Yeah, it was meant for the convenience of the unwashed masses who didn’t care that much about quality. Quick & easy to change cartridges were a major improvement over the minor hassle of manually starting a roll of film as far as those people were concerned. The cost was the big thing that kept them from being as huge a success as they might otherwise have been.
My father owned one of these. He also owned a 35mm and a medium format twin lens reflex. On what information are you basing your “it was meant for the unwashed masses who didn’t care that much about quality” statement
It was a sarcastic remark regarding the complaint about the lack of quality made by the person I responded to - I was thinking about how perfection snobs often look down upon those for whom “good enough” actually is good enough.
I got a flu shot and a covid booster at the same time yesterday and this is the second time Ive completely missed someone was joking. probably best I just dont read anything for another day or so
Hopefully he’s still around and you can ask him about the relative image quality between those formats. If he was interested in quality, he wasn’t going to grab the disc camera. It wasn’t like Betamax where it was superior but lost a battle in the marketplace. Disc film was objectively much worse than even 110 while being much more expensive to buy and process.
I understand the difference in quality between a 120mm neg and a 10mm neg, especially considering the lens was a shitty little piece of plastic a centimeter from the media.
he’s not around any longer. my point was that it wasn’t for dumb people who didn’t know any better, it was a novel film format that a lot of people bought because it was different and interesting.
it wasn’t for dumb people who didn’t know any better
I mean, it kind of was though, wasn’t it?
Just because more knowledgeable people found it interesting and got it for the novelty or to see how it worked doesn’t mean it wasn’t a product intended for people who, Kodak hoped, wouldn’t know any better. That doesn’t mean I’m saying your father didn’t know better.
I actually got a bit nostalgic and interesred due to this post and read the wikipedia article about them, and supposedly the prints were supposed to ne made with this six lens process but few labs got the equipment needed, and continued to develop the film with standard three lens systems, so the photos came out with half the quality the producers intended
Yeah, it was meant for the convenience of the unwashed masses who didn’t care that much about quality. Quick & easy to change cartridges were a major improvement over the minor hassle of manually starting a roll of film as far as those people were concerned. The cost was the big thing that kept them from being as huge a success as they might otherwise have been.
My father owned one of these. He also owned a 35mm and a medium format twin lens reflex. On what information are you basing your “it was meant for the unwashed masses who didn’t care that much about quality” statement
I recall kodak advertising it to the people who owned nice 35mm - for places you wouldn’t take the expensive camera.
yeah that makes sense. lugging around a 35mm was a drag in those days
It was a sarcastic remark regarding the complaint about the lack of quality made by the person I responded to - I was thinking about how perfection snobs often look down upon those for whom “good enough” actually is good enough.
ah right fair enough
I got a flu shot and a covid booster at the same time yesterday and this is the second time Ive completely missed someone was joking. probably best I just dont read anything for another day or so
Nah, it was subtle enough that my meaning wasn’t necessarily clear.
i refuse to allow you to absovle me of sole culpability on this matter sir
Hopefully he’s still around and you can ask him about the relative image quality between those formats. If he was interested in quality, he wasn’t going to grab the disc camera. It wasn’t like Betamax where it was superior but lost a battle in the marketplace. Disc film was objectively much worse than even 110 while being much more expensive to buy and process.
I understand the difference in quality between a 120mm neg and a 10mm neg, especially considering the lens was a shitty little piece of plastic a centimeter from the media.
he’s not around any longer. my point was that it wasn’t for dumb people who didn’t know any better, it was a novel film format that a lot of people bought because it was different and interesting.
I mean, it kind of was though, wasn’t it?
Just because more knowledgeable people found it interesting and got it for the novelty or to see how it worked doesn’t mean it wasn’t a product intended for people who, Kodak hoped, wouldn’t know any better. That doesn’t mean I’m saying your father didn’t know better.
yeah fair enough.
I actually got a bit nostalgic and interesred due to this post and read the wikipedia article about them, and supposedly the prints were supposed to ne made with this six lens process but few labs got the equipment needed, and continued to develop the film with standard three lens systems, so the photos came out with half the quality the producers intended
Interesting!