Is APS totally dead?

[Photo Engineer]

The APS format was chosen to be the same size as digital sensors! No more and no less. Digital sensors at that time and in planning were the same size as APS.

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

The frame was large enough for the vast majority of users (who never got prints larger than 4x6 anyway) and even for very nice 8x10s with the films available by that time.

It just cost too damned much to process, period, and 35mm had become quite automated enough for even snapshooters.

 

[lxdude]

APS might have had a better life IF it had managed to come along several years earlier. As it was, it didn't arrive until just before the outbreak of consumer/prosumer digital, which didn't just put the last nail in its coffin, digital drove the wooden stake directly into the heart, sprinkled the holy water, incanted the exorcism rite, chopped off the head and stuffed the coffin of APS with garlic in one swell foop.

Not to forget that digital first used its very essence against itself by shooting it with a silver bullet.

 

[StoneNYC]

Two things, one, I agree that it would have had more chance if it was designed to fit 35mm film instead of APS sensors, regardless of matching the sensor size, its main tout was the 3 options for panoramic or 8x10 or 8x12 ratios, however panoramic on such a small area isn't high enough quality for any real good pano, if it had 35mm it would have had a lot more detail.

I'm saying this because I know because I have one of the only (if not THE only) semi-pro camera ever made for APX which was made by canon (I can't get it out but I think it was the canon Xi or iX something like that) It had the normal canon EF mount (and probably can take the EF-S lenses for APS digital rebels I just don't own any of those lenses to try) which means I can throw on my 70-200 2.8 Mk II and shoot rediculous photos. Or if I owned it, the 14mm (22mm on this cropped frame film) prime for a pretty nice super wide pano. I still own the thing and have 2 rolls of APX in the fridge...

My pano shots on 4x(whatever) are grainy, and this was from new film stock at the time... Which is why I say the film wasn't big enough. Could have been the printer system, who knows, I was still in high school and I don't remember where I had it done.

Anyway the point is it could have been better, if the pros could latch onto it, people would have bought in (that's why I think having 35mm film would have been better). But pros mocked it for its small size and that trickled down to people not buying in (except my mom who still complains about wanting to use her elf camera but not having. Film...) maybe I should gift her my last 2 rolls this Christmas?

"...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong..." ~Dennis Miller


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

You know, I forgot all about those panoramic settings. You're right - way too small for that. But I always considered cropping a letterbox shape out of a regular frame to be faux panoramic anyway. You could always do the same thing in printing. It's certainly not like, say, shooting 6x12 or 6x17cm on 120.

 

[StoneNYC]

You know, I forgot all about those panoramic settings. You're right - way too small for that. But I always considered cropping a letterbox shape out of a regular frame to be faux panoramic anyway. You could always do the same thing in printing. It's certainly not like, say, shooting 6x12 or 6x17cm on 120.

No of course not, but with the magnetic info on the APX film, they could have made it on 35mm film with a film count RANGE, and allowed for true pano on the film, or 8x10 or 8x12 frame and had a variable counter, so 14-42 frames depending on if you shot all pano or a mix, or all 8x10(4x5) so you could effectively get MORE out of a roll than 35mm this would be a big appeal for the competition to digital at the time when you could shoot like 65 shots on a 64MB flash card! Woohoo!

They just could have been smarter, instead they were focused on cutting the COST of the film to THEM and not how it could be a better film to US customers.

Ok I've said my bit I'll shush now...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Oh heck... See!

No I don't keep my camera in the fridge, just easier to see the film and camera together haha so it's an EOS IX (not to be confused with a 35mm film camera from years before with lower case ix...

It takes two 123 batteries, can do timer and remote wireless trigger, a terribly dark viewfinder (though the lens on it doesn't get bigger than 3.5) an has all the pro settings IE full manual, Av, Tv, P and even DEP as well as all the auto settings for dummies

To aid in autofocus it had a dedicated flash that aims at center focus and is a different flash from the on camera pop up flash, interesting and probably a huge battery drainer.

Has date stamp settings, exposure bracketing, and exposure compensation options, exposure from 30 seconds to 1/4000 second, and bulb exposure. Auto focus in one shot (focus and lock for re composure) and AI Servo (track focussing or constant focus I forget which that one is).

