Somehow that reminds me of the unsuccessful dinosaurs that only lasted 200 million years compared to the so successful mammals that are still around. Some of those unsuccessful film formats lasted 70 years or so.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday > This begs the question of optimized for what. Attempts were made by Kodak > to do > just that, using a variety of formats, 828 roll film was an attempt to > remove the > double sprocket holes to result in a more efficient use of the same width > stock as > 35mm, 110 was optimized to give 4x5 or 8x10 enlargements using the full > frame thus > allowing for acceptable enlargements with a smaller film size. 126 was > designed to > make loading a camera more efficient as well as providing a square format > which was > extremely popular when it was introduced on, once again, film using stock > the same width > as 35mm. All of these formats have two things in common, they were > designed to have > certain optimal characteristics are dead or dying. If you look back at > various formats > introduced by Kodak you will find all had something to recommend > them. Some were in > use for a very long time but all except 35mm and 120/220 are virtually > extinct. I'm > not sure how to measure it but on empirical evidence film formats have been > in some > way optimized. It's just obvious how.
