LF Camera dB

[alec4444]

I'm tired of searching all over hell's half acre for LF Camera and lens info, so I'm toying with the idea of building a public domain database where people can enter info, upload photos, etc for all types of LF cameras. Database could be searchable, and browseable with filtering and such. Fun, eh? It's stuff like this that whittles down my hours of sleep each night. I would host this on my domain for lack of anything else better to do with it at the moment!

Ok, so what would you want to know about a camera? Here's some info I've got logged into a schema thus far:


Camera Make, Model (unique, so no duplicates)
Camera Format (selected from a complete list)
Year Built (Start)
Year Built (End)
Outer Depth (Closed)
Outer Height (Closed)
Outer Width (Closed)
Max Extension (inches)
Min Extension (inches)
Weight (lbs)
Movements (selected from a complete list)
Lens Board Size
Photos of the camera
Description or Notes
Website URL (if applicable)
Rotating Back (yes/no)
Contributor Name(s) (for those who want credit for supplying the info, pics)


Thought about the "degree" of movements, but realized this is too difficult for the avg person to measure. (30 degree swing? 35 degrees? who the hell knows!) Another problem that crossed my mind is that the max extension could vary depending on often-missing extension rails.

Anywho, thoughts or ideas appreciated. Gonna spec this out and send it to my tech team for pricing. I figure I'll start with the camera dB, then give the lens dB a go.

Cheers!
--A

[Ole Tjugen]

Making a database setup is the easy part. Getting all the data in is the difficult part. Also, LF cameras have been made for well over a century and many very old ones are still in use. They tend to be (or have been) hand made, making the number of possible variations as good as infinite.

Even with current cameras there are a lot of variations and options - like the Gandolfi Traditional 10x8" which can be had with or without front swing, with two different lensboard sizes, and in at least two different materials giving different weights. Even the front rise and shift depend on the lensboard type! There are more variations than that too - over the 80 years it's been in production - although the older ones (even more varied!) are called "Precision", not "Traditional".

If you do decide to go ahead with this, at least allow different sets of unit on entry and display: Use metric internally, then let each user select metric or imperial.

[Navy Moose]

I'm tired of searching all over hell's half acre for LF Camera and lens info, so I'm toying with the idea of building a public domain database where people can enter info, upload photos, etc for all types of LF cameras. Database could be searchable, and browseable with filtering and such. Fun, eh? It's stuff like this that whittles down my hours of sleep each night. I would host this on my domain for lack of anything else better to do with it at the moment!

Ok, so what would you want to know about a camera? Here's some info I've got logged into a schema thus far:


Camera Make, Model (unique, so no duplicates)
Camera Format (selected from a complete list)
Year Built (Start)
Year Built (End)
Outer Depth (Closed)
Outer Height (Closed)
Outer Width (Closed)
Max Extension (inches)
Min Extension (inches)
Weight (lbs)
Movements (selected from a complete list)
Lens Board Size
Photos of the camera
Description or Notes
Website URL (if applicable)
Rotating Back (yes/no)
Contributor Name(s) (for those who want credit for supplying the info, pics)


Thought about the "degree" of movements, but realized this is too difficult for the avg person to measure. (30 degree swing? 35 degrees? who the hell knows!) Another problem that crossed my mind is that the max extension could vary depending on often-missing extension rails.

Anywho, thoughts or ideas appreciated. Gonna spec this out and send it to my tech team for pricing. I figure I'll start with the camera dB, then give the lens dB a go.

Cheers!
--A
Thank you for starting this. It is sorely needed.

[alec4444]

Making a database setup is the easy part. Getting all the data in is the difficult part.
Absolutely. That's why I'd set it all for anyone on the WWW to be able to enter data. Would take me forever to enter it all myself, but if everyone entered the cameras they own, presto! Insta-base. :D


Also, LF cameras have been made for well over a century and many very old ones are still in use. They tend to be (or have been) hand made, making the number of possible variations as good as infinite.

Even with current cameras there are a lot of variations and options - like the Gandolfi Traditional 10x8" which can be had with or without front swing, with two different lensboard sizes, and in at least two different materials giving different weights. Even the front rise and shift depend on the lensboard type! There are more variations than that too - over the 80 years it's been in production - although the older ones (even more varied!) are called "Precision", not "Traditional".

Perfect, that's the kinda info I need! Unless I build the flexibility in, it'll be useless. Thanks, Ole, this is a great start.


If you do decide to go ahead with this, at least allow different sets of unit on entry and display: Use metric internally, then let each user select metric or imperial.

Done. Now since I'm funding this personally, I may need to drop a feature here and there in the order of necessity. But I think this one would be kinda cheap. :)

This is going to take some time to design properly, and then the negotiations of the implementation begin. Not quick. But if you have ideas about what you'd like to see, please send me an email or post here. (PMs are a little full)

Cheers!
--A

[Graham Patterson]

Weight is at best a guide, unless you add a flag for 'as factory specification'. My Wista has a personal custom central tripod mount that adds a little to the weight, for example. There are a lot of standard lensboard sizes and adapters. Casual measurement will give you some variation, so the more preset options the better.

Resign yourself to omitting something useful!

[Ralph Barker]

While it's desirable from a database perspective to have something unique, Camera make/model may not be the best choice, considering the variations that aren't reflected in the model designation. I'd suggest designing in an arbitrary sub-model designator, something like A-Z, perhaps, to allow for different combinations of the variables.

Using the Wiki approach of public data input would minimize the level of centralized effort, but it can also lead to data errors unless there is some sort of vetting process. I haven't fully explored how Wiki works, so I might be off base in that respect, but it's something to think about in advance.

Also, while I think the resulting database would be highly useful, maintaining it will be a huge, long-term effort, not to mention enticing those who have gone to great pains to accumulate their own data to share it. For example, we tried to accumulate data on camera weights a while back. Initial response was fairly good, but interest diminished fairly rapidly, perhaps due to the fact that we didn't have a "monk" who had dedicated his life to the effort.

[Bob Salomon]

As an idea of what you are getting into The Linhof Camera Story book lists 91 different production Linhofs. This does not include three Linhof cameras introduced since the last version of the book was published or any new cameras that might be announced this month at Photokina.

This list does not include prototypes but does include very short run cameras like the Kardan GTI.

Now add all the Arca models, Toyo, Cambo, Plaubel, etc. cameras and you have a massive job compiling all the info - even if you can find owners for all sizes and models of the cameras.

Then, while Linhof does not break the sub-models down, there are lots of users looking for particular production changes and will claim that they have a Technika III model or series X. So if that is included in your db this becomes endless.

[Oren Grad]

It doesn't have to be perfect to be very useful. This site (http://www.fiberq.com/cam/), for example, is worth its weight in gold, despite not having a lot of the details you're considering.

Allow for flexibility to accommodate the broad variation that you'll see in hand-made and short-run models, and put in some text explaining the facts of LF life for users who would otherwise harrass you with "but you said it was 8 pounds 3 ounces, not 8 pounds 7 ounces!". Beyond that, don't sweat it.

Perhaps it would be more practical to do as a wiki, like this (http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page).

[alec4444]

Thanks, guys. Yeah, it was that site, and the LF lenses page on graflex.org that gave me the idea.

As far as variations, I was thinking about allowing several versions of "Custom" under model. So for example, let's Joe owns a custom Wisner Tech Field 5x7 that has less extension. Jack owns a custom Wisner Tech Field 5x7 that has no rear center-axis tilt. I own the regular one. The filtered view of Wisner Cameras might look something like this:


CameraID Make Model Format
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10001 Wisner Tech Field 5x7
15896 Wisner Custom 5x7
12578 Wisner Custom 5x7


...Thus, there can be as many "custom" cameras with the same Mfr and Format as needed. "Unknown" might be another model with that allows duplicates, in the event there was no name for the model.

Of course, that does allow duplicates, but I'm thinking flexibility over perfect accuracy. Ralph, your idea for allowing a third level within this "taxonomy" (if you want to call it that) is an interesting concept....I wonder what I would name that?

A wiki is another interesting way to approach this, but you'd lose tools such as filtering and advanced search. That would be a bummer, I think, because if I wanted to see all 8x10s under 10 pounds I'd have to surf....

--A

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, I think "Model" should follow whatever the manufacturer designation was, and then augment that with several "options" fields (5? 10?) in the schema.

[alec4444]

Hey - wireframes are coming along nicely, but I could use one or two people with whom I can share them with and bounce ideas off of. Would be great if they have a good knowledge of cameras & options as well internet or software development. I'm pretty familiar with the latter (that's my biz), but not so much the former. I know my cameras, but I just don't have the breadth that could really make this a success.

Anyone interested? Looking for advice and opinion only - I won't make you code or manage developers! :)

--A

[Brian Wallen]

Having spent too many hours of my life developing, modifying and maintaining databases, here are a few kneejerk questions I'd be asking myself if I'd had the good idea you've had.

