I worked in a 1hr photolab back in my late teens late 80's - early 90's... We processed Disc film , 110 & 35mm... The disc film required it's own special film processor & a carrier to print.... LOL...I just bought a Disc Camera on ebay today !
Part of the problem was that kodak wanted labs to invest in enlargers with special optics in order to get the best quality from such a small negative. No one ever did that so the pictures from disk film looked even worse than they were supposed to. The format never made sense to me as you could make really cheap cameras with 110 film that were even smaller. Unlike disk, every once in a while 110 film will be re-released and they even made a 110 film SLR. So I would go with that format.
I LOVED my Kodak disk camera!! For 1982ish it was pretty cool. Well, for a 11 year old in 1982 it was pretty cool. Unfortunately my Kodak disk camera died during my HS Senior picnic in 1989. Bad timing but the camera did last 7 years!
This would be by far the easiest film camera to digitize due to its simple optics and minuscule film frame size. The Disc film modules are thick enough it should be possible to mount a large image sensor precisely on the original film plane. A digital module in a Disc camera ought to be able to produce images superior to the original film. Such a device would need to be self contained with its own battery and mechanical sensors to interface with the camera's controls and film advance.
Apparently the lenses in disc film cameras are extremely highly resolving, and the grain was meant to be much finer than 135 film. I've read that one of the main issues with the typical use of disc film was that labs didn't buy the new enlargers (which had higher quality lenses optimised for the small frame size) and instead used enlargers designed for 135 film. This yielded very poor quality prints, but they could have been much better. It might be that the disc images would out resolve typical macro lenses, if you were planning on using dSLR scanning.
I was product manager for the Charles Beseler company. We made a negative carrier specific for the Disc, disk. Also, my brother worked at the assembly facility for the Kodak Disc camera. One model, he said, used a lithium battery. During assembly, if the (very early ) lithium battery was shorted, they could explode. Because of this, they had special containers in which to throw the battery/camera.
We had a disc camera. As kids it was pretty safe and easy to use. The images were pretty bad compared to the photos my dad took on 35mm. But now I wish I could still use it. I love the lo-fi grain on it. Thanks for the videos!
Yes Noah, you are right, the pictures from Disc Film have been grainy but in the photolab we had less bad pictures ( unsharp, wrong exposure ) than from 110 pocket format. And the technic in the Disc wasgood for the time. Any Disc Film had a bar code with a filmnumber from factory, so it is easy to identify which type of film for the printing machine. An the disc had a magnetic core to store informations. After the developing on this core was the information to make one print from each negative. In case of a reorder, in the reorder station from Kodak this information was overide and the reorder written on this magnetic core, for example 4 print negeative number 8, others not. Because of the core the printing machine was also able to print the negative numbers on the backside of each print, so the customer had not to look at the disc for a reorder to find the right negative he wanted to be print once more. This was a great invention to the old formates were we used a paper strip added to the negatives with a tesa film and the customer had to write his order under the right negative for a reorder.
When I was a teen in the late 80s I was really into photography - took it in High school, developed my own black and white 35mm film, etc. While I loved 35mm I was also really into the idea of the forced limitations of a point-and-shoot disc camera, so I picked one up one of the better cameras for practically nothing. There was a department store that put prepaid Kodak disc development mailers on clearance for 25 cents each, and I bought every one they had, probably two dozen. I can testify that the developed pictures from Kodak were significantly sharper with more accurate print exposure and colors than the disc pictures I had developed elsewhere. The Kodak processed pics were still no match for 35mm but I LOVED shooting pics with that Disc camera.
Great video! I just bought a Kodak Disc 3100 from an antique store and was so intrigued by it, I had to buy it. Although it is a little disappointing that I won't be able to use it, but it is a really cool piece to add to my camera collection.
I would love to shoot disc film, as I love small formats. The reason why I shoot APS, 110 and 126, but not disc film is due to the lack of proper cameras. With the other 3 formats you get proper SLR´s where you can overexpose expired film enough to get good images. But with disc film that is not possible, unfortunately. The only reaso why I don´t shoot disc film.
It's funny because last weekend , I was at a Value Village last Saturday and they had a disc camera lol Kodak , right beside it they had a Kodak brownie 8mm video camera , the manual winder still worked and it had rotating lenses must have been made in the early 1950's I'm going to go back there this Saturday and see if they'd still there I might buy it just for the hell of it
I was surprised when Kodak opted for the "Minox-size" 8X11mm film format. Cameras were point-and-shoot/"Press Here Dummy!" things which kept me miles away from this "subminiature format." I figured that the 18X24mm half frame format was the minimum size for great pictures. The 126 and 110 format detours hadn't been as interesting as Kodak had promised.
i found one of these in my grandma's room (she's 84) along with a vhs tape of her skating, which i've watched on a tv-vhs combo my parents gave me (the tape's distortion is terrible). was wondering what it was, so thanks a lot!
My grandma gave me a couple cameras today. One of them was a kodak disc 4000, and my excitement quickly turned into complete bafflement when I opened the back lid. It still has a film in it, with 7 exposures left, but it doesn't seem to work, so *shrug*. Thanks, anyway :)
The more I follow your explanation, the more I grateful for today's photography technology 🎉😅 but I do also use your opinion to pick my vintage camera as collectible items, thanks man
I had a Disc Film camera when I was a kid in the 1980s. I'm not sure of the brand but I remember it had a black body with a circular red shutter button. We had 110 cameras but I think my parents got it for me so I would have a camera I could call my own and it seemed somewhat futuristic. I would usually shoot using two hands and often would have my left hand show up in the edge of shots, which was not good. Most of what I took with it was summer camp or school events and trips. It was fine for what it was at my age but I moved on to my parent's Canon AE-1 camera by the time I was in high school.
I have an OLD disk from 1984. Do you think I can still get it turned into pictures? I remember taking the shots and I know it would be great for the family. (Kept in a drawer all it's life).
Another thing, the real appeal to the disc camera was that it would fit in your back pocket, just like todays phone. A 110 camera was more like a large candy bar, not as easy to carry.
I remember my grandparents having a Kodak Disc 4000. They were pretty fancy at the time - the fact they automatically advanced to the next frame blew my 6 year old mind - very pocketable, very easy to load (compared to 35mm) and not noticeably worse quality than the crappy 110s my parents had. Of course my other Pop had a Nikon F3 (he was a press photographer) which of course was an entirely different league (his camera was worth more than our car at the time). In hindsight you really do have to wonder WTF Kodak were smoking when they conceived the format, given 110 spluttered out due to the lack of image quality. I guess Kodak were just hellbent on coming up with an 'easier to load' format. Ironic then that both 35mm and 120 have persisted so long.
My claim to fame printed more disc films than anyone on the planet, Processed in batches of 100 on a spindle, spinning in dev etc, the printed in a fast in a double spindle canister pushed down cleaned graded and printed then up in the empty canister, wait for it 33.000 prints an hour all day long, continues paper, well that was 1982, bless them, seems a long time a go. But sometimes only 99 came up the canister, other went up the vacuum cleaning tube, ha ha
Such a dumb format. My local camera store at the time had a home-made display with an 8x10 print from 35mm next to an 8x10 print from a disc camera and some text that basically said "don't buy disc cameras--they suck." For some reason, Kodak seemed to always think that people wanted smaller film formats: 110, 126, disc, APS, etc. Not sure why, since all of these failed, while 35mm, 120, 4x5, and 8x10 are all still with us.
@@therestorationofdrwho1865 and Kodak believed most amateurs wouldn't notice the difference in quality at the usually smaller sizes amateurs were perceived to like
I think it was more that smaller film is overall cheaper to make = more profitable per exposure, so they focused their sales pitches on the conveniences of the smaller formats to people who wouldn't likely care as much about quality
Will you ever do a video on the Zink paper technology? Maybe it's history and the various camera made that use it such as the Canon Ivy Cliq and Kodak printomatic
The real question is why would you want to. The reason the prints were so bad was that it required special lenses from Kodak to make a print come out properly. Most labs used the 35mm lens set and it made the prints worse.
Apparently, the older film in the Disc format holds up better than the later stocks and wheels, so older expired is better in this case. Guess they cut corners.
Noah -- thanks for all of these informative videos -- I try not to subscribe to UA-cam channels willy-nilly, as I don't have enough time in the day to watch the videos posted, but I will subscribe to your channel! Could you do a roll review on the new Ilford Ortho Plus? Medium format hopefully! Thanks!
I had that camera and I tell you the image quality was extremely disappointing - far worse than any modern cameras on smartphones. The noise was unbearable.
I got a Kodak 3100 that makes constant noise when closing the film case . I have a feeling it’s the battery or internal components but anyone has experienced this ?
Disc film hasn't been made in over 25 years so you won't find anything new. You can try your like online to find expired disc film, but that's about all I can suggest!
