The Kodak Smile Classic instant camera

[@davidjgomm]

I have to say that the muted Zink prints reflect my life much more accurately than their more vivid counterparts...merry Christmas everyone.

[@MichaelMentessi]

♥️

[@larrylentini5688]

Do you need a hug?

[@dawgnolsactivities5491]

At least there are Techmoan videos to watch. I tell you when I'm having grey one I watch Techmoan review graphic equalizers and replace belts.

[@harveywallbanger3123]

*through early morning clouds I see...*

[@fedsinnorth-dakota9810]

Same here I’m still living in year 1972

[@Endoplasmic-Reticulum]

Legitimately the most underrated channel on KZbin! Your production quality and content far surpasses 90 percent of other channels.

[@AndersEngerJensen]

The reason why it takes so long between the press of the button and printing, is because it has to do what we call a RIP in the professional printing world. It’s short for Raster Image Processor and still needed in 2019 for the analog mechanics of actually printing something, regardless of it being ink, laser or other means of reproducing a digital image on an analog medium. The processor in this camera isn’t the fastest in the world, obviously, so it takes some calculation to convert a 16 megapixel image. You’ve all experienced it when sending any sizeable documents or pictures to your printers. Banging, swearing and being irritated that it doesn’t respond. That’s the computer and the printer handling the process of converting those data into something a printer can handle. Best regards The Graphical Engineer 😘

[@JacGoudsmit]

I guess the requirement was that the picture should be ready for viewing in the same time as the classic Kodak pictures. And they were successful with that. "It's under one minute! Good enough! Ship it!" :-)

[@zusurs]

Anders Enger Jensen Sorry, but your argument doesn’t hold up - these days even the simpliest FPGA general purpose chip (not even talking about dedicated purpose-built image processing chips) can handle 16MPx raster conversion in a second. Such chips are available from multiple vendors for a few dollars. This camera is simply cheap crap, assambled from the lowest possible cost parts, and sold for a huge margin, just to make some quick money from nostalgic 30-40 yr olds.

[@easyflamer]

would the experience be better improved then if there was more feedback that the camera was processing the image?

[@GeorgeBryantLuxtylo]

@@easyflamer Yeah, just a beep or recorded shutter sound would be enough to let you know that the image was actually taken, then the wait isn't much of an issue.

[@timbdotus]

matsv201 Really? You should let the people that developed JPEG viewers for the C64, IBM PC XT and other 8/16-bit machines know. I’ve also personally done a JPEG compression algorithm for a 16-bit TI MSP430 processor before. On these machines, decoding (or encoding) isn’t fast, by any means, but it’s possible.

[@JoaoSilva-yh4dg]

Damn that's a nice castle you have there, Lord Matt.

[@dschonsie]

that's just where his servants live

[@beagleuk3233]

That's Haigh Hall in Wigan. I work there

[@Clay3613]

@@beagleuk3233 Way to ruin the joke. Lovely job I bet though?

[@amnottabs]

@@Clay3613 he just said he works for the Lord Matt

[@pjgathergood6987]

Tuh, Matt's castle, don't be so stupid! ...That's just his weekend getaway, his real castle is far more extravagant!!! :D

[@bobblum5973]

"...looking like a bit of a nutter, talking to himself..." In this day and age of smartphones and selfies and food blogging, no, you really don't. Or at least not until you unpack the puppets, dress them for the cold, and start talking for them. Seriously, nice video review, it does seem to be a niche market item. Not for me, but others may love it.

[@kushith]

Come to think of it we never see the muppets outdoors 🤔

[@technopoptart]

@@kushith pedants catch fire if they are touched by the sun. it's science

[@CheeseMan78]

What?

[@LilDroidBlue]

I recently finally found my old school Polaroid camera, from back when they were still good. Never looked up the model, but it's obviously late 70's/early 80's going by the look and colour (unibody and the top half of the front flips up revealing the flash and options such as portrait/landscape and the colour is this really funky green that looks like they were going for evergreen/pine needle or something) It was my aunt's and she gave it to me a few years back, I think I'll stick with that. Can't find the film in any stores near me anymore, but I've been considering ordering a few packs just to take some kooky, kitschy pics for a collage on my wall. Just something about the look of them, the aesthetic, that I enjoy so much. *edit : BY THE WAY! Another great video, as per usual. Lovely little review.

[@briansegarra9312]

Look like it's an sx-70 or 600 Polariod the film it's available online and some stores and recently it's becoming very decent as the new company had make film from scratch again so the film it's not perfect

[@tracer740]

Hey Schweitzer- What a coincidence which your comment provides. About 20 years ago I recovered my Polaroid camera outfit and had no use for it. I gave it to a friend who was holding a 'garage-sale' and I specified (suggested) an asking price of 5 Dollars (U.S.). Guess what/ No takers, so I just gave it away. I'm willing to guess that today, in current culture and interests, it would be worth a few sheckles ?

[@TofersCarTales]

I have a huge and very important interview this afternoon and a new Techmoan video is just what I needed to calm the nerves. Thank you sir.

[@TheMainCore]

Good luck!

[@Techmoan]

Best of luck.

[@TofersCarTales]

@@Techmoan thanks so much. Happy holidays sir.

[@nickwallette6201]

How’d it go?

[@TofersCarTales]

@@nickwallette6201 I got the job! Definitely will be celebrating with a Techmoan marathon! lol

[@bobdeinterlace]

Those iPhone pictures look a bit oversaturated to be honest.

[@gorway7]

I thought that too, way too saturated. Overall compared to some Polaroid prints, the Kodak faired well.

[@eurovision50]

I was gonna say..! When I saw the building in the background of the video, it looked more like the Kodak photo. The iPhone photo was a completely different colour! Like, not just a different shade... it was the difference between light cream/grey and a medium brown!

[@EvaristoBrag]

@@gorway7 The image of kodak is natural, not processaded, the quality is honest and is very good for vintage.

[@Sabundy]

IPhone cameras are easily the most overrated in the world. Their pictures are overly saturated and processed

[@cskippy2000]

Before seeing this video, this very morning, I ordered a compact zinc paper photo printer for my mom. She's a scrapbook person. If I had seen this camera, I might have bought that instead. I feel like that would have been a mistake. Love your channel, thank you for all you do. I think you're great!

[@DavidBromage]

The muted colours have a nice 70s Polaroid aesthetic, but the image appears very grainy with distinct print lines on solid areas of colour, especially the sky.

[@skynet3d]

I like the zink photos, they have more ‘personality’.

[@PSkullKidDnazen]

the little beepy jingles it does are so jolly i love it

[@timmatthews773]

"We're sorry that we can't return any of your pictures, but there's a prize for every one we show..."

[@dunebasher1971]

Niche!

[@digitalmediafan]

Vision On ?

[@gwishart]

@@digitalmediafan Or Take Hart, or Hartbeat or SmART...

[@kev7345]

Tony Hart was a total legend

[@dawgnolsactivities5491]

The sound quality is really good for an outdoor video. What a beautiful day to.

[@ruthun]

Love that old look. It makes me miss the old folks in the family that has passed on. Thanks for the review. Always awesome.

[@ThisisJWB]

I really look forward to your videos , they have inspired me to build a retro hifi system recently . seasons greetings , thanks

[@jesselawson224]

With the camera, you get a vintage vibe on the prints, compared to the phone, which looks really good!

[@elvinhaak]

Like the idea... like a combination of the fuji instant, polaroid and the old Kodak + some digital. Less expensive than the other instant photo's (for the format) per print and having a nice retro-look and feeling (maybe making the push of the button get the 'old feeling' likew with the populair- 'Clack'-camera of the old days. Is the delay having to do with preheating the printer-equipment and prepairing the (digital) print to be printed line-by-line? With little power and space available you will probably have some slow heating system and also making sure not to overshoot in temperature (and beeing equal on all places of the print). I like the combination with my other hobby (analog photography) ! Thanks for showing.

[@sideburn]

Needs an “I just took a picture” sound when u push the “shutter” button.

[@sjames5027]

And a zoom lens at that price

[@Kai0nTheMoon]

I think the obvious retro image style is why they added the word 'Classic' into the title. The colorization instantly reminded me of my old childhood photos from the 70's and early 80's, which popped into my mind right before it was mentioned in this video.

[@Narayan_1996]

I really loved this video, so warm and comfortable to watch, thanks Matt, Merry Christmas ♥ ♥ ♥

[@JimMcKeeth]

The sound when you turn it on is the capacitor charging. It would benefit from a beep to let you know it was ready, and a shutter sound, and then an indication it is printing.

[@theboldfuture2341]

Great review as always Mat! The design and concept seem really intriguing, but the cost both for the camera and per print of Zink are prohibitive for this novelty to have broad appeal, imo. At $150, it's not really an impulse buy (for me anyway) and at a *dollar* per print, every time you press the shutter button... It's not really something I'd hand to a child.

[@okumonux]

2:44; nice countryside; looks very calm.