Permissions: How will you handle creating and editing privileges for records? Do I have to be a member of something to create a record? Can I only edit my own? Can I edit my own? Delete a record I've screwed up? Clone my own and edit it? Clone someone else's and edit the clone. View multiple records at the same time to see how they are the same or different? Protect these privileges from malicious jerks?

Structure is good, but so is flexibility. Relational vs. Lotus Notes (and probably now others.) Provide enough text fields to allow users to share significant knowledge that the structure doesn't provide for. Can you set up query logic that searches structured fields and text fields?

I've found that actually using an original design produces a cascade of design changes both in data structure and features. Perhaps a beta test group would be useful, with the understanding that being in this group and entering information involved the beta users in recurrent editing and restructuring their entries as you made design changes. Perhaps just a initial prototype of an entry screen would be a good investment of time to help you work out the data structure.

Comments on your fields:
* Camera Make, Model (unique, so no duplicates)
Need more depth to this structure, particularly if, as your parenthesis suggests you expect this to be the unique key. Is that enough for a key?
* Camera Format (selected from a complete list)
The list needs to be inclusive unless users can create new formats.
* Year Built (Start)
* Year Built (End)
* Outer Depth (Closed)
* Outer Height (Closed)
* Outer Width (Closed)
* Max Extension (inches)
* Min Extension (inches)
Maybe too complicated, but some measure of what movements are available at different extensions is very useful.
* Weight (lbs)
* Movements (selected from a complete list)
With some text field to describe how the movements are implemented--base tilt vs center tilt, rack-and-pinion rise vs finger pressure.
* Lens Board Size
Lens board type -- from a pick list, with "Other" and a way to describe it.
Port size in the front standard.
Way to describe lens mounting limitations
* Photos of the camera
* Description or Notes
* Website URL (if applicable)
* Rotating Back (yes/no)
Rotating, reversible, fixed.
Removable focusing panel-- international G, proprietary
Exchangeable bellows
Rangefinder/viewfinder options

Back accessories--GG covers, reflex finders, duplex arrangements
* Contributor Name(s) (for those who want credit for supplying the info, pics)

Give some thought to ways of separating factual information from opinion, but do provide a way for contributors to share their experience using the equipment.

And most importantly, are you really sure you want to do this?

[GPS]

I'm tired of searching all over hell's half acre for LF Camera and lens info, so I'm toying with the idea of building a public domain database where people can enter info, upload photos, etc for all types of LF cameras. --A

You think you'll be less tired of doing so??:)

[D. Bryant]

Thanks, guys. Yeah, it was that site, and the LF lenses page on graflex.org that gave me the idea.

As far as variations, I was thinking about allowing several versions of "Custom" under model. So for example, let's Joe owns a custom Wisner Tech Field 5x7 that has less extension. Jack owns a custom Wisner Tech Field 5x7 that has no rear center-axis tilt. I own the regular one. The filtered view of Wisner Cameras might look something like this:


CameraID Make Model Format
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10001 Wisner Tech Field 5x7
15896 Wisner Custom 5x7
12578 Wisner Custom 5x7


...Thus, there can be as many "custom" cameras with the same Mfr and Format as needed. "Unknown" might be another model with that allows duplicates, in the event there was no name for the model.

Of course, that does allow duplicates, but I'm thinking flexibility over perfect accuracy. Ralph, your idea for allowing a third level within this "taxonomy" (if you want to call it that) is an interesting concept....I wonder what I would name that?

A wiki is another interesting way to approach this, but you'd lose tools such as filtering and advanced search. That would be a bummer, I think, because if I wanted to see all 8x10s under 10 pounds I'd have to surf....

--A
FYI, what you are describing is a table not a database. You mention searching and filtering, how do you plan to implement this system?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

[alec4444]

Hey Guys,

Thanks for the flurry of activity on this! Brian, you're post provided a number of things I hadn't thought of in terms of data to store, so thanks for that. Camera make & model would not be the unique key....I was indeed thinking that initially, but it doesn't make sense.. I'm now thinking of making some kind of universal "CameraID" the unique key. Per Ralph's comment, you could have two cameras with the same make and model with a different "designation" row that could be used to describe variations within models.

The registration thing has me puzzled. Initially, I was thinking there was no registration. Anyone could add a camera, anyone could edit a camera. Admin would have the ability to lock a record down (no editing) if people got out of control or something. I might also consider locking cameras where the Mfr entered the data. Nobody could delete but the admin, but I did factor in a "report duplicate" function.