@@AnalogResurgence just found one at my dads and would love to finish up the disc that’s in it. Dead battery though. If I pull the disc out now will it mess up the previous shot pics since it’s 1/2 used?
God I hated my disc camera. I loved the camera itself but the images were horrible. I went to Europe and took this camera and when I developed the film I ended up throwing out my photos and never bought another cartridge of film for it again.
My first camera (as a gift) in 1985 (which I still own) and although it was lightweight and handy, you would be hard pressed to get decent images from this camera. Quality, especially in low light conditions, was just awful.
I worked in a 1hr photolab back in my late teens late 80's - early 90's... We processed Disc film , 110 & 35mm... The disc film required it's own special film processor & a carrier to print.... LOL...I just bought a Disc Camera on ebay today !
Part of the problem was that kodak wanted labs to invest in enlargers with special optics in order to get the best quality from such a small negative. No one ever did that so the pictures from disk film looked even worse than they were supposed to. The format never made sense to me as you could make really cheap cameras with 110 film that were even smaller. Unlike disk, every once in a while 110 film will be re-released and they even made a 110 film SLR. So I would go with that format.
I LOVED my Kodak disk camera!! For 1982ish it was pretty cool. Well, for a 11 year old in 1982 it was pretty cool. Unfortunately my Kodak disk camera died during my HS Senior picnic in 1989. Bad timing but the camera did last 7 years!
This would be by far the easiest film camera to digitize due to its simple optics and minuscule film frame size. The Disc film modules are thick enough it should be possible to mount a large image sensor precisely on the original film plane. A digital module in a Disc camera ought to be able to produce images superior to the original film. Such a device would need to be self contained with its own battery and mechanical sensors to interface with the camera's controls and film advance.
Apparently the lenses in disc film cameras are extremely highly resolving, and the grain was meant to be much finer than 135 film. I've read that one of the main issues with the typical use of disc film was that labs didn't buy the new enlargers (which had higher quality lenses optimised for the small frame size) and instead used enlargers designed for 135 film. This yielded very poor quality prints, but they could have been much better.
It might be that the disc images would out resolve typical macro lenses, if you were planning on using dSLR scanning.
@@joshhyyym i've read the same thing...and i would love to see one of the disc-specific enlargers!
btw, i had a disc camera back in the mid 80s
I was product manager for the Charles Beseler company. We made a negative carrier specific for the Disc, disk.
Also, my brother worked at the assembly facility for the Kodak Disc camera. One model, he said, used a lithium battery. During assembly, if the (very early ) lithium battery was shorted, they could explode. Because of this, they had special containers in which to throw the battery/camera.
We had a disc camera. As kids it was pretty safe and easy to use. The images were pretty bad compared to the photos my dad took on 35mm. But now I wish I could still use it. I love the lo-fi grain on it. Thanks for the videos!
Yes Noah, you are right, the pictures from Disc Film have been grainy but in the photolab we had less bad pictures ( unsharp, wrong exposure ) than from 110 pocket format. And the technic in the Disc wasgood for the time. Any Disc Film had a bar code with a filmnumber from factory, so it is easy to identify which type of film for the printing machine. An the disc had a magnetic core to store informations. After the developing on this core was the information to make one print from each negative. In case of a reorder, in the reorder station from Kodak this information was overide and the reorder written on this magnetic core, for example 4 print negeative number 8, others not. Because of the core the printing machine was also able to print the negative numbers on the backside of each print, so the customer had not to look at the disc for a reorder to find the right negative he wanted to be print once more. This was a great invention to the old formates were we used a paper strip added to the negatives with a tesa film and the customer had to write his order under the right negative for a reorder.
When I was a teen in the late 80s I was really into photography - took it in High school, developed my own black and white 35mm film, etc. While I loved 35mm I was also really into the idea of the forced limitations of a point-and-shoot disc camera, so I picked one up one of the better cameras for practically nothing. There was a department store that put prepaid Kodak disc development mailers on clearance for 25 cents each, and I bought every one they had, probably two dozen. I can testify that the developed pictures from Kodak were significantly sharper with more accurate print exposure and colors than the disc pictures I had developed elsewhere. The Kodak processed pics were still no match for 35mm but I LOVED shooting pics with that Disc camera.
Great video! I just bought a Kodak Disc 3100 from an antique store and was so intrigued by it, I had to buy it. Although it is a little disappointing that I won't be able to use it, but it is a really cool piece to add to my camera collection.
Im a new subscriber and I love your channel. Your videos are very useful and everything is well explained 🙌🏻
The editing of this video is amazing. Keep up the good work!
I would love to shoot disc film, as I love small formats. The reason why I shoot APS, 110 and 126, but not disc film is due to the lack of proper cameras. With the other 3 formats you get proper SLR´s where you can overexpose expired film enough to get good images. But with disc film that is not possible, unfortunately. The only reaso why I don´t shoot disc film.
It's funny because last weekend , I was at a Value Village last Saturday and they had a disc camera lol Kodak , right beside it they had a Kodak brownie 8mm video camera , the manual winder still worked and it had rotating lenses must have been made in the early 1950's I'm going to go back there this Saturday and see if they'd still there I might buy it just for the hell of it
Great video. Informative, well edited with the information simultaneously, nice pips, and smooth explanations. Nice job
Watch the film “My Cousin Vinny” to see a pink Disc camera in action, used by Marisa Tomei. 👍
Also watch the 1989 film "Cookie" when Emily Lloyd buys and shoots with the pink Le Clic Disc camera throughout the film!
I was surprised when Kodak opted for the "Minox-size" 8X11mm film format. Cameras were point-and-shoot/"Press Here Dummy!" things which kept me miles away from this "subminiature format." I figured that the 18X24mm half frame format was the minimum size for great pictures. The 126 and 110 format detours hadn't been as interesting as Kodak had promised.
Selfie stick back in the 80s⁉️ Holy crap‼️
It would be really cool if Kodak or a 3rd party could bring back disc film 😍 my gran and papa used it back in the 80s
This is an excellent video, so informative!!
i found one of these in my grandma's room (she's 84) along with a vhs tape of her skating, which i've watched on a tv-vhs combo my parents gave me (the tape's distortion is terrible). was wondering what it was, so thanks a lot!
My grandma gave me a couple cameras today. One of them was a kodak disc 4000, and my excitement quickly turned into complete bafflement when I opened the back lid. It still has a film in it, with 7 exposures left, but it doesn't seem to work, so *shrug*. Thanks, anyway :)
Great video. Awesome intro. This is the kind of content and creator I enjoy following. Keep it up!
The more I follow your explanation, the more I grateful for today's photography technology 🎉😅 but I do also use your opinion to pick my vintage camera as collectible items, thanks man
I had a Disc Film camera when I was a kid in the 1980s. I'm not sure of the brand but I remember it had a black body with a circular red shutter button. We had 110 cameras but I think my parents got it for me so I would have a camera I could call my own and it seemed somewhat futuristic. I would usually shoot using two hands and often would have my left hand show up in the edge of shots, which was not good. Most of what I took with it was summer camp or school events and trips. It was fine for what it was at my age but I moved on to my parent's Canon AE-1 camera by the time I was in high school.
I have an OLD disk from 1984. Do you think I can still get it turned into pictures? I remember taking the shots and I know it would be great for the family. (Kept in a drawer all it's life).
I have several disc negatives but I just found an intact disc and I don't know if it has photos on it or not!
Nice video. I sold disc cameras in the 80’s. All of us salesmen even then knew it was a flop.
Minolta gang!
Tha maxxum 7000 started my film camlera frenzy last year. Great camera to switch from digital to analog.
Another thing, the real appeal to the disc camera was that it would fit in your back pocket, just like todays phone. A 110 camera was more like a large candy bar, not as easy to carry.
I remember my grandparents having a Kodak Disc 4000. They were pretty fancy at the time - the fact they automatically advanced to the next frame blew my 6 year old mind - very pocketable, very easy to load (compared to 35mm) and not noticeably worse quality than the crappy 110s my parents had. Of course my other Pop had a Nikon F3 (he was a press photographer) which of course was an entirely different league (his camera was worth more than our car at the time). In hindsight you really do have to wonder WTF Kodak were smoking when they conceived the format, given 110 spluttered out due to the lack of image quality. I guess Kodak were just hellbent on coming up with an 'easier to load' format. Ironic then that both 35mm and 120 have persisted so long.
My claim to fame printed more disc films than anyone on the planet, Processed in batches of 100 on a spindle, spinning in dev etc, the printed in a fast in a double spindle canister pushed down cleaned graded and printed then up in the empty canister, wait for it 33.000 prints an hour all day long, continues paper, well that was 1982, bless them, seems a long time a go. But sometimes only 99 came up the canister, other went up the vacuum cleaning tube, ha ha
Thanks for sharing
Lol I have a Kodak 3100 plus many other earlier Cameras. I still have film too. Lol
Great video! Is that a Minolta x300 behind you?
any way to view disc film? I have so many and surely not all of them will need to be digitized.?
Such a dumb format. My local camera store at the time had a home-made display with an 8x10 print from 35mm next to an 8x10 print from a disc camera and some text that basically said "don't buy disc cameras--they suck." For some reason, Kodak seemed to always think that people wanted smaller film formats: 110, 126, disc, APS, etc. Not sure why, since all of these failed, while 35mm, 120, 4x5, and 8x10 are all still with us.
The whole smaller format thing probably has something to do with reducing the amount of film needed to create memories and what not.
@@therestorationofdrwho1865 and Kodak believed most amateurs wouldn't notice the difference in quality at the usually smaller sizes amateurs were perceived to like
I think it was more that smaller film is overall cheaper to make = more profitable per exposure, so they focused their sales pitches on the conveniences of the smaller formats to people who wouldn't likely care as much about quality
Will you ever do a video on the Zink paper technology? Maybe it's history and the various camera made that use it such as the Canon Ivy Cliq and Kodak printomatic
Disc cameras are hardly heard of even in movies. I saw it in “Invader” and it only makes a brief appearance.
The real question is why would you want to. The reason the prints were so bad was that it required special lenses from Kodak to make a print come out properly. Most labs used the 35mm lens set and it made the prints worse.
Apparently, the older film in the Disc format holds up better than the later stocks and wheels, so older expired is better in this case. Guess they cut corners.
Helloooo, I need help. I have a Ansco telephoto disc HR 65 and I don't know how to use it
Bothered "Santa Claus " for over a year for a kodak disc camera and never got one, thankfully. My aunt got one and hated it. Nothing but issues.
Why did I not see this video
I have over 100 discs. How can I view what is on them. I have found viewers for negatives but nothing for the Disc Negative. Any help?
Odd question....does anyone know if there's a way to see if a disc is full or able to use?
I want to buy disc for kodak... You know where i can found that ? Thks
Would you please make a video about single 8 ?
what did labs use to scan disk film back then?
Noah -- thanks for all of these informative videos -- I try not to subscribe to UA-cam channels willy-nilly, as I don't have enough time in the day to watch the videos posted, but I will subscribe to your channel! Could you do a roll review on the new Ilford Ortho Plus? Medium format hopefully! Thanks!
I had that camera and I tell you the image quality was extremely disappointing - far worse than any modern cameras on smartphones. The noise was unbearable.
How can I digitalise my disc negatives? 🎞📸
I got a Kodak 3100 that makes constant noise when closing the film case . I have a feeling it’s the battery or internal components but anyone has experienced this ?
Kodak: "Hey, what if we made film space inefficient?"
I have a kodak 6000. Can I find some disc film to shoot? Im into old film and photos, can you help?
Disc film hasn't been made in over 25 years so you won't find anything new. You can try your like online to find expired disc film, but that's about all I can suggest!
@@AnalogResurgence just found one at my dads and would love to finish up the disc that’s in it. Dead battery though. If I pull the disc out now will it mess up the previous shot pics since it’s 1/2 used?
I guess I'm just confused as to what shape this format is?
Bought a disk film camera at a thrift store on a whim and I am now I'm trying to decide what to do with it
I'm here for the same reason, there's even still a disc inside
I really wish he would use his hands more when he talks ;)
You got it
God I hated my disc camera. I loved the camera itself but the images were horrible. I went to Europe and took this camera and when I developed the film I ended up throwing out my photos and never bought another cartridge of film for it again.
where can you get disc film these days, in the uk its like hens teeth!
So the Minolta Disk-K that my great aunt gifted me is useless...
I shoot Disc film!
Numbstruck where do you find and develop it? Just got my first disc camera.
@@dirtnworms6566 hey did you find out? just got a disc camera
@@anniegutierrez5222 No, I never ended up using it, mostly because of how obsolete disc film is now. It was hard to find any film or developers
Yes i have it kodak disk 6000
Trying to get someone to develop disk film can’t find anyone to develop it.
APS >>>>> Disc
Besides, I've hated Disc film since I saw how horribly grainy the photos were.
wish i knew this before i bought one lol
DO shoot Disc film! An other lab that makes it easy: mshobbies.co.uk/i/film-1
I got it one 1980 for sale
Handsome dude...
All this video does is make me wanna shoot disk film
My first camera (as a gift) in 1985 (which I still own) and although it was lightweight and handy, you would be hard pressed to get decent images from this camera. Quality, especially in low light conditions, was just awful.
it's like if 110 was objectively terrible
Spot on jeers for this horrible product. Bravo!
Italiano