View Full Version : Private Group Reviving Polaroid Film
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but according to the NY Times a private group is reviving Polaroid film for the NX-70 and 600 type. See link below.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/22/business/AP-US-TEC-TechBit-Polaroid-Film.html?_r=1
We often have little good news in the "film is dead" discussion, but this news contradicts Bill Mattock's gloomy assessment of the commercial viability of film even as a niche. Many of us have predicted just such a move as the big boys (Kodak, Fuji) satisfy Wall Street by shutting down their factories. No doubt Bill and others will say this new venture will fail eventually, but for now let's savor the good news, eh?
--John/Sooner
coelacanth
03-22-2010, 09:58
I'm not entirely happy with their decision to go with 8 shots instead of 10 per pack, but very very happy, at least for now, I'll have access to 600 (and EI100 version) films regularly.
SX-70 and Polaroid photography have been my guilty pleasure as I strictly stick with B/W film photography otherwise.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4453589912_99a79d4a39.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guruguru/4453589912/
There is also an announcement on the AP site (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Impossible_films_save_Polaroid_photography_from_ex tinction_update_news_296139.html) today.
"New black & white films for use in traditional Polaroid cameras will go on sale this week - the first in a series designed to 'save instant photography from extinction'.
This is great news. I've been waiting to hear this confirmed.
Ernst
I agree, Dan. Kodak and other big companies have to satisfy the Wall Street investors that they are growing margins, not pursuing shrinking margins in a contracting market. Doesn't mean you can't make money. I know lots of people who would be happy making a million a year in profit running a small film company, say--including me--but obviously that wouldn't make Kodak shareholders or mutual fund managers go all in.
charjohncarter
03-22-2010, 11:20
Let's hope that it sticks around, damn, I gave away my SX-70.
I just picked up a $15 SX-70 One Step, just in case. I want to try pushing around some pictures. Don't know how black andwhite will work though. I was gathering material to do this when they killed the film.
I just found a pack of ten SX70 film, dated 5/06. I will at least be able to try the pig in a poke that I just bought.
Thanks for this news. I like fooling around with offbeat things.
coelacanth
03-22-2010, 13:01
I secured my second SX-70 first model a bit ago because I figured the prices of the cameras would go up crazy on ebay after the release of the impossible project films.
They still have older, but tested 600 films (color, 10 shot pack) on their website if you need some for this spring.
Their site must be getting hammered, very slow, but moves finally.
robbeiflex
03-22-2010, 13:18
A small private business can do great things with a product like this that a large corporation wouldn't bother with. This is great news and I wish them luck!
julianphotoart
03-22-2010, 13:26
Excellent news.
A short story. My daughter's Bday party was the Sunday before last. We had bought some 600 film just before Polaroid folded and planned to use it one day to show kids. We forgot the last two years but remembered this year.
WOW was the reaction.
These kids, who are 100% blase about digital photos and have no interest in seeing the photos their parents take on their dime-a-dozen various diticams, were lining up and awe-struck about Polaroids. They were beside themselves with excitement to see the images "magically" appear from nothing. And they weren't just excited about their own photo, but each one that came noisily out of the front of the camera.
It appeared that it was the combination of a little bit of waiting plus the magic of the image slowly emerging that had them hooked.
I tell you, they left the party each TREASURING their one-of-a-kind Polaroid.
coelacanth
03-22-2010, 13:44
Great story Julian.
It was a MAGIC when Dr. Land first created this self developing shoot film you don't even need to peel apart several decades ago. It's still a magic today.
A couple more shots to celebrate the return.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3318285812_8f012d41a5.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/2827564822_8655cca8d4.jpg
I've been waiting for this announcement for a while and I'm thrilled! I've got an original SX-70 and can't wait to start using it again!
I read about "The Impossible Project" when they started up and I am really impressed that they have achieved their goal. Kudos to all those involved.
I will definitely try some of their product as I have a couple of Polaroid cameras here somewhere. Should be fun!!
