Impossible version of instagram

[Felinik]

Only thing that amazes me is that people actually do purchase film for their polaroid cameras, not to bash on Impossible, they've done a great thing bringing that stuff back to life, but 20-25 eur för 8 polaroid shots... way out of my budget to shoot that too often, and I have a decent salary...

 

[himself]

The point is that people are NOT printing their pictures - very few at any rate. I think this is a very clever and imaginative way of re-imagining the Polaroid concept.

Well, they have their money; let's hope that they are able to sell a sizeable volume of devices and film. I have heard (some) good things about their attempts to improve the quality and permanence of their films. Maybe their dream was not impossible after all.

As for the rest of your bitter post... wow.

so if people aren't printing them then why try making them do so with a poor quality product?

I'll have to take your word at people not printing there pictures tho', my local supermarket has a helluva long line by one of them self printing things.

well I did admit to being bitter, but I believe my bitterness to be justly and righteously directed
care to counter any of the points?

 

[Toffle]

well I did admit to being bitter, but I believe my bitterness to be justly and righteously directed
care to counter any of the points?

Not in the least. This is the Toy Cameras & Polaroid Cameras portion of the forums. What did you want to read?

 

[himself]

Not in the least. This is the Toy Cameras & Polaroid Cameras portion of the forums. What did you want to read?

eh? not sure I follow...

I, having made some points regarding the initial posting - all be they bitter and slightly rambling - would have expected some, you know, counter points. Especially as this is, as you so rightly pointed out, a forum (presumably one for discussing stuff).

 

[SkipA]

Your manner is belligerant and and your attitude is one of arrogance, himself, and that is why no one wishes to converse with you. Most people here enjoy reasonable and even spirited discourse, but are usually not looking for a fight.

No offense intended, but like someone who has a very bad body odor and is unaware of it, I thought you should know.

 

[himself]

I just read back and I'm not sure where I've been any of those things*, unless disagreeing is automatically regarded as such...

anyway, name calling aside - would you like to discuss the merit of the devise and if it has a place or market?

*are you referring to not want to continue the discussion with you about it being a camera or not? because I meant that due to the fact that we have both formed our opinion on it, and due to the rather loose definition of what can be a camera, we could have been going around in circles forever - I wanted to try to move the discussion on to other points I raised...

 

[Ezzie]

Maybe TIP have read a page or two of Steve Jobs' And Edwin Land's musings on product development. Never rely on market research, if the market knows what it wants, you're too late. You need to come up with something the market didn't know it needed. The fact that most people do not print their instagrams, hispatermatics and what not is what TIP is trying to address. It may fail, but as Wayne Gretsky said, you miss 100% of the shots you never take.

 

[canuhead]

It's a brilliant idea and I definitely see it spurring further sales of their films. In some ways, it's akin to shooting film, editing and printing only a select few. Whether the cost of the film migrates south is another question and I hope it does but am not holding my breath. I also think stores would be stupid not to get these units into their stores as the walk in business would be huge imo.

 

[himself]

but there atempts to address the lack of market are with a poorer (at the moment) more expensive version of what's already available. I just don't see how that can work... long term at least, which is what the industry needs.

I don't doubt they'll sell a few, but the fad wont last.

not like the "fad" of MP3s, comparing it those is a mistake I think, mostly because they were new ideas, almost totally new, work really well and offer more than any other compition to them could.

This I'm afraid is only a slight inovation, so would need to be an improvement on what came before to make any really impact other than ooh-a-new-toy.

 

[removed account4]

i think its a great idea.
people who spend hundreds of $$ on an iphone
have plenty of $$ to spend printing their cool photos out ..
and they probably had wide spectra polaroid cameras back in the
day, so it is kind of like them enjoying what they used to love ... NOW ..

 

[SkipA]

An email I got from IP today confirmed that they are working on two new cameras, both based on the FPU that they are using in the iPhone image copy camera. One is a pinhole camera, an obvious choice since it should be relatively cheap and easy to make. The other they call a viewfinder camera, which is the same FPU, but with a viewfinder and lens on top. It looks vaguely similar in form to a Polaroid One Step. Interestingly, it has some lens mounted in a Copal shutter. I imagine that is just a prototype, and it could well change. But I hope it doesn't. A good quality lens in a standard Copal 0 or 1 shutter would make it a highly desirable camera, in my opinion.

The funding on the Instant Lab camera has hit $463k, so it appears IP hit on a great idea to fund further product R&D. More power to them.

 

[himself]

but won't that funding have to go to making the thing that the people are funding?
not sure you can ask them to fund a iphone printer and then use the cash to build other stuff.

anyway,

the other, with the manual shutter, that would be something worth funding, why not just start with that?
get all the iphone types off the iphone...

 

[SkipA]

Of course that funding will go to the Instant Lab development. But sales of the Instant Lab can fund further R&D, and that is why I think they want to make and sell the Instant Lab first. There is clearly a lot of interest, a huge market, and thus a high potential for sales.

Why not start with a traditional manual camera? Because while that would appeal to many of us on this forum and others devoted to photography as a hobby, the market is far smaller than that for the iPhone (and eventually other smartphone) user. By getting a large user base hooked on analog film output from their smartphone, you build a broader market for your more traditional camera products.

 

[Diapositivo]

The site speaks about the FPU in these terms (underlined of mine):

After 18 months of intense research and development, Impossible introduces a groundbreaking module for analog instant photography: A high precision platform named "Impossible FPU" (Film Processing Unit), that processes and develops Impossible instant film. This highly advanced device is the basis for a range of new analog instant cameras and hardware concepts to be introduced in 2013.

This indicates, in my view, that the project focussed since the beginning on the development and launch of the FPU platform which is to be "declinated" in several products. The basic module being the same or almost the same, it makes sense to launch the other devices as soon as industrially possible. Who knows, one day the FPU could be used to make a back for MF cameras! (That doesn't look very likely to me, but if the module is, in itself, "almost" a film back then why not).

Standardising production of several products around a common module is, I think, a very clever move. Film quality and film cost remain the biggest hurdles IMO.

 

[himself]

sales of the instant lab will only fund further manufacture of instant labs, if the demand is half of what you believe it too be.

just one last thing on the market or no market malarky (because we will never agree) - potential market is not the same as there actually being a market. Funding it was always going to be easy, but getting people to then risk purchising it is another story, especially when you read that most people are still holding out for the film to be perfected before they even buy that.

it could already be used to make a back because that's what it essentially is, just like the old integral backs that polaroid made, but this is neither here nor there because you are right the film quality doesn't justify spendnig the money on it or the film.

and someone said earlier that people that buy iphones can afford to buy this too, that may be true, but then most iphones are free on upgrade or with a contract in the UK (or at least they were last time i was in the UK)

 

[Toffle]

Hmmm...

 

[himself]

That's a bit harsh on SkipA don't you think? while we might not agree and aside form a brief detour into ad hominem attacks, he/she 's opinion is no less valid than mine or yours...

(s)he seems to be able to make an argument in favour of his/her positon too, which I think helps considering we are having a discussion.

by no measure a troll

 

[SkipA]

That's a bit harsh on SkipA don't you think? while we might not agree and aside form a brief detour into ad hominem attacks, he/she 's opinion is no less valid than mine or yours...

(s)he seems to be able to make an argument in favour of his/her positon too, which I think helps considering we are having a discussion.

by no measure a troll

Very amusing.

 

[himself]

Very amusing.

we do our best

why do you think they aren't selling it as a film back too?*
I guess they would need some sort of agreement with the major camera manufacturas to add the fittings to fit it to their cameras.

*sidestepping any issues of film quality compared to fuji pack film

 

[Diapositivo]

The news made its way on the first page of the internet site Repubblica.it, possibly the most read in Italy.

Video from Photokina

http://video.repubblica.it/tecno-e-...a-foto-digitale-diventa-vintage/105739/104119

 

[SkipA]

we do our best

why do you think they aren't selling it as a film back too?*
I guess they would need some sort of agreement with the major camera manufacturas to add the fittings to fit it to their cameras.

*sidestepping any issues of film quality compared to fuji pack film

I don't suppose they can pursue every idea at once, and I'm sure they'll pursue ideas with higher profit potential first.

Selling a new instant film back for MF and LF cameras probably doesn't make a lot of sense, considering that the market for such a device would be quite small. Who would buy it? Only a few amateur photraphers, hobbyists. Professional photographers are mostly shooting digital out of choice or necessity, and don't need instant film to check their setup and lighting. Pros who still shoot film at a customer's request likely use digital to check their lighting. They have no need for an instant film back either. Basically, there is no market for an instant film back for existing medium format film cameras. Some LF photographers might be interested in an Impossible film to fit a Polaroid 545 back, or a Fuji PA-45, but not an altogether new back.

 

[himself]

but if that were true why do the few backs that exist sell for so much?

 

[SkipA]

I don' t know which backs in particular you are referring to. I would guess the Fuji PA-45 or Polaroid 550, since the Fuji pack film to fit these backs is still available. The normal dynamics of supply and demand are at work. The backs aren't available new, and few are available used. The ones that become available often sell for a high prices because that is what the market will bear. It doesn't mean there is enough demand to support a new product.

Edit: Or maybe it's the Fuji PA-145 and Polaroid 405 backs that fetch a high price? Film is still available for those backs (the Fuji pack films FP100C and FP3000B) but the holders are no longer made. So that would make sense. On the other hand, you can still buy a brand new Fuji PA-45 holder for $125, but the 4x5 sheet film is discontinued.

 

[himself]

nope, I mean the integral back (a random image taken from google images, not my blog or anyone I know) that was once used on scientific equipment.
basically a polaroid version of this "innovative"* idea...

but anyway, you are right, but by that measure you can't then say that because there are lots of iphone users all of them/or a significant amount of them will buy it.

you can't apeal to numbers for one no more than I can for the other. Other factors are in play.

either way both products will be a niche item**, but the printer is more of gamble because the market doesn't already exist, it relies on the fact that an iphone will never change (a point you yourself raised) and that it will suddenly get people that don't print their pictures (thanks toffle) to suddenly begin to do so because their product is what, cool, interesting, new...

*cheap shot

**it's important to note that the funding has come from only 2000 (ish) people - not more, I imagine, than there are people that would buy just the back.

 

[SkipA]

No one knows the future. It'll all play out in time. I hope Impossible is successful.