Talk:Advanced Photo System

message: Does anyone know if APS negatives, once processed, are safe for long term storage inside the cartridge?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.35.56.100 (talk • contribs).
:I imagine just as safe as any other processed film in some sort of protection. The film is protected in the cartridge, but temperature and humidity are still important. I don't know what else to add. The film in an APS cartridge is (almost) identical to than in 35mm, 120, and other sized film. --Imroy 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably safer than the other film, due do the canister it's stored in.  However, said film still deteriorates with age, and can be damaged by magnets(as information is stored on the film magnetically).--Vercalos 06:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

message: If I take an APs camera outside of the US is it likely that I will be able to find APS film?  I am just wondering if I would be adding dead weight if there is no film APS available.  134.250.72.174 19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I occasionally see it here in Australia, but it's usually only one or two types of Kodak "Advantix" film and maybe Fuji Nexus or whatever it's called. Processing is more expensive as well. It'd be better to go with 35mm or digitial. --Imroy 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a slide film made by FujiFilm briefly, there was a standard for encoding IX data on the slide mount.  Kodak made a chromogenic (B&W C-41) film, and the film was availible in boxes without cards, just not widely.  Retailers, like everyone involved in APS was counting on big profits & wanted to use every marketing trick in the book to get people to buy this stuff. Cranialsodomy 07:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign 

message: Did the fact that 35mm cameras can now be made auto loading and very small like the Olympus Stylus Epic Also help make this format obsolete?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.180.10 (talk • contribs) .
:The compactness is already mentioned in the text:
:"These developments, combined with the fact that 35mm cameras could now be made almost as compact as APS-format cameras, prevented APS from attaining greater popularity."
:How easy is the auto loading of this Olympus camera you cite? APS really is "drop in", whereas I thought the compact 35mm cameras still required the user to tuck the film leader under a tab in the back of the camera. Still, that's certainly easier than getting the end to latch onto the take-up reel. --Imroy 15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some compact 35mm cameras really were drop in loading.  You just dropped a 35mm cassette in and closed the door.  The camera grabbed the leader and fed it onto the take up spool. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  35mm Also 

message: *A small number of manufacturers still produce APS films.[citation needed]
I work in a photo lab and we get APS film in on occasion(usually at least 5 rolls a week of APS).  Now I know that there are manufacturers that still produce APS film, but I don't know if the citation tag is referring to the manufacture of APS film or if it's referring to the 'small number'.  I can provide evidence of the former, direct from Fujifilm's official site(http://www.fujifilm.com/products/consumer_film/index.html), but I don't know if this counts as a cite-able source.  Can anyone offer any clarification?--Vercalos 06:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick question 

message: The "Adoption and Marketshare" section ends with this orphaned paragraph:
:"APS film is 24mm wide. A patent was issued to Roger Field for the use of 24mm APS film for motion pictures, using eg. the 22x12.4mm picture format for 16:9 production for TV and cinema, offering 35mm picture quality in a motion picture camera hardly larger than a 16mm camera."
It comes out of nowhere and needs more explanation; it should really be closer to the beginning of the article. Who is Roger Field? What became of his patent, and his process? When was the patent awarded? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV and cinema 

message: can anyone tell me if developed APS film can be digitized? I do digital scrapbooking and would like my APS file transfered to cd's. thanks for anyones input.
Lonna  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonjeanwat (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't it be? You may have a time getting the negatives out of the shell, but ask a local photo shop if they can give it a try. It's just cut-down 35mm material after all - their negative scanner should have an adaptor. And there's always just feeding the prints through a normal scanner, I've done that with a pile of APS photos before. 193.63.174.11 (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Erm ... any film format that you could get a print out of can be scanned and digitised. Most particularly if you've already made prints, you can just put THOSE into the scanner. You probably wouldn't have too much difficulty using a 35mm scanner either, if you can get the negatives out of the shell, but would have to crop the frames down manually. You may find the resolution slightly disappointing as well, depending what you expected; your average consumer negative scanner only offers about 1800dpi, which is equivalent to 2400x1600 ~ 2560x1706 (or quite possibly 2560x1536 / 2560x1920 depending on the sensor employed) for 135 film ... or in other words approx 4 megapixels. APS would reduce that to, on a good day, using the full 7x4 APS-H frame, about 2160x1200... or only 2.5 megapixels, and only as many "lines" as offered by a rather basic 2-megapixel digital camera, with all the improvement in resolution coming from the wider aspect.
When you consider that the minimum print resolution required for a good-looking photo is approx 150dpi, the result really wouldn't allow you to go beyond about 12 x 8 inches, and you'd be happier with it at about 10 x 6 (for a sharper 200 dpi) - and if you cropped or zoomed it, the problem would be further compounded; that's equivalent to a zoom/crop ratio of only 2:1 for an acceptable 6x4 print at 150dpi.
Thus you might be better off getting a good optical print of the originals (perhaps high quality enlargements, even), and using a good photo scanner to read THOSE in. A 7x4 print scanned at a true optical 600dpi can then have a similar 2:1 crop but still be blown up to 12 x 8 and still look as good as the scanned negative. (That, or find somewhere that can scan the negs at a genuine, guaranteed higher resolution.) .... bear in mind we're not even bothered about the grain, here. That's by the by, is analogue and rounded by its very nature, and is just accepted as part of film photography. Squared-off pixels are much starker and ugly looking.
(Not as bad as 110, though - with the same machine, you'd be looking at more like 1200x900, or barely more than 1 megapixel - and the 5.5 x 4 prints have noticeable grain when scanned even at 300dpi) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  digitize the film 

message: Another uncited statement: "Despite the added features, APS never really caught on with professional photographers because the film area was just too small"
I don't dispute the fact that it never caught on with professionals, but was this really just because of the frame size?  Was APS ever marketed to professionals?  Did anybody make professional APS cameras?  
Eggybacon (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of those things that's true but hard to source, because it's hard to prove a negative. This review of the Kodak DCS 315 (which was based on a Nikon Pronea body, one of the few APS SLRs), has a few choice quotes, e.g. "Few professionals are likely to have heard of the Nikon Pronea 600i, Nikon's first APS SLR introduced in 1997. In itself this could hardly be considered to be a professional camera, though it does have the ability to take their standard 35mm Nikon F mount lenses and has a small built-in pop-up flash." The impression I get is that - with the exception of the Canon IXUS, and then only in the context of Andy Warhol-style nightclub photography - APS was never aimed at the professional market. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the point I was trying to make - that APS was never marketed or developed as a professional format, so the statement as it stands is misleading.  I don't think the film area was the reason.Eggybacon (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  While your argument may be retorically correct, but frame size is a reason in and of itself. APS offers lower image quality with no, to a proffessional, significant advantage. See how popular Fullframe is these days. --84.208.113.245 (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality cameras were made that used existing Canon and Nikon SLR lenses. Earlier, SLRs were made for both 126 (Instamatic) and 110 (pocket Instamatic) film. I suspect that this is something we will never know.  As well as I know, 126, 110, and APS were all designed as high quality film formats, but mostly targeting at amateur users. But this is true, historically, for many films and film formats. Professionals have always been a relatively small part of the film users, ever since Eastman made the first Kodak. I will guess (WP:OR if I actually did any R) that Kodak hoped for some high-end amateur users, now often called prosumer. Gah4 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Never really caught on with professionals' 

message: Did APS maybe use cheaper, lower quality film in its cartridges, seeing as it was meant as a point-and-shoot consumer system that would rarely be enlarged beyond 4 inches high, and not to compete with high-end, high definition 135-based interchangeable lens systems and the like?
I'm just starting to ask, after having made comments above about comparing it to 110 when it seemed the format was based on a 24mm frame (and thus effectively only half a 135 frame, and not quite equivalent to two 110s) and thus the poor quality seemed explicable... it turns out that it's actually a 30mm frame instead, and closer to 135 all round than 110.
But my observed results, with film and cameras of a similar (low) cost, is that the quality of APS shots seems rather closer to 110 than 135, not the other way around. If we think in terms of digital camera sensors, then assuming an equal pixel density, 135 is equivalent to about 4 to 5 megapixel (depending on how much of the available frame is actually used), APS to about 2.5 megapixel (with a slightly wider aspect), and 110 to maybe 1.2mpx at best (slightly narrower). There should be an identifiable improvement in grain and over definition at each step along the way, but the two smaller formats seem rather more similar, and 135 rather more different from either of them, than would be expected from this relationship.
(Or to put it another way, if they're all printed four inches high - thus, 5.25, 7.2 and 6.0 inches wide - the improvement in linear resolution should be x1.29 between 110 and APS, and.... huh... wait... 1.44x from APS to 135? I guess the change in aspect is deceptive. Even so, that's not far off 1.3 and 1.4x, it's not like it's 1.1 and 1.9 or something. Maybe screen resolution comparisons would be better; 110 is conceptually 256x192, APS 448x240, and 135 is 512x352... no? Oh, I give up.)
tl;dr anyone know if they used the same quality film stock across all three formats, or whether one or the other maybe got higher quality film? (Either 135, or maybe in fact 110 in an attempt to compensate for the small frame size - with APS having the same grain as 35mm?) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding from marketing material I read at the time was that APS was supposed to use BETTER film than 35mm and that this was supposed to make up for the smaller frame but what in practice happened is that the better film designed for APS was made available in 35mm as well. 188.222.186.27 (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of filmstock?