Kent
There is something about holding an image in your hand seconds after you took it that is amazing. I love using my old land cameras but it looks like this new instant film is going to run $2.3 a shot and I just can't justify that cost. Hopefully, when polaroid markets their version of it, it will be cheaper.
robert blu
03-23-2010, 13:05
Time to clean my sx-70 and my 600 ! great time is arriving, but...expensive !
rob
coelacanth
03-23-2010, 13:08
I'm hoping that they will bring down the price below $20 line per pack over time, but I've got to admire their passion to bring this wonderful format of photography back to the people who still love it so much.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4455475017_048b4b34a1.jpg
There is something about holding an image in your hand seconds after you took it that is amazing. I love using my old land cameras but it looks like this new instant film is going to run $2.3 a shot and I just can't justify that cost. Hopefully, when polaroid markets their version of it, it will be cheaper.
I don't think Polaroid are going to market it. They sold all of the production equipment to the new company, Impossible Project.
coelacanth
03-23-2010, 13:26
I don't think Polaroid are going to market it. They sold all of the production equipment to the new company, Impossible Project.
I, too, doubt Polaroid will do anything about reproducing the film. They'll just sell re-bumped cheap Polaroid bodies at best. They are under new management and ownership, and the old Polaroid is already long gone. Polaroid and also many artists tried to make other manufactures like Kodak, Ilford and Fujifilm purchase the facility and remake the film, but none took it.
To be honest I was truly surprised that the impossible project actually pulled this off.
I almost ordered one pack of SX70 new stuff. When I clicked through to the final cost, $11 was the shipping cost. So almost $4 a shot for me now. I assume that when they crank up and get some film on this side of the pond, shipping will go down.
I was going to try it just as a donation to give support. I will wait for others that think they need some to grease the skids.
Same here; I'm reluctant to pay $35.00US for eight frames.
Andy Kibber
03-26-2010, 15:27
Sorry to rain on the parade but the new stuff seems truly awful:
British Journal of Photography blog review (http://www.1854.eu/2010/03/handson_with_impossible_px100.html)
coelacanth
03-26-2010, 15:37
I'm also not quite happy with their new stuff, but I'd also like to support them as much as I can. I recently purchased tested older 600 films. I ordered several packs for myself and more for friends at once so the shipping cost per unit came down to very small.
I'll buy some of this stuff at some point even if its that expensive. I've been saving my last pack for that "special" occasion. it's always magical to have some polaroid around.
edit: how can you rate a new product like this with ONE pack???? calm down people, give it some time
Pickett Wilson
03-26-2010, 16:15
The original SX70 film wasn't worth $3 a pop. This stuff is junk. A cynical bid to suck money from the art crowd.
hans voralberg
03-26-2010, 16:17
Dude calm down, it's the first after a long time, they need time to improve upon that
Pickett Wilson
03-26-2010, 16:22
You don't introduce junk and hope folks will buy it until you can fix it. That's the kiss of death for a product.
coelacanth
03-26-2010, 16:39
The original SX70 film wasn't worth $3 a pop. This stuff is junk. A cynical bid to suck money from the art crowd.
You don't introduce junk and hope folks will buy it until you can fix it. That's the kiss of death for a product.
There are threads talking about the death of films. Large manufactures giving up and discontinuing films because they can't make enough profit.
And here is this tiny organization trying to bring back beloved films to life, and some of the comments are just plain mean. Sure if you don't like it, that's fine. I'm not happy with what they've shown myself. But what is this tone, type of comments like this over and over?
I understand I'm just a new, inexperienced member compared to someone like you, but with all due respect, I'm just plain sad to see the tone of voice like your comments regarding this project.
Can't we just be a bit more supportive to fellow photographers trying to bring back / support film photography? Constructive criticism is very important, but your comments are, at least to me, just giving them a cold laugh.
It's just sad to see comments like this on RFF.
Pickett Wilson
03-26-2010, 16:39
If this is the best they could do, it seems to me the impossible project failed. I guess the Lomo crowd will gladly pay $3 a shot for it, though. A sucker born every minute.
