Polaroid Will Make Instant Film, Camera Again

[dingumf]

The new Polaroid should be both digital and analog.

Both an analog pic and a digital one is taken at the same time, through the same lense.

 

[ghazgull]

This is good news to me, sometimes getting to a computer just isnt possible to extract the files.

 

[runswindows95]

The BEST thing about Polaroids was you can't make a hoax photo with one. If I ever got into a legal issue, I would use a Polaroid to take photos before I used a digital camera.

 

[tacoslave]

runswindows95,

hell yes thats why i have one, i work at a daycare and while the kids where napping i took a picture of them with a polaroid (it was for these little place holders that they were making for there parents) and when one of the photos came out there was this little blond girl that wasn't supposed to be there and she looked like if she was fading away. i instantly shitted my pants and because its a polaroid nobody doubted me.

 

[tanderskey]

@the film vs digital crowd:
my understanding is that when digital cameras passed the six-megapixel mark they were considered "as good as" those taken using a camera with 35mm-sized film. my understanding of "as good as" was that they captured detail at the same density when compared as 8x10's. this is a bit simplistic of course because there are other factors to consider besides film size, and megapixels of course.

one advantage defenders of film will often tout is films' superior "latitude" -- the number of steps it captures between white-white and black-black -- which can produce better, more consistently usable results, in very bright conditions (eg snowy mountain side).

film, has disadvantages too, of course ... one practical one being that it cannot be immediately reviewed and must remain in complete darkness until processed or its ruined. and, of course, pragmatic decisions like ... if your post production tools are digital why not capture in digital?

not sure if Polaroids count as film cameras, per se. i think of them more as printers with a lens on 'em.

... but as long as they make one that'll fit in my pocket, i'm interested.

 

[princeofdreams]

Sorry guys, but i don't buy the argument of film being better in this case, yes a hasselbald camera takes amazing quality photo's, and I guess so do Canon. But a polaroid instant camera does not have the same fidelity by far, a digital image can be stored far longer than a polaroid photo also, and this is why I said I don't see the point.

I am not knocking film cameras per say just i don't get why go back to this, small inferior quality photo's that will fade and are so small they hardly show any detail anyway.

But hey were all entitled to our opinions

 

[jabliese]

@FSXFan

There is more to life than the beautiful curves of a woman. A lot of those moments can best be captured and shared with Polaroid.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]It's cheaper and more convenient than buying those cute little printers and their expensive ink.[/citation]
Not even close. The break even point is at something like 50 pictures, including the cost of the printer offset by the difference in the cost of the digital vs. Poloroid instant camera - and the prints are clearer and last much longer. It's a novelty.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]chunkymonster[/nom]Opinions vary on the number of megapixels needed to match traditional film. I've read that the MP count of 35mm film can vary anywhere from 10MP to 87MP. The wide variance depends on the type of film, ISO, camera and lenses used, and subject of the photo. So, it could be argued that a 12MP digital camera can reproduce the image quality of traditional 35mm film. But one thing that digital images will never be able to reproduce is the clarity of the photo. This is simply due to film not breaking the image into pixels. Specifically, you can zoom into a photo taken with 35mm film and see minimal blurring at the edges of letters, numbers, and shapes, whereas when you zoom into a digital photo (no matter how many pixels) those same edges will be blurred because you are viewing individual pixels. Agree with this or not, there are countless examples available on the net, just Google it.[/citation]
You can't be serious. The digital/analog debate went out in the 80's. I'll bet you own a record player and claim you get better sound than a CD...

 

[p05esto]

There are many professional reasons why instant photos are required at crime scenes, parties, events or anythign where you need to capture and quickly print off a hard copy. Those stupid little printers are a joke to people who need this instant service. Polaroid cameras provide some people with a much needed service.

 

[FSXFan]

[citation][nom]p05esto[/nom]There are many professional reasons why instant photos are required at crime scenes, parties, events or anythign where you need to capture and quickly print off a hard copy. Those stupid little printers are a joke to people who need this instant service. Polaroid cameras provide some people with a much needed service.[/citation]
1. WHY would a cop (or detective) take pictures he needed to print right away? Most already have computers and printers in their cars already anyway. I've seen cops with digital cameras for years.
2. A party is hardly a professional reason, but I've never in my life been to a party, had someone take my picture and felt like I had to have a copy right then and there.
3. Ok, maybe events. I've been to one event in the last five years where a Polaroid COULD have been useful, but still, they just brought their own printer.

I like the idea of it going digital like some have said here, but unless Polaroid is doing something like that I just think supporting these is kinda like beating a dead horse. Like the guy still saying "I don't see any reason to switch from Windows 98" (yes, I know a couple of these people).

 

[FSXFan]

[citation][nom]jabliese[/nom]There is more to life than the beautiful curves of a woman. A lot of those moments can best be captured and shared with Polaroid.[/citation]
And ANY moment that can be captured on Polaroid, can be captured on digital with better quality and for less money.

 

[Guest]

I don't understand the "fading" comments, I collect vinatge polaroid photos and 99% of them are just as bright and crisp as if they were taken today. Look in the "found polaroid" group on flickr to see what I mean: http://www.flickr.com/groups/polaroidfound/pool/

For the people yammering on about digital is better, let it go. You can't compare the two so calm down already. No one will take away your digital camera and make you start using a SX-70. If you don't want to shoot film, don't. It's as simple as that.

 

[Guest]

Digital does not have the "personality" of a Polaroid... I regularly use a Polaroid 250. It is perfect for quick shots. If you want digital, then scan your photo.

Film is readily available for most models, it is simply the best choice for most "on the go" photos.

A good Polaroid (metal body, Zeiss View/Rangefinder) takes very high quality pictures.

I challenge anyone to compare a properly taken Polaroid photo with a digi one.

Happy Snapping,

-Kyle

 

[borntooloose]

Where is it?