Is APS totally dead?

[AgX]

Not quite a similar box.
The Kodak box reads a data file, made in a lab after scanning and digitizing the film. And then transfers the digital data back into analog video signal.

The Fuji/Minolta APS box (player) reads the film directly. In the video above it is said that it scans the film. That is unlikely, rather it is still video, thus based on a video tube. The information thus stays analog all the way.

There also was a true APS home-scanner. So with this other Fuji box one could indeed scan the film and get a data file oneself.

If the player was scanning too, both units could have been reduced to one, serving both ends (except that Fuji considered different boxes more profitable).

 

[Photo Engineer]

There was never even an APS camera or film that lived up to the total specifications lined out by the group who planned it.

PE

 

[AgX]

What APS feature planned never made it into a camera?
There were several SLRs made, part of which had extensive information transfer.

I admit though that finding out about every resp. feature of a model is hard.

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.

As you say, these features were discussed but not planned.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I really cannot remember. I remember only being told this quite a while back. IIRC, it had something to do with data recording on the magnetic stripe.

PE

 

[Agulliver]

APS is dead because no hardware or film is manufactured. Any cameras are used or a few exist NOS, since the format was abandoned for hardware over a decade ago....film has all expired by now being produced last in 2011. People with or acquiring APS cameras are relying on the dregs of APS film still in shops or on auction sites (please remind yourselves that I have seen at least one Kodak APS film on the shelf in Ashcroft Stores in Luton, UK).

110 and 127 cling on due to Lomography and boutique suppliers respectively. They're not exactly healthy, but at least the Lomo films are high quality and sometimes available via Amazon and even on shelves. 127 I think we're down to the Rerapan and people hand spooling HP5+. I would imagine that while supplies of Lomo's 110 film are sporadic, they intend to support the format for some years. Ferrania might be able to produce 127 in the future.

126 is currently dead, in the same situation as APS

The biggest issue with APS is that the films are expired and will only deteriorate. Hand/boutique rolling and home or semi-pro processing seem very difficult if not impossible due to the cartridge design and the need for the magnetic data stripe. 126 is difficult but conceivably someone could manufacture or in the future 3D print cartridges. Backing paper is an issue but not totally insurmountable. There's no magnetic stripe.

APS currently is dead and would be very problematic to resurrect.

 

[Bill Burk]

The Canon Elph cameras have title imprinting - which I imagine uses the magnetic recording feature.

You get to pick one of these phrases in a variety of languages...

I LOVE YOU
THANK YOU
SEASON'S GREETINGS
HAPPY BIRTHDAY
CONGRATULATIONS

I'd consider that a "proof of concept." But I don't think of it as a truly useful implementation of the magnetic recording feature of the film.

 

[AgX]

The main idea of that magnetic strip was to store exposure data to facilitate printing, and that indeed is done by some cameras.
Also, more basic, the last exposed frame count was stored there too, enabling mid-roll film exchange. And time/date to spare the image from being exposed on for that.

But many models did not employ that strip at all. All they could do is expose a mark on the rebate to indicate chosen aspect ratio of the image other than APS standard . Even some single-use models did employ that.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You missed my main point. This thread is dead!

PE

 

[Bill Burk]

Well I still have some of the film and cameras, and a scanner module for it.

While not a commercially viable format... it still works. I know it’ll not be revived, but it was a pretty nifty idea.

 

[Helios 1984]

You missed my main point. This thread is dead!
PE

Way more alive than Kodachrome tho.

 

[Photo Engineer]

As Billy Crystal said "only partly dead". Same as most films nowdays.

PE

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

Even outside of the presence (or lack) of commercial production, APS and Disc, the two "newest" formats, are also the most obsolete due to their characteristics that prevent any practical D-I-Y approach.

Many 110 cameras can use non-perf 16mm film (or slit 120) such as microfilm when a cutout is placed in the side flange of the cartridge. The cartridge shell, backing, and take up spool are pretty easily recycled. Other cameras may have the registration pin pulled to allow use with only non-perf film from then on.

Many 126 cameras can use 35mm film respooled onto recycled 126 backing with the shell and take up spool renewed as well. Some have created 3D printed Hacks to allow use of 35mm stock sans backing with a taped rear window and extra advancing of the film.

828 can use 35mm stock (perf or non) or slit 120, recycled spools, and improvised or recycled backing.

127 can use slit 120 stock, recycled spools, and improvised or recycled backing.

Even format sizes wider than 120 (616, 122, 130) can use cut film stock like Ilford Ortho Plus put on improvised backing, OR use sheet film cut to fit on a one-shot basis, OR even whole instax sheets on a one-shot basis.

No such workarounds are pragmatic and feasible for APS or Disc to use recently produced film. Theoretically, you could die-cut sheet film to attach to a disc film core, but it's really not worth the effort obviously. But aside from splicing an 18mm wide slit of fresh film into the center of an existing unused APS roll that is then re-set, there seems no possible way to "hack" APS.

 

[AgX]

24 mm wide

 

[Agulliver]

I thiink you make a very good point @Meyer Trioplan

Simpler formats, basically consisting of film rolled onto a spool or into a cartridge which can (with care) be reused can live on in the hands of hobbyists. At the very least we can hand process in our homes. Formats with complex cartridges systems that cannot reasonably be manufactured even with 3D printing will be a problem.