Pickett Wilson
03-26-2010, 16:42
So you think the whole effort is benevolent on their part, huh? Come on, it's bad film.
coelacanth
03-26-2010, 16:46
OK, why you have to be cynical and stereotyped like that? Why can't they make hope to make profit while bring the film they (and many people in the world) like? Do you think they'll just sell their houses to bring this film back purely for the good cause or purely because they think they can make big bucks?
coelacanth
03-26-2010, 16:51
Alright. I'm done with this topic. I don't come to RFF for something like this, and I don't see this is going anywhere.
Sorry Pickett and everyone else. I guess I should have just ignored the comments in the first place.
Pickett Wilson
03-26-2010, 16:54
I thought they had a primary investor who plans to make money off this. Sell their houses?
Pickett Wilson
03-26-2010, 17:11
Here's the story behind the project. Nobody sold their homes, they found investors.
http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/12/features/the-impossible-project-reviving-instant-photography.aspx?page=all
Steven Dooley
03-26-2010, 17:13
FWIW, I really like the images you posted in this thread, Sug.
Nice job.
David Murphy
03-26-2010, 17:15
There's a difference between profitable and "profitable enough." Many large companies won't sell some products not because they can't make money on them but because they can't make enough money. Smaller companies may be willing to make a smaller return or margin on exactly the same product or a similar product.
Yes this is a very insightful remark. It's also one reason why small and nimble businesses occasionally rise up seemingly out of nowhere and topple the giants. They are less hide-bound by their own attitudes towards markets.
David Murphy
03-26-2010, 17:20
Excellent news.
A short story. My daughter's Bday party was the Sunday before last. We had bought some 600 film just before Polaroid folded and planned to use it one day to show kids. We forgot the last two years but remembered this year.
WOW was the reaction.
These kids, who are 100% blase about digital photos and have no interest in seeing the photos their parents take on their dime-a-dozen various diticams, were lining up and awe-struck about Polaroids. They were beside themselves with excitement to see the images "magically" appear from nothing. And they weren't just excited about their own photo, but each one that came noisily out of the front of the camera.
It appeared that it was the combination of a little bit of waiting plus the magic of the image slowly emerging that had them hooked.
I tell you, they left the party each TREASURING their one-of-a-kind Polaroid.
Polaroid cameras were also fantastic presents for children, although one often needs to teach them not to shoot indiscriminately since it's expensive of course. A Polaroid camera will liven-up just about any festive situation - kids or adults.
sepiareverb
03-26-2010, 17:43
Have you tried it Pickett? I've not yet, but have some on the way. I'll see what it can and can't do before passing judgement. The SX-70 camera was the first camera I shot seriously with, coming to photography from painting. Was it as versatile then as a Nikon F2? No. Is it as versatile today as a Digital Pen? No. But the SX-70 was always a camera that allowed for pleasant surprises- for it was what passed for 'instant' at the time. Each image influenced the next in a way I've never seen happen with any other medium. I'm really looking forward to shooting this camera again. If you're not (and I don't get the impression you are) why not just fill threads about the latest digital marvel you do like rather than gumming up this one with more of your tired spoutings?
Pickett Wilson
03-26-2010, 19:11
I had a dealer friend who drove an SX-70 and some film to my house the day the camera and film became available, way back when. Somewhere I have a photo of a much younger and thinner me that he shot of me holding the camera and looking in amazement at the image developing. I knew the SX-70 and film, and this stuff is no Polaroid. I also realize that the developers of this new stuff said that they weren't trying to recreate the look of Polaroid film, noting that it was impossible to do so.
Still, the photos I've seen, both on the web in general and on the IP site suck, IMHO. Even evaluating them fairly as a completely new film, with no intent to replicate Polaroid films, that happens to fit into an SX-70 camera, I can't image many people paying $3 a pop for it. But who knows. Crappy photos are popular these days.
Ranger Copy
03-26-2010, 19:57
I don't think Polaroid are going to market it. They sold all of the production equipment to the new company, Impossible Project.
