Better yet, they should just stop shooting. A lot of people shooting film do it for the outcome, the automatically pleasing colors and aesthetics that film creates rather than the act of taking a photo. The photog community seems so disingenuous since the rise of film. It’s all about old cars, tones, and likes.
@@obomasinladen I mean if youre not shooting for the aesthetics of film and trying to create a good product whats even the point in general? Its visual art why would you not do it for the outcome? thats a dumb statement
Yeah I think this is just clickbait, I also got those videos and they made me dig up an old Canon Ixus75. There is a certain vibe and colors it brings but it doesn't look like film.
You can make film-like photos out of anything as long as your file can be abused enough. If you can take raws it should be pretty easy. Film has known and observable qualities, you may not be able to emulate the specific micro details of each brand and product but you'll get the general atmosphere just fine.
“Maybe you want it to look like old digital, and that’s ok” - this has to be the underline for me! I completely understand wanting to add limitations to my artistic practice; and wanting something dedicated that isn’t a phone. Digicams aren’t my bag but I appreciate them for what they are.
As someone who uses CCD point and shoots, I completely agree with everything this guy is saying. After a few years shooting with these cameras, I can confidently say that the experience is nothing short of TREACHEROUS. HOWEVER: the single redeeming quality here, is that these old cameras are a great way to try something different and challenge yourself… Pulling a good photo out of a digicam feels like an honest to god achievement! I wouldn’t spend the atrociously inflated prices for one on eBay. There are THOUSANDS of digicams out there so be patient and find one at a thrift store. Cheers!
Most of those videos that you were talking about are targeted towards people that's pursuing digital minimalism. They don't really care about editing photos, they just want sooc image right out of the camera and be happy with it, and usually that come with the feeling of nostalgia as well. They want the feelings of a disposable point and shoot but doesn't want the troubles of developing films which old digital point and shoot can provide the closest results. To them they don't care what film it looks like, heck they probably don't even know there's different kind of film stocks, they just want that like film dreamy looks. I agree that those videos are getting more ridiculous with the claims and seeing people going out there buying overpriced 20 years old digicams is truly heartbreaking. This trend have took a wild turn from finding that old digicam from your childhood and using it again to people driving up prices online because of these videos.
CCD and CMOS sensors both use the same component, the "pinned photodiode," to convert light to a level of electrical charge. The difference between them is in the way those charges are read out into the computer and in the way the image sensor chips are manufactured, not in the way they actually function at a low level. Old sensors might look different because their color filter arrays were engineered with different trade-offs between color accuracy and overall sensitivity. But its hard to believe there's any such thing as a CCD "look." I haven't noticed such a thing with my old CCD camera, and i haven't seen such a thing in the online comparisons some enterprising people have done.
And yet people say the same thing about the old Canon sensors, and they ditched ccd's right away. There's basically a cult for the 5D classic, and I do think it's good. But if anything I think a lot of it is the inaccuracy and modern cameras do better, if maybe less pleasing. Another is the limited dynamic range, which made old digitals look more like side film with high contrast, because they had to.
i haven't seen claims of these digicams taking "unlimited film photos" yet, but I would imagine the majority of gen-z/alpha's infatuation with them (as of late) is not primarily for the claim of a "film" look. These cameras produce a way different look that are much more in line with this Y2K come back trend. But I agree, to make the claim that these shoot film-like quality is wrong.
I'm a retired photojournalist (just so you know I'm not a newbie...) and I have some digicams. They can be fun, but... the fun factor is offset by low battery life, and slooooow operation. A modern digital is a way more satisfying user experience :)
To make average old sensors with agressive jpg treatment trendy, influencers used CCD as a buzzword without understanding anything about it. Because average sensors with aggressive jog treatment isn't cool if it is in your phone and you can't show off on Instagram. And that's why pocket Digicams disappeared almost completely... Because now you have one in your pocket already.
3 years ago I bought a Canon G10 for €50, now you have to pay at least €150 for this camera in good condition. I can see price increases of around 300% for CCD cameras. This is really crazy. I switched partly to digital in 2000 with a Kodak DC3400 and love seeing the CCD images that remind me of yesterday. It's just the memories of the past that make people say that the pictures look like film photos. The young generation has never taken analogue photographs and is now comparing CCD with analogue film, that says it all ...
Wow... I honestly am surprised by the effort you put up on doing this videos. Not only you enlight people with knowledge but also i can see how hard work you put on delivering your message. Thanks for this
I find this trend really interesting, as sony cybershots and the likes are very obviously taking not very good images, but even knowing this, i am still sometimes caught up in the nostalgia factor, especially party images shot with flash and the sorts.
As a culture, we are radically obsessed with nostalgia. Of course, revivals and trends in anything related to "neo-[insert any word]" have occurred since the beginning of the human race. My point is that our culture today is so corporatized that all kinds of content creators and companies are milking people's feelings of nostalgia to such an extreme that they are pushing shit on people that was created in people's minds as something like the Mandella Effect. I think this is the reason why people are completely confused about what certain eras were like, and by that I also mean technology.
My first camera was a digital camera in around 2002. It was not good. I have had multiple digi-cams over the years and got a mirrorless system and DSLR a few years ago. The quantum leap in image quality from old digicams to a DSLR and beyond that mirrorless is ridiculous. I wouldn't bother with a digicam ever again. Film on the other hand, when exposed properly and framed in, just looks incredible.
When my kids were growing up, one of the many cameras with which I used to photograph them was my Leica D-Lux 5, which has a CCD sensor. While these days I'm shooting Hassy X2D and my Fuji X100VI for digital (and my faithful Mamiya 6, Leica M6 and Contax G2 for film), that D-Lux 5 my now adult daughter found recently in one of my old storage boxes still produces great images. Interestingly, two of the photographs I'd made of my two daughters with that very same D-Lux 5 back in early 2011 landed me a spot as one of three finalists in a Steve Huff photo contest for a Leica M9 (also a CCD sensor) donated by Seal (the musician). Sadly, I did not win in the end, but I still cherish those photos of my girls, and my daughter is now loving the photos she's now capturing with my old D-Lux 5.
Shades of Max Headroom Isaac. Lol. This actually kind of relates. When I saw the first stutter/skip in your video, Max Headroom is exactly what I thought of. When I watched a Max Headroom clip I saw that you really weren’t much like good old Max. Hmmm. That’s kind of the theme of this video. CCD digital images might trick some into thinking they’re film like, buy when one compares them to actual film there’s not much resemblance. Great work Max! Oops, I meant Isaac😅
I feel like the idea also didn't come from the cheap, shitty ccd cameras. It was more the lx3/5, ricohs, etc, that ran 500 or more new in the late 2000s. Good cameras with minor quirks because of the ccd sensors and were good enough where it felt less like "low end digital" and more a unique style. Especially compared to smartphone pics that are very high quality in general but also trend toward being super bland.
I think it's mostly the stronger CFA, processing aimed to replicate the film look, low resolution and chunky noise of these older digital cameras that just happens to coincide with the era of CCD sensors. CCDs were pretty bad when it came to dynamic range though (apart from Fuji's SuperCCD) and clipped rather than rolled off the highlights pleasingly like colour negative film tends to do. I don't know of any somewhat affordable CCD camera that could deliver 15 stops of dynamic range, usually it was only around 10. Personally I really like the texture of the noise on these older low resolution cameras (CCD or not) but only after using some colour noise removal in Lightroom lol. By the way you left a ton of bloopers in there, was that on purpose?
I'm someone who still uses pocket digicams that I buy from thrift stores because I always like having a camera with me and I just don't like smartphones, both because I find them intrusive in general and also because I like having a camera with optical zoom and physical controls. I also, less frequently these days, take film photos, mainly with SLR cameras but also with a relatively compact Vivitar 300Z. I don't think most of my digicam shots look like my film shots and I've taken photos at some events with both (plus either a DSLR or an early Sony mirrorless, which I use mainly at classic or exotic car events) so I can do one-on-one comparisons between digicam and film (plus larger sensor digital) shots taken of the same subject in the same light within a minute or two of each other. The one thing I have tried with digicams to get slightly more film-like shots is to switch them to either beach mode or sunset mode, which pumps up the yellows, oranges, and reds for "warmer" shots. I still wouldn't mistake shots taken with those modes with film shots, though.
Yes if you shoot it today, you will see somewhat strange that you didn't noticed before the smartphones era. maybe not, but give it a try in a hicking day if you have one on the desk
To your last point, saying that "digital P&S cameras can shoot unlimited film photos" is as accurate as saying "a film camera can shoot 36 digital photos". It's just not the case, lots of camera channels are praying to the algorithm gods nowadays.
I think it depends mostly on the internal image processing wheter the pictures look filmish or whatever, because point and shoot cameras offer only ready-made preprocessed jpg output. Every camera manufacturer tried to attract their customers in their own way and maybe *some* ccd digicams of the era could have tried to make filmic looking pictures, to persuade film shooters into digital photography(?). For example I used Minolta S-414 back then and with careful setting it could give very unique pictures, some of which are still my favourite.
The kernel of truth is that some cameras (such as the original Canon 5D) were specifically made with film-like color science to appeal to pro film photographers.
That might be true (and I would love to get a hold of one), but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately, they still write 0s and 1s to an SD card (or whatever type of memory card 5D uses)
You're missing a very important point; CCD sensors got ditched because CMOS was cheaper and used less power. If we had spent the same amont of time and energy developing CCD as CMOS, they would be just as good, maybe even better. They certainly handle noise a lot nicer than CMOS. Most of the videos I've seen that talk about being able to shoot unlimited film are just clickbait, and what they are actually referring to is these cameras produce images that sway more towards the aesthetic of film, rather than what we are used to with modern day digital cameras. They produce softer images, they often have nostalgic colour profiles, and the noise actually looks quite nice.
@@AlexDoesRUclipss I know. I was not exuding it from my statement. My comment was supposed to be a bit of gentle criticism. Maybe it wasn't obvious enough.
there is a differrence between having the same results as a point and shoot film cameras and the same results as a film SLR. That's not exactly the same thing. What people like about film photography these days (and one of the reason that film photography got just as popular as other "retro" stuff like vinyl records) is that people want that kind of Lo-Fi feeling. It's half intentional and half nostalgic. Most people didn't shoot with good film SLR cameras in the 80s and 90s... they shot with plastic or disposable point and shoot camera that had crappy lenses, sometimes not reliable autofocus or no focusing at all, and more often than not they developped their film once their trop was over, or maybe even a few weeks after that once they remember that they took pictures in their vacations. We're not talking about clean film photography here, we're talking about scuffed images shot on entry level film stocks, using very crappy cameras. Digicams are not emulating film, they're emulating that dynamic : scuffed images with a "Lo-Fi" (Low Fidelity) vibe to them. Those older digicams have tiny super noisy CCD sensors, which didn't have great high ISO performance, had less than 10 stops of total dynamic range and overall produced "snapshot" quality images. The ones you take at the family dinner. In a lot of ways, those images remind us of that scuffed look of the film point and shoot of the past. So yeah, they don't shoot infinite film. They shoot infinite Lo-Fi images and that's the whole point of the digicam movement (CCD color snobs aside...)
While I get your point, those RUclipsrs literally lie in their titles and thumbnails, and they need to be called out for their clickbait bullshit. And still, this video did it in the most sympathetic and non-aggressive way possible
I couldn't have said it better. The closest thing to a 'digicam' is my first-gen Fuji X100, but that's quite the capable APS-C camera, which I use as my main camera to photograph my kids. Otherwise, aside from astrophotography, I don't really use digital cameras. I do like the aspect that this trend is saving more electronics from landfills, and if we can get away from calling them 'film-like', I'd be on board with the rise of this trend. I think the root of it all is nostalgia, so we can't really blame the digicam fans, because we all like to take cool images with old gear. Great to see that someone had the courage to make the video to say what you said about it.
For me they "somewhat" look like film but not 100 percent for sure. I love the look of old digicams especially the G series. Im just lazy at pushung sliders if its just for sharing on social media. Old digicams look gorgeous on tiny phone screens which the current camera companies are in fear of. You don't need the latest and greatest gear.
@@Overexposed1 fair play to them to come up with a campaign like that. It sparked my own personal deep dive research into "digital vintage", then I realized it wasn't for me. 🙌
@@YannickKhongOne easy way to find out if some youtuber's claim about a given digicam is true is to look up the camera on flickr and browse the cam's photos, see if you like the look of it and if it really tingles you. The worst thing you can do is going by a paused video that shows the closest shots to the youtuber's spin/take - probably not even full-screen. Go by the average photo you find people posting online - flickr being a good camera filter and a site used - usually - by people with more than straight up average skills in mere auto-mode. (not a jab, photography is valid at everyone's skillset) Oh and most importantly, it's ALWAYS counter-productive to recommend a specific model at a specific price being a good deal, jacking up that very model's price on platforms like eBay because if you have reach now everyone's jumping on that model at once, rendering your video kinda pointless to every viewer who arrives like a few days late to the party...
I need to mention one characteristic of these old digital camera (especially DSLR) with CCD sensor compare to any camera post 2007 or more significantly post 2012, they produce picture with more mute tone and denser color compare to more modern camera that have the image look more bright and clear, most of the time it look more in line with slide film while doesn't have grainy look of film, even when shoot with really high ISO (like 800 or 1600) it still look smooth despite slight roughness from noise (almost unperceivable when I put the picture in the video even at that kind of ISO) while even ISO 100 film look more rough but in a different way as you've said. About the point and shoot digicam, back in the day I used to shoot many of point and shoot digicam and their noise are a bunch of red green or blue square dots that make image look horrible. It's one of the reason why I want DSLR so much back in the day.
My parents had one of those Kodak dual lens EasyShare point and shoots, and once I had enough money to get my own I got a waterproof Fuji point and shoot that I still have. None of the images I got from either of those looked anything remotely like film, and no point and shoot I've ever used compares to the experience of having a camera that at least allows a little bit of manual control.
6 месяцев назад+1
I agree that youtubers claiming unlimited film photos are trying to get attention and its not *film photos* But when you say film-like i think the argument completely changes. Because similarity is completely diferrent from being equivalent. From. a philosophical point of view if you claim they are equivalent finding some points that they are diferrent (like in this video) is enough to debunk it. But if they claim similarity it comes with some context. And you can't debunk it using a different context. For example lets say that I have a miniature model of a specific car. Ant it is like the original one. One can try to debunk it by saying its not a real car, it doesn't have an engine you can't drive it and those are the most important properties of a car. But I. may claim that it is like the real thing because some aspects of it are simillar. So this makes the stance that digicams are "film-like" still a defendable stance. But they are not film for sure. For example: * When transitioning from film to digital CCD sensors were used but its not the only part that generates the image. To create images there is some processing involved. and the color science of earlier digicams are more comparable to films than real world. I think as times go by the preference went more to realistic (as we see as humans) from what films capture. * Most peoples experience with film photography was point and shoot cameras of the time. They had some design and optical limitations resulting in certain looks. And those characteristics are not closer to reality or more high quality. It's just that digicams produced photographs more like to their previous film shooting experience. * As mentioned in the video there was not a certain film characteristics. All film had their design preference production process and chemicals. They presented a certain look. But what is common in the films is that they look nostolgic to us. So does the digicams this day. From that perspective they are film-like. In the end I think it all comes to similarity of the experience not similarity of the medium
CCD / Cmos / Xtrans, they all are bayer sensors and capture colour horizontally not vertically like film or a Foveon sensor does. Most of the differences we see with bayer sensors is software based using different interpolation and noise reduction recipes.Then add another variable like lightroom vs capture one. For me it's film or Foveon :)
I agree that this statement that the little old cameras shoot exactly like film is greatly exaggerated. But in my opinion, the old digital cameras shoot with colors closer to the old film ones. Simply because the manufacturers wanted to replace the film as well as possible, so they follow the current color palette of the time that was. I love Digicams, there are some that don't even have displays, and it's like the experience of shooting on film. In your video you mostly talk about the qualities and advantages of CCD sensors and how CMOS is starting to overtake them. But actually for us people who shoot with Digicams it doesn't matter. I mean we like the imperfections and defects that CCD makes, not the good quality. And the defects and imperfections that CCD makes are closer to film, and I don't mean new modern film, I mean films from the 70s and 80s. But of course digital and analog are two different things, Digicams will never be film.
Ha you hit it in the nose. I did buy a digi cam when i got started and still use it. Not for the film like photos but for the digi cam look. It’s a category all on its own in my opinion. Great video byw.
Same here man. Been shooting larger cameras most of my life. I scored a beat up Lumix sz100 for like 1/4 of its value on marketplace and have absolutely fallen in love with it. Not because what it produces.. the 1” cmos certainly has its own character but the size.. being able to carry a camera everywhere is amazing
Shoot what you like, but definitely agree. I think digicams ruined a generation of memories and they're back for more. Yeah, CCDs get nice color and can be a little better than using a phone ... and that's mostly it.
A key advantage advantage of CCDs over CMOS sensors which was touched on but not explored in this video is that CCDs move charge through the same amplifier at readout whereas CMOS sensors have an amplifier for each pixel (active pixels). Each amplifier will have its own gain and bias causing 'fixed pattern noise' on CMOS sensors that is not present on CCDs. CCDs do have non-linearities between pixels but these are typically different in nature and also typically present in CCDs. I think few people would look at fixed pattern noise in a CMOS image and describe it as pleasant compared to the noise profile in CCD sensors even though the absolute noise level is lower in CMOS for comparable technologies.
Great video, agree with the sentiment. CCD and CMOS images look pretty close to my eyes. I do think there’s a difference when it comes to older colour science, I have an older camera with Kodak made sensor and that one has a unique look to it, wouldn’t quite call it film though. But the idea that all CCD cameras make images that look like film is ridiculous; the jpegs that come out of my canon EOS RP look much better than a 2010 digicam.
Yeah these titles do capture alot of attention. The most popular videos on my channel was about some CCD digicams and film look which were very well received. Then I make a video about the canon m50 with the same exact style as my other videos and it just FLOPS badly. As for digicams looking film-like in my opinion they can especially given what you can do in adobe lightroom with presets ect and compared to more modern cameras especially with more dynamic range ect some digicams can share a few characteristics that are seen in film. And In my opinion digicams are a good alternative for those who want to try to emulate film without having to go through the entire process of shooting real film while at the same time getting the look that they love and desire and a look that is nalstalgic for them to remember
really the only CCD cameras that shoot "unlimited film" photos are early digital M Leicas, which iirc were Kodak CCD sensors where color rendition is based on Kodachrome slide film I like that this video debunks the trend that digicams have that filmic nostalgia, I think my generation (Z) are just confusing early digicam nostalgia with film nostalgia, which have different asthetics, most likely cuz both existed around the same time (early 2000s)
I've also thought those videos are ridiculous. When these cameras were new, everyone complained that the noise looked terrible compared to film grain. Nobody thought their images looked anything like film.
I have a little Nikon Coolpix P7100 that I keep in the car for unexpected "wish I had a camera" moments. It's a fun little camera that can give surprisingly good results considering its size and age. It's also a bit different from most alleged "unlimited film" cameras being hyped these days in that it has a full PSAM dial, manual control if I want it, optical viewfinder, etc. It's a fun little camera. But when I want better quality digital images, I don't grab it. I grab my D750. And there's no way that it shoots "film like" images. It just doesn't. My film cameras shoot film images, not my digital cameras... So it's fun, it has a place, I'm glad I have it to use, but I sure do wish people would stop hyping that "digital that shoots film-like images" line.
