LOL
I have already created a prototype of your idea, and I am on the verge of patenting it as well:
Or you could make permanent cartridges that can be preloaded with 120 film allowing you to change film mid roll. That way there's no waste or additional machinery required by the film manufacturers.
I am going to patent this idea!
the Labs at the time were expected to get"certified" on the new format, whch meant they had to be equiped to remove the film, AND re-attch the processed film into the cartridge. they needed to be able to read the mag stripe on the film to see if a panorama was called for, or a cropped shot which was not masked on the film, but what a processing call. A nasty side effect of all this was the consumer got the impression that not every corner drug-store or mini-lab could handle this "High tech" process and so the very sophistication worked against the adoption of the format.
So your lab sucks. I'm not sure that's an argument against the format.
...but that's not what mattered to you.
That's probably one of the reasons for the death of film labs.
There are millions of instamatics and other 126 cameras, but I suspect a large percentage of them are now in landfills. If Ferrania chooses to make 126 film, I might buy and shoot 2 or 3 rolls for nostalgic purposes, but doubt that I would buy more than that. I suspect that would be the plan for many others also.
If APS film were available, I would purchase several rolls every year for my tiny Canon ELPH camera. The magnetic layer could be excluded since the information it stores would be useless to home developers and is ignored by most processors currently processing this film.
I doubt there is really much of a market for either, and Ferrania's efforts would be better focused on unusual roll films such as 127, 620, and 116.
A bit harsh, but I wouldn't like to think that any lab which I used thought of my films as a "piece of shit". Surely better not to accept unusual sizes of film if the lab is not geared up with machinery and competent staff to deal with them properly. Rightly or wrongly APS users had been persuaded that they had bought the right camera and film for their needs.
I really think people have been overreacting to this. After all, jokes with acronyms are made all the time. I'm sure the staff only use it among themselves and don't tell all their customers that they've brought in "a piece of shit"!It's a joke based on the acronym "APS". We have several of each of the machines needed, but they're unreliable and it often requires manual intervention, hence the frustration. Given the low volume of APS we process these days buying more old machines doesn't make much sense as we can still get the job done. We'll even give you your panoramics in APS branded envelopes. Honestly it's really only a problem because of the age of the equipment. It could be a little finicky when the machines were new, but it usually ran smoothly and actually made things a bit easier since we didn't have to sleeve the negs.
Mike Johnston commenting APS and relating it to the d* formats with APS and new almost MF sensors, gave this idea.126 probably gives better resolution than APS... After all, the negative size is bigger.
I think what would really be good is an "APS-like" cartridge for medium format. Make it big so many shots fit inside, but keep all the automatism. So medium format cameras can be loaded and unloaded really quick.
Or even better, make a 126-like cartridge but for 120 format. That would be nice. Although lengthy forum wars will follow, of people wanting it to be 6x7 / 6x6 / 6x4.5 ...
I really think people have been overreacting to this. After all, jokes with acronyms are made all the time. I'm sure the staff only use it among themselves and don't tell all their customers that they've brought in "a piece of shit"!
Mike Johnston commenting APS and relating it to the d* formats with APS and new almost MF sensors, gave this idea.
To "kill" 35mm, offer a cartridge automated 645 format above and an APS below.
Removing backing paper need would improve flatness and get rid of a few problems
Just landed on my desk...
There are quite a few 120 stainless steel developing reels out there, and very few of them can handle 220.220 gives you no backing paper (on shots), and double the shots per roll, while being totally compatible with 120 developing reels/etc.
LOL
I have already created a prototype of your idea, and I am on the verge of patenting it as well:
There are quite a few 120 stainless steel developing reels out there, and very few of them can handle 220.
Where are they going to get the hundreds of thousands of Euros necessary to commission a machine to attach the leaders and trailers to 220 film (in the necessary commercial quantities and speeds)?
Just landed on my desk...
Beautiful boxes. I'll eat some 'Gianduia 1865' from your hometown, to celebrate.
If so, maybe they can rent time on it to Ilford!AFAIK, Ferrania already has the machine
If so, maybe they can rent time on it to Ilford!
I'm not sure that the "bulge problem" is actually a problem.
And of course there wouldn't be an ink problem with 120, if there weren't a bunch of cameras out there that can't be used with 220 because they use a red window to control film winding.
Is he from StuttgartCheaper than a car from his hometown!
If so, maybe they can rent time on it to Ilford!
FIATs are not expensive...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?