If I did do registration (which may be costly), it would only be for the purpose of tracking edits and possibly enabling or disabling privileges. There would be no reason to sell the data, so reg might just be as simple as uname, pwd, fname, lname, and email with an email verification.

Users hesitant to edit may be able to post comments (hence reviews, etc) on camera listings.

I chewed on the problem of accessories for a bit, and I'm leaning toward forgoing that. It adds some massive complexity. At most, it may just be a text field for users to list what's available.

As far as movements, I did include center vs base tilt, but I left out geared vs. non-geared to avoid over-complicating things. I'm trying to balance the info vs. useability, and there's some tough calls to make. Thankfully, I have a trusty volunteer to help look things over and set me straight in some areas!

Users WILL be able to add new Mfrs, Models, Formats, etc.


And most importantly, are you really sure you want to do this?

Hell yes. If this dies, it'll be due to development costs. :eek:


You think you'll be less tired of doing so??:)
Yup. :D


FYI, what you are describing is a table not a database.

Yup, that was a sample table (in the dB) merely to describe the concept of "Custom" as a model.


You mention searching and filtering, how do you plan to implement this system?

Filter would be a real filter - as you set parameters the result list would shrink, and options may disappear as they become unavailable. I would expect this to be more used than search. Search would consist of both an advanced search (parameters) and keyword search, the latter being less useful I think.

One other thing of note: I'm going to be asking the developers to build this as scalable as possible so that more fields can be added along the way. This would have some negative impact on the data, in that as a new field is added, it would be blank for all existing records. But I'm sure time would fix that, and it'll likely be necessary.

Cheers!
--A

[MIke Sherck]

I think a lot of folks would help -- you might want to consider specifying an Excel spreadsheet template for folks who enter the data on their computer and then want to upload in in bulk.

You might want to consider changing specifications to metric. The world moves on, despite how mightily our Congress tries to hold on to antiquity. :) Or not, as you see fit.

Perhaps add Serial Number, for those makes which have them.

It might be useful to incorporate a "community comment" memo capability. Yes, some idiocy will ensue, but hopefully not much, but I think it would be useful to be able to record a variety of viewpoints, rather than just having the original submitter's viewpoint rule.

For lenses you might want to be able to indicate coatings or not, or single/multiple, etc. With companies such as Fuji, who made the whole thing confusing, you'll need to be able to support multiple entries since a lens with a common designation may have magically become multicoated at some unrecorded time in history. With enough examples, perhaps a serial number range can be identified over time.

Good luck!

Mike

[alec4444]

Thanks, Mike! Already got the metric / imperial thing covered. Users can enter their data in either or view either. Comments covered too.

I'm starting with the camera dB - the lenses are gonna be WAY harder, I think! Haven't put a lot of thought into that yet. It's definitely in the back of my mind, though!

--A

[John Kasaian]

Critical data you haven't considered:
Does it look like a camera that you'd want to own?
Does it feel like a camera that you'd want to use?

Oh yeah..,
And is it a chick magnet? :D

[Brian Wallen]

Alec,

I agree with your conclusion that lenses would complicate this project. There are already several comprehensive collections of tabular information about LF lenses and several sites, including those of manufacturers, that provide information about current and often older lenses. If you do include lenses there may be only limited reasons to tie these to specific cameras.

A text field for accessories seems to make the most sense because the information entered is less likely to be specific.

I don't think I understand how you plan to collect and present this information--in a single table or perhaps a table with links to individual pages for each camera. That format would likely be the most flexible for collecting and reporting text items, but I also think tabular presentation of summary information helps satisfy my browsing urges and it might present a useful navigational path. If you can build in some query parameters that allow sorting and grouping that could be useful.

I think your project could make a large contribution in providing basic information about a large number of cameras and could use this aggregation as a point of navigation to other Web based information. Though allowing contributors to include links may create some vulnerability problems, it makes a very valuable contribution to the Web community. I'd suggest a field for the url and one for a short text description. Though complicating the design, allowing for multiple links for each item would be useful. For example, the ability to link from your site to threads in this forum could be very useful.

While the discussion in this thread has so far avoided getting into arcane discussions of database technology, it might be fun and profitable to start another thread for those of us who share your knowledge of photography and database design.

Finally, if you are going to start a site that depends on contributions, you may want to explore the history of this site in its different incarnations. There have been strong feelings about commercial ties and copyright issues. If you aren't familiar with this history, you can read about it at:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfphotoinfo.html