Absolutely fantastic video! At 4mins, 8mins, and 9:10 you say the same thing 2x brother I do it all the time and would love someone to tell me so I can use RUclips's editing tool to take them out. Hope you see this as helpful 😅 thanks for the video mate
Late to the party but one thing the older digital P&S bring to the party is *some* of them have pretty decent lenses in front of the tiny sensor. This can yield good iamge quality, within the constraints of the sensor, vs a phone and it's tiny slivers of glass. Cell phone photography leverages the processing power of the phone, AI, and automated image processing foo to get good IQ. They are still kinda atrocious as pure cameras. I get better results from a 15 year old 14mp DSLR shooting RAW with 1980's lenses than my "64mp" phone camera shooting DNG, and much of that has to do with the hunk of aluminum and glass in front of the sensor. I get the most enjoyment out of shooting a manual film camera WITH mf lenses that are old enough to join AARP.
Very interesting. I do, however, wonder about what you have done to edge enhancing in your video. The edges of your arms look artificial against the black cabinets.
My DSLR journey started with Nikon D50 with a CCD sensor of 6Mp. I took a lot of great pictures with, including pictures that were printed full page in a glossy hifi magazine. Is it somehow better than CMOS? I don’t know, but it is a fact that I rarely had to adjust color other than white balance in some cases.
Quick heads up on your editing, there were multiple times (5 or so) in the video where you included your take of repeating a phrase. Great video overall though!
@@Overexposed1 Yeah, not a criticism at all! Figured it just slipped through the cracks and thought you'd appreciate knowing. Again, fan of the channel and appreciate your content!
I thought it was the other way around, that CCD sensors produce more noise than CMOS sensors, and I can confirm this since I have cameras with both types of sensors! You can see the difference in the photos between the two sensors, I personally like the CCD look!
@@mikafoxx2717they're also still in use in microscope cameras and some consumer astro cameras. Although the prices on the former can be quite eye-watering lol
They became really popular with my students last year here in China. The 2nd markets who did not even care about these cameras bumped up their prices. Hopefully this fad is dying off
ccd were more expensive to make and more slow to read, so you couldn't do video very well. And by the time you could, they'd read off them in mini rows, kinda like CMOS. they got around this with 3ccd by having the ccd's in a offset and lower resolution than the final sample. It's not infinite photos with these digicams, it's just really good defaults , and you get that in the old cmos ones too.
More debunking videos please! Good stuff. Nikon D200 is the best value/quality if ya wanna get a nice CCD IMO. F digicams, those tiny sensors are poo. But the kids these days like em and use the flash. But hey, still cooler than an iPhone 15! Once those swifties find out what Sony digicam she was promoting they will sell for $500 😂
Depends on the digicam. The vast majority look like early 00s digital cameras. The Kodak DC4800, Olympus C-3000 and Canon G2/G3 look very similar to film though. Also, the Fuji E550 and F31FD, with the very early version of what would become Fuji's film simulations, look very similar to film as well.
I’d say don’t spend hundreds on digicams… but 20 bucks and have some fun , sure ;-) But please understand that the demographic that are occupying digicams, probably don’t have Fuji money. Or , film photography money. But… let’s hope the digis get em hooked so they can progress to film with the rest of us ;-)
I shoot film, being lomochrome metropolis and Ektar 100 my favorites; I have used a Fujifilm X100S with recipes for years; I used for years DxO filmpack and in my old cellphones VSCO. As an old camera my Sigma DP2 is there with its big sensor. I can say that old digicams only look like film when it has been so badly processed in old scanners that it introduces digital noise, low resolution and too much contrast that the poor dynamic range (specially of consumer film) gets crushed; only then then they look similar. The Fujifilm simulations are digital looking because, as I understand it, they try to achieve a digital ideal without printing or chemicals involved. But for what a good developed film should look in mind DxO filmpack to me was the option years ago with the cameras that this fad tries to sell as unlimited film. Some of those videos even mention that they process the raw so in fact I think more than the sensor the influence is in the optically corrected lenses instead. When lenses started to be digitally corrected is what IMO started this almost subconscious impression of digital fakeness. I tried to like compact digital cameras but when I open the files in my computer the joy I had shooting banish with all the editing work they need.
I agree with most of the points, but... it is also related with our memories itselve. we all have in mind the 2000 look, and we remember a lot of photos or videos of that era because digicams democraticed the media, everybody can pick one random camera and do things that in 1990 were impossible to do, because film always was expensive, bad cameras in a middle class family, etc... digicams chaged the mind. Infinite photos for free, and videos in a pocket... so we remember that and assimilate to somewhat special on colors, ambient capture. Also want to say that a cheap ccd cam is not comparable to a top of the line ccd cam of the same era. Because if it was rubbish before, now is more rubbish in the rubbish world 😂 A propper CCD from 2005-2010 can handle pro photos with no problem at all, always not comparing it to a tio of the line on 2024....
CCD sensors were being fitted to premium cameras long after the CMOS sensors were widely used. The main issue with the CCD sensor is the cost of production and the slight lag in transfer times. I've found that the best way to get 'film like' pics is to fit a vintage lens to a CCD equipped DSLR.
You can actually make unlimited film photos with any film camera by simply buying and shooting unlimited rools of film)))))) So, money can make unlimited film photos Magic!
I get recommended these types of videos constantly and they annoy me so much, if you want your images to look like film just shoot film lmao
Better yet, they should just stop shooting. A lot of people shooting film do it for the outcome, the automatically pleasing colors and aesthetics that film creates rather than the act of taking a photo. The photog community seems so disingenuous since the rise of film. It’s all about old cars, tones, and likes.
@@obomasinladen I mean if youre not shooting for the aesthetics of film and trying to create a good product whats even the point in general? Its visual art why would you not do it for the outcome? thats a dumb statement
Yeah I think this is just clickbait, I also got those videos and they made me dig up an old Canon Ixus75. There is a certain vibe and colors it brings but it doesn't look like film.
You can make film-like photos out of anything as long as your file can be abused enough. If you can take raws it should be pretty easy. Film has known and observable qualities, you may not be able to emulate the specific micro details of each brand and product but you'll get the general atmosphere just fine.
But, but, buh CCD is just digital film, bro?
“Maybe you want it to look like old digital, and that’s ok” - this has to be the underline for me! I completely understand wanting to add limitations to my artistic practice; and wanting something dedicated that isn’t a phone. Digicams aren’t my bag but I appreciate them for what they are.
Step 1) find super cheap cameras 2) hype up on RUclips 3) sell for big bugs.
As someone who uses CCD point and shoots, I completely agree with everything this guy is saying. After a few years shooting with these cameras, I can confidently say that the experience is nothing short of TREACHEROUS.
HOWEVER: the single redeeming quality here, is that these old cameras are a great way to try something different and challenge yourself… Pulling a good photo out of a digicam feels like an honest to god achievement!
I wouldn’t spend the atrociously inflated prices for one on eBay. There are THOUSANDS of digicams out there so be patient and find one at a thrift store.
Cheers!
All the digicam RUclipsrs need a reality check and I’m here for it.
Most of those videos that you were talking about are targeted towards people that's pursuing digital minimalism. They don't really care about editing photos, they just want sooc image right out of the camera and be happy with it, and usually that come with the feeling of nostalgia as well. They want the feelings of a disposable point and shoot but doesn't want the troubles of developing films which old digital point and shoot can provide the closest results. To them they don't care what film it looks like, heck they probably don't even know there's different kind of film stocks, they just want that like film dreamy looks.
I agree that those videos are getting more ridiculous with the claims and seeing people going out there buying overpriced 20 years old digicams is truly heartbreaking. This trend have took a wild turn from finding that old digicam from your childhood and using it again to people driving up prices online because of these videos.
CCD and CMOS sensors both use the same component, the "pinned photodiode," to convert light to a level of electrical charge. The difference between them is in the way those charges are read out into the computer and in the way the image sensor chips are manufactured, not in the way they actually function at a low level.
Old sensors might look different because their color filter arrays were engineered with different trade-offs between color accuracy and overall sensitivity. But its hard to believe there's any such thing as a CCD "look." I haven't noticed such a thing with my old CCD camera, and i haven't seen such a thing in the online comparisons some enterprising people have done.
And yet people say the same thing about the old Canon sensors, and they ditched ccd's right away. There's basically a cult for the 5D classic, and I do think it's good. But if anything I think a lot of it is the inaccuracy and modern cameras do better, if maybe less pleasing. Another is the limited dynamic range, which made old digitals look more like side film with high contrast, because they had to.
i haven't seen claims of these digicams taking "unlimited film photos" yet, but I would imagine the majority of gen-z/alpha's infatuation with them (as of late) is not primarily for the claim of a "film" look. These cameras produce a way different look that are much more in line with this Y2K come back trend. But I agree, to make the claim that these shoot film-like quality is wrong.
I'm a retired photojournalist (just so you know I'm not a newbie...) and I have some digicams. They can be fun, but... the fun factor is offset by low battery life, and slooooow operation. A modern digital is a way more satisfying user experience :)
Set your digicam to black and white mode and pop that flash. Instant film-look guaranteed.
I totally agree with you. These videos are basically clickbait. If people want photos that look like film they'd better start shooting film.
To make average old sensors with agressive jpg treatment trendy, influencers used CCD as a buzzword without understanding anything about it.
Because average sensors with aggressive jog treatment isn't cool if it is in your phone and you can't show off on Instagram.
And that's why pocket Digicams disappeared almost completely... Because now you have one in your pocket already.
thank you for making a video about this. old digicams just get you “old noisy digicam” looks. looks nothing like film.
3 years ago I bought a Canon G10 for €50, now you have to pay at least €150 for this camera in good condition. I can see price increases of around 300% for CCD cameras. This is really crazy. I switched partly to digital in 2000 with a Kodak DC3400 and love seeing the CCD images that remind me of yesterday.
It's just the memories of the past that make people say that the pictures look like film photos.
The young generation has never taken analogue photographs and is now comparing CCD with analogue film, that says it all ...
I shoot with vintage CCD digicams because I like how the images look not because people think they look like film.
Wow... I honestly am surprised by the effort you put up on doing this videos. Not only you enlight people with knowledge but also i can see how hard work you put on delivering your message. Thanks for this
I find this trend really interesting, as sony cybershots and the likes are very obviously taking not very good images, but even knowing this, i am still sometimes caught up in the nostalgia factor, especially party images shot with flash and the sorts.
As a culture, we are radically obsessed with nostalgia. Of course, revivals and trends in anything related to "neo-[insert any word]" have occurred since the beginning of the human race. My point is that our culture today is so corporatized that all kinds of content creators and companies are milking people's feelings of nostalgia to such an extreme that they are pushing shit on people that was created in people's minds as something like the Mandella Effect. I think this is the reason why people are completely confused about what certain eras were like, and by that I also mean technology.
We turned everything from the past into the buzzword "aesthetic" with ignoring the context of each era and our technology abilities from that time
My first camera was a digital camera in around 2002. It was not good. I have had multiple digi-cams over the years and got a mirrorless system and DSLR a few years ago. The quantum leap in image quality from old digicams to a DSLR and beyond that mirrorless is ridiculous. I wouldn't bother with a digicam ever again. Film on the other hand, when exposed properly and framed in, just looks incredible.
When my kids were growing up, one of the many cameras with which I used to photograph them was my Leica D-Lux 5, which has a CCD sensor. While these days I'm shooting Hassy X2D and my Fuji X100VI for digital (and my faithful Mamiya 6, Leica M6 and Contax G2 for film), that D-Lux 5 my now adult daughter found recently in one of my old storage boxes still produces great images. Interestingly, two of the photographs I'd made of my two daughters with that very same D-Lux 5 back in early 2011 landed me a spot as one of three finalists in a Steve Huff photo contest for a Leica M9 (also a CCD sensor) donated by Seal (the musician). Sadly, I did not win in the end, but I still cherish those photos of my girls, and my daughter is now loving the photos she's now capturing with my old D-Lux 5.
Shades of Max Headroom Isaac. Lol. This actually kind of relates. When I saw the first stutter/skip in your video, Max Headroom is exactly what I thought of. When I watched a Max Headroom clip I saw that you really weren’t much like good old Max. Hmmm. That’s kind of the theme of this video. CCD digital images might trick some into thinking they’re film like, buy when one compares them to actual film there’s not much resemblance. Great work Max! Oops, I meant Isaac😅
I feel like the idea also didn't come from the cheap, shitty ccd cameras. It was more the lx3/5, ricohs, etc, that ran 500 or more new in the late 2000s. Good cameras with minor quirks because of the ccd sensors and were good enough where it felt less like "low end digital" and more a unique style. Especially compared to smartphone pics that are very high quality in general but also trend toward being super bland.
I think it's mostly the stronger CFA, processing aimed to replicate the film look, low resolution and chunky noise of these older digital cameras that just happens to coincide with the era of CCD sensors. CCDs were pretty bad when it came to dynamic range though (apart from Fuji's SuperCCD) and clipped rather than rolled off the highlights pleasingly like colour negative film tends to do. I don't know of any somewhat affordable CCD camera that could deliver 15 stops of dynamic range, usually it was only around 10. Personally I really like the texture of the noise on these older low resolution cameras (CCD or not) but only after using some colour noise removal in Lightroom lol. By the way you left a ton of bloopers in there, was that on purpose?
I'm someone who still uses pocket digicams that I buy from thrift stores because I always like having a camera with me and I just don't like smartphones, both because I find them intrusive in general and also because I like having a camera with optical zoom and physical controls.
I also, less frequently these days, take film photos, mainly with SLR cameras but also with a relatively compact Vivitar 300Z. I don't think most of my digicam shots look like my film shots and I've taken photos at some events with both (plus either a DSLR or an early Sony mirrorless, which I use mainly at classic or exotic car events) so I can do one-on-one comparisons between digicam and film (plus larger sensor digital) shots taken of the same subject in the same light within a minute or two of each other.
