🚀 go-pugleaf

Cydrome Leader <presence@mungepanix.com> wrote:
> 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.

I forgot to mention the ability to switch film mid-roll with APS is pretty 
cool.