Polavision: the Product That Killed Polaroid

[@edwardtaylor4785]

I was working in product development at Polaroid when Polavision was being introduced and I got to participate in a lot of the intro hoopla including a HUGE rework program on the player where every one had to be unpacked, tweaked, tested and repackaged. IIR the hardware was made by an Austrian camera manufacturer, Eumig? Land, who was a micro manager of the first order, decided that if he couldn't have a good picture, he was going to have good sound. So for the stillborn, second generation of Polavision, he had a huge engineering effort to produce the best recorded sound technology possible. IIR, several members of the band "BOSTON" were on that development team and one of their gold records hung on the wall in the engineering office. Polaroid was an interesting company crippled by a one trick pony mentality. In the '70's and early '80's I think they could have had their own space program if they had wanted to. The introduction of digital imaging was the end of a company whose business model was consumable film. In the early '80's they were making a quarter of a million packs of film a day and as many as 25,000 cameras a day to go with it.

[@lennyvalentin6485]

Fascinating tale! It reminds me of Kodak, which actually had a lot of digital photography patents and technologies and even made digital cameras, but rather than exploiting it and moving on with the changing times as digitalization marched ever onwards, it doubled down on the self-image ( _ahem,_ not a pun!) that they were a photographic film manufacturing company, not a digital photography company. So of course they went bankrupt, and even though I do believe they still exist in some form or another, who exactly who was born post-new millennium remembers them today? Not many, I think. And even though smartphones killed off consumer hand-held cameras as well as dedicated consumer video cameras, Kodak's refusal to move with the times is why Apple buys its digital camera modules from Sony these days and not Kodak. They could have lived on as a tech slash research and development company, only they didn't. Instead, they're probably just a patent troll these days... :P

[@maxheadrom3088]

Did Polaroid completely disappear or did it leave some important offspring still active - like it happened with Philips semiconductor division that is now called ASML? Thanks!

[@mjfan653]

Kodak really dropped the ball on digital imaging. But, today, I as a 21cen person, still shoot photos on Kodak film. I just like the aesthetic (bs I know) and operating an film camera. They have their charm. And Kodak makes all the movie industry film. Tarantino, Nolan etc. still shoot movies on film. And movies shot on film are actually at an upward trend. Some cinematographers just like film. And of course, it's exposure lattitude is still greater than digital (although any semi-competent cinematogrpher gets their exposure right enough, that the extra lattitude is just that, extra. But, in a pinch it can save a take). Kodak still makes fantastic films, Portra, Ektar, Ectachrome, TriX etc. and fantastic cinema films like the vison3 line. Of course, from their old days, they run the machines at super low capacity, as the demand for film is still as an niche art/hobby consumable, not as THE singular method for photography. If they went a more diversified way (like Fujifilm for ex. who diversified, and now make digital cameras, and used their highend chemical knowledge to start a makeup branch), their company could be valued 10x higher and be 10x bigger. But, as long as film is used in high budget cinema, and as long as high end photogs and hobbyist photography fiddlers live on, film will have it's place. And in the recent years, interest in film photography has increased, not decreased. To the point where Pentax just released a new film camera, and will likely follow up with more models.

[@herbcraven7146]

I'm not sure how long Land and Polaroid worked on this system, but it reminds me of RCA's decade+ long development of CED technology, which, by the time it was ready for presentation to the public, had already been beaten to the punch by both Sony's Beta and RCA's own VHS tape technology. Turns out videotape started both companies down the road to ruin.

[@drctrs]

Both stories are also similar in that in both cases innovative technologies were heavily pushed by the top management of the companies. In RCA it was Sarnoff, in Polaroid it was the owner himself. Therefore, when each company directed all its resources to one very innovative but very risky project, no one could prevent it from destroying the whole company. And so both inventions really turned out to be monumental achievements, but also monumental failures and the proverbial last straw for both companies. This is actually a story about the dangers of a corporate culture that favors one person's vision, which can and eventually will putt the company in jeopardy.

[@stone-hand]

... And the passage to digital and solid state memories greatly reduced (nearly killed) Sony, JVC and many other "heroes" of the VCR era.

[@lutello3012]

And if you wanted a play only disc format, Laserdisc was already out too. If you're going to buy a non-recordable format, buy the one that doesn't wear out on each play.

[@shaider1982]

Hey, watched the drawn out development of the CED on Tech. Connectioms.

[@TheCatBilbo]

​@@drctrsIt's the age old problem of nobody dares tell the Captain they're wrong! Plenty of disasters attest to that.

[@jonathanreedpike]

I was in the camera biz at the time, your history is right on. Well done as always.

[@lucashinch]

So grateful for the historic accuracy with all the details!

[@carlosoruna7174]

same here,, didnt order 1 of these, refused to sell this crap to consumers..

[@dynodon9182]

Memories. I worked for Polaroid at Disneyland in 1980 when Polavision was introduced. We used to rent them. I went around the park and took movies.

[@otm646]

Do you remember what the cost was?

[@quantumleap359]

A department store in town was hawking this system in late 1977. The salesman was shooting film of everyone who was gathering around. The lighting store was adequate but not optimum, so he was using the Twilight ray gun on an extension cord. I had been a single 8 then a super 8 filmmaker for a number of years, so I was quite interested in the system. He popped the cart in the player, 90 seconds later we were treated to the darkest, muddiest, grainiest, blurrierst home movie I had ever seen. Of course, some of the crowd was amazed and astounded. I merely looked at the salesman and said "This thing is a joke! Really, is this the best it can do??"

[@no1DdC]

When did you make the switch to video tape?

[@JohnnoWaldmann]

You haven’t yet seen, and will not see my last hobby video I just shot on a recent Blackmagic camera. So underexposed as to be numinous and uneditable. Sometimes the problem is the camera guy’s vision. Your 16mm skills no doubt dwarfed those of the salesman. None the less, the camera designers vision was outstanding for its time, just technologically short changed and over run by history. Runs on 4 AA batteries, what a game changer.

[@kaasmeester5903]

Never heard of this system... in '77 I would have been 8, shooting movies and stop motion stuff on my dad's Single 8. Back then, Polaroid seemed like black magic to me and I would have been astounded to see instant film. You have to appreciate the effort they took to develop this, a shame really that they never got it to work.

[@lennyvalentin6485]

@@kaasmeester5903 If you pause the above video at the part where it shows the printed magazine ad for this system you can read that the projector box with its tiny screen weighs "only 26 pounds". Well, if Apple had held their iPad presentation and triumphantly declared their new miracle device weighed "only 26 pounds"... Well, the thing would have cratered so fast, of course. Because really, this thing is what smart devices are today. A camera with instant development (actual instant, this time), and a smaller-than-TV (or laptop computer, these days) screen to view it on. :) Plus, you get hi-fi quality sound too, and no loud whirr of motors and gears or rattling of a shutter and film transport mechanism. So yes, a lot of thought went into the intricate design of this camera system and its viewer - but it was all misdirected. This thing, lean, beautiful 1970s industrial design that it is, is what happens when a company tunnel-visions on what it IS, not what it CAN BE if they lift their eyes to the horizon to see what is coming next.

[@eriksnel6461]

I am a Eumig collector and have the polavision system in my collection just because eumig made it for polaroid. It was one of the reasons eumig got in major trouble in the 80’s. Because no one bought the system eumig was not paid for the new factory they built for the polavision devices. There were many other factors in play back then but this is one of them.

[@solracer66]

It's interesting that someone collects Eumig equipment. Back in 1969 my father bought a Eumig Mark S 712 Super-8 sound projector that got quite a lot of use by us kids in the mid 1970s as we made our own Super 8 sound films (back when you had to send the film out to be striped with the magnetic tape) and playing commercial Super 8 films. Sadly over time it stopped working well and got beat up so even though I still have it it doesn't really work. But 5 years ago I found the identical projector virtually new in the original box on eBay and snatched it up so I could view our old movies. I've saved the old one for parts but as the new one is perfect I don't know if I will ever actually use it as I don't watch the films all that often.

[@mjfan653]

Watching old super8 films has a charm and character all of its own. I am young enough, that I grew up with people using point'n'shoots and digital cameras. And yet I shoot on film more photos than digital, and have even ventured into super8. It's expensive, cumbersome and sometimes frustrating, when compared to digital. But, the photos look cool, and while I can brick my computer and lose memory sticks, I'll have my negatives, and they'll stay "readable" for a century, so even when I'm an old fart, 70yrs from now, I can look at all my escapades, as clear (or out of focus) as they are today.

[@craigd1275]

14:46 Sounds like an old gas lawnmower mixed with some heavy industrial manufacturing sounds

[@bobthecomputerguy]

"Ok family, put on your earmuffs! It's time to watch some home movies!"

[@paulperry7091]

Sampling it right now for some heavy metal / acid house fusion tracks😃

[@Curt_Sampson]

And he claimed that the system had no sound!

[@TheCatBilbo]

That's hilarious - the first time it was switched on I bet people jumped over the sofa, fearing an imminent explosion 😊

[@danielstickney2400]

I've run quieter bulldozers

[@geophizz]

I was a teenager when this camera was announced. I somehow managed to save a small fortune to get one when it became available. I went to the camera store the first day it was available. I was stunned at how limited the camera was and dark and grainy the film was compared to Super8. I ended up buying a high end Eumig Super8 camera, projector and an editing system instead.