Too bad Polaroid didn't sell the technology with the equipment. I have never understood why a company hangs onto an intangible asset that no longer benefits the p&l. Even Kodak should sell the patent/tech for kodachrome. Create a company with the patent and all rights to the tech/name/branding and spin it off. I mean, what if Coca Cola stopped making Coke. The recipie locked away in the safe. No more Coke, No more Kodachrome, No more Instant Polaroid film, No more selenium cells. Hello! :bang:
Now listen up Rangers. I'm excited that some people have the fortitude to forge ahead against the odds. I hope we have an Impossible Project II, Impossible Project III and IV etc. And to show my support I'll buy the Impossible Product. :p
signed, all of me
:angel::D:rolleyes::cool::eek:;)
-
I really hope The Impossible Project will succeed in terms of reviving instant film photography. Just enough for them to have decent profit. But I'm also praying that they will not charge their customers with extravagant prices just like what the lomo society did or doing.
David Murphy
03-26-2010, 21:03
Too bad Polaroid didn't sell the technology with the equipment. I have never understood why a company hangs onto an intangible asset that no longer benefits the p&l. Even Kodak should sell the patent/tech for kodachrome. Create a company with the patent and all rights to the tech/name/branding and spin it off. I mean, what if Coca Cola stopped making Coke. The recipie locked away in the safe. No more Coke, No more Kodachrome, No more Instant Polaroid film, No more selenium cells. Hello! :bang:
Now listen up Rangers. I'm excited that some people have the fortitude to forge ahead against the odds. I hope we have an Impossible Project II, Impossible Project III and IV etc. And to show my support I'll buy the Impossible Product. :p
signed, all of me
:angel::D:rolleyes::cool::eek:;)
-
My explanation (perhaps I am wrong): Too many overeducated business school grads running the show at these megacorporations. They lose the feel for their fundamental markets.
Kristopher
03-26-2010, 21:55
Polaroid revival IS good news.
Here we go again, Picket raging over analog photography...
I wonder why I opened this thread with the firm belief that he would, once again, spit in the soup.
Why are you insisting so much on acting like that EVERY time a good news happens in regards to analog photography.
Kodak is bringing Ektar in 4x5, you found it stupid, and tried to insinuate that the price would be prohibitive. Well, guess what, its on par with other 4x5 c-41 films.
Then, it is the Bessa III, you seem convinced, witout quoting any sources that it's a bad seller... And, worst, trying to convinces other people it actually IS a bad seller. Please provide sources.
Finally, it is Polaroid. I agree, the film seems to be quite different then it used to be, but some people want to give it a try. How dare you the say they are suckers?
Leave film enthousiasts alone.
Too bad Polaroid didn't sell the technology with the equipment. I have never understood why a company hangs onto an intangible asset that no longer benefits the p&l. Even Kodak should sell the patent/tech for kodachrome. -
Sorry, I can not resist the temptation.
Maybe they are just keeping their technology in the company (both polaroid and kodak) for later when the world comes to their senses and dump all digital cameras and will start using film again.......:D
Polaroid revival IS good news.
Finally, it is Polaroid. I agree, the film seems to be quite different then it used to be, but some people want to give it a try. How dare you the say they are suckers?
Leave film enthousiasts alone.
I think he said that the new instant film suck.... different from calling the ones who want to try it suckers.
did you see Ilford Harman logo on the back of the PX 600 pack? hm..
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f88340120a96958cc970b-pi
imokruok
03-26-2010, 23:15
did you see Ilford Harman logo on the back of the PX 600 pack? hm..
If I were them, I'd take their logo off of the stuff until the quality improves.
Pickett Wilson
03-27-2010, 01:43
If this is the best they can do with B&W, what is the color going to look like?
Kristopher
03-27-2010, 07:18
I think he said that the new instant film suck.... different from calling the ones who want to try it suckers.
See post 31:
If this is the best they could do, it seems to me the impossible project failed. I guess the Lomo crowd will gladly pay $3 a shot for it, though. A sucker born every minute.
