110-size camera is a little more workable, but most of these were really just cheap box cameras with horrid lenses and it seems a waste to spend the energy.

In any case, you need a ton of RAM to manipulate CCD images so what most people do is get a module with the CCD imagers and SD card adapter already on it. Cameras like the ones SparkFun sells snap standard JPEG images, and you need only interface to one or two pins, and any microcontroller will work with it. Quality is no where what you got with 2 1/4 film though. Not even 110.

One alternative is to get a very compact digital camera and stuff it inside the Mamiya. Remove the Mamiya's lens and shutter (some of these used lens boards where the lens and sometimes the shutter easily come off), and point the digital cam through the opening. (You'll have to aim through the sports finder if you've removed the full lens board, as that means you won't have the optics for the TTL viewer any more.)

-- Gordon

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) · 2012-02-22 09:28

You can get "digital backs" for some of the classic old film cameras. They come with truly huge CCD arrays and a price tag to match. Here's but one example:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/823087-REG/Mamiya_010_07851A_Leaf_Aptus_II_33_Digital.html

$15K!!!

-Phil

mindrobots · 2012-02-22 09:52

I'm curious as to why people pay you to have their pictures taken with an antique camera as opposed to a new camera? What do they derive from the vintage camera experience? Having an old camera pointed at them? Having negatives as souvenirs? The esthetic properties of film? The esthetics of old classic lenses? Having a product produced in a dark room (assuming you follow the non-digital route all the way through to printing)?

I'm not being sarcastic or insincere, I'm just very curious. As an amateur (non-portrait) photographer with a large number of vintage film and modern digital cameras and lenses, I've explored the many ways to use film, digital and mixing film and digital components through the creation process. I'm very interested in what it is these folks get out of this process. If we can identify that, we can help find a non-electronic and more photographic solution.

If you start out with film, unless you stay with chemical processes through to the print, you lose film esthetics of some point as soon as you digitize the image to finish processing. Some of this can be added back (to a degree) in digital post-processing, some can't.

Check out my Flickr Stream , if interested, without checking the details, I sometimes have trouble telling if something started as digital or film, iPhone or dSLR. It's becoming a confusing landscape with amazing digital post-processing powers.

David B · 2012-02-22 10:04

I'd hate to see a beautiful genuine antique camera busted up, so my suggestion is this.

Get a digital camera like those Canon Powershots, excellent little cameras, and build an antique-looking box around it, using clear glass for the "antique" lens.

You'll end up with a nice-looking, great-performing camera that does everything you want.

GordonMcComb · 2012-02-22 10:50

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »

They come with truly huge CCD arrays and a price tag to match.

True, but better than a digital Hasselblad. Their new medium format SLRs go for $40K+.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/671879-REG/Hasselblad_70480533_H4D_60_Digital_SLR_Camera.html

-- Gordon

codeviper · 2012-02-22 15:03

this is the first time i will mix optical work and electronics work(not including using inferred sensors)
davidb i like your suggestion but i do own some good digital cannon camers. but this is more for the experiance.
thank you for concern over the cameras condition and not being ruined.
yet the mamiyaflex i have was a parts camera all left in it is the shutter and lens. i own 16 different TLR cameras that do work and 8 brownies 9 110 cameras and a few real good 35s. i will not ruin it just build a circuit that fits in the film area.
yes i also need to use a collector lens to get the light going in correctly
to mindrobots: i have no clue why i get paid to do it thay often have a filmer there and are at old churches and ride off in old rented cars. i am certain a film of their marriage looks like a period movie. i think that has most of the appeal i give them old style B/W pics and i am on the film using a camera from the 20s 30s or 40s making it look authentic. i never get asked for negatives just B/W pictures sometimes color. honest all i know is it equals free food and money.
yup i know it is difficult to do optic stuff, i fix my cameras a lot.
mostly this is just for fun.
well who has used CCDs?

codeviper · 2012-03-08 19:28

GordonMcComb
you gave me the best anser i geuss so here is a web cookie

enjoy

this is interesting so no one has done any work with CCDs or just no one want to talk about the CCDs?

this seems interesting

http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?138456-Camera-Interface

David B · 2012-03-08 20:25

I built a telescope camera from a kit, the "cookbook CCD camera" kit, using the TI TC245 CCD.

It was very complicated, needed lots of clocks and voltages and optical design and software to operate it. It worked, but it wasn't easy at all.

There is a huge amount of work between starting with a CCD and producing a working camera, which is why I suggested starting with a working camera unless all that detailed electronic design is what you want, as opposed to actually taking pictures.

codeviper · 2012-03-08 21:00

David B wrote: »

I built a telescope camera from a kit, the "cookbook CCD camera" kit, using the TI TC245 CCD.

It was very complicated, needed lots of clocks and voltages and optical design and software to operate it. It worked, but it wasn't easy at all.

There is a huge amount of work between starting with a CCD and producing a working camera, which is why I suggested starting with a working camera unless all that detailed electronic design is what you want, as opposed to actually taking pictures.

that is exactly what i wanted to heara person say, thank you, so you have used that kit i will look it up
thanks

see I did use a little pen cam to test this and it took ok pictures, now i want to go up a step.
this is mostly for fun

David B · 2012-03-09 11:24

To be fair about it, the TC245 is a really old design.

I was just looking over the specs of the Toshiba TCM8240 CCD and it looks pretty awesome, especially for that price. That could be the start of an excellent project.

Tubular · 2012-03-09 11:46

Thats the same sensor that sparkfun sells. According to the sparkfun comments the datasheet is vague.

Will 1/3" ccd be enough image capture? Surely you want something larger?

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) · 2012-03-09 12:45

Using a sensor that small in a 110-format camera will be like having a super telephoto lens attached. 'Problem is, the image will not be sharp, since the camera lens was not designed to give good resolution at the new sensor's pixel spacing.

-Phil

codeviper · 2012-03-09 13:02

um like i said i am just doing this for fun.
not expecting to be a photo journalist with this thing i am just having some fun.
what do you think on the CCD its self though.

oh yeah just found out my laptop has the exact same sensor and it is good for pictures

what about interfacing it to a Prop?

Tubular · 2012-03-09 14:33

codeviper see if you can find some example code for that sensor by following through the various sparkfun links and comments. Finding working code is half the battle when the datasheet isn't clear.

The 'CCD itself" looks fine and shouldn't be too hard to solder. While its only 1/3 inch its compactness might let you fit in a constrained space (i don't know your cameras).

Would that ccd fit far enough back to be on the normal focal plane of the lens? Or do your cameras have a manual focus that might let you sneak forward?

Kye's 160x120 VGA driver can be used in 64 greyscale (by changing the VGA resistors) to give a nice image preview. I've been using it all week with a line scan CCD

I had forgotten just how small 110 frames were - 13x17mm. So a 2/3" CCD would actually capture most of that frame.

GordonMcComb · 2012-03-09 14:46

I've used the SparkFun JPEG cameras, which I guess are similar to the imager you're noting here, but the quality is only marginal. You'd do better hacking a $20 key fob camera from eBay, and it'll have everything you need to take pictures on a micro SD card. Most assuredly you could put it into an old camera, though I think constructing what looks like an antique camera is the better choice, and your clients won't know the difference. Make it look like a 4x5 view camera (with the focusing cloth attached to the back), wear spats and an Edwardian-style suit, and you're all set to go!

-- Gordon

codeviper · 2012-03-09 18:00

Tubular wrote: »

codeviper see if you can find some example code for that sensor by following through the various sparkfun links and comments. Finding working code is half the battle when the datasheet isn't clear.

The 'CCD itself" looks fine and shouldn't be too hard to solder. While its only 1/3 inch its compactness might let you fit in a constrained space (i don't know your cameras).

Would that ccd fit far enough back to be on the normal focal plane of the lens? Or do your cameras have a manual focus that might let you sneak forward?

Kye's 160x120 VGA driver can be used in 64 greyscale (by changing the VGA resistors) to give a nice image preview. I've been using it all week with a line scan CCD

I had forgotten just how small 110 frames were - 13x17mm. So a 2/3" CCD would actually capture most of that frame.

i want to shake your hand sir. for you i give you a web cookie

that was honest encouraging and gave grate advice based off what i asked

$7.50 CCD found wanna give an opion?

Comments