[@Tesserae]

Do you remember what the price of the entire system was?

[@geophizz]

@@Tesserae I don’t remember exactly, but it was pretty expensive compared to Super8 cameras at the time.

[@daveys]

We had one of these cameras. Not great compared with today but pretty good for the time they were released. Expensive, short duration and no sound though.

[@Broken_robot1986]

I love the idea of video with no sound. Too bad that's not a thing so much today.

[@no1DdC]

@@Broken_robot1986 Soundless gifs were very popular for a long time.

[@fmphotooffice5513]

An entertaining and very thorough presentation in an inimitable style... BTW: @ 3:44 It's called the "diopter" adjustment in other camera systems. Depending on the user's perscription, it allows for seeing TTL, through the lens, without perscription glasses, or in addition to the perscription, with glasses or contacts.

[@extragoogleaccount6061]

For some reason, over the last month and a half to two months, YT dropped you off of my homepage algorithm. I click this one and check out what else he's covered and holy sheeeit the productivity/output is god-tier! I know it isn't exactly accurate, but there are 15 videos before it switches to "two months ago"......basically 15 videos over the last month. If he was in the comments more, I'd love to ask him about his creative process - from ideation, acquisition, research, drafting and script-writing, production, editing, and publication. All of this at a clip of one every other day! Even with help editing or people volunteering an artifact with information at hand, that is truly incredible. Would be an absolutely wonderful podcast discussion. I have long since fantasized about a creating a show interviewing various exceptional KZbinrs with a focus not on their topic or expertise, but on their background, inspiration, creative process, challenges, future direction, thoughts on the state of independent media, etc. But depression has kept that at idea bay indefinitely. If I had the self-confidence and even a minuscule fraction of the productivity of our man here, it may have stood a chance. Let's just say I'd buy his skill share courses, lol. Anyways if you happen to read this, as always this was very interesting and your channel is immensely impressive! Wish you continued successes and I'll shut up now.

[@robertcontri4087]

The equipment was developed by Bell & Howell for Polaroid. It was my first job since graduating tech school and I worked on the viewer. It was fully functioning in ‘72 when I started. Development continued and B&H became impatient for full manufacturing to start and eventually it was moved to Eumig. The viewer with screen was required as the film was too dense for conventional projection.

[@TheCatBilbo]

Fantastic, I love hearing from people who worked with these projects!

[@eriksnel6461]

This project was also partly responsible for the demise of eumig in the 80’s.

[@BronZeage]

I remember reading an article in Time magazine about the unveiling of the Polaroid instant movie camera and a few days later walking past the TV department in Sears. They had a video camera on a tripod that let me watch myself on the biggest television they had.

[@TheCatBilbo]

Sheesh, that's a perfect example of being late to the party! 😊

[@johnopalko5223]

Nice nod to _The Ring_ in the opening.

[@crunchyfrog555]

I vaguely remember these coming out but can't recall ever seeing one outside of store displays. Quite neat - who wouldn't want the soothing sound of roadworks while you're watching your home movies?

[@TheCatBilbo]

That made me laugh out loud, so thank you 😊

[@lordbarristertimsh8050]

I've had questions about this fascinating flop for many years. You have answered every single one of them! Great video, as usual.

[@christianelzey9703]

Reminds me of some of the problems with the RCA Videodisc system. Made sense when at the time the idea was first conceived, ended up taking way longer to develop, obsolete when released.

[@PRH123]

hmm, it wasn’t that it was obsolete when released, it’s that cheaper and lower quality tape came onto the market. Laserdiscs had much higher quality, it was really stunning at the time, but consumers were very interested in the ability to record also, which of course laserdisc didn’t do.

[@danielstickney2400]

@@PRH123 RCA videodisc and Laserdisc are two very different formats.

[@PRH123]

@@danielstickney2400 ah, right, those discs with the styluses, sorry :) although they weren’t so much obsolete, as they were overtaken by laser disc and tape

[@anotheruser676]

Shouting to be heard over the machine: " SONY CALLED! THEY SAY THEY HAVE A HAND CAMERA THAT PUTS IMAGES ON MAGNETIC TAPE AND WANT TO DECREASE THEIR FILM ORDER!"

[@oddball_the_blue]

The irony! A local recycling shop actually has a mint boxed example of one of these in the UK for sale for £25. Weird how when you spot somethin unusual, it's suddenly everywhere.

[@ericwilliams2122]

so true!!!

[@ArnoWalter]

I never understood why Polaroid was hell bent on producing cheap plastic hardware with the cheapest lenses available. I worked in an agency that made heavy use of instant film cameras for documentation, even the SX-70 fell apart in no time. If it wasn't the plastic parts that broke, it was the residue from the chemicals that destroyed the camera.

[@orionmk3]

Can someone with better eyes than me describe what's going on in the Polavision footage? Brilliant demonstration of its flaws, though, and a fantastic video, well done.

[@dxb338]

it appears to be light filtered through some venetian blinds reflecting off of a desk. maybe the shadows of some tree branches too. i dont know though, seems like that wouldn't be enough light for the system. i came to the comments to see if anyone had a better idea.

[@TheCatBilbo]

Oh, it was the attack on the Death Star - Luke turned off his targeting computer & launched...you didn't miss much 😊

[@StanleytheCat-v8z]

I have normal working vision myself, and even I can't tell what it is.

[@dhpbear2]

It appears that the viewer is seriously out of adjustment!

[@marsrevolutionary]

From your topic choices, presentation style, and backgrounds, this channel feels like a B-side Technology Connections. If that's your inspiration, you've got a good guide to follow. Subscribed.

[@madmanmapper]

I have one of these. I have one cassette with a couple of snippets of a kid's birthday party and some outdoor daylight shots. The birthday is really dark, and barely visible. I can understand why these came with the halogen lamps. The daylight shots weren't exposed right, either. The player sucks, too. There are no controls on it at all. It just starts playing when you put in the cartridge.

[@ilmago5291]

Normal super 8 was the same in poor quality and the player was of same quality of all retro projected tv of the time

[@madmanmapper]

​@@ilmago5291 I have a small collection of super 8 home movies and most look perfectly fine, way better than this Polaroid crap.

[@PRH123]

@@ilmago5291hmm, not true, I used regular 8 and super 8, and the films were never dark or blurry.

[@donmear6654]

Absolutely fascinating! Love your content

[@gadgetsgimmicksandtech]

Here in the UK it was not a very popular format - having said that, as I transfer cine film to digital, a client brought me in 19 cassettes of this to transfer a while back. It is based around super 8mm film but runs at 17 fps rather than 18 fps for actual super 8mm. The one issue that I guess was never thought about at the time of production is how the chemical residue would hold up in the years to come. The cassettes that I had to copy had all suffered from the chemical base drying out and cracking. I was able to mitigate this issue with a combination of restoration software and DaVinci Resolve Studio to actually give them some passable material to view - although as you stated in the video, the sensitivity being only 40ASA produced very dark original images. Of course transferring this film results in the destruction of the cassette but it is quite impressive inside with the prism etc.

[@ilmago5291]

Normal super 8 was 25/50 iso and also dark;also super 8 standard makes streacks:the hot of the light of the projector make this problems because cooked the film

[@Elberto71]

Hi, I live in the UK and have a few of these tapes from my childhood, what do you charge to convert to digital format ? If indeed they are savable at all

[@gadgetsgimmicksandtech]

@@Elberto71 I charge £18 per cassette - I have to take the film out and put it onto an 8mm spool and then transfer it on my system and clean it up in post and conform it to 24fps.

[@Elberto71]

@@gadgetsgimmicksandtech nice one, I'll be in touch

[@gadgetsgimmicksandtech]

@@Elberto71 You will find my email address in the "more" section of my channel

[@PaulinesPastimes]

Must be one of the most disastrously timed product releases ever. Released just as home video tape arrived. There was a Philips video tape system before Betamax that also died when Betamax and VHS arrived. I knew someone who had one but I think it only recorded for 30 mins per tape. He was very crest fallen when his new device was superseded almost immediately and they were very expensive. Excellent video as always.

[@thrillscience]

Thank you for a wonderful explanation of this. I was 15 in 1977, and I remember reading about this in Popular Science and Popular Photography. (I was doing Black and White darkroom work in my parent's basement by this time.) Even 15 year old me though it was a silly idea, poorly executed. I'm very impressed by the condition of your Polavision system -- and the noises it makes!

[@jfess1911]

I was about the same age but have no recollections of this tech and I had a mild interest in photography. It probably just registered as "too expensive for me, no need to pay attention".

[@roccocroce]

Fantastic episode. Beautiful work

[@UnregisteredSkeptic]

Wow, just saw this on my recommended page and instantly clicked! So glad that someone finally made a video on this!

[@KellyClowers]

Sounds like you are new here, welcome. Definitely consider subscribing, this channel is consistently great IMO

[@UnregisteredSkeptic]

@@KellyClowers Thanks, but I’ve been around since the CONELRAD video 😆 This channel seems to largely produce content about historical obscurities that I happen to be interested in. OOD is truly a gem and Gilles is a wonderful teacher and creator!

[@geoffreypiltz271]

When I was at school in 1972 we had a school video camera, and I remember attending a city centre display of consumer video cameras. This product was at least 5 years too late.

[@tomjanowski8584]

My Aunt loved her Polavision. Up until she got Polavision, she had movie night once or twice a year to view her vacation/travel movies. With Polavision, movie night was every other Saturday. She usually showed 5 cartridges per night and I don't remember any issues.

[@xToxicNinjax]

It's funny, I started this video thinking "hah Polaroid and their goofy crap machine" but the more I watched the more I realized the technology behind this thing transcends genius on multiple levels, the engineering and science behind everything is very clever, and clearly had smart people working on every part. It made me realized that Polaroid was once worth it's billions of dollars but eventually got filled with stupid marketing executives who prioritized fads and gimmicks, dumping massive amounts of money into complex low-return ideas for the sake of seeming "cool" or creating a closed-loop market that they control entirely. This inspires hope in me that one day google and microsoft might just collapse into themselves like Polaroid.

[@CJSHM]

Discount Technology Connections getting better. Love your stuff.

[@ericlotze7724]

I was JUST wondering if this was made. Instant Film for Video! The timing is impeccable! Off to go check if it has a Wikipedia page + make internal links to it if so and i missed it!

[@marknpm]

It wasn't "DuFrayColor" but Dufaycolor, and was British, not French - though named in honour of French inventor Louis Dufay, on whose Dioptichrome glass plate process it was based. Dufaycolor was rather more successful than Polavision, being used for colour slide and ciné film from its introduction in 1932 until the late 50s. 😊

[@martinhow121]

My father worked for them in1945/6. they had a factory in Boreham Wood, just north of London. I still have some colour slides of his, they are very dense. He was always clear that it was not a viable technology even then. The problems were printing the colour mask and getting the registration of the 3 colours accurate on the film, which was costly and wasteful and the density of the result and the granular picture when enlarged. Kodachrome integral tri pac film was getting to be available and processed by mail order, so much more convenient for the mass market. By the mid 70s it was clear that video tape would be the coming media and would displace cine. I am afraid that Polavision was a last gasp from a company that was clinging to two technologies that were fast becoming obsolete. It's worth remembering that ASA40 was not a slow film even then. Most Kodachrome 35mm was 25 ASA and it was only when Ektachrome 160 arrived with decent grain structure that colour started to speed up.

[@marknpm]

@@martinhow121 Fascinatng! I'd guess one reason it lasted as long as it did on the market was the relative ease of processing it at home.

[@williamevans9426]

I had one of these systems (including the blindingly bright 'twi-light', 'instant replay button', and case identical to that shown here) for Christmas. I remember the cassettes were very short and, due to the density of the emulsion, the developed footage could be seen optimally only in subdued lighting right in front of the player screen. A novelty nonetheless. Around ten years later, I decided to re-view the films I'd made so popped one into the player, only to discover that a wide grey band ran along the centre third of the entire film. Sadly, every other cassette was affected by the same issue, rendering every memory ruined.

[@olddisneylandtickets]

I worked at Sears in 1979, the camera department had these on for $49.99 for camera or projector and no one was buying them.

[@brucegee9134]

What a shame. If this had come out around 1970 like the improved instant still camera, this might have worked. I can see them adding a projector and sound by ‘72. There’s no way it could compete with VHS and Beta in 1980 though.

[@jasonsadventures64]

I was I think 7 years old at the time and I totally wanted that. Too bad it flopped.

[@MattMcIrvin]

I was a kid fascinated by new technology and by Polaroid cameras in 1977 (I think I got a One-Step camera around then or not long after), and this... basically wasn't on my radar at all. I probably had heard of it but hadn't heard enough for it to be memorable. The One-Step (basically, the budget-priced version of the SX-70 instant camera) was a really, really popular camera that emerged around the same time, and it probably would have been a shock to most people in the late 70s to hear that Polaroid was actually in trouble. Their TV ads with James Garner and Mariette Hartley bantering charmingly about their products were a cultural institution.

[@elfthreefiveseven1297]

As a young teen I remember seeing this at Sears while waiting for my Mother to finish a weekly meeting she attended there. Also on display was some of the very early video cameras for consumers too. Both were expensive to my mind and having dabbled in 8mm movies from a yard sale camera I never really got into motion photography. I would get involved with still photography instead and still have that interest today. And yes, we had Polaroid cameras and I still have photos my Father took in 1969 on his camera that had the peel away stuff. (I can remember because I was asleep and gotten woken up to take a photo with my brothers and mom and then one with my brother and dad, and yes I have both photos and do look sleepy)

[@neohabilis7412]

OMG! The things we used to put up with. Thank you Jean. Fascinating look at a moment in our technology history.