All in all, lots of pro level features for an APX film camera at the time but they didn't market it very heavily and it went highly unnoticed.

I snagged one off Craigslist 5 years back for $20

The lens 24-85 3.5-4.5 isn't half bad from the CA/distortion side of things.

Ok off to NY for work (live in CT, commute to NY).

Don't know why I made this report, maybe just wanted to geek out, maybe curious since I haven't used it in 2 years and didn't remember... Haha


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AgX]

I see this panorama thing rather as a gadget to show the customer one of the novelty features of the new films.

The other features hinted rightly in the posts above, aside of that most easy loading, don't show their advantages at once but rather at processing or later handling.
The aspect-ratio setting is related to processing/printing too, but at least it is somthing the customer could chose at the taking stage and as such it was incorporated in most APS cameras.

 

[nickrapak]

The one thing I liked about APS, besides the compact size of the cameras, was the fact that with the right (read: higher-end) camera and a fully APS-capable lab, the back printing gave all of the details about the exposure: Date, time, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and if there was any manual exposure adjustment. You could also add titles on the camera that ended up being printed on the back of each print as well. I'm lucky in that one of my local labs still maintains their APS equipment enough so that if I go shooting with my Minolta S-1, they will still do all of the back printing.

 

[StoneNYC]

The one thing I liked about APS, besides the compact size of the cameras, was the fact that with the right (read: higher-end) camera and a fully APS-capable lab, the back printing gave all of the details about the exposure: Date, time, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and if there was any manual exposure adjustment. You could also add titles on the camera that ended up being printed on the back of each print as well. I'm lucky in that one of my local labs still maintains their APS equipment enough so that if I go shooting with my Minolta S-1, they will still do all of the back printing.

That's cool, I have to download my shooting data to an old windows 95 PC from my 1V in order to get aperture/shutter info.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Photo Engineer]

APS was a compromise between several camera and film companies. Thus you can say, like the old saying, "an elephant is a mouse designed by a committee"!

That said, I saw, while doing R&D at EK, a talking photo system and a 3D photo system. Both were quite interesting but never got incorporated into APS. The talking option was considered due to the magnetic stripe.

The different formats were the same size on the negative, but the viewfinder showed a different format. The format choice was recorded on the film and then the printer adapted to that information to print one of the 3 formats.

PE

 

[Diapositivo]

The APS format was chosen to be the same size as digital sensors! No more and no less. Digital sensors at that time and in planning were the same size as APS.

PE

I am not convinced by this affirmation. Which digital sensors? 4:3 were smaller. Point-&-shoot had and still have smaller sensor. The APS-C sensors in digital domain take their name from film (APS) which as introduced first, and not the other way round.

APS (film) was introduced in 1996. Its design phase I reckon should date back to at least a couple years before. Digital photography was in its infancy.
If the market it was aimed at was the P&S, why choose the APS format? There was no APS format digital camera in the P&S market.
If the market it was aimed at was the "mature reflex" camera, then why the APS format? In 1996 there were no DSLR as far as I can remember.
Who could predict the APS format would have been dominant in 6 or 8 years?

In general, I find it difficult to believe that in 1996 Kodak, Fujifilm, Minolta, Canon, Nikon etc. were so much involved into digital photography as to base the dimension of the film format on the needs of a very future, or futurible, digital revolution. I mean the mentioned "planning" was likely to be at a very pre-pre-pre-production stage and not in such a stage as to influence the film format which could have been dominating the film market for decades.

In hindsight we know that digital prevailed and that APS format prevailed (so far) within digital. But in 1996 (or before) one should have been a real witch to predict the future.

 

[AgX]

Talking photos

I saw, while doing R&D at EK, a talking photo system and a 3D photo system. Both were quite interesting but never got incorporated into APS. The talking option was considered due to the magnetic stripe.

Talking photos had already been established though in a much less elaborate way:

You got from the lab your print with a magnetic strip along the underside. At home by means of a special recorder you could speak a short message onto the photo. Handed to someone with the same apparatus the photo could be listened to so to say.
I got on of these recorders.


APS:
Was there anything special on that planned 3D system? Or a plain two-lens 3D-camera but for APS-format?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I saw no APS in 3D! These were much before APS.

I have seen several "talkiing" photo methods. None related to APS went beyond the early talking phase of R&D. The others existed as you say and were simpler.

As for the APS size, you must remember that at that time EK was at the sharp edge of sensor production even though they lost out. The format chosen to match sensor and film sizes was made for economy as sensors were quite expensive. The name APS and the sensor size and film dimensions were planned on by all involved.

There was lag and lead in both the film projects and the sensor projects at EK, but the first sensors were much smaller and fit in the window of an EPROM. I have held some of those first samples at EK and have held the first digital camera.

PE

 

[lxdude]

I ... have held the first digital camera.

PE

Did you wash your hands afterwards?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, it was Kodak's first digital camera and since it was invented there it was the first. And since I worked for EK it was pretty hard to "wash my hands" because at that time it looked like EK was going to do something with it!

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

More info...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/aps.htm


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Photo Engineer]

Congratulations Stone. Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

Well, there are so many theories on the internet about so many things. Can you believe this site?

I was in the Air Force in intelligence and also at EK. I see so many untruths about both!

Best wishes.

PE

 

[Diapositivo]

Although Ken Rockwell has a certain way to put things that somehow make him sound less serious, the same concepts he expresses about APS could be very easily defended with a carefully worded scientific document.

Japanese makers like Canon and others had already pretty brilliantly solved the problem of "intimidating" 135 film loading and unloading. My Canonet and my Yashica T3 brilliantly load their 135 roll in a very fool-proof way and could be loaded with one's eyes closed.

I understand the need for a 126 ("Instamatic") format at the time. Easy loading. Probably the square format was thought not to oblige people to choose between portrait and landscape orientation (that require thinking, and we know how "thinking" doesn't sell well) but, all in all, it made a sense.

The 110 ("Pocket Instamatic") format had the purpose of having a camera enter inside any woman bag without hassle. The idea was brilliant. Woman always (used to) have their bag with them. If we can place a camera in it, we'll sell a lot more film, prints etc. People will have the camera in their bag as a "habit" and many more pictures of family gathering, friends at the put etc. will be taken. Problem was 110 was a bit too scarce in image quality. That lesson should have been learned.

By the time Kodak launched their "disc" format there must have been clouds of grass smoke going around Kodak air conditioning system. The disk format was NOT compact at all, its quality was dismal, laboratories would have had to make an investment, it just could not work.
I remember the Italian magazine Fotografare burying the system with their first review as something like a bad-temper joke.

I certainly don't agree with the "conspiracy" idea that Kodak actually wanted to force laboratories to upgrade. But certainly Kodak managed to behave, with Disc, as if they were the only film and camera producer in the world and anybody was forced to follow them.

APS certainly was flawed IMO by its small format. Whatever the industrial considerations (the foreseen advent of digital lines of cameras and the attempt to produce one line of lenses in the long run) the small format was a huge mistake as it couldn't have involved serious amateurs and detracted them from 135. That is something that anybody should have foreseen at the time and probably they foresaw it very well. So APS ultimately was condemned to be a pocket-camera format only. And that, in turn, would probably deter most laboratories from investing new money at it.

As PE says - an elephant is a mouse designed by a committee - if you want your new format to be too many things for too many needs than it will solve none of them.

Ken Rockwell is right in scoffing at the APS format as a substitute of 135. APS was some kind of a new 126 but without the "need" anymore, he's right IMO.
The concept could have been interesting but the quality target was entirely wrong.

Scanning and slide projection could have been made by APS scanners (they do exists, my Nikon 5000 has an adapter for APS) and APS slide projectors (with HUGE benefits) but that doesn't match with the P&S market segment where APS was confined by its small size.

 

[Photo Engineer]

All systems (126, 110, Disc and APS) required a substantial change for photofinishers in terms of processing and printing equipment. So, APS does not stand alone in that. What it stands alone in is the fact that the entire industry cooperated in its creation. All of the camera and film companies came out with this format at almost the same time, as they had foreknowledge. In the case of 110, 126 and Disc, they were closely guarded EK secrets.

At the time that APS was introduced, the models at EK predicted that digital would not become a viable amateur product for still photography until about 2020. IDK what the other companies thought, but the result indicates that they had somewhat similar thoughts as EK. In any event, that forecast gave the APS film format about 25 years of life! As it turns out these predictions were wrong.

I have said elsewhere that the forecast for film and paper in 2005 was that sales would decline by 30% in a year. In that year, in the first quarter the decline was 35%! This catastrophic decline affected Kodak, Ilford and Agfa in the public news. IDK about Fuji. That was the year that Agfa and Ilford had severe financial problems. I know that these problems were caused by a variety of factors, but the fact is that the overall market slumped catastrophically. My point being that all companies suffered from bad models and did so from as early as 1990. APS was caught in this hoorah.

PE

 

[DWThomas]

As I understand it (and I still own an Elph Jr which was/is a great super compact P&S camera) there was a plan to make all sorts of film available, B&W, C41 and transparency, spread out among the film makers. That part never really happened; in the peak of APS there was only one slide film and IIRC, no B&W. Cameras targeted at "serious" photographers would be handicapped with such a limited choice of film. I vaguely recall the processing for APS transparency film required sending it to Europe which is a slow starter for the potentially sizable US market too.

But hey, I also seem to recall Polaroid came out with instant movie film about the time consumer video cameras appeared! Ya takes yer chances.


(Back after four days without power.)

 

[StoneNYC]

Congratulations Stone. Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

Well, there are so many theories on the internet about so many things. Can you believe this site?

I was in the Air Force in intelligence and also at EK. I see so many untruths about both!

Best wishes.

PE

No but I believe my eyes, and my eyes tell me the format is only good in 4x6 prints, Maybe 5x7.. Even the panorama images were lower quality and a bit blurry, it's like saying 35mm is as good as 8x10 sheet film, the more surface area, the more detail. I also had many of those thoughts before reading the article.

There's one thing even you can't deny, Kodak's history of sales techniques is undeniable, create a new format film and a lime of cameras exclusive to that format, then stop supporting it and creat another format.... 616,116,122,121,220,620,35(original),102,103,104,127,110,126, etc,etc..... Instead of standardizing, they simply make more money on a new system than on one that other film companies already produce, if they have a new system, others have to do R&D to produce competing films, which means Kodak is always ahead of the game.

If they had been smart and made the advantix system backward compatible (meaning shape the canister like 135) with added contact points on the base or top and magnetize the perf area, they could have had canisters that fit in 35mm cameras that already existed but you could have those pano options as well etc in the new cameras. Meaning people could still use advantix film in normal cameras so the market of people purchasing the film would be larger, and then from then on creat the 35advantix camera line and stick to it, other manufacturers could follow suit since they also would want the extra advantages of the advantix system but wouldn't have to change all the machinery for a new size of film, lens lineup etc. pros would like the shoot info / date cataloging etc. and it wouldn't exclude those who didn't have the money for a new camera YET, or didn't want to buy two kinds of film bedside they had their favorite camera they didn't want to give up, but wanted the new stuff too.

Just saying they could have done better.


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

I just wish they would (or someone would) produce small batches of expired for,ate in interesting film options, like Lomo but with real intent to produce good images, like if ilford created small runs of advantix, disk, 127,126,110 in B&W and sold them to urban outfitters or something. There's fun in finding a cheap camera at a tag sale that no one has anymore and shooting on film that's almost unknown. It makes photography fun again. And something to do in between serious shoots.

Also, know if they make an advantix insert for the epson v750?


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Diapositivo]

Even better, I would like someone produces some bulk "slitter-loader", maybe an artisanal one.
The idea being, a 126 cartridge could be made in iron or plastic and reused forever.
One would put the bulk film in the bulk slitter-loader, and the apparatus does the slitting and loading work in a "transparent" way.
One could buy slitter-loader and reusable cartridges for 126 and not rely on special production bulks.

A different slitter-loader could be devised for APS, 110 etc.

 

[StoneNYC]

Eh, sounds like too much work, I hate bulk loading... The only bulk loader I want is a 70mm one... So hard to find and especially cheaply


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk