Is APS dead?

"Alfred Molon" <alfredDELETE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1faef98a1c4b532a98b1b9@news.supernews.com ...
> Just curious, since sales of standard 35mm film are plummeting, sales of
> APS film and cameras should be very low by now. Anybody has some
> statistics?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/

Hello Alfred.

Try posting to rec.photo.equipment.aps and see if you get any responses.

Regards, Ian (Minolta Vectis S1 user).

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:455201cd$0$88704$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> It was always about selling more film. They believed that many people
> could not figure out how to thread 35mm film, hence the cartridges, disks,
> etc. The frame size was to make smaller cameras.
>


I read the same thing. Kodak was concerned over the relatively high
percentage of consumers that couldn't even thread their 35mm film properly.
APS was intended to be somewhat idiot-proof.

It also offered the ability for the processor to make exposure adjustments,
rather than rely upon the user to have to set his own exposure, but that was
when P&S cameras with computerized exposure systems were being introduced,
making it unnecessary to rely upon the processor to correct exposure values.

I believe the idea behind APS was well-intentioned, but the evolution of
electronic cameras was timed to eclipse the benefits of APS. P&S cameras
were threading the film, setting the exposure, controlling the flash,
auto-focusing, and even rewinding the film into the canister when it was
fully-exposed. And they were doing all that using their own on-board
electronic circuits. There wasn't much need for APS by then.

Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com> wrote:
> The cartridge itself was also an improvement over the classic 135 design.

I strongly disagree. Film is best stored flat, not rolled up on itself
in a cartridge. It's easy to look at cut film strips stored in sleeves,
even negatives once you get used to color reversal. The only way to know
what is in an APS cartridge is to scan it, thus unrolling the whole thing.
Those tiny index prints -- don't make me laugh.

At inception, many of us strongly believed that APS was a scam, as it
turned out to be. My principal disappointment was the Consumer Reports
treated it like a serious product and actually reviewed APS cameras,
rather than saying they could not recommend APS until processing costs
were equal to or lower than 35mm, which they never were.

> I recall reading the system specs at introduction, and wondering why
> Kodak was so obsessed with shrinking the frame size. 110, disk, APS - I
> just don't get it.

Less film area costs less to produce. Ya know, they could have shrunk
35mm cameras by eliminating or reducing the sprocket holes and taking
square pictures with smaller lenses. Instamatic 110 might have been the
great success it was partly due to square format.

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com> wrote:
>> The cartridge itself was also an improvement over the classic 135 design.
>
> I strongly disagree. Film is best stored flat, not rolled up on itself
> in a cartridge. It's easy to look at cut film strips stored in sleeves,
> even negatives once you get used to color reversal. The only way to know
> what is in an APS cartridge is to scan it, thus unrolling the whole thing.
> Those tiny index prints -- don't make me laugh.
>
> At inception, many of us strongly believed that APS was a scam, as it
> turned out to be. My principal disappointment was the Consumer Reports
> treated it like a serious product and actually reviewed APS cameras,
> rather than saying they could not recommend APS until processing costs
> were equal to or lower than 35mm, which they never were.

There are often premium price products that CR recommends. The Canon APS
Elph, the only APS camera that ever sold in large quantities, was
popular because of its small size, something you couldn't get anymore in
35mm. It was the in camera for backpacking, skiing, etc., the successor
to the Olympus XA.

>> I recall reading the system specs at introduction, and wondering why
>> Kodak was so obsessed with shrinking the frame size. 110, disk, APS - I
>> just don't get it.
>
> Less film area costs less to produce. Ya know, they could have shrunk
> 35mm cameras by eliminating or reducing the sprocket holes and taking
> square pictures with smaller lenses. Instamatic 110 might have been the
> great success it was partly due to square format.

I think it was the smaller camera size.

x-no-archive:yes

Bill Tuthill <ccreekin@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ya know, they could have shrunk
>35mm cameras by eliminating or reducing the sprocket holes and taking
>square pictures

Yeah, and they could put the sprocket-less 35mm film in a plastic
instant load cartridge. What a great idea. Oh wait, they did that
already, in 1963...

thanks for sharing my point of view :-{)

How smaller size would give you better prints? Emulsion was the same
as 135. Base material was stronger and flatter, but it does not count.

How many cameras had magnetic recording ability?

That part was never implemented in reality. True, it had potential,
but nothing more.

Better cartridge? What's wrong with 135? Storage of APS cartridges was
PIA, unlike 135 film cut into pieces and left in sleeves.

Exactly! NEVER FULLY implemented.

I share your curiosity - why EK was so obsessed with shrinking the
frame?


On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:52:07 -0500, Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com>
wrote:

#In article <lsv2l2h3m2mrh1b81arsgn7dha8g42b7r1@4ax.com>, nailer
#<me@home.universe.org> wrote:
#
#> You are knowledgable person - can you remind me, what were those
#> advantages/potential/benefits, as compared with 135?
#
#Wikipedia has a nice APS article. The primary advantage was the
option
#of magnetically coding information (such as camera settings when
taken)
#directly on the film. Theoretically, processors could use this to
make
#better prints. You could also code things like reprint instructions
#after the fact. The cartridge itself was also an improvement over the
#classic 135 design.
#
#However, the system was quite complex (showing the signs of committee
#design) and never fully implemented. There was even an entirely
#separate OPTICAL information coding system for manufacturers who
didn't
#want to add the necessary electronics. Processors had to accommodate
#all these options.
#
#If developed as an improved 35mm system, APS might have had a chance.
#But since - at best - APS had just over half the frame size of 35mm,
#it never had a chance as a professional product. And the cost of the
#additional features (mostly unseen or ignored by consumers) killed it
#for the rest of the market.
#
#I recall reading the system specs at introduction, and wondering why
#Kodak was so obsessed with shrinking the frame size. 110, disk, APS -
I
#just don't get it. And now of course it seem ridiculous in the face
of
#digital.

no Jim, it was dead on departure.



On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:35:00 GMT, "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:

#
#"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
#news:455201cd$0$88704$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
#> Scott Schuckert wrote:
#>
#>> I recall reading the system specs at introduction, and wondering
why
#>> Kodak was so obsessed with shrinking the frame size. 110, disk,
APS - I
#>> just don't get it. And now of course it seem ridiculous in the
face of
#>> digital.
#>
#> It was always about selling more film. They believed that many
people
#> could not figure out how to thread 35mm film, hence the cartridges,
disks,
#> etc. The frame size was to make smaller cameras.
#>
#> 126 and 110 did sell very well, unlike Disc and APS.
#As near as I could tell, it was dead on arrival.
#Jim
#

In article <45526004@news.meer.net>, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> I strongly disagree. Film is best stored flat, not rolled up on itself
> in a cartridge. It's easy to look at cut film strips stored in sleeves,
> even negatives once you get used to color reversal. The only way to know
> what is in an APS cartridge is to scan it, thus unrolling the whole thing.
> Those tiny index prints -- don't make me laugh.

And I agree with your disagreement! I'd almost forgotten the truly
immense silliness of the way the negatives were STORED, and didn't
include that criticism in an already long post.

From a shooting point of view though, I think you'll have to admit the
APS cartridge design wasn't that bad. It WAS, however, inherently more
expensive than a 135 cassette. But professionals want it good, and mass
market wants it cheap - and this was neither.

"Bill Tuthill" <ccreekin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45526004@news.meer.net...

>
> At inception, many of us strongly believed that APS was a scam, as it
> turned out to be. My principal disappointment was the Consumer Reports
> treated it like a serious product and actually reviewed APS cameras,
> rather than saying they could not recommend APS until processing costs
> were equal to or lower than 35mm, which they never were.
>

APS was a joint venture. I know that Kodak and Fuji were cooperating in its
development, and I believe that Ilford and Agfa were as well.

It was not a scam. It was a well-intentioned effort to produce an AMATEUR
format that addressed what the film manufacturers saw as opportunities to
correct some problems:

1: Consumers couldn't thread their film properly

2: Consumers wanted cameras that took acceptable exposures, without having
to worry about it themselves.

It was an idea that just didn't fly. It was not any kind of scam. And it
WAS NOT, AND WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE, A PROFESSIONAL FORMAT. As far as the
price for processing, the typical user of the APS format took probably 4
rolls per year--and was not negatively impacted nearly as much as pro or
advanced amateur that shot many more rolls per year. This format was not
meant for any of us. It was marketed toward those consumers that found 35mm
to be too daunting.

There was nothing underhanded about it, conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

Alfred Molon wrote:
> Just curious, since sales of standard 35mm film are plummeting, sales of
> APS film and cameras should be very low by now. Anybody has some
> statistics?

APS was doomed from day one, I worked in a lab and we felt it wasn't
worth the expense to upgrade for APS. We saw Disc film come and go, and
many labs never recovered the upgrade costs for that upgrade.

FILM IS DEAD, GET OVER IT!