Topic: Oh come on, this is not cool at all.

[Jeff Warden]

I remember seeing a few of the Mary Ellen Mark high school Polaroids and they were incredible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/arts/design/champion-of-a-polaroid-behemoth-yields-to-the-digital-world.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Farts&action=click&contentCollection=arts&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

[Francois]

Oh well... I guess we should be accustomed to stuff like that by now.
I still have a hard time understanding why it's still so expensive to use. But I guess the reason is probably simply because they always relied on what was but never thought that they would need to innovate in order to make the whole thing more accessible in those harsh economic times.

I can see this being done using maybe with something like Harman Direct and the reagent pack recipe from New55.
That would work without having to hunt down exotic chemicals. Granted it wouldn't be exactly the same but it was inevitable that it would be like that.

[astrobeck]

I am with Francois in using some Harman Direct positive with it.

that would put some cool back in the not cool...

[Jeff Warden]

That is an excellent idea Francois.

[Terry]

That thing looks a lot bigger than 20x24.  Is there a reducing back on it?

[Francois]

It is a lot bigger because of all the mechanics involved in the roller assembly.
Also, the backing paper is wider than the print.
In these cameras, everything comes in rolls, both the negative and the print. For the pods, they use a catapult like system to put them in between the papers. I think the thing is very over engineered but it works.

[Terry]

Wow.  Amazing in a Rube Goldberg kind of way.

[Francois]

And the film transport works using string...
This is more rube goldberg than you imagine...
! No longer available