Happy!

Very cool news. The only problems with polaroid film, at least older film, is it tends to fade over time, much quicker than traditional prints. The other problem is the wrapping around the film tends to come apart as well, even when stuck in a family album. I've got numerous polaroid pictures in the family albums from the 70's and 80's and many of them are fading or the wrapper around the film itself is coming apart. Hopefully the new products will be more robust to handle the aging process more gracefully, lol. Just my 2 cents. :-)

I just don't see the point when you can use a digital camera...

It's cheaper and more convenient than buying those cute little printers and their expensive ink.

After the public outcry over them stopping production, you would figure the management would see value in the instant film division, and they wouldn't have to unretire the product.

"Let's get rid of our flagship, name-brand associated product..." Brilliant!

There are lots of people that prefer to hold something in their hand. Many from older generations are like that and there is nothing wrong with it. In the long run film and such will die out, but hopefully by that time the odds of losing precious moments, due to hardware failure, lack of backup, and what not, will be no more common place than losing that slip of paper with that woman's number on it.

Cool!!! They need to incorporate a decent lens and a digital sensor somehow!!!

Film will never die out, my opinion but I believe this has solid ground. Some of the BEST photographs are taken with film based cameras. Most lightning photography is still done with film.

makes me wonder:

anyone know if digital cameras have caught up to the quality of film based cameras yet? i have stopped following this a while ago.

d

16 MP is better than film quality.

Film will eventually die out for most applications as digital sensors have surpassed it in dynamic range.

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.

I know quite a few artists who use the instant pictures for the novelty of it. They scan the images, white borders and all, to make digital artistic pieces.

Here's a few samples:
http://aimless-thing.deviantart.co [...] 2-98958165
http://andrika.deviantart.com/art/ [...] d-42454248

What Polaroid need to do here is make their old product, but make it digital too. The pictures you take are stored in the whatever quality MP, but you can also choose an instant print option to produce the photo there and then. Digital camera plus the instant photo that Polaroid are famous for.

I'm interested in seeing what they come up with. I mean kodak has the closest thing to it with their dock printers or wireless printers but it's still a separate unit (which isn't bad).

Only bad thing wondering if this will weigh a lot considering all the technology packed into it.

ukcal,


I was going to suggest the same thing - they'd make a killing. Whenever you're with friends at a birthday party or social gathering and take a photo, they'll always ask for copies. You can print multiple copies immediately and distribute.

Great minds think alike, JWL3
And i agree completely for those kind of scenarios.
Let's hope Polaroid listen to our words of wisdom!

good great news.dont think that everything needs to be done in digital cause film still does the best movies/photos.............
not your digital tools or toys.

and you can still view photos taken in the 1800's.wonder where your ancestors will see your jpegs like they will forever use jpeg as a standard but film is film and it won't go away for a long time.

I always thought Polaroids were only good for taking boobie shots of your girlfriend, or other nefarious activities you couldn't be caught with while getting your film developed. Generally not the top notch kind of photographs anyway. Digital cameras arrived and nobody needed Polaroids anymore.

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.

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

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.

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.

@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.

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

@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.

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.

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...

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.

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).

And ANY moment that can be captured on Polaroid, can be captured on digital with better quality and for less money.