What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
59 Comments
- creep303, on 01/09/2009, -1/+39ALF IS BACK...IN POG FORM
- empeethree, on 01/08/2009, -6/+35shake it ... shake it ... shake it like a Polaroid picture...
- teh_techie, on 01/09/2009, -6/+31Actually... DON'T shake your polaroid pictures. Contrary to what OutKast tells you, it can ruin your pics if you shake them.
In the "answers" section on the Polaroid Web site, the company says that shaking photos, which once helped them to dry, is not necessary since the modern version of Polaroid film dries behind a clear plastic window. - cricketsymphony, on 01/09/2009, -1/+15i don't see why you're getting dugg down. you're right, and it's funny that Polaroid actually had a press release about this after that song got popular.
- absurdist, on 01/09/2009, -1/+12The company using the Polaroid name now has nothing to do with the Polaroid Corporation founded by Edwin H. Land in 1937...
- maxedo, on 01/09/2009, -0/+9For the tech-savvy person with short-term memory loss.
- skip0110, on 01/09/2009, -2/+10This is total crap. The old analog deal worked way better for on the spot prints.
- tzon, on 01/09/2009, -0/+6I totally agree. I still have enough instant film to last till the end of the year for my 600 and Spectra cameras. After that, I might look into the Fuji Instax which has moved into the US market now. I also use Fuji's peel-apart films as well.
- BossKey, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4Dugg up for accuracy....
- iignotus, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4No.
- inactive, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4I agree. There are quite a few people in the film industry who are completely crushed by the extinction of the original format. These hardy little photographs could be written on (nice blank space), be hole punched and carried all over the film set on a giant ring without falling apart for the 6 weeks or longer they are needed.. AND the batteries would keep your hands warm on cold days ( If you use bailing wire to connect the contacts on the battery each film pack came with it would heat up. You have to be careful but it was a nice warm feeling on cold days.)
It's great that they're still doing print on demand because film folks can use them but now their prints will get destroyed or have to be organized in some way that creates more work for them.
LONG LIVE THE ORIGINAL POLAROID!!!! - Jerky1312, on 01/09/2009, -0/+4They should implement this instant print technology into CD/DVD Writers, so that we can have colorful labels all within the drive bay. LightScribe and LabelFlash don't quite cut it with one basic color shaded into a graphic. Also, this tech probably looks better than the inkjet label printers.
- dullnation, on 01/09/2009, -1/+5Actually, it loses the whole polaroid quality and just looks like a generic digital print...
- MetalHead73, on 01/09/2009, -3/+6You missed a couple shakes..
- hellgurl104, on 01/09/2009, -1/+4i like the old one's better. they looked... cooler. haha. ;)
- elizabethb221, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3There's an app called Poladroid that you can get for free online...
- superfusion, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3Holy *****, this actually makes sense.
- Grolsch, on 01/09/2009, -3/+6Those cameras been awsome. I might get this new one.
- Abomonog, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3I was thinking along the line of you take a picture and wait 90 seconds for it to show up on the digital display.
- odetonarwhal, on 01/09/2009, -3/+6Nice to see they are trying but I don't see this going anywhere. Polaroid already had a camera that did 2x3 inch instant sticky prints and they halted production because no one bought them. I'm a photographer and I used sx-70 for my whole life. The digital version will never replace its original film counterpart.
- acmaurer, on 01/08/2009, -3/+6this is so cool - can't wait to see it!
- acroyear2, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3i disagree. i can this as a popular item for social events and girls.
- acroyear2, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3I hope Polaroid uses that line in their commercials.
- bachlau, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3Long live SX-70!
- pinchduck, on 01/09/2009, -1/+4"Unfortunately, you'll have to wait to get your hands on the camera: Polaroid says it will go on sale in late March or early April."
Nah, there is nothing unfortunate about having to wait for a crappy printer attached to a crappy camera. I'll pass on this one. - seantubridy, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3I think more people would rather they just kept making film. Or at least let someone else make it. http://www.savepolaroid.com
- Orcmors, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3That's one shake too many. It's considered playing with yourself now...
- aychseven, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3takara tomy has the xiao out already. although it may be japan only, i'm not sure. i saw one of their ads on the train the other day and it was hilarious. check it out here: http://www.takaratomy.co.jp/products/xiao/
go there and click on CM Gallery - DeadPlasmaCell, on 01/09/2009, -1/+3Cool idea, though I don't know why you'd want to pay $200 for the same Polaroid quality photos.