[@MagnaRyuuDesigns]

The washed out look brings up a lot of nostalgic feelings. reminds me of the old polaroid i had when i was a kid in the 80s

[@0KylePrior0]

I remember when instant cameras used to pop out the photo one second after it was taken. How far we've come...

[@groenekever]

analog or digital. back in the 90s i made a picture anolog by pressing the button on a cheap camera. now its need to adjust first load and then takes a picture..

[@directrix101]

Carib comes from Trinidad and Tobago, that is where I live. Keep up the good work.

[@octap79]

Matt I really love your videos. You are my favourite channel in KZbin. Please do a favor to you and all of us, your fans. I feel that you really need some time off. Treat yourself with some holidays if possible. For the last months something doesn't feel right in your videos. We want you fresh, strong and healthy with the most amazing videos ever.

[@spidermonkeynr1]

I like the colors. Great old feeling that brings up memories

[@rimmersbryggeri]

I see you went to Arkwrights General store. LOL The colour rendering of the zink print was perfect for that picture.

[@joshuarosen6242]

I have to say that while the pictures taken with the camera were subdued, the smartphone pictures looked over-saturated. Nowhere in Lancashire is that bright and colourful.

[@DoctorInk20]

Now I want to trek out to country houses and take lots of photos. 😊 Thanks for this, man.

[@ejonesss]

the delay is the capacitor for the flash charging up. if the camera is as classic as it claims then it will use a high voltage strobe flash instead of led so if you do a teardown of it you need to be careful as there would be a capacitor that can hold up to 500 volts at 300+ uf that can pack quit a punch if you touched it.

[@maap123]

The photo from the padrão dos descobrimentos in Lisbon was the best one 😆. Cheers

[@johnbelli9390]

The smaller paper is down to about half a dollar per sheet here in the USA, so they had to make it use the larger size, which is still about a dollar each. Either way, far more than sending them digitally to CVS or Walgreen's and picking them up on the way home from work.

[@coondogtheman]

The whining noise heard when you turn it on usually is a flash circuit charging up. I can hear it in the video. I like how you can print stuff from a phone.

[@Stoney3K]

The camera is modeled as a mini version of the Polaroid Spectra and I have to say, 75p a sheet is not even that expensive for instant photos, as Impossible photos are easily double or triple that amount (but they're not digital). I also wonder if it keeps storing photos on the SD card if you're out of sheets so you can print them out later.

[@Christopher-N]

It's probably like any ordinary digital camera (I'm on my second Sony), it makes a specific chime when it actually snaps the picture, which is then saved to memory, and I'd assume printing is the final step. You could override the camera flash by using a bit of black electrical tape (stick the tape to itself sticky-side-to-sticky-side, and leave a bit over overhang for adhesion, so the adhesive is on the parts that you don't mind getting goopy).

[@CFM7]

you can tell the digital photos are digital / compressed, vs. the original camera pictures feel more natural. cool feature though for sure

[@talesfromthelotuspodcast]

I like to see this retro type stuff coming back!!!

[@dBREZ]

Your lawns really stay that green in the winter?

[@sinformant]

Maybe doesn't produce accurate photos, but it gives a nostalgic look to the photos it prints.

[@kurtownsj00]

Interesting. It seems lately among the the young and hip the Fujifilm Instax cameras are getting very popular, so they decided to try and get in on the action of this being hot again.

[@enricosanchez894]

Nice cameo by the Beatles at 6:57.

[@xPLAYnOfficial]

I'll stick to my Polaroid 600 with battery mod personally. Nice review though :)

[@pgtmr2713]

I think the washed out look is what we'd expect from an old style camera like that. But you get the modern aesthetic from the modern camera in the cell phone.

[@neilcaldwell870]

Another great review. I feel my day is complete now. You must invest a whole lot of hours to give us a few minutes of pleasure, so a big Thank You. I guess this printer / camera may have some applications like printing out when mobile. But somewhat limited, especially with the lack in quality on zinc.

[@BROTRRer]

Hope you had fun in Lisbon :)

[@jfieqj]

I saw a Kodak branded camera in the hardware store today, so I thought your review would be the same product, but interestingly the one in the shop here was not digital, it used a chemical process like the originals. I think that's probably more appealing these days.

[@avinin1337]

Thanks you for the review. honestly a solid cam&instant printer combo

[@fakename8749]

The large difference in colors between photos taken with the instant camera itself and the ones printed out is probably because the instant camera doesn't do postprocessing color correction the smartphone cameras do automatically nowadays, for whatever reason.

[@TaswcmT]

The time it takes for the picture to be finished may not be any longer than it used to be with the old Polaroid cameras, but because it does all this processing before any paper appears at all, it feels like it takes longer. The Polaroids were in your hand quicker - it just took a while for the photo to appear on the paper. In general, it's not the best of ideas to keep the user in the dark about what's going on. Reminds me of how the iPhone gives the impression that the photo is taken immediately - because the button behaves the same regardless of shutter time. There's been a few images that turned out as artsy streaks of light, because I just moved the phone too quickly. The colors of the Kodak Smile prints are OK in my book - that nostalgic 70's look is like an "organic Instagram filter".

[@villeville6838]

I wish it wouldn't save the photos digitally, since then there would be a sense of uniqueness to the prints. I know you can delete them or whatever, but still, the idea of having just the prints, would in my opinion heighten the impact of bringing the camera to an occasion.

[@Gadgetonomy]

You know what, I think the zinc pictures are in keeping with that 'classic' moniker, they look pleasing. But it's a hefty price to pay.

[@Pauleh123]

Instax already has the market cornered on instant photos. Every kid has one. And because there is so many of them around, the cost per photo is lower.

[@azertycraftgaming]

I'm sure I read the title as "The Kodac Smile Classic instant regret camera" wtf

[@thefunk2215]

Quite an appropriate title.

[@missionpassed4584]

The camera that takes you back in time, cool

[@TombstoneChris]

Okay I must get this camera. and I may be behind the times but the fact that it has Bluetooth and I can print pictures off my phone with that is amazing. I usually just go to websites and order pictures and have them mailed to me now I don't have to do that anymore.

[@singaporemick]

Nice to see Haigh Hall

[@exodous02]

Yeah, a buck a print I want to see the photo before I print so this would just be a printer for me. I can see for kids this would be fun though.

[@JasmineSurrealVideos]

I like the little shadow of you in the bottom left hand corner on the photo of the stately home. At 6.26. Or is it a Northern mystical shadow camera imp? Who knows.

[@trevorbrown6654]

It's not a bad gizmo but bit of a niche market. I know the camera was given to you but they could at least have said what the cost of a new one approximately is. I've just looked the up and they are £149.99 on Amazon if anyone is interested, and in several different colour schemes. The older model that you mention (with the smaller picture print) is half that price.

[@Tarodenaro]

That camera looks like one a roadie girl would use amongst a band road trip and then having one of her 'chic pics' used for album front covers. Dan Bell might like these kind of cameras.

[@markjempson6608]

Cool video Mat, enjoyed the change of scenery.

[@pyrojinn]

I wonder increasing saturation and then print the image out will increase its quality?

[@crimsonlion100]

You're lucky its so sunny. Its 26 here in Oregon.

[@glorfification]

With original Polaroids, you had to wait for the photo to develop, of course you could keep taking pictures while previous photos were developing.

[@pauljs75]

Phone seems to have better white balance and saturation than the camera in the "camera". I think the thing is a bit gimmicky, it's probably just better to consider it as a specialized portable printer. (If going home to print, you're just better off getting a regular color printer.)

[@TheMeatloafSurprise]

The edges of objects look much more pronounced in the printed photographs vs the digital images. Kind of a nice effect for pictures with larger objects (buildings) but looks very busy on images with a lot of smaller objects (outside market and mall). I wonder what kind of processing it does on the image before printing it.

[@CarlosCMTF]

That's why it's better to buy a mini printer than an actual instant camera: they're cheaper and you always have your phone to take the picture, which has a much better quality, and then simply use the printer to get the physical copy.

[@BoiledOctopus]

Pretty conclusive results there.

[@swunt10]

the printed out version looks like a memory. I actually like it better. that slightly washed out look just makes it more appealing without being fake filter like.

[@LMacNeill]

Can you still buy an old-school Polaroid camera? Far faster, similar print-quality, and using modern scanners you could easily digitize them later if you wanted to. Or add a CCD sensor and an SD card and have both a digital and analog photo at the same time.

[@THALASA]

You can get those zink papers on some websites for cheap like 700 photo papers for 15 euros the trick is to actually buy the older camera's from the 90s,

[@KickF]

Due note that smartphone now a days do a smart sharping, and also a saturation adjustments when saving the file / picture regardless if you choose to do it or not via filters or not. The Kodak Smile Classic instant camera does not, most due to it not having the CPU power to do these thing with image files, but also the camera sensor don't allow such futures with the limited image data sent from the camera sensor to the CPU. smartphones have much better sensor that allow much more image data been sent to the CPU since the ARM CPU can handle this huge amount of image data.

[@liquidsoftpc]

*4:16** LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH*

[@Wheresthewheel]

Between the picture quality and camera shape U think it would make a good door stop

[@martynalner6209]

I'm assuming the Gallery Music was the closest to "Take Hart" without having to pay royalties? I had a laugh when I heard that.

[@Kochiha]

That lav mic you're using has fantastic outdoor performance, what model is it?

[@BoB4jjjjs]

Be fine for when you are somewhere like a party or family gathering where you might want to give someone a photo that you have not seen or are likely to see for a long time. i can see where it could be used. Would I bother these days, even though I used to have a Polaroid. Probably not, they are a bit late on the go with phones taking good photos these days. I think it will have a very limited market.

[@fuzzlenutberry]

I would only consider it paid promotion if they pay you for what you say, if you dislike the product and say so it isn't promotion.

[@Fly0High]

Kudos from Lisboa. Appreciate the photo ;)

[@freund333]

What happens if you take a picture and then close the viewfinder? Does it still print or store or will it lead to some error cause you are turning it off too soon?

[@zs3pv88]

I wonder how the Kodak Smile would compare, to a true vintage polaroid camera?

[@notloki3140]

It seems to me that the exposure and the "washed out" results from the Kodak camera is intentional to keep the prints legible. Those iPhone photos, besides the fact that they are unrealistic, they are also too contrasty and colourful, which darkens the print and creates muddy areas due to the aforementioned qualities. I certainly prefer the photos taken with the Kodak, but then again I'm a photographer and I also know people are quick to defend the garbage processing iPhone has.

[@MetalTrabant]

I like that those zinc-photos are not perfect. Neither were the good old paper photos of the past. Somehow that gives their charm, the technical inferiority. It has that 'old time memory'-effect, just like memories fade with time as well...

[@kaniphish]

I don't really get how they keep going with the zinc paper when it looks so crappy and harshly contrasted. it's only good as a toy. the old Polaroid film looks 30 times better in comparison. if they could invent that back then I dont understand why they cant improve on that instead of going with a bad digital stringy print.

[@TrueHeresy]

Nice :) is that Haigh Hall?

[@Jdbye]

This is not a promotion, so it doesn't matter if it's paid or not. It becomes a paid promotion when you are instructed in what to say, whether you are paid or the product itself counts as payment doesn't matter at that point, it's more about whether you are stating your own opinion, or simply reading a script, and it's very easy to tell the difference between the two. It's normal for professional reviewers to receive samples or product keys for the purpose of a review, that's just how the business works. Other times they are told what to say, with the result that it sounds like an ad.

[@pev_]

A mildly interesting photo printer, then. BUT you could have mentioned something about the price, comparing to other cameras of printers, perhaps!

[@terencejay8845]

I sold the range of Polaroid cameras, and the Kodak equivalent using the PR10 film, right up until their 'demise', so it's amusing now to see these Zink cameras coming back, with similar results. Buy an old Polaroid instead.

[@keiyakins]

Honestly those prints compare quite favorably to the instant photos of eras past. Shame the camera part kinda stinks, but using your phone and printing the shots you like best is probably better anyway.

[@Actionronnie]

A cold day lol Come to Winnipeg 😂

[@AustinSteingrube]

The expensive paper brings to light an interesting concept - in a world of limitless, free, digital photos, what is actually valuable enough to print out? Also have to admit - I do rather like the slightly washed out colors. Digital photos are almost too sterile and crisp. While they are near perfect representations, digital photos seem almost disingenuous while the washout here seems to add warmth and presence. Could just be age bias though I guess.

[@Tjita1]

A SUNNY DAY?! IN UK?! IN DECEMBER?!

[@trelard]

VERY 80's looking image quality wise. Not saying that's a bad thing though, could be used by a props person to create time appropriate images or things like that.

[@shawnbarry5553]

For $150, you could pay $1 per shot and have to wait between taking pictures for the image to rasterize, only to get a printed picture with a 70s vibe and a subpar digital file. Or, for $5 at a Goodwill, you can buy an old Polaroid 600 camera, spend $2 per shot with new 600 film, and take a picture less than 5 seconds after the last. And, if you want the digital file, you can use a smartphone. By my estimate, you keep financially ahead of other method until 145 shots. That's more than 18 8-packs of film, or three packs of 40 sheets of ZINK paper.

[@michaelhutin5451]

Where in the UK has it been sunny????????

[@thetman0068]

Sunny day? In the UK? Impossible!

[@QlueDuPlessis]

A lot more compact than the original Kodak instant camera. Of course, the courts kinda handed their assets to them on a platter for that rather infamous bit of industrial espionage.