[@OldSmokey1953]

I think that you've perhaps misunderstood what the 'focus' slider for the rear viewfinder is for - that's only to compensate for the user's eyesight, not to focus the lens - that's still standard on any digital SLR for example.

[@Tesserae]

Ah, the diopter lens adjustment.

[@williamcorcoran8842]

How incredibly prescient-a 2-minute, 30-second video format, not far off from today’s KZbin Shorts! Polavision shows us that new markets can emerge spontaneously, yet they thrive only with widespread support-like when cameras became standard on smartphones.

[@ilmago5291]

Polavision born in 1968;released in 1978 ten years later also if they say that magnetic consumer videotape existed in 1970 for Philips and 1975 vhs jvc and 1976 Betamax Project was thinked only to a demo of the innovation of the company; Also 35 mm auto processor and polachrome slides was thinked in the 40 s and on the market only in 1983 when slide market start to slow;whit powerpoint in the 90 s and keynote Macintosh software slide became a rarity and polachrome was discontinued in 2005/2006

[@PhilipCockram]

Your face when it turned on ....Priceless.... 😂

[@Ray_of_Light62]

I've read some of the comments and I would like to remind everyone that for the decades when the Standard 8 millimetre projector reigned supreme, the projection had no audio, and the mechanical noise of the projector was overwhelming but it was considered a normal experience. The "griffa" (claw), the bi-pin implement that advanced the film frame by frame - by engaging with the perforation alongside its length - was the major offender as it moved 18 times per second along two axis. It produced noise up to the 30th harmonic. In the mid-70s Standard-8 / Super-8 projectors arrived on the market, some of Japanese origin (Chinon anyone?), and they had vacuum tubes (EL84) at beginning, and transistors successively (AD161/AD162). They could output 4 W eff. of audio power, just enough to cover the mechanical clunking noise of the projector. The speaker was usually included in the cover of the projector, and had a cable long enough for it to be placed behind the projection screen.

[@GordonHudson]

I worked for a major high street photographic company in the UK. They bought all the remaining stock of Polavision in 1984 and sold the kit for £99. But they didn't tell the customers that there was no film available. This ultimately led to mass refunds to avoid legal action.

[@ytthrowaway4584]

Jessops?

[@GordonHudson]

@@ytthrowaway4584 Dixons. Which was still a proper photographic retailer (just).

[@ilmago5291]

In theory film polavision was on the market until 1988;but can be that production was stopped in 1983 and that film 1984/1988 was outdated stock

[@GordonHudson]

@ilmago5291 I think one company had stock, but it was a totally non viable system by that point.

[@ggorter]

My dad worked for Polaroid at the time and he wrote a lot of their documentation including some of the documentation for polavision. When I was a little kid he brought one home and took some home movies but then told us we couldn't tell our friends about it. Those might be the only movies from my childhood and I have no way to watch them

[@DonnyHooterHoot]

Awesome Gills! I have given up trying to buy each item you talk about. My wife and I like to eat. Peace and more videos please!

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

Yep. My parents bought me one of these for Christmas one year: Montgomery Ward was practically giving them away. They bought the main kit plus a few extra film cartridges. I used the four or so cartridges in the first day or two i had and I still have them (and they and the projector still work!) The quality is, as you say, not great and it has not improved over time. Its main issue is just bad timing. If it had been released 5 or 6 years earlier it might have had a chance.

[@cmdredstrakerofshado1159]

Wow at the 14:00 that projector was almost as loud as a old dot matrix printer WoW 😯😉

[@dfpytwa]

On the extremely trashed and abandoned off grid property I bought in the desert and have been living on and cleaning up the last 4 years I've found a butt load of those cartridges in the dirt in various levels of decay. I even found the remains of the smashed up projector. It all went to the dump with the rest of the garbage. Every once in a while another cartridge pops up out of the dirt as well as some regular Super 8 reels. All thoroughly roached and not viewable though.

[@bohenriksson2330]

We had them in the camera store where I worked in my native Sweden. Didn’t sell a single one 😮.

[@dhpbear2]

16:26 - The viewer looks *seriously* out of adjustment. What was on this film?

[@scott8919]

14:46 made me jump because I had this playing in the background. 😅

[@randomaxe662]

It solved a pressing problem of the times: how to make instant porn on the Moon.

[@David.42]

Speaking as someone that has thier father's SX70 Land camera in it's leather case on thier shelf, there was a tiny moment at the half way point that I had to check that this video wasn't published in April.

