Ok this isn't a great example since there are a lot of variables unaccounted for, BUT

PE you have to remember the pano shots were cut outs of the top and bottom which means the surface area was VERY small, smaller than 110 and perhaps disk too.

But they would enlarge them to for the height of 4inches in a standard print... See...

If you look at the detail, the non cropped image of the tree is fairly clear

The stretched out panos look blurry/out of focus and grainy...

This is because the cameras made had crappy lenses, and crappy lens+less surface area of film=crappy photo...

I have better images off of a 110 roll taken with one of those "spy" cameras you got from an arcade gallery with 100 tickets!

So APS was bad not only in ultimate surface area, but if you blow up (pano) an area of film that isn't pin sharp to begin with because its taken with an elf camera, you get blurry pictures, I don't care what the data on the specs of the film are and that you can "Technically" blow it up to 11x17, in reality that's untrue because the stats are based on perfect DO glass lenses in a test lab, not realistic ones sold to consumers.

The real test is how your final product actually looks in the real world...

Also I have fond memories of 110, they WERE easy to take with you even without a purse but they were also cheap, Advantix was not.

I don't quite follow the 126 description, I'm not understating about the frame "flash" thing. How does that affect affect development?

Also sorry if this sounds angry, it's not, I just haven't had my coffee yet

I still respect and admire you PE for your knowledge and clear thought processes, I just agree with diopositivo this time


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk