All right, no one's killing folk today, on account of our very tight schedule.

Mal ,'Trash'


Buffistechnology 3: "Press Some Buttons, See What Happens."

Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!


§ ita § - Feb 22, 2008 5:44:21 am PST #4865 of 25501
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Man! I knew they were doddering towards an end, but I'm sad to see them go.

I love digital photography, but it doesn't fill all the niches for me that Polaroid does. It really will sting seeing normal film going the same way. I hope it's not for a while, if at all.


tommyrot - Feb 22, 2008 5:45:49 am PST #4866 of 25501
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

I think normal film will never go away. It'll probably end up being a niche product that artsy people will continue to use.


Vortex - Feb 22, 2008 6:11:07 am PST #4867 of 25501
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman

I think normal film will never go away. It'll probably end up being a niche product that artsy people will continue to use.

yeah, I think that Kodak said that they were willing to license the technology


Sean K - Feb 22, 2008 6:26:19 am PST #4868 of 25501
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty

Man! I knew they were doddering towards an end, but I'm sad to see them go.

I love digital photography, but it doesn't fill all the niches for me that Polaroid does. It really will sting seeing normal film going the same way. I hope it's not for a while, if at all.

This is a huge thing, in its own way. First, Polaroids were THE way you recorded costumes, props, sets, actor locations, and anything else you wanted to record, shot by shot, on film and TV sets.

They've now been replaced almost entirely by digital cameras. In fact, when I was training to be a script supervisor (AKA "continuity," AKA the person who takes the MOST Polaroid pictures), I suggested the use of a digital camera to my old school teacher, and she laughed off the suggestion with a hint of contempt. This was just four years ago.

It's also kind of sad, because I know of a couple of artists who paint with photography, using Polaroids. Basically, the emulsion can be manipulated as the picture dries, and it comes out looking like an expressionist painting.

Now those artists have been handed a death sentence for their art.


§ ita § - Feb 22, 2008 6:30:27 am PST #4869 of 25501
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

those artists have been handed a death sentence for their art.

I'm not going to lay claim to any art, but the spirit of my polaroids was always different from my digital or normal film pictures. I've been diving deeper into digital photography, but I'm going to make sure I get some film practice in there--especially infra-red.


Sean K - Feb 22, 2008 6:32:19 am PST #4870 of 25501
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty

I'm going to make sure I get some film practice in there--especially infra-red.

That could be really interesting. I'd love to see what you do with that.


tommyrot - Feb 22, 2008 6:45:50 am PST #4871 of 25501
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

Photos taken in the near-infrared spectrum are so cool....

eta: near-infrared photography info: [link]


DCJensen - Feb 22, 2008 6:48:09 am PST #4872 of 25501
All is well that ends in pizza.

Polaroid is trying to find someone to carry on with the instant film tech.

Polaroid has also made a new tech called Zink™ for "zero ink." It uses crystals of the CYMK colors in layers to produce images. The first Zink™ device is one that spits out photographs you send it from a digital printer.


§ ita § - Feb 22, 2008 6:55:30 am PST #4873 of 25501
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I hve one photo extant from my previous foray into IR. I'll have to check if either of my digital cameras can capture it--I hadn't thought. The google search results look interesting. I'm not fiddling with the hotmirror, though.


tommyrot - Feb 22, 2008 7:10:56 am PST #4874 of 25501
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

I hve one photo extant from my previous foray into IR.

Ooh - that's cool. (Or, you know, warm. and cool.)

eta: What's interesting to me is, the way it's always explained is that we have a visual spectrum, and right next to it we have infrared, which is heat radiation. But actually, we have near-infrared in between the two, and near-infrared is not heat radiation. So it's like we humans have a "blind spot" in the electromagnetic spectrum that nobody talks about. (Of course, the whole rest of the spectrum could be considered a "blind spot.")

Also, can't some animals see ultraviolet light that we can't? I think some animals/insects can see in near-infrared.