This is why there's no homebrew APS or Disc film....and may well be why regular 8mm movie film outlives super 8. I can even see it will become feasible to 3D print 126 and 110 cartridges, as they contain very little in the way of high precision moving parts.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

24 mm wide

To clarify my own comment...

Since APS cameras/film have a pretty specific bunch of set needs that are integrated into the film between the magnetic info, and the odd perforation pattern, my thought of the only way to hack APS film would be to keep the outer edges of the old film and splice in the inner image area that is somewhere around 16-18mm, leaving 3 or 4mm of rebate on either side. Hardly practical but at least an idea in theory.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

I thiink you make a very good point @Meyer Trioplan

Simpler formats, basically consisting of film rolled onto a spool or into a cartridge which can (with care) be reused can live on in the hands of hobbyists. At the very least we can hand process in our homes. Formats with complex cartridges systems that cannot reasonably be manufactured even with 3D printing will be a problem.

This is why there's no homebrew APS or Disc film....and may well be why regular 8mm movie film outlives super 8. I can even see it will become feasible to 3D print 126 and 110 cartridges, as they contain very little in the way of high precision moving parts.

As long as films are made in sheets and rolls, some of us will find ways to be resourceful and get images from the discontinued formats. Even many instant formats are usable using retrofits from cut sheet film of improvised 120. I've tried to tackle many of these and find them to be fun puzzles that take the level of photographic involvement to another level.

But an intricate format like APS leaves me pretty stumped. Maybe next time I do a 127 slit from 120, I can try taping the remnant 16mm strip to an existing roll and respooling to see what I get in one of simpler APS cameras.

 

[Helios 1984]

I can try taping the remnant 16mm strip to an existing roll and respooling to see what I get in one of simpler APS cameras.

I think It would be feasible with a disposable APS, they have a manual advance and no magnetic shenanigan to deal with.

 

[AgX]

But a Single Use APS camera is the least interesting to use.
Only few of the regular models use magnetic writing/reading. They should even work without it anyway.
But who knows...

APS camera, the unknown creature.

 

[railwayman3]

I didn't know that Single Use APS cameras existed.....I certainly never saw any for sale here in the UK, though Amazon US site show just "one" still in stock for $15.99 ! I can understand 35mm disposable cameras (we gave them to guests at our daughter's wedding), but it seems an elaborate design to put an APS mechanism in a one-use camera.........

 

[AgX]

So far I only came about one sample. Mine only employs standard APS frame, but has an incorporated flash.
There also are models that offer those 3 aspect ratios. These expose the respective mark on the film for the lab.

 

[Helios 1984]

I didn't know that Single Use APS cameras existed.....I certainly never saw any for sale here in the UK, though Amazon US site show just "one" still in stock for $15.99 ! I can understand 35mm disposable cameras (we gave them to guests at our daughter's wedding), but it seems an elaborate design to put an APS mechanism in a one-use camera.........

It quite logical if you want to replace 35mm, convert every consumers to your new shiny format and force labs to use your expensive APS machines. Sneaky bastards...

 

[AgX]

... and force labs to use your expensive APS machines. Sneaky bastards...

I read about the industry forcing new, expensive equipment into labs again and again. But only by north american members. Well, Rockwell put that up.
But never ever I read this argument over here. One reason may be that small labs were lesser here, but few huge industrial labs.

To be fair, a system that would have trickled consumers into having more prints and even more re-prints made, because it all got more simple, would have benefitted labs too. Thus if a lab was complaining it would have been with crocodiles tears.

 

[cmacd123]

I read about the industry forcing new, expensive equipment into labs again and again. But only by north american members.

KODAK at one time had GREAT market power. IF they came out with a new format, any of the labs had to choice to equip themselves or lose business. (or outlab to Kodak, who would gladly take any labs orders and process them)

Kodak had much of the Photofinishing equipment business, and they did "help" by often offering upgrades to older machines. New negative size, well don't worry for only 500 bucks we can sell you this handy dandy new lens for your printer. Oh you need a nagtive holder too, yep we can sell you that.

the only lab I ever personalty got a tour of was a small local one who for a C41 processor actually had a Kodak Limited London C-22 Processor with a Kodak "Speed up kit for C-41" installed. Kodak also provided the repair and upgrade service.

So 126 comes out, Labs would have gotten a sales call six months earlier by an engineer showing them which old machines to scrap or Update/rebuild to be ready for the Christmas season.

 

[AgX]

APS was not introduced by Kodak alone.
Out of the group only Agfa and Kodak were supplying lab equipment. (And I am not even sure whether Agfa offered small scale APS equipment.) If that lab equipment would have been the main incentive to introduce APS, as some propose, why then should the others have joined that group.

 

[cmacd123]

APS was not introduced by Kodak alone.
Out of the group only Agfa and Kodak were supplying lab equipment. (And I am not even sure whether Agfa offered small scale APS equipment.) If that lab equipment would have been the main incentive to introduce APS, as some propose, why then should the others have joined that group.

The other end of the spectrum was a chance to sell end users NEW cameras! Besides the immediate sale - generally replacing a Camera that is otherwise still working well, a new camera is likely to be used more and so sell more film, and services like processing.

Kodak was already losing their market power by the time of APS with so many cameras from Japan being sold that the other firms had to be in on APS to get the pull of selling new cameras.

Agfa only seems to have introduced the "rapid" format by themselves.