Is APS totally dead?

[trendland]

It has been allways a question of format :

Sheed film !

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Bad as Disc system prints were, at least the format enabled one to say "I shoot 8x10." That's how large its film negative images were. Of course, in mm, not inches.

Supposedly the quality was intended to be better than Minox 8x11mm, but I wonder if it was.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The film samples that I saw at a research scale were excellent, but the plant had trouble scaling up those results.

PE

 

[wahiba]

I


View attachment 223252 View attachment 223252 Picked one up at a boot fair. Bought black and white film on eBay, which turned out to be C41 process. Took it to my local processor, no problem still had the APS kit.
Problem is that old film needs a reduction in speed. Auto camera not obviously possible. One film left so intend to try a filter over auto meter lens to fool camera to make a longer exposure. 1 stop for every 10 years so 10 year old 400asa needs to be rated as 200asa.

 

[AgX]

Took it to my local processor, no problem still had the APS kit.

Europe's largest industrial finisher no longer accepts APS.

I guess their resp. machinery is broken, however they still accept for instance rollfilms and hanger process them, thus I do not see why they cannot process APS film this way (thus handled by hand) and deliver it as strips in an envelop just as type 135.

 

[wahiba]

Europe's largest industrial finisher no longer accepts APS.

I guess their resp. machinery is broken, however they still accept for instance rollfilms and hanger process them, thus I do not see why they cannot process APS film this way (thus handled by hand) and deliver it as strips in an envelop just as type 135.

Not a bad idea. Mine came back in the original cassette, which was a surprise. Not the easiest things to break open either.

 

[Helge]

Netherteless you are right PE - Disc format was a mistake ! What are we talking about :
View attachment 223147

File photo 1982

with regards

PPS : APS was the much bigger mistake of ALL (Film manufacturers,camera manufacturers, labs)
But the origion idea was not soo bad (more space from film format - is always a good idea)
But at last it was the oposite = much less space! And of course the plan was much much too
ambitioned (to replace 135-36 format)!
All players saw THE SOLUTION FROM APS : camera manufacturers saw the need to produce new
models , new lenses, Film manufacturers wanted to sell more and more films, labs saw a chance for total automation! And all these players had the idea : beside digital will come the play is going on!
And they all became right : The players may have changed
but the play is going on : Amatheuric shooters are willing
to spent money for each nonsense!

So PE seriously : If decisions would had made from engeneers we perhaps would have a different
sight at APS today : A system with new cassette and a film format 60% more in comparison
to 24x36 without perforation - wy not?
A baby 4,5 x 6 format would give nice quality with modernest films of latest generation!
Because this inovation is "State of the art" from Kodak engeneers out of the year 1901! View attachment 223148

Nobody hates on the Minox micro format.
It's only a tiny tad larger than Kodak Disc format (why Kodak didn't at least exactly match the size is an open question, as that would have quelled many naysayers per default).
As it stands (or stood) It was actually not a bad system or idea. Only the implementation lacked.
For starters Kodak should have insisted on their special custom, "made for the job" super enlargers for all locations processing and enlarging the film.

The lenses for the Disc cameras where small but incredibly sharp. They are still to this day some of, if not the lenses with the highest lp/mm rating ever for a camera lens.
Only a similarly sharp enlarger lens would do the negative justice. Instead most locations used regular 135 enlargers with lenses that where fuzzy when enlarging something that small, not to speak of the difficulty of keeping the film in focus.
The small frame on the thick base was easy to get into focus with the right enlarger.

The form factor of the cameras was also very appealing, predicting the smartphone format with a lens bump and all by several decades. Yet as apposed to other micro format cameras, there was still space for a build-in flash, motor and other electronics, not to mention somewhere to put your fingers and hold on.

Two major missed opportunities was:

- Not to put a lens with a very high f stop on one or more of the cameras.
Like Super 8 cameras that could have very fast lenses because of the small format, Disc cameras could have had very fast lenses (f 1.0 or less?) because of the small format, without the drawback of a razor thin DoF. This would allow the use of low grain, slow film.
Imagine using ISO 25 or lower microfilm type emulsion or Kodachrome 64 with such a lens. You could have gotten quite decent resolution there.