- fety, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2crappy photos? no thanks
- davidjunit, on 01/09/2009, -5/+7Nice to see an old company adapting to new technology.
- TypeEE, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2I think it's an stupid idea. It's not like you can't preview it on your camera right away.
I think what's more important is some menu that allow your friend to select which one they like when they are previewing, then when you get home, it'll automatically send those over to your friends. - superherogirl, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2oh..... Oh.... OH! i just got turned on a little.
- adkenc, on 01/09/2009, -1/+3i'd rather have film for my iZone. sticky film. no sticky film. fortune film. whatever, just some damn film! i loved that thing and its tiny pics.
- inactive, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2 I hope it has the ability to run or charge off of USB.
- maqikelefant, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2"So someone take her picture,(click, click)
so i dont forget her (click, click)
i wish i had a polaroid,(click, click)
so i could remember
(click, click)" - vilago, on 01/19/2009, -0/+2"As a camera, it's primitive. It doesn't have auto-focus, just a switch for infinity or close-up shots. The resolution is five megapixels, far below that of cheaper compact cameras. Neither of these things matter much for the quality of the prints, which are small and of low resolution anyway, but they do matter if you want to use the digital captures for other purposes.
Like some other cheap digital cameras, there's a substantial lag from the time you press the shutter to when the picture actually is taken, making it nearly impossible to capture action or fleeting expressions.
The prints are narrower than the image captured by the sensor, so you can't print the exact image you see on the screen. Substantial slices are trimmed from the top and bottom of the image to produce the print. In the default shooting mode, the camera doesn't warn you about this effect. You can crop images you've shot, zooming in on parts of them, but there is no way to reduce the size of the image to fit it all on the print.
The life of the rechargeable battery is limited, because of the energy needed to heat up the prints. You can get a bit more than 20 prints on one charge if you do them in one sitting. If you make a print only now and then, you'll get fewer on a charge, because the camera will need to heat up the print head every time. (The old Polaroid cameras didn't have battery problems, because most of them had batteries built into the film packs - a brilliant design. But enough nostalgia.)"
These are all fatal design flaws, and ruin it for me. I must say the original was better and i don't get polaroid getting rid of something special. that said i'm just gonna stick with my normal digital camera. - maqikelefant, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2So. *****. Cool.
- graemee, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2Actually they had that tip longer than that song was around. Everyone would shake the SX-70 type film to make it develop faster. It doesn't and since the gel inside could be moved around until it sets the shaking could smudge the picture.
Of course if you wanted to you could manipulate the dyes before they set and create some unique pictures. I have some of a ceramic skull that I "drew" a grim reaper figure around with a coin. - gmoney1, on 01/19/2009, -0/+2The second half of that is a given.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2Patented instant photo process is not the same as lumping a generic camera with a generic portable printer anyone can do that (at least until apple patents "lumping a camera with a printer")
- dojocasino, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sARczR72ZDY
- Nature1, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2This sounds cool, but the whole reason I liked real polaroid pictures was for their film quality... this is digital. It's a whole different ballpark. I know the new picture quality was described as being close to the old one, but it will never be the same.
- Nairebis, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1I take it you've never owned a Polaroid camera. The fun part of them is being able to take pictures and hand them to people.
- Khast, on 01/09/2009, -2/+3I thought Kodak did this with their Easy Share printer dock. (If I remember correctly, they had versions which were battery operated.)
I know, it's not the same, because the printer is a part of this camera....but WTF, if I want to bring a camera, wouldn't a light camera be more ideal? Polaroid instant cameras were excellent, way back when the only other option was to take your film to a developer. Now, I can preview my photos right in the camera, and in a lot of cases pull the memory card and put it directly into a printer, and get options of many sizes and qualities, or direct into a computer for e-mail or storage.... - jaypatel, on 08/06/2009, -0/+1In other news, Nikon releases strong shake-proof cameras
http://konsulted.com/blog/?p=41 - kadoc707, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1Awesome.
- inactive, on 01/11/2009, -0/+1sounds like they should hook up with Silverbrook (silverbrookresearch.com)
- inactive, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1I was expecting the new Polaroids to print a picture faster. I guess I'll stick to my photo printer.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is