In case you haven't read about Kodak's Advanced Photo System, I've saved a
copy of the FAQ in /u/kaplan/lynx/advantix.shtml which you should be able to
read with more or lynx.

Brace yourself for the ads.  "Advantix" is going to be Kokak's biggest
campaign ever.  Several things that are good about Advantix were also good
about the (now deceased) disc camera.  Did the industry learn enough from
the disc that this new system is going to catch on? 

23 responses total.

For those of you with net access, that FAQ, many press releases, and other
info is available on http://www.kodak.com

Apparantly Kodak developed (or at least shared) the technology with camera
makers and competitive film makers.  To me, I see one disadvantage: smaller
negative size.  Picture quality is dependent upon negative size.

A bonus, at least for some, is you do not have to deal with the leader.  The
new film cartridges are "leaderless" and you drop them in and the camera does
all the film threading for you.  There must be other advantages, however, but
I don't know what they are.  I can't believe people would switch to a new
system for the sake of not having to deal with a leader.  Maybe they would
enter the photo field with this camera, however.

I saw something about this on CNN.  Kodak did a lot of research and testing
to try to avoid another disk camera type of failure.  It's supposed to be very
new tech, including a whole different film formulation and backing, complete
with magnetic layers to store digital info about the lighting conditions, etc,
so that the processing can look that up and see if some kind of correction
would be useful.  

I have sat behind the printer at one hour photo labs and I find it hard to
believe that data passed from the camera to the printer would be more useful
than having a slightly expirenced eyeball look at the negative.  I guess the
idea is that it will take a less skilled person to operate an Advanced Photo
System printer than a regular one.  It might also go faster if the human
doesn't have to look at each negative.  It'll cost less to process the new
film because less area means less chemicals hit the film.  It'll cost less
to print because it's more automated.  And they'll charge more for it.  Hm.

  I like the aspect of being able to take panoramic shots with it. There were
many opportunities to get a panoramic shot and get more of the mountains or
Sandstone Falls. I think with regard to that one feature, I would probably
buy one, but I would still like more info as to price and film and all that.

I had heard about that feature, but it slipped my mind.  It is my guess that
it really isn't a panoramic lens, but an "editing" of the top and bottom third
of the negative space to give a wide print.  If this is the case you could
do it with any negative.  Does anyone know if the panorama shot uses a
different lens than the normal shot?

The CNN feature showed a 3 position "panorama" switch on the camera.  This
*is* a case where the lens could possible squeeze more onto the film, and the
magnetic backing could tell the developer to go for panorama mode on the
print.

One neat developing feature (one that's sure to cost more) is that all the
images are thumbnailed onto a "master print" you can use to pick frames for
enlargement. The negatives remain inside the original roll, so you don't have
to worry about finger prints.

Right, as the pictures are printed, each image is recorded digitally and at
the end of the roll, the digital images are composed into the index print.
Before the photofinisher finishes with the roll, they put it back into the
cartridge instead of cutting the negs into strips and throwing away the
cartridge.

I'm pretty sure that all existing panorama photos are done by leaving blank
film at the top and bottom.  I hope that Advantix pictures can expose longer
pieces of film instead.

re #8:
        No, the advantix takes a full frame and then the "panorama" is done
        during the printing process.  You can even decide if you want a pic
        as panorama, close-up of standard _after_ you've shot it!

Now that this camera has been out for a few months, what kind or
response is it getting?? How are the pictures [quality]? And the
cost?  Any info/insite would be appreciated, especially3
since I can't use the web to access the info mentioned earlier
in the item [my computer doesn't have anough access...].

If I get a chance, I'll scan some of the search engines to see what can be
found.

I scanned dejanews and there were 38 hits for "advantix"
In Altavista, there were 178 hits.

Here is a typical one:
                                         Deja News Retrieved Document (p2 of
3)
glenn.olsen@trw.com (Glenn Olsen) wrote:
    
>> think preventing people from seeing their negatives is a
>> REALLY BAD THING. 
> 
>So, has anyone actually _tried out_ APS?  How is it, really?
  
Yes, I've tried Fuji 100, 200 and 400, Kodak 100, 200 and 400 and Agfa 100
and 400 APS films using an Advantix 3600 IX camera. The results are pretty
impressive and at least as good as you would get with a similar 35mm point
& shoot camera and a comparable amateur film. Obviously a 35mm SLR will
give better results, especially if you use films like Reala. The "real   
test" will be how APS performs agains 35mm using the same lens (that will
only be possible when Canon of Nikon APS SLR are available in the spring).
 
 
 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Johan W. Elzenga                                   Editor / Photographer
Burg. Verheullaan 59                                      jwe@dataweb.nl

I'm durious a

Darn, I hate it when this happens! 