- Projecting the format would have been a killer application. Imagine just plumping a disc into the projector and having fast easy access to any if the frames without the bother and cost of cutting the film, putting it into slides and loading carrousels, and not having to deal with a big lumbering behemoth of a projector.

 

[AgX]

Interesting thoughts.

I would like to add

-) the selfie-stick and selfie-camera were introduced with a disc camera
-) there even was a autofocus disc camera and an underwater housing etc.

However in comparison to other formats there was quite some bulk in disc cameras.

 

[Helge]

Interesting thoughts.

I would like to add

-) the selfie-stick and selfie-camera were introduced with a disc camera
-) there even was a autofocus disc camera and an underwater housing etc.

However in comparison to other formats there was quite some bulk in disc cameras.

Yeah, a watertight housing is far easier to make with such a simple, small shape.
The selfie stick is perhaps not something to be too proud of though. ;-) It could be turned around to gain some extra hight (lens shift anyone ;-)

I suppose you mean in comparison to other micro formats. The second you start putting motordrive and flash on a Minox or 16 mm still camera, you quickly get something that is larger and heavier than a Disc camera. Not to mention much less user friendly.
A Disc camera fits perfectly in most pockets.

 

[cmacd123]

Europe's largest industrial finisher no longer accepts APS.

I guess their resp. machinery is broken, however they still accept for instance rollfilms and hanger process them, thus I do not see why they cannot process APS film this way (thus handled by hand) and deliver it as strips in an envelop just as type 135.

they may still be under a contractual obligation to only process and return APS in the offical format. They might have trouble with a supplier if they did APS on a dip and Dunk line.

 

[AgX]

I consider such obligations by a manufacturer who cancelled the production and does not offer procesing themselves in Germany as absurd. Though otherwise valid indeed.
The finisher may feel obliged to the custumer to handle the film the right way, and legally they are. But they could offer the makeshift solution as alternative.

.

 

[AgX]

I suppose you mean in comparison to other micro formats.

In think so in comparison to type 110 cameras.
Though all disc cameras contain a small flash which must be taken in consideration to theur benefit too, not even to speak of the built-in winder.

And disc cameras are no rarity. So they had been sold indeed.



More so APS cameras... to come on track again

 

[Helge]

1. What was the reason for the APS film size to be similar to the digital sensor size? Even if film laboratories were intending to scan the piece of APS film and print digitally onto paper, why would the size need to be similar to a digital sensor?

There is the obvious reason of interchangeability of lenses between cameras.
Glassless “contact printing” scanning, where the film is put into direct contact with a sensor with very thin protection layer, could be another.
Having a format that is very close to 35mm cine film size might have been the original thought behind both sensor and film size. “If it’s good enough for a big screen”... half frame cameras where there several decades before.

Some of the ideas might have been ok, but they could have been implemented just as well in a slightly modified 135 cartridge, that would allow backwards compatibility.

One very stupid thing was that they had the opportunity to get rid of sprockets and then did not. The magnetic recording strip was also stupid. It made the manufacturing more difficult, was not very stable.
Only trick it allowed was retracting the film and continuing later, something exceptionally few people would use very little, and something that was already possible with sprocket counting 135 cameras.
The rest of the data was much better recorded interframe or even better on the camera with an interframe pointer on the film.

For a new format, reintroduction of sprocket-less Pony film aka 828, in a new cassette would have made much more sense.

 

[MattKing]

I would guess that the sprockets were useful for the photo-finishers.

 

[AgX]

Only trick it allowed was retracting the film and continuing later, something exceptionally few people would use very little, and something that was already possible with sprocket counting 135 cameras.

The modern cameras back then typically pulled the leader into the cassette, making second use a hassle. Also the noting of end-frame and carefully re-transporting was a hassle too. And frugal guys would have whined about losing at least one frame for safety reason... (But frugal guys would not have stepped into APS either...)

 

[Helge]

The modern cameras back then typically pulled the leader into the cassette, making second use a hassle. Also the noting of end-frame and carefully re-transporting was a hassle too. And frugal guys would have whined about losing at least one frame for safety reason... (But frugal guys would not have stepped into APS either...)

There where cameras and winders produced that will remember the last roll, and use the end of the leader and sprocket gear as reference.
They would let the leader stick out too, again with the sprocket gear at sensor.
Pretty accurate too.

