KODAK PROPERGANDA

Post by **Mogzy** » Wed May 10, 2006 6:10 pm

Or maybe Kodak employees are allowed to have a sense of humour?
I Put it down to transatlantic culture clash.

Post by **gianni1** » Wed May 10, 2006 6:11 pm

I got a "Keystone 60 Second Everflash" that does cine with Polaroid 3 x 4 inch film at the frame rate of 1.5 minutes per frame. For some reason Polaroid didn't bring a lawsuit to Keystone or Berky that made it. Cost me three pounds sterling at a camera fair in the sticks way out of west London.

http://static.flickr.com/53/118290667_230db64839.jpg

Gianni

Post by **John_Pytlak** » Wed May 10, 2006 6:16 pm

Mogzy wrote:Or maybe Kodak employees are allowed to have a sense of humour?
I Put it down to transatlantic culture clash.

I certainly have a sense of humour. :lol:

Post by **pippin** » Wed May 10, 2006 6:45 pm

I believe that Polaroid developed their instant movie system in line with Eumig and the fact that it didn't go anywhere helped precipitate the demise of Eumig. I understand that Eumig had 5,000 employees in 1975 but were bankrupt within 10 years. In any corporate terms this was a disaster and a very sad story for the employees of a company that had started only in 1919. Video was of course the reason for this and Video is the reason why we now struggle whereas of course we should be enjoying the benefit of a further 30 years of technological improvement in small guage film technology. The polavision story is a sad reflection of the times. I am sure Kodak had looked at the polavision concept at the time - after all it was developed as a rival to conventional Super 8, but it may be that there is now no-one in Kodak who was involved in this at the time.

Post by **reflex** » Wed May 10, 2006 6:55 pm

PHILIE-T wrote:Why havn't they released a Poloroid film camera (24fps).

1. No one would want expensive "instant movie film" in a world of cheap digital video cameras.

2. Polavision was an unmitigated disaster - it didn't work well and sold poorly. The cost and effort to develop it are a significant part of why Polaroid went under.

3. Kodak doesn't have such a product, nor would they ever invest tens of millions to develop it.

Post by **etimh** » Wed May 10, 2006 7:09 pm

PHILIE-T, you're pushing your luck, little man. :evil:

Tim

PHILIE-T · Post by **PHILIE-T** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:06 pm

etimh, please do not post satanic images at me.

Firstly it's scary

Secondly it's strange

and also Tim....

your a wally!!!!

Post by **TronX** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:08 pm

Philie-T, how old are you? I'm 15 and you can't possibly be older than me. All you ever do is post meaningless garbage which I assume you think is funny. This forum is designed as a medium for small format film makers to find answers to serious questions. It is not for some annoying jerk to post crazy and unfounded comments that do nothing for the filmshooting.com community. In answer to your question, Kodak never developed instant film because they had already been sued by Polaroid for producing instant still cameras. As a result they were ordered to retract all instant cameras they had sold and replace them with Polaroid cameras. So legally, instant Kodak film was not worth the risk. Also, instant film was a terrible product. In theory it seemed like a great idea but if you think about it for more than 5 seconds you realize that it's just a really crappy image in Polaroid format. Polaroids are not revered for their picture quality so why would an 8mm polaroid be any good? Your suggestion for having a camera with processing chemicals inside of it sounds okay too, until you realize that that places dangerous chemicals in the hands of anyone. I wouldn't trust myself with these chemicals and I certainly would never trust you. Also, the chemicals require specific temperatures that would add a huge bulk to the camera. Accordingly, I estimate your instant film camera would weigh close to 300 lbs.

Please think before you post, Philie-T.

Tim

(PS - To make this comment useful to the filmshooting.com community here is a link to a list of cameras that will meter Ektachrome 64T properly: http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Super_8 ... ld_cameras)[/url]

Post by **Mogzy** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:11 pm

In the UK we don't have lunatic asylums anymore- we have something called "Care in the Community". Just to put the international community in the picture. :roll:

I could always ask our un-armed police (yes, seriously, unarmed!) go round to to Phillie T's for a cup of T and a stern talking to.

That said- freedom of expression is under attack at the moment in the UK, so I guess he could just be using this opportunity to use it while he still can before Blair's unarmed gestapo and their "respect agenda" come round and serve him with an asbo!*

* Stands for "Anti Social Behavior Order". It's a piece of paper which says "Don't do it again!". It's the latest law enforcement technique in Britain.

.... OOPS! Now I'm being silly! What a hypocrit am I?... But if I admit to being a hypocrit, doesn't that automatically not make me a hypocrit? My head hurts. Back to the land of the sane methinks!

Post by **TronX** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:18 pm

Sorry about the whole 'abso' thing Mogzy. Are absos absolute? (sorry, bad pun.) Still, there's no excuse for being an idiot. (That goes for Tony Blair and Philie-T.)

Post by **Mogzy** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:29 pm

Oh, I agree, don't worry!

viewtopic.php?t=13957

PHILIE-T · Post by **PHILIE-T** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:43 pm

[quote="TronX"]. Also, the chemicals require specific temperatures that would add a huge bulk to the camera. Accordingly, I estimate you instant film camera would weigh close to 300 lbs.

Please think before you post, Philie-T.

How very rude. Im so sorry if you think the idea of an instant movie Camera 'CRAZY'. Obviously it wasn't that crazy otherwise Poloroid wouldn't have invested millions of dollers in it.

Please, just because you think the idea is 'CRAZY' doesn't make it so sonnny Jim. It's that sort of flippant off hand comment i would expect from someone who has been taught how to think.

Why the bloody hell not have a camera with a SEPERATE developing tank that could take carts. Im sorry but it really isn't that out of this world.

Your estimate of a 300lb camera had me laughing for minutes. The poloroid system was 2 units.. One was the camera and the other was the processing unit.

Yes the chemicals are dangerous. But what does your daddy fill his car with? Here is a clue PETROL. Drop a fag butt in your dads gas tank. BOOM
your dead.

you see. Hazards exist in our life daily. Its people like you creating a demonic aura around photo chemicals that holds back advances in film.. like the poloroid system.

With all due respect. You sir neeed to engage brain before writing off a torrent of aloofness.

Post by **flatwood** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:43 pm

PHILIE-T wrote:Ive noticed, everytime someone mentions Kodak, John pops his head up ....

Methinks a serious film maker would see this as an advantage.

Post by **Mogzy** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:49 pm

[quote="PHILIE-T

How very rude.[/quote]

People in glass houses...

Post by **TronX** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:58 pm

First, at least my "torrent of aloofness" is not filled with the grammar of a kindergartener. Your spelling reaffirms my theory that you are younger than me, probably seven - at most.

Second, Polaroid invested millions of dollars (not dollers) in instant movie film because they had the money to burn and the idea was completely revolutionary. When the system came out there was no video and people were somewhat amazed by the process. But the shitty image quality and high cost, along with the birth of video, doomed the product. Money has been spent on much worse things than Polavision. Case in point, the money spent buying you a computer.

Filmshooting

KODAK PROPERGANDA

p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a

Re: KODAK PROPERGANDA