this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)

Retro Technology

461 readers
1 users here now

A place for discussion, videos, pictures, and other related content of retro and vintage technology of all kinds. Especially retro tech that is still in use today.

There are plenty of excellent communities for retro PCs so that content is better suited for those communities.

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Zamboniman@lemmy.ca
7
Disc Film,When Kodak Pushed Convenience Too Far (hackaday.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by ptz@dubvee.org to c/retrotechnology@lemmy.ca
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Pretty interesting. Makes sense a 10x8 mm negative couldn't complete with the 35mm.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 3 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 3 points 2 weeks 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 points 2 weeks 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 points 2 weeks 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.