FYI Poloroid Pop: 3.5"-4.25" coming
- Thread starter danielsterno
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 16
- Views 2K
robert blu
quiet photographer
Interesting idea...thanks
robert
PS: love your signature
robert
PS: love your signature
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Can we get a peel-apart version?
D
D
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
That looks f-ugly.
Can't believe it's from the same company that made the Polaroid SX 70.
I hope Polaroid will go bankrupt soon and get purchased by the Impossible Project.
Can't believe it's from the same company that made the Polaroid SX 70.
I hope Polaroid will go bankrupt soon and get purchased by the Impossible Project.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
so the Impossible project will find it impossible to figure out how Polariod did it in the first place, nice.
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 12:57 AM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,744
Not a new idea. Polaroid (or whatever the company calls themselves that bought the name) has made offered something called the Z 2300 for sometime now that did the same thing. Smaller print size though.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Polaroid is the Frank Sinatra to the Impossible Project's Steve and Eydie Gorme: "Look at you - you're just swimming in my wake." Ok, so it was Phil Hartman's impression of Sinatra on The Sinatra Group, but you get the picture.
Polaroid has already been bankrupt, and the name is being licensed to C+A for cameras using different imaging technologies.
The Impossible Project has struggled - in more years than it took to invent integral film - to accurately reproduce a product on the market for decades. And this has been a stumbling process even with Ilford behind the effort. They don't have Edwin Land's magic. And someone else now owns the magic rainbow logo.
But even the Zink technology in the currrent "zombie" Polaroid brand is a highly innovative product that is completely legitimate (and weird enough for Dr. Land to have approved). It doesn't involve caustic paste, uneven development that wastes frames, poor keeping characteristics, or any of the other ills of Polaroid film, and lacks the screwy color and relatively uneven development of Impossible film. More power too them.
And fugly? You've seen Impossible's idea of an attractive camera?
VidarFoto
Established
The I-1 is a beautiful camera in real life.
YouAreHere
Established
Could be a winner for the under-30 crowd that wants a little analog in their life.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
I hope impossible never buys anything.
"Hey, our film is sub-par on the best days, we have a ton of RD money, how should we tackle this"
"Let's make a new camera!"
"You mean, instead of fixing our film?"
"Yeah!"
"Promote that man!"
YouAreHere
Established
I know. "Analog" references the physicality of a print (regardless of the technonlogy used) to be shared by passing it around. That it's a digital print is appealing versus the wait time required by Instax offerings.
giganova
Well-known
No wonder Polaroid and Impossible are struggling. Not even "hipsters" can afford the film:
Who wants to pay $3.- per shot if its costs $0.50 with a Fuji instax mini and $0.75 for an Instax wide?
Who wants to pay $3.- per shot if its costs $0.50 with a Fuji instax mini and $0.75 for an Instax wide?
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
I'd be happy to pay, at the most, 2 a shot for impossible film, if and only if it worked. Instead, I'm paying 3 and change for a shot that might not work at all. And instead of working out a better way, they come out with a camera that no one really needed, considering all the polaroids out there and the fact that Mint is making some amazing developments with the sx70
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
To say nothing of IP's current 30-45 minute wait time. That's a little too long to call instant. Self-developing, maybe, but that's as long as it takes to develop a roll of 36 frames of conventional film.
Dante
Oren Grad
Well-known
It's digital capture squeezed into the same box with a Zink printer. Nothing wrong with that if it's what you want, but it's not a substitute for direct capture to film/print if the look-and-feel of the latter is what one is looking for.
(I wonder whether Fuji will ever integrate a digital camera with the Instax Share engine in the same way? Might confuse consumers, though.)
Two other things with Zink. First, I don't think we know much about the long-term stability of the Zink dyes (sure, Impossible fails that test, but Instax is quite good). And second, which may have implications for stability too, the prints are stickers - the dye crystals are coated on peelable adhesive paper. That's fine for a throw-away novelty product, maybe not so much if you want to keep the prints.
(I wonder whether Fuji will ever integrate a digital camera with the Instax Share engine in the same way? Might confuse consumers, though.)
Two other things with Zink. First, I don't think we know much about the long-term stability of the Zink dyes (sure, Impossible fails that test, but Instax is quite good). And second, which may have implications for stability too, the prints are stickers - the dye crystals are coated on peelable adhesive paper. That's fine for a throw-away novelty product, maybe not so much if you want to keep the prints.
vdonovan
Vince Donovan
Edwin Land's Polaroid is long bankrupt and long gone. Polaroid now is strictly a licensing company. It licences the Polaroid name to various manufacturers and collects the royalties. No product development, no R&D, no marketing, nada.
Any intellectual property Polaroid owned about its film and formulations was sold off long ago.
Similar threads
