🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>>Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>>>>John Rappe <jrappe@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Geoff Gass wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>Here's a good one; remember those cameras that used film on a
>>>>>>>>round kinda cartridge thingy?  Looked like a ViewMaster thing?
>>>>>>>>Who can create prints from that?
> 
>>>>>>>you mean 110 or 126?  catridge with 2 spools, film started on one,
>>>>>>>got the other (ie no rewind like 135)
> 
>>>>>>You don't know what a viewmaster is? Your childhood was deprived.
> 
>>>>>oh, duh, yes.  I guess I've never seen film that looked like that.
> 
>>>>kodak disc. it was a failure.
> 
>>>More like a ripoff. Tiny image, stupid format. What's the point?
> 
>>no handling of the film, easy reprints, you always get a contact sheet.
> 
> Is dealing with leader from spooled film or a 35 mm cartridge that big a
> deal that Kodak lost business? As far as a contact sheet, any processor
> would supply that if asked and many simply included one as a service.
> Didn't the processors have to buy extra equipment from Kodak to deal
> with the format?

did you forget APS was marketed to typical lazy people, the same ones that 
need power windows and remove controls for their TV that's 5 feet away?

>>They blow up big enough for most anything.
> 
> C'mon. Kodak simply figured out a way to sell you a lot less film.

the film is probably the cheapest part of an APS anything.

>>An APS-ish version of 120 would be awesome.

120 film in some tube without all the paper bullshit and extra takeup 
spool would be nice.