 

[Helge]

I would guess that the sprockets were useful for the photo-finishers.

120 film manages fine.
If they aren’t there the machine simply isn’t build for them.

 

[AgX]

There where cameras and winders produced that will remember the last roll, and use the end of the leader and sprocket gear as reference.
They would let the leader stick out too, again with the sprocket gear at sensor.
Pretty accurate too.

At APS for mid-way change of cassettes the information of the cassette being partially exposed was indicated mechanically at the cassette and the number of last frame written on the magnetic strip. (Thus only advanced APS cameras yielded the mid-way change feature.

By no means could a type 135 SLR camera automatically get to now that last frame of a deliberately chosen half-way exposed cassette.
At best it could have stored that figure inside a data-back or alike. But then the photographer would have to assign a ordinary figure to that cassette. And call-up that number again at the data -back after re-loading it.
Actually I am not even aware of a type 135 SLR that yields this even limited feature. (The databack of the F5 does not,)

 

[MattKing]

I would guess that the sprockets were useful for the photo-finishers.

120 film manages fine.
If they aren’t there the machine simply isn’t build for them.

APS was designed to maximize the benefits of automation.
Particularly at the photo-finishing stage.
120 is a lot more challenging to handle in a high volume, automated environment.

 

[choiliefan]

I remember an incident in a Hooper Camera store where a customer came in to have film loaded into his 35mm camera. He couldn't wrap his mind or fingers around the most basic part of using a film camera.
The proprietor told me that he had several patrons who required the same service regularly.
Perhaps this was some odd quirk of North Hollywood folk but APS was brought out to serve the Super-Luddites who love to take pictures but not nimble enough to load film.

 

[Luckless]

I remember an incident in a Hooper Camera store where a customer came in to have film loaded into his 35mm camera. He couldn't wrap his mind or fingers around the most basic part of using a film camera.
The proprietor told me that he had several patrons who required the same service regularly.
Perhaps this was some odd quirk of North Hollywood folk but APS was brought out to serve the Super-Luddites who love to take pictures but not nimble enough to load film.

Accessibility by Design is a great thing. What can appear as a stupidly "trivial convenience" to many can be the difference between being able to use a thing or not for others.

I've run into several people who commented on my medium format gear and added that they miss using film cameras, but could no longer reliably load or handle film.

I've had to load my camera outside in the dead of a Canadian winter before, and can understand the frustrating of it. Doesn't take a lot of a shake in the hand to really slow down and hamper the process.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... He couldn't wrap his mind or fingers around the most basic part of using a film camera.

The proprietor told me that he had several patrons who required the same service regularly. ...

Simplifying film loading has been a goal of camera manufacturers for a long time. I could say that the Minox of 1937, with it's film contained in a cassette, might've been the first. Certainly the popularity of 1960's Instamatic and Super-8 cameras show the benefit of simple loading.

Of course, the reason camera/film manufacturers introduced simplified loading is that they knew 95+% of the population just wanted to point the camera and press the button and if they could provide that, their sales would increase considerably.

This reasoning also created the automatic transmission.

 

[foc]

While Disc film did not produce great results, (IIRC) the introduction of the Kodak VR T grain film used in Disc film helped with the introduction of the same in 35mm films giving an increase in picture quality. Again (IIRC) Fuji did the same with HR series of film.

I may have got the exact facts incorrect, the bottom line was that Disc film helped improve 35mm.

The APS system had some great film and I think one of the most iconic cameras of the late 20th Century, the Canon Ixus (Elph).

I remember seeing it in 1996 and thinking WOW a bit like seeing the Braun Nizo Super 8 camera in the mid 1970's

 

[AgX]

As a side note:
Agfa refrained from both, manufacturing disc film and manufacturing disc camera.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I remember an incident in a Hooper Camera store where a customer came in to have film loaded into his 35mm camera. He couldn't wrap his mind or fingers around the most basic part of using a film camera.
The proprietor told me that he had several patrons who required the same service regularly.

On a similar note, my friend who ran the camera store here in my town told me that he sold many (many!) memory cards for digital cameras. He sold them to people who did not erase their cards or reuse them - they just bought additional ones, like buying more rolls of film.