this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
81 points (98.8% liked)

Wikipedia

1807 readers
444 users here now

A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.

Rules:

Recommended:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hopefully he's still around and you can ask him about the relative image quality between those formats. If he was interested in quality, he wasn't going to grab the disc camera. It wasn't like Betamax where it was superior but lost a battle in the marketplace. Disc film was objectively much worse than even 110 while being much more expensive to buy and process.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I understand the difference in quality between a 120mm neg and a 10mm neg, especially considering the lens was a shitty little piece of plastic a centimeter from the media.

he's not around any longer. my point was that it wasn't for dumb people who didn't know any better, it was a novel film format that a lot of people bought because it was different and interesting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it wasn't for dumb people who didn't know any better

I mean, it kind of was though, wasn't it?

Just because more knowledgeable people found it interesting and got it for the novelty or to see how it worked doesn't mean it wasn't a product intended for people who, Kodak hoped, wouldn't know any better. That doesn't mean I'm saying your father didn't know better.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

yeah fair enough.

I actually got a bit nostalgic and interesred due to this post and read the wikipedia article about them, and supposedly the prints were supposed to ne made with this six lens process but few labs got the equipment needed, and continued to develop the film with standard three lens systems, so the photos came out with half the quality the producers intended

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago