Having a penchant for cheap second-hand cameras can lead to all manner of interesting equipment. You never know what the next second-hand store will provide, and thus everything from good quality r…

Having a penchant for cheap second-hand cameras can lead to all manner of interesting equipment. You never know what the next second-hand store will provide, and thus everything from good quality rangefinders an SLRs to handheld snapshot cameras can be yours for what is often a very acceptable price. Most old cameras can use modern film in some way, wither directly or through some manner of adapter, but there is one format that has no modern equivalent and for which refilling a cartridge might be difficult. I’m talking about Kodak’s Disc, the super-compact and convenient snapshot cameras which were their Next Big Thing in the early 1980s. In finding out its history and ultimate fate, I’m surprised to find that it introduced some photographic technologies we all still use today.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      3·
      2 days ago

      Kodak made a lot of attempts to move people to smaller film sizes, so they could sell less film for the same price. They made claims that their advances in film technology made the photos the same resolution as you would previously get in 35mm, which was sort of true, but that meant you could just stick with 35mm and get better resolution photos.

      Ironically the only one that kind of worked was APS, it wasn’t that successful as a film format, but it was responsible for the APS digital sensor size.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgOPEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      There’s that definitely (though in theory it should at least be pretty close to/a little better than a 110), but also it mentions that Kodak made special processing equipment for the disc film but most labs opted not to use that in lieu of using their existing equipment.

      I’m curious to see the difference between a developed/enlarged print from a regular lab and one that used Kodak’s specialized equipment.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        2·
        2 days ago

        I’d like to see a comparison, too. I laughed when they described labs just using their own equipment. Unless it was a game changer they’re not going to spend extra on specialized equipment just for that camera.

        • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgOPEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          Unless it was a game changer they’re not going to spend extra on specialized equipment just for that camera.

          Exactly. Though it seems that Kodak thought it was going to be a game changer. At least, for consumer-level models. You’d think they’d have leased the equipment or something rather than expecting the labs to shell out for it, like you said, just for that camera.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    2 days ago

    What bizarre over-engineering, for a change that should’ve made film dirt cheap. There’s no need for comically long, fairly narrow, thin-as-possible, flexing and wetting and drying in total darkness. You can smear goop on stationary plastic. You die-cut from whatever length of material is easiest to crank out. It should have aimed to replace 110, not 35mm.

    … and it would not have hurt to make that plastic lens anamorphic.

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    2·
    2 days ago

    amazingly those four-decade-old lithium batteries still have enough power to run them

    I had exactly the same experience with one I acquired in a lot of cameras, it’s pretty impressive.