Shake it like iPhonaroid
November 13, 2014 3:47 PM   Subscribe

 
Hey Ya.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:06 PM on November 13, 2014 [2 favorites]


This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
posted by Yowser at 4:06 PM on November 13, 2014 [2 favorites]


prints it by heating paper filled with ink.

So the paper is going to be horribly overpriced, gotcha.

How is this all that different from this, which everyone made fun of, other than that it's ~french~ and connects to a cute iphone app? it seems to linearly cost about what that would cost if it didn't have a screen or optics, too.

What kind of batteries does it take? USB charging? how long do they last? another real good one there too.
posted by emptythought at 4:08 PM on November 13, 2014


Shouldn't it be Pryntr?
posted by octothorpe at 4:14 PM on November 13, 2014


Prynt is looking at ways they could let you print a photo of one thing — say, your cat — and show a video of something else when it’s held to the app.

Like your dog! Ha ha! No just kidding this feature will be used exclusively for surprise porn
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:16 PM on November 13, 2014 [8 favorites]


Thanks, emptythought. I was wondering what kind of print technology they could possibly be using at that size, and that's certainly it. (I had been thinking "well maybe if you do inkjet but just have one nozzle per vertical pixel and no print-head... but where's the ink reservoir?") Polaroid's paper for their version of this is $0.50 per 2x3" print. Which yeah, is not cheap, but it's not thaaat bad.

The Prynt guy says theirs will cost $0.30 per sheet.

The fact that someone is already making basically the same thing except without a hole for a phone makes me a lot less skeptical that this will actually wind up being a real thing. I'm still pretty skeptical that it would be something I want. (I see very few advantages of this vs a not-quite-as-small battery powered printer that works over wifi)
posted by aubilenon at 4:27 PM on November 13, 2014


Sorry Mrs. Yoswer, this is for real, this is really cool, it isn't dumb, you apologize a million times...
posted by Annika Cicada at 4:31 PM on November 13, 2014


I have a (out-sized) love of Polaroid that makes we inclined to be intrigued by this sort of technology, but I quickly realized that my affection is based on a nostalgic need, not anything that I really desire anymore. Surely I am not alone in being less interested in printing out photos. Or perhaps my meh is courtesy of living both through the height of Polaroid popularity and dealing with stacks of family photos.
posted by dawg-proud at 4:44 PM on November 13, 2014


I like printing photos a lot more than I like having prints of photos.
posted by aubilenon at 4:51 PM on November 13, 2014 [3 favorites]


I like the 'using the photo as permission' thing, but I've used these heat-ink compact printers. The quality is pretty bad, and the end product isn't a lot like a Polaroid.

You want a new Polaroid? Grab a cheap Lomo camera with an instant film back and fire away with Fuji Instax mini cartridges. It's fun as hell and not that expensive.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 4:51 PM on November 13, 2014 [3 favorites]


It kills me that nobody's thought to package these portable printers as classic Polaroid cameras - the folding SX-70's or chunky 600's.
posted by unmake at 4:58 PM on November 13, 2014


I miss those little polaroids that printed out stickers, why don't they exist anymore.
posted by poffin boffin at 5:17 PM on November 13, 2014 [1 favorite]


oh wait i guess it does still exist and oops i just bought one

huzzah
posted by poffin boffin at 5:18 PM on November 13, 2014 [16 favorites]


oh no the film costs a billion dollars

cancel cancel cancel
posted by poffin boffin at 5:19 PM on November 13, 2014 [23 favorites]




i would need an iphone for that and the world will end in fire and ruin before that happens
posted by poffin boffin at 5:23 PM on November 13, 2014 [3 favorites]


That phone-to-polaroid jig is so what and overpriced. it's the kind of thing that will show up once in a quirky commercial like that awful kin one that seems like someone asked aliens to study and attempt to create a diorama of how "quirky" 20somethings act that also demonstrates what they like.

or a music video prop.

Even the example photo they gave is like, ultimate what-middle-aged-people-think-quirky-20-somethings-look-like.


And yea, poffin boffin, i totally miss my polaroid izone. that was such a crucial part of the late 90s childhood/tween experience. most of my friends had them, and we all still have tons of little stickerphotos and photos from them either in drawers/boxes or stuck on things.
posted by emptythought at 5:45 PM on November 13, 2014 [2 favorites]


Not vintage enough. Call me when they can print daguerreotypes.
posted by dephlogisticated at 6:05 PM on November 13, 2014 [3 favorites]


I'm going to wait for the digital version.
posted by carter at 6:09 PM on November 13, 2014 [4 favorites]


I'm going to wait for the digital version.

i'm imagining a polaroid that 3d prints polaroid-sized digital picture frames with all the photos from that "roll" on them.
posted by emptythought at 6:17 PM on November 13, 2014 [1 favorite]


or just use one of the four billion printing services. If you have a digital version of the picture why do you want an immediate crappy printout? Chill, nobody wants a shitty print version of your instagram grilled cheese.
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 6:21 PM on November 13, 2014 [1 favorite]


"That phone-to-polaroid jig is so what and overpriced. it's the kind of thing that will show up once in a quirky commercial like that awful kin one that seems like someone asked aliens to study and attempt to create a diorama of how "quirky" 20somethings act that also demonstrates what they like. "

A bit, but people underestimate the amount of engineering that has to go into a Polaroid device, and the photos do turn out pretty well. I know a few photographers that are able to sell their shots at $5 a pop and recoup the price of the rig and film pretty quickly.