The one thing I have tried with digicams to get slightly more film-like shots is to switch them to either beach mode or sunset mode, which pumps up the yellows, oranges, and reds for "warmer" shots. I still wouldn't mistake shots taken with those modes with film shots, though.
I bought my first "ccd" camera in 2002 and shot ccd's until 2009. There was nothing "magical" about them.
Yes if you shoot it today, you will see somewhat strange that you didn't noticed before the smartphones era. maybe not, but give it a try in a hicking day if you have one on the desk
To your last point, saying that "digital P&S cameras can shoot unlimited film photos" is as accurate as saying "a film camera can shoot 36 digital photos". It's just not the case, lots of camera channels are praying to the algorithm gods nowadays.
I think it depends mostly on the internal image processing wheter the pictures look filmish or whatever, because point and shoot cameras offer only ready-made preprocessed jpg output. Every camera manufacturer tried to attract their customers in their own way and maybe *some* ccd digicams of the era could have tried to make filmic looking pictures, to persuade film shooters into digital photography(?). For example I used Minolta S-414 back then and with careful setting it could give very unique pictures, some of which are still my favourite.
The kernel of truth is that some cameras (such as the original Canon 5D) were specifically made with film-like color science to appeal to pro film photographers.
That might be true (and I would love to get a hold of one), but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately, they still write 0s and 1s to an SD card (or whatever type of memory card 5D uses)
You're missing a very important point; CCD sensors got ditched because CMOS was cheaper and used less power. If we had spent the same amont of time and energy developing CCD as CMOS, they would be just as good, maybe even better. They certainly handle noise a lot nicer than CMOS.
Most of the videos I've seen that talk about being able to shoot unlimited film are just clickbait, and what they are actually referring to is these cameras produce images that sway more towards the aesthetic of film, rather than what we are used to with modern day digital cameras. They produce softer images, they often have nostalgic colour profiles, and the noise actually looks quite nice.
Videos that are made because of the algorithm will always be less interesting than videos made because of passion for the subject, imo.
@@AlexDoesRUclipss I know. I was not exuding it from my statement. My comment was supposed to be a bit of gentle criticism. Maybe it wasn't obvious enough.
there is a differrence between having the same results as a point and shoot film cameras and the same results as a film SLR. That's not exactly the same thing.
What people like about film photography these days (and one of the reason that film photography got just as popular as other "retro" stuff like vinyl records) is that people want that kind of Lo-Fi feeling.
It's half intentional and half nostalgic. Most people didn't shoot with good film SLR cameras in the 80s and 90s... they shot with plastic or disposable point and shoot camera that had crappy lenses, sometimes not reliable autofocus or no focusing at all, and more often than not they developped their film once their trop was over, or maybe even a few weeks after that once they remember that they took pictures in their vacations. We're not talking about clean film photography here, we're talking about scuffed images shot on entry level film stocks, using very crappy cameras.
Digicams are not emulating film, they're emulating that dynamic : scuffed images with a "Lo-Fi" (Low Fidelity) vibe to them. Those older digicams have tiny super noisy CCD sensors, which didn't have great high ISO performance, had less than 10 stops of total dynamic range and overall produced "snapshot" quality images. The ones you take at the family dinner. In a lot of ways, those images remind us of that scuffed look of the film point and shoot of the past.
So yeah, they don't shoot infinite film. They shoot infinite Lo-Fi images and that's the whole point of the digicam movement (CCD color snobs aside...)
While I get your point, those RUclipsrs literally lie in their titles and thumbnails, and they need to be called out for their clickbait bullshit. And still, this video did it in the most sympathetic and non-aggressive way possible
I couldn't have said it better. The closest thing to a 'digicam' is my first-gen Fuji X100, but that's quite the capable APS-C camera, which I use as my main camera to photograph my kids. Otherwise, aside from astrophotography, I don't really use digital cameras. I do like the aspect that this trend is saving more electronics from landfills, and if we can get away from calling them 'film-like', I'd be on board with the rise of this trend. I think the root of it all is nostalgia, so we can't really blame the digicam fans, because we all like to take cool images with old gear.
Great to see that someone had the courage to make the video to say what you said about it.
Thank you, Joey! Hope you are well!
For me they "somewhat" look like film but not 100 percent for sure. I love the look of old digicams especially the G series. Im just lazy at pushung sliders if its just for sharing on social media. Old digicams look gorgeous on tiny phone screens which the current camera companies are in fear of. You don't need the latest and greatest gear.
Do you also realize that those videos are all mpb sponsored to drive used camera sales to their service?
I did not……interesting
@@Overexposed1 fair play to them to come up with a campaign like that. It sparked my own personal deep dive research into "digital vintage", then I realized it wasn't for me. 🙌
@@YannickKhongOne easy way to find out if some youtuber's claim about a given digicam is true is to look up the camera on flickr and browse the cam's photos, see if you like the look of it and if it really tingles you. The worst thing you can do is going by a paused video that shows the closest shots to the youtuber's spin/take - probably not even full-screen.
Go by the average photo you find people posting online - flickr being a good camera filter and a site used - usually - by people with more than straight up average skills in mere auto-mode. (not a jab, photography is valid at everyone's skillset)
Oh and most importantly, it's ALWAYS counter-productive to recommend a specific model at a specific price being a good deal, jacking up that very model's price on platforms like eBay because if you have reach now everyone's jumping on that model at once, rendering your video kinda pointless to every viewer who arrives like a few days late to the party...
I need to mention one characteristic of these old digital camera (especially DSLR) with CCD sensor compare to any camera post 2007 or more significantly post 2012, they produce picture with more mute tone and denser color compare to more modern camera that have the image look more bright and clear, most of the time it look more in line with slide film while doesn't have grainy look of film, even when shoot with really high ISO (like 800 or 1600) it still look smooth despite slight roughness from noise (almost unperceivable when I put the picture in the video even at that kind of ISO) while even ISO 100 film look more rough but in a different way as you've said.
About the point and shoot digicam, back in the day I used to shoot many of point and shoot digicam and their noise are a bunch of red green or blue square dots that make image look horrible. It's one of the reason why I want DSLR so much back in the day.
My parents had one of those Kodak dual lens EasyShare point and shoots, and once I had enough money to get my own I got a waterproof Fuji point and shoot that I still have.
None of the images I got from either of those looked anything remotely like film, and no point and shoot I've ever used compares to the experience of having a camera that at least allows a little bit of manual control.
I agree that youtubers claiming unlimited film photos are trying to get attention and its not *film photos*
But when you say film-like i think the argument completely changes. Because similarity is completely diferrent from being equivalent.