[@Ray_of_Light62]

In a normal 8 mm projector, you have visibility over the entire path of the film. Moreover, you could splice the 2 min 39 seconds (15 Mt) together to make longer reels. More more over, the Super8 film had a magnetic track for the audio. This Polavision was an extraspecialised product not suited for the general public...

[@KayakTN]

Oh my God, it's SO loud. 😂

[@DrewskisBrews]

LOL! you're not kidding. It sounds like a frigging garbage truck!

[@FineApe]

"Put it in H"😂

[@DrewskisBrews]

@FineApe But take her for a test-view and you'll agree: "Zagreb ebnom zlotdik diev!"

[@SockyNoob]

Love how he's just sitting there staring in disappointment as the projector makes a lot of loud noises lol.

[@hattree]

I saw a photography youtuber get one of these and an unexposed cartridge and make a film.

[@jordanwalsh1691]

I thing that was Analog Resurgence. He tried a bunch of cartridges unsuccessfully, but was later given one that had been refrigerated for the past 20 years or more, so he was able to show the technology functioning more or less as it would have originally.

[@hattree]

@@jordanwalsh1691 It is. I was trying not to mention a youtuber on another youtuber's channel.

[@Tesserae]

@@jordanwalsh1691thanks for mentioning Analog Resurgence. I went and watched it and was I impressed that it worked.

[@LA6NPA]

You misunderstand the purpose of the viewfinder focus. When looking through the viewfinder, it's best not to wear glasses. Therefore, you adjust the viewfinder focus so you can see clearly what will be exposed to the film/sensor. All more or less professional cameras have this. It makes adjusting the focus for the film/sensor SO MUCH easier, when you can see what you're doing. Even digital viewfinders have this, so you can see the tiny screen clearly.

[@billr3053]

diopter adjustment

[@LA6NPA]

@@billr3053 Yep.

[@MezeiEugen]

40 ASA was not insensitive for the time. in fact it was considered high sensitivity in the home movie department. Kodachrome and all the other reversal films for 8 mm were 40 ASA or slower.

[@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg]

It speaks to human vanity, and the folly of having a single, authoritarian, charismatic figure at the head of any organisation. Democracy is terrible, but the alternatives are a whole lot worse.

[@youownittakeit]

great episode , thank you , just found you

[@ilmago5291]

Problem of polavision was that wasn’t instant:instant film was immediately developed on the go outside and at home of friends or in a restaurant in the party’s Bulky polavision player was also the developer machines and works only whit electric current not whit battery Polaroid cameras make instant prints immediately ready to share whit others:polavision make a movie not ready to be viewed from others:not existed lcd viewfinder to view movie like vhs camcorder;and polavision can t be projected and needed to hold bulky heavy proprietary monitor/developping machine and this was an other cost to sustain In a party a standard super 8 or polavision instant super 8 not maked the difference:people that use polavision needed to return to home to develop and view the movie and this ruin “The magic”

[@LeicaCat]

My dad bought one of these that I used to play with as a kid in the’70s. I thought it was pretty cool at the time.

[@screaminlordbyron7767]

So you could use super 8 with better quality and can be projected onto a wall or watch polavision , a murky image on a small screen. RIP Polaroid

[@zuzkazuzka8284]

16:46 I’m confused what is this we are supposed to see here? Is the light path correct and we are focused on the correct plane? Feels like we are focused on the surface of the fresnel lens itself

[@ibrahimkocaalioglu]

Amazing history thank you. Very informative well organized 10 / 10

[@cargo_vroom9729]

Why is the camera's pistol grip backwards? I think it might be so you can hold it with a comfortably bent elbow since it's not actually a pistol with recoil.

[@richardbrown1189]

I've read and heard several reviewers mention the réseau of Polavision and Polachrome images. However, in all the reproductions of the images I've seen there is no réseau visible. The colour dot structure is random in a similar way to the Lumiere Autochrome.

[@wiesejay]

@14:45 just remembered I have to mow my lawn

[@robertreynolds1044]

Listening to the machine made me think, "goodness me, goodness me, industrial disease "My name is Bicycle Bob and I approved this message.

[@hughs591]

A fascinating and very well told tale, thank you !

[@jamesmorgan9280]

Great video! Thanks!

[@RottnRobbie]

Regarding film sensitivity, ASA 40 (5:13) wasn't all that bad for the time. Kodak was still selling Kodachrome 25 (ASA 25) 8mm movie film into the 90s, and Kodachrome 40 (ASA 40) for sound cameras into the 2000's. With the small size of 8mm film, you needed very high resolution to get reasonable detail, and slower films had the small grain size required by the tiny film. It was more a limitation of the 8mm format than anything specific to Polaroid's implementation.

[@Iowa599]

Will compact VHS cassettes fit in that?

[@HelloKittyFanMan]

I bet there's that lighted indicator in the VF even when we _don't_ switch between the two focus settings.

[@ernestcline2868]

It might have been a success if it had a 30 minute runtime. But at only 3 minutes, it would have been a flop even without the competition from videotape.

[@johnopalko5223]

The Kodachrome movie cassettes also gave about 3 minutes runtime and they were very successful. The image quality was a lot better and the film sensitivity was higher. Plus, once you mailed in your exposed film for processing, there was a delectable _frisson_ of anticipation waiting for your movies to come back. A 30 minute runtime would require about 650 feet of film. That would make for an awfully large and heavy hand-held camera.

[@ernestcline2868]

@@johnopalko5223 Super-8 offered sound and by the time Polavision debuted, 10 minute Super-8 cartridges at 24 fps had been available for several years. I stand by my assertion that even without videotape, Polavision would have flopped.

[@altheaheaton4014]

I bought this Polavision product in 1981... it's been sitting in my basement for over 40 years. I would like to digitalize the film since many of my family members are gone... is there any place I can send these cassette tapes to salvage what hasn't disintegrated? Everything is in the original boxes but I can't seem to make the projector work... I will look at replacing the bulb but it doesn't even turn on... your information was very helpful. Can you still buy the cassettes somewhere? Or do I just toss everything? Is there anywhere I can take the equipment and have it serviced so I can play the cassettes?

[@Oldbmwr100rs]

They should have skipped this whole mess and put the technical development into the slide film which actually worked very well. Honestly if the slide film had entered the market in 76 or 77, likely the demand would have started Polaroid's move back into at last some profitability. As it was, it would have been another godsend into the professional market, much the same as some of their larger format specialty printing systems.

[@moot6794]

Obviously, it would be impractical for most people, but with regard to restoration, once developed, could you respool the 8mm film and display it on a standard 8mm reel?

[@spyderlogan4992]

At 5:35 I think you meant to say 'KLUDGE'. Which of course, by definition, it is. Cheers~!

[@andrewcorner2971]

I love the idea of this, imagine having the ability to shoot video and watch it on a little screen straight away.

[@stevecastro1325]

19:56 The “kooky” pictures of Britney Spears are sadly prophetic.

[@michaelogden5958]

That image reminds me of some of the stuff provided by militaries to show airborne attacks. Maybe a couple of buildings in the distance awaiting destruction? On the business side of things, I imagine there was some honcho in a plenary meeting saying "We are going to launch this product on [MM/DD/YYYY]. Figure it out. The deadline will be met. If you have any questions or issues, get with one of my sycophants - err... my upper management people."

[@TigerBoyRS]

Another excelent niche video content, Polaroid was cool! Cheers 🍷

[@HelloKittyFanMan]

If this system runs _off_ a relatively small 140-watt projector bulb then what kind of light does it run *ON?*

[@ericlotze7724]

A modern take at this would be neat to see!

[@constantinosschinas4503]

The design looks awesome.

[@AppliedCryogenics]

Wow, lucky break in that you found a working cartridge with cinematography by David Lynch!

[@jcksnghst]

When you activated the system with a bad cassette was hilarious!

[@almag6872]

I'm curious why you didn't mention one of the main reasons for this system's failure to catch on; specifically its incredibly high price point. As I recall, upon its release in 1977 the price was a whopping $700 (equivalent to over $3,500 in today's dollars) with the 2 minute cassettes costing somewhere around $20 apiece (again, over $100 in 2024 currency.) That high price structure alone caused people to ignore Polavision from the get-go even before its substandard design problems torpedoed its sales campaign.

[@edwardwood6532]

Comparing it to the emerging magnetic technology, it was not not enough. I think I heard Kodak could have been a pioneer in digital and they were afraid to go into that as they were quite comfortable in analog technologies.

[@59phonebone]

zomg Wow, was the player really that loud as it sounds here?!? I feel like I need to go to the airport for a little peace and quiet now.

[@DinoLondis]

I heard about this, but never knew it went to market.

[@wailingalen]

Might have been a flop but I can see it being a cult classic among tech enthusiasts. Kind of how there are filters to make cell phone camera images look like 89s film images. Looks so cool!!!

[@NoosaHeads]

I have one of these kits and a 'fridge full of the film. I've been very lucky and all films, so far, have come out fine. I also agree about the 35mm film. I really liked it. It has a character all of its own.

[@Livingdiceman]

I remember seeing these things at garage sales for years during the 1980s. Glad I never bought one.