Pickett Wilson
03-27-2010, 07:22
Folks will buy just about anything to be "different."
Brian Puccio
03-27-2010, 07:35
Folks will buy just about anything to be "different."
I thought that's what they said about folks who use rangefinders instead of SLRs. :cool:
Pickett Wilson
03-27-2010, 07:46
In a few months there will be 100,000 dark, brown, barely recognizable PX-100 photos of wives, lovers and wilted flowers posted on flickr, and this will have run its course.
I hope they work the bugs out of their process. But it's obvious from the outset that there was some sophisticated, and under-appreciated, engineering put into the original Polaroid formulations, for instance they being relatively independant of ambient temperature and fogging effects during the post-exposure development phase. Not to mention all the sophistication of the color emulsion's many layers.
As one who works within a high-technology manufacturing environment, I find it interesting that so-called "older" technologies are not as easy to replicate as the marketing hyperbole would otherwise indicate. This phenomenon has far-reaching implications, and is observed elsewhere; for instance, ancient culture's technology is still little-understood, the great pyramids in Egypt being one obvious example; but there are more recent technical examples where reverse-engineering another group's work doesn't always reveal the subtle sophistication of the original process. As an analogy, you can slice a cake apart, analyzing each crumb, but your detailed analysis may not reveal for you the subtle necessities of mixing the eggs into the cream at a specific temperature, then letting them sit for so many minutes; or sifting the flour just so.
I suspect that many of these obsoleted processes possess a complexity that renders them as one-way mathematical functions, thus they don't reveal to an end-observer all that is necessary for their replication. The Impossible Project has the advantage of some "insider information," from many of their members having been former Polaroid employees, but for various possible reasons - intellectual property concerns, environmental regulation, or perhaps mere cost-savings - the product they have produced does not appear to possess the same attributes as the legacy Polaroid material.
We will have to wait and see if they refine their process down the road, and release a 2nd generation product, possibly under a different product identifier.
BTW, I've noticed this about many of the eastern-European film and paper products sold by Freestyle, they'll periodically market them with slightly different product nomenclature, which reveals to me that, since the manufacture of film and paper is a batch-process, they appear to sell everything that gets ran through the line, regardless of its adherance to some standard of quality control. Just change the name on the box if the fog level or sensitivity or spectral response or contrast doesn't match the previous batch; call it something else, but sell it nonetheless. I don't think these small firms can afford to do otherwise.
This is in contrast to the "first tier" manufacturers, whose production consistency has to be higher, since they have a large customer base who rely on these products for their consistent properties.
~Joe
In a few months there will be 100,000 dark, brown, barely recognizable PX-100 photos of wives, lovers and wilted flowers posted on flickr, and this will have run its course.
Somebody still needs a hug.
Pickett Wilson
03-27-2010, 08:14
To be fair, the presenter in the video on the Impossible Project web site says that they are uninterested in consistency or accurate ISO, etc...that the idea is that the result with every photo will be different. Now, that could be spin, trying to make lemon aid out of lemons; but, that's what the man said.
If indeed, the original intent was to make the product he described, perhaps they had marketing research that indicates the approach they took is valid.
nextreme
03-27-2010, 08:16
I guess there's no chance they will make a compatible package the Kodak Instant film camera family (specifically, the Kodak EK6 - I got one for free). It would be interesting, given the history of that camera. In fact, I don't see any reason why they couldn't, as this is not Polaroid, but a completely different entity, and it would only make the product more attractive to a wider user base.
Kristopher
03-27-2010, 08:45
To be fair, the presenter in the video on the Impossible Project web site says that they are uninterested in consistency or accurate ISO, etc...that the idea is that the result with every photo will be different. Now, that could be spin, trying to make lemon aid out of lemons; but, that's what the man said.
If indeed, the original intent was to make the product he described, perhaps they had marketing research that indicates the approach they took is valid.
Don't buy it, and leave people alone. Nobody forces you to check the results on flickr.
Pickett Wilson
03-27-2010, 08:54
Well, Kristopher, I just said I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. It appears from the video that the product they created is exactly what they set out to create. In that sense, then, they succeeded. I had thought they were trying to make a product much like the Polaroid product. But apparently they were not.
My opinion remains that they went so far in R&D, found out where the crossover point was on the ROI curve, and marketed the product accordingly. I don't think they intentionally set out to make an instant emulsion with poor temperature characteristics, for instance. I think they ran upon an ROI roadblock and spun the marketing of the resulting product, after the fact, accordingly.
But I don't want to sound too negative; I have a complete SX-70 kit that awaits said film. I'll try at least one pack, to see what happens.
~Joe
The negativity here is breathtaking. And Pickett Wilson still needs a hug.
This is a new process on a new production line (albeit furnished with old machinery), and not backed by an industrial behemoth. Give it a little time, and if you prefer the results from your 5DII or your Powershot or your M9 that's great, too!
Seriously: whinging about media that you're not going to use is not going to improve your photographs.
See post 31:
If this is the best they could do, it seems to me the impossible project failed. I guess the Lomo crowd will gladly pay $3 a shot for it, though. A sucker born every minute.
Sorry did not see that. My bad
Kristopher
03-27-2010, 19:23
The negativity here is breathtaking. And Pickett Wilson still needs a hug.
This is a new process on a new production line (albeit furnished with old machinery), and not backed by an industrial behemoth. Give it a little time, and if you prefer the results from your 5DII or your Powershot or your M9 that's great, too!
Seriously: whinging about media that you're not going to use is not going to improve your photographs.
Agreed competely
Pickett Wilson
03-27-2010, 20:12
We're back to the pervasive theory here that if you don't own it or use it, you have no right to talk about it. That's an extremely odd attitude on a discussion board.
We're back to the pervasive theory here that if you don't own it or use it, you have no right to talk about it. That's an extremely odd attitude on a discussion board.
If it's "discussion" you're after, do try to follow the conversation, then. You could perhaps start by acknowledging that no one, save you, said a thing about "rights."
Edited to add: to be clear, I am complaining about the tone of your posts, Pickett, not the content. I cannot find a better descriptive phrase than "pointlessly scornful."
imokruok
03-27-2010, 20:23
Sad that these guys weren't able to get the technical data, only the hardware. As I mentioned on another thread, there were probably reams upon reams of data from the Polaroid engineers on how to make the stuff. I don't think it can be expected that the current team will ever reach the level of R&D that the original team did.
That said, all of this talk did get me interested in instant film. I was already in the very start of the consumer digital photography age when I was old enough to care about taking pictures, so I never had an instant film camera. I bought both a Polaroid 330 and a Polaroid back for my Mamiya today...and I will go out Monday and buy the Fuji film for it. Film lives on...
Pickett Wilson
03-27-2010, 22:12
So, semilog, my tone should be cheerfully conformist? How about, "Their $3 a shot film really sucks, but what a really great bunch of guys they are for giving us the opportunity to buy it!"
The question, Pickett, is just how many times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypy) you will feel compelled to say the same thing. :p
Pickett Wilson
03-27-2010, 22:28
Likely as many times as I've committed in at least a 100 threads on the subjects about my favorite bag (Domke F2) and favorite strap (Domke Grippper). It's a forum.
Jamie123
03-27-2010, 23:48
Pickett Wilson does seem to like pissing on film lovers' parade quite often and sometimes I disagree but he does have a point here.
$3 a shot is a lot of money for a film that can only be shot between 17-25°c and even then gives resulsts that are hardly recognizable as photographs. I appreciate what they did with the packaging in regards to design but the film looks like it's horrible stuff. You might aswell just expose photographic paper.
Sadly, I think the impossible project will be quite shortlived. No one is going to keep buying this stuff over and over just to support the company and I doubt that they'll considerably improve the quality in the short run.
Likely as many times as I've committed in at least a 100 threads on the subjects about my favorite bag (Domke F2) and favorite strap (Domke Grippper). It's a forum.
Wow, we have a lot in common. If you like the Domke Gripper, you should try a Tamrac "gripper" strap... they are really nice too.
And all this time I thought it was just your curmudeonly, but well opinionated, tone that made me like reading your posts. You're one of the good guys, Pickett... no matter what the others say about you. :)
g to keep buying this stuff over and over just to support the company and I doubt that they'll considerably improve the quality in the short run.
You may be right (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257), but if you think about what it might have entailed to get even this far, you might reconsider. They actually got the production line up and running -- film, chemistry, film pack and battery production, etc. Dozens of things to accomplish, none even remotely trivial. Having done so, there will be more freedom to work on the material's properties, at least as long as the money lasts.
We know the current stuff is a novelty at best. The question is what comes next. When the project was announced I truly didn't think they'd get even this far.
Andy Kibber
03-28-2010, 09:23
Sadly, I think the impossible project will be quite shortlived. No one is going to keep buying this stuff over and over just to support the company and I doubt that they'll considerably improve the quality in the short run.
I completely agree. I wish them all the best but I don't hold out much hope for the long-term viability of the Impossible Project.
Time will tell, of course. I've been wrong in the past. :)
Jamie123
03-28-2010, 10:19
You may be right (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257), but if you think about what it might have entailed to get even this far, you might reconsider. They actually got the production line up and running -- film, chemistry, film pack and battery production, etc. Dozens of things to accomplish, none even remotely trivial. Having done so, there will be more freedom to work on the material's properties, at least as long as the money lasts.
Haha, that's hilarious! You're comparing the Impossible Project with the iPod? And you're linking to a nerdy website where someone said the iPod was lame? The iPod was in no way unpopular at its introduction and neither were MP3 players.
Anyways, let's get serious again. I'm sure that the Impossible Project faced quite a lot of obstacles and it took a lot of energy to come this far. Unfortunately, in the world of business no one gets brownie points for effort. With their product they seem to be lightyears behind what Polaroid had on the market and that's a company that probably invested huge sums into R&D back when their product was at the height of its success.
As with any start-up company the beginning is the easy part. You 'only' have to convince a couple of investors to give you money. What's really hard is convincing thousands of consumers over and over again to give you their money.
Jamie123
03-28-2010, 10:23
Or maybe the reviewer's camera was just a P.o.S.?
Possible but I doubt it. I'm not even basing my judgment on this particular review only but what I've seen so far hasn't convinced me one bit. Even the shots they are proud of look barely usable at best.
I don't think the sample size is large enough to make an informed opinion about the entire enterprise, but I concur that the sample presented in the linked review was of terrible quality. I want more data points.
Haha, that's hilarious! You're comparing the Impossible Project with the iPod? And you're linking to a nerdy website where someone said the iPod was lame?
No. I am comparing the responses of critics early after a product is launched and before they've had a chance to use it.
I'm saying that a lot of people go off half-cocked. The linked example is a rather (in)famous example.
I want more data points.
We have a winner.
Pickett Wilson
03-28-2010, 13:21
The guy in the IP website video appears to be making a selling point about the fact that the film is fuzzy, brown and unpredictable. Clearly trying to sell "cool."
I think they've moved on to getting the color stuff on the market, now. That should be interesting.
robert blu
03-29-2010, 01:35
Yes,the price is high. But the magicien of the "istant film" is so high that I'll buy some film. I'll spare somewhere else (restaurant, bar, beer...) and give a try to this new magic idea. I also think that these guys take an "impossible" risk and I like to give them a support, for what I can. Otherwise i should not complain for certain film to disappear...
robert
Damn ... after checking out the link to that evaluation of the film posted earlier I can only come to one conclusion:
Miroslav Tichy will be suffering major 'gas' for some of this film ... as soon as he's made the camera that is! :D
Damn ... after checking out the link to that evaluation of the film posted earlier I can only come to one conclusion:
Miroslav Tichy will be suffering major 'gas' for some of this film ... as soon as he's made the camera that is! :D
:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.