From. a philosophical point of view if you claim they are equivalent finding some points that they are diferrent (like in this video) is enough to debunk it. But if they claim similarity it comes with some context. And you can't debunk it using a different context.
For example lets say that I have a miniature model of a specific car. Ant it is like the original one. One can try to debunk it by saying its not a real car, it doesn't have an engine you can't drive it and those are the most important properties of a car.
But I. may claim that it is like the real thing because some aspects of it are simillar. So this makes the stance that digicams are "film-like" still a defendable stance. But they are not film for sure.
For example:
* When transitioning from film to digital CCD sensors were used but its not the only part that generates the image. To create images there is some processing involved. and the color science of earlier digicams are more comparable to films than real world. I think as times go by the preference went more to realistic (as we see as humans) from what films capture.
* Most peoples experience with film photography was point and shoot cameras of the time. They had some design and optical limitations resulting in certain looks. And those characteristics are not closer to reality or more high quality. It's just that digicams produced photographs more like to their previous film shooting experience.
* As mentioned in the video there was not a certain film characteristics. All film had their design preference production process and chemicals. They presented a certain look. But what is common in the films is that they look nostolgic to us. So does the digicams this day. From that perspective they are film-like.
In the end I think it all comes to similarity of the experience not similarity of the medium
CCD / Cmos / Xtrans, they all are bayer sensors and capture colour horizontally not vertically like film or a Foveon sensor does. Most of the differences we see with bayer sensors is software based using different interpolation and noise reduction recipes.Then add another variable like lightroom vs capture one. For me it's film or Foveon :)
I agree that this statement that the little old cameras shoot exactly like film is greatly exaggerated. But in my opinion, the old digital cameras shoot with colors closer to the old film ones. Simply because the manufacturers wanted to replace the film as well as possible, so they follow the current color palette of the time that was. I love Digicams, there are some that don't even have displays, and it's like the experience of shooting on film. In your video you mostly talk about the qualities and advantages of CCD sensors and how CMOS is starting to overtake them. But actually for us people who shoot with Digicams it doesn't matter. I mean we like the imperfections and defects that CCD makes, not the good quality. And the defects and imperfections that CCD makes are closer to film, and I don't mean new modern film, I mean films from the 70s and 80s. But of course digital and analog are two different things, Digicams will never be film.
Ha you hit it in the nose. I did buy a digi cam when i got started and still use it. Not for the film like photos but for the digi cam look. It’s a category all on its own in my opinion. Great video byw.
Thank you!
Same here man. Been shooting larger cameras most of my life. I scored a beat up Lumix sz100 for like 1/4 of its value on marketplace and have absolutely fallen in love with it. Not because what it produces.. the 1” cmos certainly has its own character but the size.. being able to carry a camera everywhere is amazing
@@obomasinladen yea the form factor is great for edc
Shoot what you like, but definitely agree. I think digicams ruined a generation of memories and they're back for more. Yeah, CCDs get nice color and can be a little better than using a phone ... and that's mostly it.
A key advantage advantage of CCDs over CMOS sensors which was touched on but not explored in this video is that CCDs move charge through the same amplifier at readout whereas CMOS sensors have an amplifier for each pixel (active pixels). Each amplifier will have its own gain and bias causing 'fixed pattern noise' on CMOS sensors that is not present on CCDs. CCDs do have non-linearities between pixels but these are typically different in nature and also typically present in CCDs.
I think few people would look at fixed pattern noise in a CMOS image and describe it as pleasant compared to the noise profile in CCD sensors even though the absolute noise level is lower in CMOS for comparable technologies.
I feel like digital cameras are making a comeback. I’m learning how to use a DSLR which was (and is) every guy’s shortcut to look cool.
I can only agree! Just got hold of a Canon EOS700D from a friend and it is really fun to use and produces great quality pictures.
Great video, agree with the sentiment. CCD and CMOS images look pretty close to my eyes. I do think there’s a difference when it comes to older colour science, I have an older camera with Kodak made sensor and that one has a unique look to it, wouldn’t quite call it film though. But the idea that all CCD cameras make images that look like film is ridiculous; the jpegs that come out of my canon EOS RP look much better than a 2010 digicam.
Yeah these titles do capture alot of attention. The most popular videos on my channel was about some CCD digicams and film look which were very well received. Then I make a video about the canon m50 with the same exact style as my other videos and it just FLOPS badly. As for digicams looking film-like in my opinion they can especially given what you can do in adobe lightroom with presets ect and compared to more modern cameras especially with more dynamic range ect some digicams can share a few characteristics that are seen in film. And In my opinion digicams are a good alternative for those who want to try to emulate film without having to go through the entire process of shooting real film while at the same time getting the look that they love and desire and a look that is nalstalgic for them to remember
really the only CCD cameras that shoot "unlimited film" photos are early digital M Leicas, which iirc were Kodak CCD sensors where color rendition is based on Kodachrome slide film
I like that this video debunks the trend that digicams have that filmic nostalgia, I think my generation (Z) are just confusing early digicam nostalgia with film nostalgia, which have different asthetics, most likely cuz both existed around the same time (early 2000s)
I've also thought those videos are ridiculous. When these cameras were new, everyone complained that the noise looked terrible compared to film grain. Nobody thought their images looked anything like film.
I have a little Nikon Coolpix P7100 that I keep in the car for unexpected "wish I had a camera" moments. It's a fun little camera that can give surprisingly good results considering its size and age. It's also a bit different from most alleged "unlimited film" cameras being hyped these days in that it has a full PSAM dial, manual control if I want it, optical viewfinder, etc. It's a fun little camera. But when I want better quality digital images, I don't grab it. I grab my D750. And there's no way that it shoots "film like" images. It just doesn't. My film cameras shoot film images, not my digital cameras...
So it's fun, it has a place, I'm glad I have it to use, but I sure do wish people would stop hyping that "digital that shoots film-like images" line.
Glad somebody is pointing out the facts. Apparently some you tubers make money from spreading these myths.
fuck dealing with cf and ms cards, just put a shitty 43-80 lens on a $3000 Nikon DSLR
I started shooting film 1979 and to be honest I can't see film resemblance from my old ccd point and shoot cameras.
Tiktokers are making this hype.
Great video, i have been thinking on digicams for a while, great timing I saw this. Just wondering, are the wierd cuts intentional?
Intentional in that there was something I needed to cut out, me flubbing a line of the script or deleting a piece of content. Thanks for watching
You have the most pleasant accent I've ever heard 🥰
Absolutely fantastic video! At 4mins, 8mins, and 9:10 you say the same thing 2x brother I do it all the time and would love someone to tell me so I can use RUclips's editing tool to take them out. Hope you see this as helpful 😅 thanks for the video mate
Really needed to hear this info, thanks for sharing!
Thanks for watching!
Overexposed will debunk and the other RUclipsrs will be left deburnt
Late to the party but one thing the older digital P&S bring to the party is *some* of them have pretty decent lenses in front of the tiny sensor. This can yield good iamge quality, within the constraints of the sensor, vs a phone and it's tiny slivers of glass. Cell phone photography leverages the processing power of the phone, AI, and automated image processing foo to get good IQ. They are still kinda atrocious as pure cameras. I get better results from a 15 year old 14mp DSLR shooting RAW with 1980's lenses than my "64mp" phone camera shooting DNG, and much of that has to do with the hunk of aluminum and glass in front of the sensor. I get the most enjoyment out of shooting a manual film camera WITH mf lenses that are old enough to join AARP.
Hey what do you know! Film cameras shoot unilmited film photos too. Amazing!
Very interesting. I do, however, wonder about what you have done to edge enhancing in your video. The edges of your arms look artificial against the black cabinets.
I am using a lens that has extreme vignetting, shot wide open. :)
The TTartisans 27mm 2.8 pancake
My DSLR journey started with Nikon D50 with a CCD sensor of 6Mp. I took a lot of great pictures with, including pictures that were printed full page in a glossy hifi magazine. Is it somehow better than CMOS? I don’t know, but it is a fact that I rarely had to adjust color other than white balance in some cases.
The only real effect you get is wow this pic looks like it was taken from a early/mid/late 2000s camera.
Quick heads up on your editing, there were multiple times (5 or so) in the video where you included your take of repeating a phrase. Great video overall though!
I was in a week long training and recorded it in a hotel room. Was a really tall order getting it out at all. Thanks!
@@Overexposed1 Yeah, not a criticism at all! Figured it just slipped through the cracks and thought you'd appreciate knowing. Again, fan of the channel and appreciate your content!
I thought it was the other way around, that CCD sensors produce more noise than CMOS sensors, and I can confirm this since I have cameras with both types of sensors!
You can see the difference in the photos between the two sensors, I personally like the CCD look!
They put a CCD in the new James Webb space telescope. Modern tech applies to both, CMOS is just cheaper.
@@mikafoxx2717they're also still in use in microscope cameras and some consumer astro cameras. Although the prices on the former can be quite eye-watering lol
They became really popular with my students last year here in China. The 2nd markets who did not even care about these cameras bumped up their prices. Hopefully this fad is dying off
I heard it, that sweet grey box booting sound, I did
ccd were more expensive to make and more slow to read, so you couldn't do video very well. And by the time you could, they'd read off them in mini rows, kinda like CMOS. they got around this with 3ccd by having the ccd's in a offset and lower resolution than the final sample. It's not infinite photos with these digicams, it's just really good defaults , and you get that in the old cmos ones too.
More debunking videos please! Good stuff. Nikon D200 is the best value/quality if ya wanna get a nice CCD IMO. F digicams, those tiny sensors are poo. But the kids these days like em and use the flash. But hey, still cooler than an iPhone 15! Once those swifties find out what Sony digicam she was promoting they will sell for $500 😂
Neat! :)
Learned things. :)
0:54 SONY CYBERSHOT OMG WHAT A MOMENT THAT WAS
Would love to see a three sided shoot out with CMOS, CCD, and Foveon
2:00 Yes, I’m that zoomer. Although I know my other ‘modern’ devices will do the work faster
THE STROKES MENTIONED!!! LETS GOOOO!!!
Capitalizing on the copium that they can’t afford fujifilm’s cameras
More people should watch this video
Ha, I basically just made this exact same video, but you beat me by a week! I came to most of the same conclusions.
I just got recommended the one by @metalfingers as well. We were all on the same wavelength!
@@Overexposed1 Great minds and all that!
6:32 Ok comrade
People who say old digital cameras shoot film-like photos have never shot film.
Depends on the digicam. The vast majority look like early 00s digital cameras. The Kodak DC4800, Olympus C-3000 and Canon G2/G3 look very similar to film though. Also, the Fuji E550 and F31FD, with the very early version of what would become Fuji's film simulations, look very similar to film as well.
I’d say don’t spend hundreds on digicams… but 20 bucks and have some fun , sure ;-)
But please understand that the demographic that are occupying digicams, probably don’t have Fuji money. Or , film photography money. But… let’s hope the digis get em hooked so they can progress to film with the rest of us ;-)
High end telescopes and astronomy still use CCD!
It’s good tech! Very cool stuff.
Microscope cameras too
The Stalin quote🤣🤣🤣
I shoot film, being lomochrome metropolis and Ektar 100 my favorites; I have used a Fujifilm X100S with recipes for years; I used for years DxO filmpack and in my old cellphones VSCO. As an old camera my Sigma DP2 is there with its big sensor. I can say that old digicams only look like film when it has been so badly processed in old scanners that it introduces digital noise, low resolution and too much contrast that the poor dynamic range (specially of consumer film) gets crushed; only then then they look similar. The Fujifilm simulations are digital looking because, as I understand it, they try to achieve a digital ideal without printing or chemicals involved. But for what a good developed film should look in mind DxO filmpack to me was the option years ago with the cameras that this fad tries to sell as unlimited film. Some of those videos even mention that they process the raw so in fact I think more than the sensor the influence is in the optically corrected lenses instead. When lenses started to be digitally corrected is what IMO started this almost subconscious impression of digital fakeness. I tried to like compact digital cameras but when I open the files in my computer the joy I had shooting banish with all the editing work they need.
thank you
Sure am glad I got these cameras before all the rich hipsters this time haha.
I agree with most of the points, but... it is also related with our memories itselve. we all have in mind the 2000 look, and we remember a lot of photos or videos of that era because digicams democraticed the media, everybody can pick one random camera and do things that in 1990 were impossible to do, because film always was expensive, bad cameras in a middle class family, etc... digicams chaged the mind. Infinite photos for free, and videos in a pocket... so we remember that and assimilate to somewhat special on colors, ambient capture. Also want to say that a cheap ccd cam is not comparable to a top of the line ccd cam of the same era. Because if it was rubbish before, now is more rubbish in the rubbish world 😂 A propper CCD from 2005-2010 can handle pro photos with no problem at all, always not comparing it to a tio of the line on 2024....
CCD sensors were being fitted to premium cameras long after the CMOS sensors were widely used. The main issue with the CCD sensor is the cost of production and the slight lag in transfer times. I've found that the best way to get 'film like' pics is to fit a vintage lens to a CCD equipped DSLR.
Let's talk about Foveon image senors then....
THIS CAMERA TAKES UNLIMITED SHITTY PHOTOS
I second this
Editing error 3:58 jsyk
You can actually make unlimited film photos with any film camera by simply buying and shooting unlimited rools of film))))))
So, money can make unlimited film photos
Magic!