Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,523   Posts: 1,572,255   Online: 730
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66
  1. #41
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,382
    Images
    65
    That would obsolete all of their own old cameras then.

    PE

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    That would obsolete all of their own old cameras then.

    PE
    I guess.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,073
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_film#Fujifilm:

    Instax series ISO 800 films, ACE series ISO 800 films. Compatible with Fujifilm's Fotorama ACE series of instant cameras. (discontinued June 2010), 800 series ISO 800 films. Compatible with Fujifilm's Fotorama 800 series instant cameras. (discontinued June 2010), F Series ISO 160. Compatible with Fotorama F series instant cameras. Discontinued in the mid-1990s

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    That would obsolete all of their own old cameras then.

    PE
    Exactly so they (Fujufilm) would still have the technology/machines to still produce but that would have to be done by some other company that specializes in discontinued instant film production e.g.TIP

    I don't know anything about the instant film production process but if the technology is available surely a niche market company like TIP would jump at the opportunity to create a bigger market as then all fuji product owners that utilized 800/Ace films are customers and old Kodak product owners as well? Seems like a deal for all.

    Thanks

  5. #45
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak did not produce a peel apart product. It was produced internally but never sold on the open market.

    Kodak did produce Ektaflex C and R for prints. They were sold up until the end of the lawsuit with Polaroid.

    I ask one question here. Was the Polaroid win good or bad for us all using hindsight? Was the GAF / Pavell lawsuit good or bad for us all? IMHO, all of them were bad for all concerned.

    PE
    In hindsight, it was bad. Oh well....
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  6. #46
    ektachrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gedney, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    69
    I have one of these cameras and have had some of the film.
    The films I hav had are:
    PR-10
    Instagraphic Slide film
    Instagraphic Print film
    PR-144 Trimprint

    Also, the PR-10 is ISO 160, the Trimprint is ISO 800!
    On a final note, you can use 1 shot of polaroid spectra/PZ film in one of these cameras.

    Ektachrome
    P.S I have attached some pictures
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSCI0672.jpg   instagraphic.JPG  
    Kodachrome, Plus X, 669, 600, Ektachrome, BW400CN, FP3000B.
    Every time I find a film I like, they discontinue it!

    Long live film!

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,073
    Just before the Polaroid lawsuit was settled, Kodak was working on a slide film (really a 'lantern slide') and projector. It was peeled from the picture unit (like the Trimprint film) and there were plastic slide holders to hold the film. To the best of mu knowledge, it never hit the market (although there were external trade trials). Loosing the Polaroid lawsuit ended the product.

    A year or so after leaving Kodak, I was invited to visit Polaroid. I had an hour (or so) discussion with a senior manager about to retire and we swapped stories about projects. When I mentioned the transparency film and projector, he went over to a cabinet and pulled out a small projector and asked "Like this?"; it turns out Polaroid also worked on such a product.

  8. #48
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,382
    Images
    65
    At that same time, we at EK were working on an ISO 3200 print material for all Kodak instant cameras. Some of those sold had an ISO adjustment made by the pack when inserted into the camera. This film used metalized dyes that had extremely good image stability. There would have been nothing like it on the market for speed or stability.

    This was all lost due to the law suit. Even though this chemistry was like nothing on the market, the judge also acted on the "idea" of instant being infringed by Kodak and so we stopped all instant work. It is interesting to note that Polaroid did not go after Fuji.

    PE

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Even though this chemistry was like nothing on the market, the judge also acted on the "idea" of instant being infringed by Kodak and so we stopped all instant work.
    Yup, the judge (in Boston) decided the case on the basis of a 'concept patent' - instant photography - and not on the actual technologies used. I had an acquaintance who was a Xerox patent lawyer, and he strongly supported the 'concept patent' approach.

  10. #50
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,382
    Images
    65
    And yet our attorneys said that "concept" approach could not be used and EK would win.

    On another note, the EK copy machines were not challenged by Xerox even though they could have used the "concept" approach. Kodak used a flexible sensitized sheet, while Xerox used a fixed metal plate.

    PE

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin