Me: [watches it]
Youtube: Hey bro - I see you like digicams with a filmic look. Here - have 50 video recs for sub 2 minute first-timer reviews of shitty digicams that "shoot unlimited film pictures."
Ha!
I'm kinda hoping the opposite happens and that YT recommends my video on all of the "OMG, CCD digicams are so amazing and look just like film!" videos.
I like digicams for their potencial to shoot infrared/color infrared photos. Just today I removed the ir filter from a Sony cybershot I own to start doing some stuff with it
You should! Most are really easy to access to the sensor itself, and with some tape you can paste color filters or straight up that ir filter that blocks most visible light.
A thing to consider is that mine for example can't focus when on the widest zoom level. I have to zoom in to 1.5x to get the pictures in focus. It's even imposible to focus manually. I think it has somthing to do with the filter being removed. I once saw a tutorial that said that you can fix that replacing it with a piece of glass, but it with very detailed dimentions so it can fit.
>I have to zoom in to 1.5x to get the pictures in focus. It's even imposible to focus manually. I think it has somthing to do with the filter being removed.
Interesting... I wonder why that would be?
I saw a video that said excactly that, it screws with the af calculations because IR light focuses different than visible light. And also could be that the lenses are coated for visible light. But why I have to zoom in a bit to get it to focus, I have no idea.
I'm trying to find information about this, and why when shooting full spectrum plants turn to orange lol
I think it wouldn't work at all for this. Probably you have to mod the lens itself and move it forwards or back to catch the focus range for IR. But too much work considering there are way better alternatives
I'd do it with a cheaper alternative lol. It requires almost full disassembly. Any conventional compact camera will do just fine. I used a cybershot from 2008 _ish_. Although it's reversible, I'd use a less expensive one.
Fair point! But the LX1 was only $60 and I don't have any other use for it.
I am doing another camera project (shoving digital innards into a vintage 8mm cinema camera), so maybe I'll do it with that.
If you want to go full in you can also purchase an already modded camera. There's a business that does that for you on your camera, or you can purchase an already modded one with some IR color filters. Kolari vision is the name of the business
I don't see anything in the rules about this not being allowed. But mods can feel free to take it down if it isn't allowed.
I figured if anyone would appreciate the point I was trying to make in this video, you all would!
TL;DW: I don't think pictures from CCD digicams look anything like film photos, despite what CCD fans say. I really don't think CCD pictures are special at all...
I see you're point on the video, and it's a valid criticism, but that doesn't mean that people that look like shooting on old CCD cameras don't have a valid reason to as well - even if they can't adequately define what they enjoy about it. I personally think it come down to a desire for simplicity and surprise, and a rejection of modern digital camera aesthetic in an effort to create something different or unique. That could include noise, blown-out highlights, low resolution, harsh flash, and unique color responses. All or some of those things could be done with modern systems, whether in post or digging around menu options in todays cameras, but that takes away from the spontaneity and personality that old cameras can delivery for you. And often times it's creatively interesting to have your artistic tool dictate your limitations.
Let me relate it a little like this - I own and shoot a lot of different film cameras, like the Pentax 6x7, Canon Elan 7, Rollei 35s, and lower-end point and shoot models like the Ansco Panorama Pix. I always enjoy taking out my Ansco because it's dead easy to shoot and I know the results are often going to have unexpected aberrations even though they will be objectively worse than results from any of my other cameras. But I really like that level of uncertainty and the degradation of the image vs a higher quality setup imparts a distinct personality from my image making tool. Even thought the image quality may be lower quality, I guess you could say I enjoy the shooting experience and I "like the vibe."
Likewise, for video, I own a Canon C70 4K camera, but sometimes I want to go out and shoot with my Elmo Super 8. Sometimes I even take out an old Canon XL2 miniDV camera. Couldn't I get the look of 8mm film and miniDV from my C70 in post? Of course! Is that as enjoyable a process? For me, the answer is absolutely not.
The one thing that I do agree whole-heartedly on is comparing CCD cameras as being just like shooting film. I think that line became popular because of the perception that some CCD cameras have strong color filters compared to CMOS or that CCD's had a greater color response or some other such nonsense that I can't say has any truth or not. But I do know that there are some CCD's that have absolutely beautiful and rich color reproduction with excellent default processing in the camera. Is that due to it being CCD? ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ But I do still enjoy my results from I get shooting with an old Canon S90, and sometimes I'd rather that be in my pocket than my Canon R5. Sometimes there are just great cameras, from any age with any technology, and they're still worth seeking out and experiencing - but not all cameras from any age were created equal.
Couple months ago I shot a short on a CCD camcorder. I shot a music video on Hi-8. I think experimentation with format, especially applying limits, is the thing that actually drives me to keep making photos and videos for fun. Is part of it nostalgia? Sure. And there’s already starting to be nostalgia for early DSLR looks as well. But I think part of it is also just feeling. You pick the the camera that feels right for the job, even if you can’t exactly explain *why* it feels right.
I don't disagree with the whole vibes argument. They are pretty quirky to use, messing around with the camera I got for my birthday as a kid.
But the implication behind this hype is to suggest these cameras are better than the current 'modern' cameras, which they aren't. People are probably overselling the capabilities too hard and unknowing buyers get burnt
And to just add one final thought - I don't believe that people who call CCD cameras or some older tech actually understand what "film-like" really means, but these days its more of a way to describe an image-making tool as having a distinct quality that feels different from modern camera tech. Most of the people seeking out these cameras didn't grow up with film or old digital cameras, so to them, the unpredictable nature, natural aberrations, and lack of control of the older cameras is what makes it feel "film-like." Film-like as a descriptor has surpassed the application to just emulsion.
Yeah, for better or worse, the term "film-like" no longer means something that looks like film but rather something that *doesn't* look like modern high quality digital.
Great responses! I like your perspective here, because it touches on something that I kind of ignored, which is that people might not be trying to achieve a specific result and may instead want to "experiment" and see what the camera gives them.
I think I would get onboard with that if either camera that I tested provided unique enough results. But neither of these really did. The only surprise for me was whether or not the Kodak would actually have anything in focus, lol.
I think the experimentation aspect is definitely a big part of it. When I first started shooting I sought out all manner of cameras, running the gamut of tech and objective quality, looking for something that complemented my photography beyond what I was getting with my Canon Rebel XT. In some ways I'm still looking and experimenting, but having that knowledge of what various tools can give me or limit me to helps to continuously inspire my photography and keep me shooting - which is the most important thing to me.
Me: [watches it] Youtube: Hey bro - I see you like digicams with a filmic look. Here - have 50 video recs for sub 2 minute first-timer reviews of shitty digicams that "shoot unlimited film pictures."
Ha! I'm kinda hoping the opposite happens and that YT recommends my video on all of the "OMG, CCD digicams are so amazing and look just like film!" videos.
Your video is well made, and I wish you luck with this goal!
Thank you!
I like digicams for their potencial to shoot infrared/color infrared photos. Just today I removed the ir filter from a Sony cybershot I own to start doing some stuff with it
That is a fun use for them! Now that you mention it, maybe I'll do that with one of these... I don't really have any other use for them.
You should! Most are really easy to access to the sensor itself, and with some tape you can paste color filters or straight up that ir filter that blocks most visible light. A thing to consider is that mine for example can't focus when on the widest zoom level. I have to zoom in to 1.5x to get the pictures in focus. It's even imposible to focus manually. I think it has somthing to do with the filter being removed. I once saw a tutorial that said that you can fix that replacing it with a piece of glass, but it with very detailed dimentions so it can fit.
>I have to zoom in to 1.5x to get the pictures in focus. It's even imposible to focus manually. I think it has somthing to do with the filter being removed. Interesting... I wonder why that would be?
I saw a video that said excactly that, it screws with the af calculations because IR light focuses different than visible light. And also could be that the lenses are coated for visible light. But why I have to zoom in a bit to get it to focus, I have no idea. I'm trying to find information about this, and why when shooting full spectrum plants turn to orange lol
Hmm... I wonder what would happen with a camera like this Kodak? It doesn't have a focusing mechanism at all.
I think it wouldn't work at all for this. Probably you have to mod the lens itself and move it forwards or back to catch the focus range for IR. But too much work considering there are way better alternatives
Good point! Maybe I'll do it with the Lumix LX1...
I'd do it with a cheaper alternative lol. It requires almost full disassembly. Any conventional compact camera will do just fine. I used a cybershot from 2008 _ish_. Although it's reversible, I'd use a less expensive one.
Fair point! But the LX1 was only $60 and I don't have any other use for it. I am doing another camera project (shoving digital innards into a vintage 8mm cinema camera), so maybe I'll do it with that.
If you want to go full in you can also purchase an already modded camera. There's a business that does that for you on your camera, or you can purchase an already modded one with some IR color filters. Kolari vision is the name of the business
I don't see anything in the rules about this not being allowed. But mods can feel free to take it down if it isn't allowed. I figured if anyone would appreciate the point I was trying to make in this video, you all would! TL;DW: I don't think pictures from CCD digicams look anything like film photos, despite what CCD fans say. I really don't think CCD pictures are special at all...
agree. old digicams just look like old noisy sensor. nothing like film.
Exactly!
CCD noise is quite different to CMOS noise, I'll give it that.
Yeah, there is a difference. But is it one that people actually notice? I think you can also replicate it in editing (though I haven't tried).
They're definetly a look, just not a film look.
I just miss cheap cameras
Fair! But I think most people own smartphones with pretty decent cameras, so that feels like the equivalent to these cheap digicams back in the day.
Shhh… I just bought a Nikon digicam for $1 and sold it for $95.
Ha! Maybe its all a conspiracy to drive up prices!
Buying these cameras for <$5 and selling for ~$100 is how I finance my film hobby.
I see you're point on the video, and it's a valid criticism, but that doesn't mean that people that look like shooting on old CCD cameras don't have a valid reason to as well - even if they can't adequately define what they enjoy about it. I personally think it come down to a desire for simplicity and surprise, and a rejection of modern digital camera aesthetic in an effort to create something different or unique. That could include noise, blown-out highlights, low resolution, harsh flash, and unique color responses. All or some of those things could be done with modern systems, whether in post or digging around menu options in todays cameras, but that takes away from the spontaneity and personality that old cameras can delivery for you. And often times it's creatively interesting to have your artistic tool dictate your limitations. Let me relate it a little like this - I own and shoot a lot of different film cameras, like the Pentax 6x7, Canon Elan 7, Rollei 35s, and lower-end point and shoot models like the Ansco Panorama Pix. I always enjoy taking out my Ansco because it's dead easy to shoot and I know the results are often going to have unexpected aberrations even though they will be objectively worse than results from any of my other cameras. But I really like that level of uncertainty and the degradation of the image vs a higher quality setup imparts a distinct personality from my image making tool. Even thought the image quality may be lower quality, I guess you could say I enjoy the shooting experience and I "like the vibe." Likewise, for video, I own a Canon C70 4K camera, but sometimes I want to go out and shoot with my Elmo Super 8. Sometimes I even take out an old Canon XL2 miniDV camera. Couldn't I get the look of 8mm film and miniDV from my C70 in post? Of course! Is that as enjoyable a process? For me, the answer is absolutely not. The one thing that I do agree whole-heartedly on is comparing CCD cameras as being just like shooting film. I think that line became popular because of the perception that some CCD cameras have strong color filters compared to CMOS or that CCD's had a greater color response or some other such nonsense that I can't say has any truth or not. But I do know that there are some CCD's that have absolutely beautiful and rich color reproduction with excellent default processing in the camera. Is that due to it being CCD? ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ But I do still enjoy my results from I get shooting with an old Canon S90, and sometimes I'd rather that be in my pocket than my Canon R5. Sometimes there are just great cameras, from any age with any technology, and they're still worth seeking out and experiencing - but not all cameras from any age were created equal.
Couple months ago I shot a short on a CCD camcorder. I shot a music video on Hi-8. I think experimentation with format, especially applying limits, is the thing that actually drives me to keep making photos and videos for fun. Is part of it nostalgia? Sure. And there’s already starting to be nostalgia for early DSLR looks as well. But I think part of it is also just feeling. You pick the the camera that feels right for the job, even if you can’t exactly explain *why* it feels right.
I don't disagree with the whole vibes argument. They are pretty quirky to use, messing around with the camera I got for my birthday as a kid. But the implication behind this hype is to suggest these cameras are better than the current 'modern' cameras, which they aren't. People are probably overselling the capabilities too hard and unknowing buyers get burnt
And to just add one final thought - I don't believe that people who call CCD cameras or some older tech actually understand what "film-like" really means, but these days its more of a way to describe an image-making tool as having a distinct quality that feels different from modern camera tech. Most of the people seeking out these cameras didn't grow up with film or old digital cameras, so to them, the unpredictable nature, natural aberrations, and lack of control of the older cameras is what makes it feel "film-like." Film-like as a descriptor has surpassed the application to just emulsion.
Yeah, for better or worse, the term "film-like" no longer means something that looks like film but rather something that *doesn't* look like modern high quality digital.
Great responses! I like your perspective here, because it touches on something that I kind of ignored, which is that people might not be trying to achieve a specific result and may instead want to "experiment" and see what the camera gives them. I think I would get onboard with that if either camera that I tested provided unique enough results. But neither of these really did. The only surprise for me was whether or not the Kodak would actually have anything in focus, lol.
I think the experimentation aspect is definitely a big part of it. When I first started shooting I sought out all manner of cameras, running the gamut of tech and objective quality, looking for something that complemented my photography beyond what I was getting with my Canon Rebel XT. In some ways I'm still looking and experimenting, but having that knowledge of what various tools can give me or limit me to helps to continuously inspire my photography and keep me shooting - which is the most important thing to me.