Anyway, I'm still curious how things with these APS cameras are now
doing, now that there are other companies making these cameras, too.
I was looking through a photo magazine last night that had a number of
pages with lots of these cameras, what they do/features, and price ranges.
And on the upper price ranges ARE cameras with a [an] interchangeable
lense[s].  Is the film quality/deveolopment doing well with these photos?

I would be curious if anyone had the total cost (film + developing) comparison
between 35 mm and Advantix.

Hmm, next time I talk with my sister-in-law [who lives in MI], I'll
ask her and see if she remembers [she borught one of these cameras a
few months back].

I stopped at Huron Camera today and looked at a Canon "Elph" camera which uses
the advantix film type.  This camera is fantastic from several viewpoints.
I plan to get one.

1.  It is the smallest camera I have seen yet.  It is slightly smaller than
    a deck of playing cards.    
2.  It has a zoom 24-48 mm lens 
3.  It has a real sturdy stainless steel body and auto lens cover       
4.  Unfortunately, it is expensive at $299 

A few things I found out about the advantix format:     
 -  Huron says it is comparable to 35mm on a per shot basis for cost of 
    film plus developing (I did not actually price it)  
 -  If you want to shoot a shot in panoramic format, fine, but if you later
    decide you want to develop the same shot full frame (or vica versa) it
    can be done easily  
 -  If you are shooting 400 speed film and want to switch to 100 speed, just
    take the 400 out and pop in a cartridge of 100.  When you go back to the
    partial roll on the 400, the camera finds the correct spot in the film
    automatically.

Huron had panorama shots and standard shots available to view.  The panorama
were much more color saturated and sharp than I expected.  This appears to
be the best choice for a travel camera.  

Well, I've got to start saving . . . . . 

Cool, Marc!!  Thanks for passing on this information!!  A couple weeks
ago, I viewed some prints of [I think, a lesser expensive camera that
uses the advantix format... And though they were taken by a very good
photographer, I wasn't really impressed with the overall quality. The
prints seemd to be slightly grainy/out of focus [and she had used
the various formats--the panarama, the 4x6 and the 4x7]. Comparing her
prints with the ones I just got back using my Pentacx [autofocus, zoom
90/wr or whatever its called], I liked mine a heck of a lot better...
But perhaps her camera was on the lower end of the price scale and
thus, a lesser quality over all??

 I do like the small size of the camera Mark mentioned AND the ability
to choose the various formats, even after the picture is taken AND
the ability to switch back and forth between film speeds. But the
end result HAS to be great pictures to make it worth while... So
while I'm saving up, too, I need to check this camera out, too!  :-)

Here is some additional information about Advantix and about the Cannon elph
from the December 96 issue of PhotoGraphic Magazine:            

Elph:  Focal length 24-48 mm, Iso range 20-10,000, shutter speeds 2-1/500sec,
       Street price $300.       
        - Hybrid active/passive autofocus from 1.5 ft to infinity
        - Magnetic IX (whatever that is - anyone know?) 
        - 3-segment metering,
        - built in autoflash with red-eye reduction
        - 2x allglass aspheric power zoom lens
        - durable stainless steel body  
        - 3.6 x 2.4 x 1 inch size 
        - 6.3 oz.       
        - "and all the great APS features"              

APS film:  Article:  The New APS Films - they're remarkable             

        - APS film cassettes offer true foolproof drop-in loading, three print
          formats (classic, hdtv and panorama) that can be selected before or
          after shooting on a frame-by frame basis.     

        - But because APS film is smaller than 35 mm film it must be enlarged
          to a greater degree to produce a given size print.  Normally this
          would mean the APS print would be grainier and less sharp than the
          same size print from a 35 mm negative.  However, a couple of factors
          combine to make APS quality match that of 35 mm.      
                - First the new APS films are better than current 35 mm films.
\                 (the new films reduce grain size to 1/3 to 1/2 that of 
                   conventional 35mm film)      
                - Second the smaller super-thin based APS film lies flatter
                  in the camera and printer than 35mm film which makes for
                  sharper images.               
        - films are available from Kodak and Fuji of 15,25, and 40 exposures
          per cartridge.  These cost slightly more, but result in the same
          cost per shot.

          The above quoted and paraphrazed from the December 96 PhotoGraphic.

The last response was written a year ago.  Is it still true that APS film has
finer grain than available 35 MM film?  Sounds silly that they would sell the
best quality film grain only in the smaller format.

At the time, I talked to the owner of Huron Camera and he told me that the
finer grain would soon follow in standard 35 mm films.  

Not silly at all, given they were selling a new format.  Annoying to crusty
old curmudgeon 35mm holdouts like myself who might want the new film w/o the
new camera, though.

(Actually, I'm just a casual vacation photographer these days).

Well, now that Advantix has been out for awhile, what do y'all think
of this format??

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss