Supersense Kickstarter to save Polaroid packfilm!

[Oren Grad]

Is all of this being deduced from the word "Editions"?

There is no sign of any plan, let alone a realistic one, to establish an automated production line that would allow them to produce a consistent product to a defined specification on an ongoing basis and bring the per-sheet cost down. More from their campaign description:

ONE INSTANT is PRECIOUS. We strongly do believe that analog instant photography urgently deserves a new understanding of quality and our true respect in today's world defined by digital photography.

Beyond doubt, the unique selling points of the glory past are all gone: digital is much more instant, much more convenient, much more almost everything compared to the analog ancestor and, on top of that, it's for free.

ONE INSTANT therefore was developed and designed with all our love and pride to become your most breathtakingly adorable choice...

"New understanding of quality"? What that sounds like to me is "we're going Lomo - we're going to make batches of product with whatever supplies we can lay our hands on, and they're going to be quirky and inconsistent, but it's going to be really cool because analog means a high rate of defects and a high rate of defects means cool and there are people out there who will pay for cool".

 

[warden]

I may be misunderstanding, but is there a separate box, pull tab, etc for each image?

 

[Oren Grad]

Yes, per their description you can load only one exposure at a time into the camera.

 

[keenmaster486]

And they're billing it as "innovative." Oh well, it's a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Roger Wade]

I also see it as a step. Many of us immediately consider something as impossible and don't do anything at all. I also don't see this in any way as being a fully automated and cheapish production of pack film a la Fuji. It just isn't possible. At the moment at least. So rather than doing nothing, let's do this and see where it leads. Maybe nowhere. Maybe somewhere. But we won't know until someone tries. And for that, this project has my support and I certainly hope a second step follows.

For now let's enjoy the fact that someone is trying and maybe even succeeding in reviving packfilm, no matter our reservations.

 

[Pioneer]

I may be misunderstanding, but is there a separate box, pull tab, etc for each image?

Yep. Lots of extra garbage for each image. I guess that is why it has to be made of "eco-friendly" paper.

Not too sure how eco friendly the developing pods are though.

In this instance they are probably right, digital is better than this. More convenient, more instant, less garbage and much less costly.

EDIT - Sorry, I am all for supporting new efforts and have supported more than my share of kickstarter projects, including New 55. I also enjoy Lomo and my little Holga, but I just can't get behind this one.

 

[Agulliver]

I'm in...but only to the tune of £10. It looks likely they'll reach their goal anyway....and I also see this as a step towards something closer to the pack film we are familiar with. Personally I'd be happy if they can get 5 or 6 exposures in a cartrdige. But even with this one shot stuff....it allows those pack film cameras to be used again.

 

[erian]

They proudly present what appears to be an utter random crap and it is expensive and their talk is nauseating. But I backed them regardless.

The most important thing here is the package and the pulling mechanism. This is what they have invented. One shot is not good but is better than zero.

Second they have created their own pods. This means that this can be potentially combined with other films (think New55). This is also very important.

I think it is genuinely unique product and I want them succeed and continue to invent and innovate in this niche of niche. We all get richer by simply having this product in existence.

 

[warden]

Yep. Lots of extra garbage for each image. I guess that is why it has to be made of "eco-friendly" paper.

Not too sure how eco friendly the developing pods are though.

In this instance they are probably right, digital is better than this. More convenient, more instant, less garbage and much less costly.

EDIT - Sorry, I am all for supporting new efforts and have supported more than my share of kickstarter projects, including New 55. I also enjoy Lomo and my little Holga, but I just can't get behind this one.

No apologies necessary. When they showed the "origami" solution on the video it looked far superior and a more elegant packaging solution to what they're proposing: more efficient, more convenient and less wasted materials. But I guess you have to start somewhere.

I've never backed a kickstarter and this one doesn't entice me. If I have to throw away a box and other trash with every exposure I'm out. It looks like the Keurig model of photography. But hopefully this is a stepping stone to something greater.

 

[AgX]

For now let's enjoy the fact that someone is trying and maybe even succeeding in reviving packfilm, no matter our reservations.

Yes, per their description you can load only one exposure at a time into the camera.

That is not even packfilm, as such comes in a pack of several films loaded together into the camera and to be operated either each by own tab or like a leporello.

They seemingl try to offer single-sheet envelopes to be loaded individually.

 

[Ces1um]

He wll not. I asked him the same question before and never got an answer. Just that the story we know is wrong. No further details given.

Well, if he's making statements and refuses to provide proof then I'll choose to ignore his opinion. That is until such time when more concrete evidence appears either proving or disproving the current state of affairs.

 

[AgX]

I did not start making statements, people at Impossible did.

You all seem not to understand the interesting philosophical issue behind such:
the first one to make a statement can say what he wants, the critic has to bring up proof...

 

[macfred]

I did not start making statements, people at Impossible did.

You all seem not to understand the interesting philosophical issue behind such:
the first one to make a statement can say what he wants, the critic has to bring up proof...

With all due respect - it would be nice if you could verify your allegations - just to make it a well-founded critic.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

While it would be nice if this is the start of a path back to something close to "where we were" with relation to Packfilm, and I wish it well, I'm personally going to have to pass on this one, and just wish that it results in some forward progress and satisfied backers.

My handful of pack film cameras see occasional action by me placing sheets of 3.25 x 4.25 BW film into reclaimed film holders and loading in the dark. It's pretty affordable at under a dollar a sheet, and doesn't seem to be too much more inconvenient (and seems to involve far less waste) than this interim method described within the KS campaign.

 

[Oren Grad]

From the Kickstarter comment stream (emphasis added):

Andrew Bartramabout 11 hours ago
Doc - Do you have final retail pricing in mind based on various levels of demand? New 55 was out of so many people’s price point and it was difficult to get consistency. Your Impossible film was at an accessible price point whilst generating sufficient revenue I guess to cover costs and feed r&d

Anyway still super excited and can now justify buying that back for my film camera to sit alongside my 103 - thanks Doc

Florian "Doc" KapsCreatorabout 11 hours ago

• dear Andrew. we will most probably land at 29 EUR for a 3-pack of ONE INSTANT. The big difference between ONE INSTANT and also NEW55 and the Impossible Film is that at Impossible film is produced by huge machines, in our case by small passionate people by hand. truly doc

For those who haven't been following, "3-pack" means 3 sheets - that is, almost 10 euro per exposure.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't have money that I can just throw away.

 

[Peter de Groot]

I did not start making statements, people at Impossible did.

You all seem not to understand the interesting philosophical issue behind such:
the first one to make a statement can say what he wants, the critic has to bring up proof...

You are the only one making those statements. I am open to a revised story about Impossible but I have not found anything online that backs up your allegations. I am not saying you are wrong but I cannot find evidence that backs your story. Therefor you have to be the one to provide more information on the subject or come up with sources that proves your allegations. Otherwise you are the only one I know making such claims.

 

[warden]

For those who haven't been following, "3-pack" means 3 sheets - that is, almost 10 euro per exposure.

Just over $10 per image. NOPE.

 

[Peter de Groot]

Always amazes me the amount of folks expecting a replacement of the Fujifilm from the get go and at the same price. Ah well. I will support them because in the end they will be able to recreate pack film in a less complicated way then the old one was manufactured.

 

[warden]

Always amazes me the amount of folks expecting a replacement of the Fujifilm from the get go and at the same price. Ah well. I will support them because in the end they will be able to recreate pack film in a less complicated way then the old one was manufactured.

I appreciate that the product can come down in price with time, but until then who can afford to use the film? Knowing that every exposure is $10 changes how and also how often almost anyone could use this product. I'm assuming for me it would take a good dozen images to dial in the film, exposure and technique to get comfortable with it, and that's a pretty expensive start-up cost. By my third roll of P30 I was in control of it but it didn't cost a fortune to achieve that. I wish them well but I can't help the cause.

 

[Peter de Groot]

I appreciate that the product can come down in price with time, but until then who can afford to use the film? Knowing that every exposure is $10 changes what and how often almost anyone could use this product. I'm assuming for me it would take a good dozen images to dial in the film, exposure and technique to get comfortable with it, and that's a pretty expensive start-up cost. By my third roll of P30 I was in control of it but it didn't cost a fortune to achieve that. I wish them well but I can't help the cause.

I completely understand. I won't be buying it in bulk But I do want to buy a pack every now and then. Just to keep it around. If not for me then for others who can use it to create beautiful art. If I don't have the money I won't buy it but I will not complain or talk other people out of it saying the price is way too high. But yeah high prices suck balls. One of the downsizes of digital. The analoge market has shrunk too much because of it.

 

[Roger Wade]

Peter, I totally agree.

 

[Ces1um]

It is pretty pricey. The cost is understandable and reasonable for what they are doing- but it is just too rich for my blood. Same reason why I don't shoot colour 4x5. The film is costly to start with- then since I'm not set up to develop colour the development costs per photo is just too expensive. I would love to be able to shoot every different format out there but there is a limit to what I'm willing to spend on a photograph (especially one that I take at my current skill level).

 

[mshchem]

I still have a pack of 669 in the fridge. I mourn it's passing . I had more fun with 669, Magicubes and the Polaroid Big Shot.

Best wishes, but I'm spending my money with the remaining film and paper companies.

 

[rbrigham]

hopefully if they have all the materials sourced then
they can make 8x10 in kit form just like it used to be from polaroid
seems pretty simple to me
the hard part would be folding 10 sheets into a cartridge which would obviously be tricky and expensive
but cartridges are just a convenience that is not actually needed
5x4 could also be made and ULF
just need some rollers to put it thru ...
he materials are the only hard part as far as I can see

robin