"Not vintage enough. Call me when they can print daguerreotypes."

Call me when it's silver chloride and urine!
posted by klangklangston at 6:21 PM on November 13, 2014


I feel bad for saying this but the urge is now strong to put up a klangklangston symbol in the sky everytime I need to pee just so I can shout, "It's urine!"
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 6:25 PM on November 13, 2014 [2 favorites]


All this talk of Polaroid iZone makes me realize that what I want this device to do is replace is my crappy present life with my late 90's life where my then new-wife and I and the kids stuck cute IZone stickers everywhere and life was filled with love and ignorance. Damn you metafilter. Damn you Prynt.
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:34 PM on November 13, 2014 [3 favorites]


Chill, nobody wants a shitty print version of your instagram grilled cheese.

but if it is a sticker you can immediately stick the sticker to the thing or person or place that was just photographed and it is tres drole
posted by poffin boffin at 7:45 PM on November 13, 2014 [6 favorites]


Here's a rule of thumb for future smartphone accessory makers so they can learn from failures like this:

- If your gadget is larger than the phone, it is NOT a 'case'. It's more like a printer with a phone awkwardly stuck to it.

Stick a cable or a dock on it, because if you call it a 'case' everyone will laugh at you no matter what the gadget is capable of.

(Without the 'case' feature) What a great tiny photo printer! And it uses Bluetooth to talk to my phone so there are no cables!

(With the 'case' feature) What a ridiculously large and clunky case! It makes my phone look like it's 1992!
posted by mmoncur at 7:56 PM on November 13, 2014 [1 favorite]


All this talk of Polaroid iZone makes me realize that what I want this device to do is replace is my crappy present life with my late 90's life where my then new-wife and I and the kids stuck cute IZone stickers everywhere and life was filled with love and ignorance. Damn you metafilter. Damn you Prynt.
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:34 PM on November 13 [2 favorites +] [!]


There would be a loooot of backers for that kickstarter, I daresay.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:51 PM on November 13, 2014 [1 favorite]


I want to call it Timetravlr
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:53 PM on November 13, 2014 [1 favorite]


Heeeey, it's the Game Boy Printer
posted by LogicalDash at 2:27 AM on November 14, 2014 [1 favorite]


Heeeey, it's the Game Boy Printer

First company to make a knockoff of this with Bluetooth and sticks in in the toy aisle might as well be printing money.
posted by Metafilter Username at 5:27 AM on November 14, 2014


I think it's a terrible idea, but I am not the target market for this device.

Having said that though, there are pictures (which are in no way dodgy, but are private) that I'm nervous about having commercially printed because then there might be digital copies out the in world that I have no control over.

Depending on how this device works (cloud based? from local device straight to printer?) and also how much the paper refills cost, I can see this have a thriving, if niche market.
posted by Faintdreams at 5:40 AM on November 14, 2014


My dad worked at Polaroid for 30 years. I grew up thinking all cameras ejected the photo upon taking a picture. Never knew anything but instant until I was a teenager.

I fucking hate Polaroid cameras.

We have a box of really dark, shitty photos, most of them cracked. All of them badly composed, most of them blurry, many with spots where the chemicals leaked. I have no desire to ever recreate that experience. It pains me when someone uses a modern digital camera and then puts it through a filter to make it look like a shitty Polaroid picture.

Did I say "shitty" yet? Yeah, I know Polaroid photos have a certain aesthetic and some people make art out of them. There's that one dude who paints with poop, too.

Still, I've often wondered why someone didn't do this sooner. A digital camera with a small printer attached. Polaroid were good for one thing, and that is handing someone a photo as soon as you took it. People had keepsakes to take away from parties and such.

Also, if you shake the picture, thinking it will somehow help it develop, I will knock you over the head with a Polavision cartridge. Don't do that. I hate that fucking song.

Ok, my angry child of a Polaroid employee rant is done. Edwin Land was still a genius.
posted by bondcliff at 6:40 AM on November 14, 2014 [3 favorites]


/me offers bondcliff a hug
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:49 AM on November 14, 2014 [1 favorite]


Oh, I'm ok. It's probably for the best that there aren't a lot of quality pictures showing my dorky, 1970s family.
posted by bondcliff at 6:53 AM on November 14, 2014


Some things are the best possible iteration of invention they could be:

keys. who doesn't have a keyring in spite of keyless entry, swipe cards, retina or thumbprint scanners?

umbrellas. the big kind, like golf umbrellas, in spite of the stupid new air umbrella (spray your neighbor!), or the wimpy compact kind with twice as many joints to fail in the wind

newspaper stands. the ugly metal box with a clear front for the last one (which also serves a glimpse of news even if you don't buy one, and indicates whether the stand is empty), in spite of smart phone browsers, tablets etc. It's still a small thrill to grab the freebie printed newsie when whoever's done with it puts it down. You know you do it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Devil's in the details, baby.
posted by yoga at 1:05 PM on November 14, 2014


"My dad worked at Polaroid for 30 years. I grew up thinking all cameras ejected the photo upon taking a picture. Never knew anything but instant until I was a teenager.

I fucking hate Polaroid cameras.

We have a box of really dark, shitty photos, most of them cracked. All of them badly composed, most of them blurry, many with spots where the chemicals leaked. I have no desire to ever recreate that experience. It pains me when someone uses a modern digital camera and then puts it through a filter to make it look like a shitty Polaroid picture.

Did I say "shitty" yet? Yeah, I know Polaroid photos have a certain aesthetic and some people make art out of them. There's that one dude who paints with poop, too.
"

Wow, that's a shame.

A couple months back I reviewed the book made out of this exhibit, and I've got to say that your family sounds like they were ironically and exceptionally shitty photographers.

The color depth of a Polaroid is nigh-unmatchable in photography, the equivalent of how oil paint keeps the pigment suspended. And comparing Mapplethorpe, Chuck Close, Ansel Adams and Andy Warhol to a "dude who paints with poop" just makes you sound like a philistine, like for you all poetry starts with, "Here I sit, brokenhearted…"

While Polaroids do change color as they age, so do most prints. Polaroids have roughly the same color stability as most mid-century photographic prints, and only the black and white really compares negatively (due to the fact that you can store black and white stuff for a long, long time).

The real downfall was something that ironically the phones excel at: reproducibility. And while that one-of-a-kind thing was integral to a lot of artist practices, it's inherently opposed to the "sharability" of digital photography. (One cool bit of trivia is that for the 1972 Polaroid annual report, they included a shot of a rose with each copy, meaning that they took some 30,000 shots of the same rose.)

There are a lot of things to criticize about Polaroids — they are and were expensive, they totally missed the boat on digital — but it's kinda sad that you were so close to something so cool for so long and totally missed it.
posted by klangklangston at 2:08 PM on November 14, 2014 [1 favorite]


I've got to say that your family sounds like they were ironically and exceptionally shitty photographers.

Oh, totally.

just makes you sound like a philistine

You absolutely have me pegged, though mostly I was trying to be funny.

There are a lot of things to criticize about Polaroids — they are and were expensive, they totally missed the boat on digital — but it's kinda sad that you were so close to something so cool for so long and totally missed it.

I suspect this is true. Our family had a bunch of Polaroid cameras. My dad had the SX-70, one of the very first ones off the assembly line, my brothers both had Zips, and I had a One-Step. None of us knew what the hell we were doing. A lot of the film I got was test film that my dad brought home for free.

Every photograph from my childhood was on Polaroid film and almost every single one of them is a shitty photo. I'm sure most of that isn't Polaroid's fault, though I hope you understand why I feel the way I do about Polaroid.

It doesn't help that every time my dad took a picture of someone who wasn't in our family he gave the same tired pitch about instant photography.
posted by bondcliff at 7:08 PM on November 14, 2014 [1 favorite]


First company to make a knockoff of this with Bluetooth and sticks in in the toy aisle might as well be printing money.

If it was under $50, and the photos were stickers, I totally agree. How is this not already a product?

Trying to make it in to a phone case, and making it too expensive because of that is most of the problem. Just let it be a little object you keep at home, or at least that takes batteries and stays in your bag or pack(like this thing will anyways) and stop being so concerned about making it super compact.

A gameboy printer sized cheapo sticker and photo printer with Bluetooth would rule. Too bad it'll never get made because that isn't hip and Silicon Valley "prntr" disruption enough. It's just a simple product that could easily be cheap.
posted by emptythought at 11:13 PM on November 14, 2014


I would totally use it for shopping lists (yes, I write them on my phone, but then my phone goes to sleep, and I have to put the pass code in and maybe I want to hand the shopping list to someone younger than me who I have power over) and instant business cards and stuff that was mostly not photos.
posted by b33j at 4:23 AM on November 15, 2014


It is already a product that takes batteries and attaches wirelessly to your mobile. Instax Share uses actual Polaroid-style film paper. The film is too expensive for me to use on anything other than special occasions like kids birthdays, but the novelty value of having individual pics with the birthday boy that guests can take home is worth it.
posted by WhackyparseThis at 4:28 AM on November 15, 2014


I just want photographs to be stickers.
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:45 AM on November 15, 2014


The little silver izone is available right now on Amazon! YOU CAN DO THIS THING

alas the film, as i mentioned, is fucking expensive
posted by poffin boffin at 9:02 AM on November 15, 2014


« Older U JELLY, CURIOSITY?   |   16 pianos and a whole lot of dada Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments