<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gizmodo Australia &#187; polaroid</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/tags/polaroid/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au</link>
	<description>the Gadget Guide &#124; Technology and consumer electronics news and reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:39:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Polaroid Ring</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/the-polaroid-ring/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/the-polaroid-ring/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jesus Diaz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewellery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retromodo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=368374</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Diamond rings, Lego rings or Polaroid ring? As long as it&#8217;s not the horrible teeth rings, you will be OK. 
[Etsy via Obsolete]
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x_tumblr_kte8linikn1qzktyvo1_r1_500.jpg" alt="" class="center" /><a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/06/rejected_man_hides_engagement_ring_for_twitter_treasure_hunt-2/">Diamond rings</a>, <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/12/lego_silver_rings_will_brick_your_marriage-2/">Lego rings</a> or Polaroid ring? As long as it&#8217;s not the <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/aussie-silversmith-makes-jewellery-out-of-teeth/">horrible teeth rings</a>, you will be OK. <span id="more-368374"></span></p>
<p>[<a href="http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=34803106&#038;ref=sr_list_1&#038;&#038;ga_search_query=polaroid&#038;ga_search_type=&#038;ga_page=1&#038;order=price_desc&#038;includes%5B%5D=tags&#038;includes%5B%5D=title">Etsy</a> via <a href="http://obsoletethebook.tumblr.com/post/250515592/its-like-a-locket-and-a-polaroid-had-baby">Obsolete</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/the-polaroid-ring/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Polaroid Pulls An About-Face, Decides To Re-Launch Instant Film</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/polaroid-pulls-an-about-face-decides-to-re-launch-instant-film/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/polaroid-pulls-an-about-face-decides-to-re-launch-instant-film/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Frucci</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[instant film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=359973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Polaroid broke a lot of hearts when it discontinued its instant film cameras. Luckily, new management has realised the error of old management&#8217;s ways: they&#8217;re re-launching the One Step Camera and instant film in 2010. Booyah! [Polapremium&#60;a&#62;]
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/10/thumb160x_polaroidonestep.jpg" alt="" class="left" />Polaroid broke a lot of hearts when it discontinued its instant film cameras. Luckily, new management has realised the error of old management&#8217;s ways: they&#8217;re re-launching the One Step Camera and instant film in 2010. Booyah! [<a href="http://www.polapremium.com/news?date=2009-10-13">Polapremium&lt;a&gt;]</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/polaroid-pulls-an-about-face-decides-to-re-launch-instant-film/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rollip Converts Your Pics To Polaroids, For If You&#8217;re Feeling Nostalgic</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/rollip-converts-your-pics-to-polaroids-for-if-your-feeling-nostalgic-or-something/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/rollip-converts-your-pics-to-polaroids-for-if-your-feeling-nostalgic-or-something/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Broughall</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[au]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[images]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rollip]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=351853</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So now that Polaroid&#8217;s dead (despite attempts to revive it), it seems that there&#8217;s a void in the market for slightly blown out photos in a solid white frame. Enter Rollip, a web service that will convert your normal digital photos into a polaroid-like shot.
It&#8217;s an incredibly easy process – you simply head to Rollip.com [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://media.gizmodo.com.au/wp//2009/09/rollip-polaroid.jpg"><img src="http://media.gizmodo.com.au/wp//2009/09/rollip-polaroid.jpg" alt="rollip polaroid" title="rollip polaroid" width="416" height="500" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-351854" /></a>So now that Polaroid&#8217;s <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/02/polaroid_instant_film_killed_by_the_21st_century-2/">dead</a> (despite <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/05/fans_get_one_step_closer_to_bringing_back_polaroid_film-2/">attempts to revive it</a>), it seems that there&#8217;s a void in the market for slightly blown out photos in a solid white frame. Enter <a href="http://www.rollip.com/">Rollip</a>, a web service that will convert your normal digital photos into a polaroid-like shot.<span id="more-351853"></span></p>
<p>It&#8217;s an incredibly easy process – you simply head to Rollip.com and start the process, select just how blown out you want your photo to be, select a frame style and add text, then upload the photo you want polaroided. Results are fairly decent, even if the process does suck the resolution out of your pic. But considering the service is free (although the developers do ask you to buy them a beer at the end there, which is really just the polite thing to do) and the fact that Polaroid isn&#8217;t exactly cutting edge tech anyway, do you really need that resolution anyway?</p>
<p>Another problem is with portrait shots – you can&#8217;t determine which part of the shot will fit the Polaroid&#8217;s smaller size, so with a polaroided shot of my dog, the top of his head was lopped off:<br />
<a href="http://media.gizmodo.com.au/wp//2009/09/simba-polaroid.jpg"><img src="http://media.gizmodo.com.au/wp//2009/09/simba-polaroid.jpg" alt="simba polaroid" title="simba polaroid" width="416" height="500" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-351856" /></a></p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the original Harbour Bridge shot that I uploaded (although I&#8217;ve shrunk the resolution for posting. I uploaded the full size version):<br />
<a href="http://media.gizmodo.com.au/wp//2009/09/harbour-bridge.jpg"><img src="http://media.gizmodo.com.au/wp//2009/09/harbour-bridge.jpg" alt="harbour bridge" title="harbour bridge" width="550" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-351855" /></a></p>
<p>[<a href="http://www.rollip.com">Rollip</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/rollip-converts-your-pics-to-polaroids-for-if-your-feeling-nostalgic-or-something/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Last Original Polaroid Instant Film To Be Sold At Urban Outfitters</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/last-original-polaroid-instant-film-to-be-sold-at-ugh-urban-outfitters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/last-original-polaroid-instant-film-to-be-sold-at-ugh-urban-outfitters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Nosowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=347644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Polaroid killed production of its iconic instant film, but it hasn&#8217;t gone quietly. The very last of the original film, along with Polaroid ONE600 cameras, will be sold in Urban Outfitters to diehards (and dudes with very tight pants).
Only 700 of these limited-edition camera-film sets will be sold at Urban Outfitters, and we&#8217;ve got to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/08/127640.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/500x_127640.jpg" alt="" class="center" /></a>Polaroid <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/02/polaroid_instant_film_killed_by_the_21st_century-2/">killed</a> production of its iconic instant film, but it hasn&#8217;t gone quietly. The very last of the original film, along with Polaroid ONE600 cameras, will be sold in Urban Outfitters to diehards (and dudes with very tight pants).<span id="more-347644"></span></p>
<p>Only 700 of these limited-edition camera-film sets will be sold at Urban Outfitters, and we&#8217;ve got to admit we really want one: Unless <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/01/crazy_film_zealots_recapture_polaroids_dutch_istafilm_plant_plan_to_get_it_back_online_by_2010/">The Impossible Project</a> can get production up and running again, these are the last in a proud lineage of instant developing. Keep in mind, those 700 sets are spread throughout the US and UK, so if you see one, make sure to grab it and hold it tight. [<a href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/08/19/last-polaroids-ever-to-be-sold-at-urban-outfitters/">Crunchgear</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/last-original-polaroid-instant-film-to-be-sold-at-ugh-urban-outfitters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Polaroid SX-70: The Joy Of Instant Photography Before Digital</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/polaroid-sx-70-the-joy-of-instant-photography-before-digital/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/polaroid-sx-70-the-joy-of-instant-photography-before-digital/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gizmodo 79]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid sx-70]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retromodo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sx-70]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=341757</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Polaroid SX-70 was not the first instant camera. Released in 1972, it was the first instant SLR, and the first to use Polaroid&#8217;s iconic integral print film that developed automatically. It folded up so it fit in your pocket.
Multiple models followed the original SX-70, adding features like a rangefinder autofocus system. In the 1980s, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Polaroid SX-70 was not the first instant camera. Released in 1972, it was the first instant SLR, and the first to use Polaroid&#8217;s iconic integral print film that developed automatically. It folded up so it fit in your pocket.<span id="more-341757"></span></p>
<p>Multiple models followed <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_SX-70">the original SX-70</a>, adding features like a rangefinder autofocus system. In the 1980s, the original SX-70 film was replaced by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SX-70">the &#8220;Time Zero&#8221; variant</a>, which developed much faster. Time Zero film for the SX-70 went out of production in 2005.</p>
<p>The sentimentality for analogue photographs (or anything, really) rooted in fetishisms of authenticity and physicality, is perversely self-destructive: analogue media age and degrade, they die, like our bodies. The idea of the &#8220;original&#8221; is somewhat warped as well, since in the process of aging, the photo itself <em>changes</em>. In a way, the original photo ceases to exist a second after it&#8217;s created. The long set time for the SX-70&#8217;s film was particularly interesting in this regard&mdash;there was a 2-3 day window where you could manipulate it with temperature.</p>
<p>The bits that make up a digital photograph don&#8217;t age. They will be the same 30 years from year now that they are today. And unlike a scan or reprint of an analogue photograph, copies are of digital photos are literal clones&mdash;the bits are the exact same. The &#8220;original&#8221; is preserved forever, even as digital wholly obliterates the concept of the original.</p>
<p>Bits can lie, though. That&#8217;s why people don&#8217;t trust them. Plastic and paper are real. You can touch them. They bare scars when you change them. A faded photo has been places, seen things. It&#8217;s lived. Maybe longer than you have. Material inscription guarantees authenticity. Which is important when so much else is not genuine.</p>
<p>These are some photos taken with the SX-70 I found poking around on Flickr. There are a lot more in <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/sx-70/pool/">this Flickr pool</a>.</p>
<p>Is it just me, or does it always seems like summer in old Polaroid photos?</p>
<p><em>Images: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/11952861@N07/3709003002/">sandys2</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/angus88/3629394974/">Angus柒</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/asalexander/3524657947/">asalexander</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/clspeace/3510613372/">clspeace</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/clspeace/3503802693/">clspeace</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwanzshop/3482621625/">kwanz</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dejvicka/3444080592/">dejvicka</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/antiparticle/3357301661/">antiparticle</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaidominato/3301779115/">kaidominato</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/macomaco/3215409320/">@Maco</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/justephens/3089634903/">justephens</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/justephens/3089635243/">justephens</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mangabanane/1799676561/">Davide Rascone</a></em></p>
<p><em>Polaroid SX-70 Photos: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/artysmokes/3607493579/">The Artster</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timmythesuk/2097355364/">TimmyToucan</a></em></p>
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/artysmokes.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_artysmokes.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/angus.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_angus.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/clspeace2.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_clspeace2.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/daviderusconi.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_daviderusconi.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/asalexander.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_asalexander.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/dejvicka.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_dejvicka.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_kwanz.jpg" alt="" class="left" /><br />
<img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_maco.jpg" alt="" class="left" /><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/kaidouminato.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_kaidouminato.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/justephens.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_justephens.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/clspeace.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_clspeace.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_sandys2.jpg" alt="" class="left" /><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/justephens2.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_justephens2.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/antiparticle.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_antiparticle.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a><br />
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/TimmyToucan.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_TimmyToucan.jpg" alt="" class="left" /></a></p>
<p><i><a href="http://gizmodo.com.au/tags/gizmodo+79/">Gizmodo &#8216;79</a> is a week-long celebration of gadgets and geekdom 30 years ago, as the analogue age gave way to the digital, and most of our favourite toys were just being born.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/polaroid-sx-70-the-joy-of-instant-photography-before-digital/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AnalogColor Ruins Quality Photos To Create Mock-Polaroid Results</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/analogcolor-ruins-quality-photos-to-create-mock-polaroid-results/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/analogcolor-ruins-quality-photos-to-create-mock-polaroid-results/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dan Nosowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analogcolor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fauxlaroid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentacom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid instant film]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=340812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For those who cared enough to be hurt at the death of Polaroid Instant Film but not enough to make it themselves, there&#8217;s AnalogColor, which turns your crystal-clear photos into murky, nostalgic simulacrums of the classic format.
There&#8217;s definitely other software that&#8217;ll do this kind of thing, but AnalogColor lets you create faux-Polaroids by degrading your [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/_dsc3666_effected.jpg" alt="" class="left" />For those who cared enough to be hurt at the <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/02/polaroid_instant_film_killed_by_the_21st_century-2/">death</a> of Polaroid Instant Film but not enough to <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/05/fans_get_one_step_closer_to_bringing_back_polaroid_film-2/">make it themselves</a>, there&#8217;s AnalogColor, which turns your crystal-clear photos into murky, nostalgic simulacrums of the classic format.<span id="more-340812"></span></p>
<p>There&#8217;s definitely other software that&#8217;ll do this kind of thing, but AnalogColor lets you create faux-Polaroids by degrading your current photos in several different ways, including those fun streaks that resulted from light leaks. It&#8217;s available for $US10 on OS X and Windows. [<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.pentacom.jp/pentacom/toycamera_analogcolor/%23buy&amp;hl=en&amp;langpair=auto|en&amp;tbb=1&amp;ie=UTF-8">Pentacom</a> via <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/fun-polaroid-simulator-will-waste-many-hours/">Wired</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/analogcolor-ruins-quality-photos-to-create-mock-polaroid-results/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fans Get One Step Closer to Bringing Back Polaroid Film</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/05/fans_get_one_step_closer_to_bringing_back_polaroid_film-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/05/fans_get_one_step_closer_to_bringing_back_polaroid_film-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 20:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jason Chen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/05/fans_get_one_step_closer_to_bringing_back_polaroid_film-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
The NYT just visited the Impossible Project, a group of Polaroid lovers (which include Dutch scientists), who dedicate their time in bringing back Polaroid film.


Last time we saw these people, they leased a Polaroid factory and are trying to not just re-invent Polaroid film, but something slightly better.
What&#8217;s interesting is that the &#8220;Project&#8221; was able [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/05/polaroid.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The NYT just visited the <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/01/crazy_film_zealots_recapture_polaroids_dutch_istafilm_plant_plan_to_get_it_back_online_by_2010.html">Impossible Project</a>, a group of Polaroid lovers (which include Dutch scientists), who dedicate their time in bringing back <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/02/polaroid_instant_film_killed_by_the_21st_century-2.html">Polaroid film</a>.</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: polaroid, chemicals, film, impossible project, polaroid film, polaroids --><br />
<span id="more-336392"></span>
<p><a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/01/crazy_film_zealots_recapture_polaroids_dutch_istafilm_plant_plan_to_get_it_back_online_by_2010.html">Last time</a> we saw these people, they leased a Polaroid factory and are trying to not just re-invent Polaroid film, but something slightly better.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting is that the &#8220;Project&#8221; was able to get ahold of vital pieces of technology because the man who held Polaroid&#8217;s assets was arrested by the US. Polaroid&#8217;s assets (including its name and IP) were sold off this month. [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/technology/26polaroid.html?_r=1">NYT</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/05/fans_get_one_step_closer_to_bringing_back_polaroid_film-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seatbelt Camera Straps Buckle Up Your DSLR</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/04/seatbelt_camera_straps_buckle_up_your_dslr-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/04/seatbelt_camera_straps_buckle_up_your_dslr-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Mahoney</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Peripherals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[camera straps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dslrs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recycling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seatbelts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/04/seatbelt_camera_straps_buckle_up_your_dslr-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Or your Polaroid. End those angry red neck marks left behind by your pack-in strap with these wide, smooth seatbelt vinyl straps. They&#8217;re $US20, recycled and made by hand. [Photojojo via Gadget Lab]


]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/04/car_strap_01.png" alt="" />Or your Polaroid. End those angry red neck marks left behind by your pack-in strap with these wide, smooth seatbelt vinyl straps. They&#8217;re $US20, recycled and made by hand. [<a href="http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/seat-belt-camera-straps">Photojojo</a> via <a href="http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/04/buckle-up-seat.html">Gadget Lab</a>]</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: cameras, camera straps, dslrs, polaroid, seatbelt, seatbelt camera straps, seatbelts, straps --><br />
<span id="more-333888"></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/04/seatbelt_camera_straps_buckle_up_your_dslr-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New PoGo Instant Digital Camera Still No Instamatic, But Cool Enough</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/01/new_pogo_instant_digital_camera_still_no_instamatic_but_cool_enough-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/01/new_pogo_instant_digital_camera_still_no_instamatic_but_cool_enough-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jesus Diaz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ces 2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pogo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/01/new_pogo_instant_digital_camera_still_no_instamatic_but_cool_enough-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No matter what they do, the new Polaroid PoGo Instant digicam will never have the magic nature, heartwarming charm, and craptastic retro quality of their good old Instamatics. But they are kind of cool, anyway.


Sure, the new Polaroid PoGo Instant Digital Camera can print 2 x 3-inch photos in 60 seconds. That&#8217;s moreless what it [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/01/newpogocamera.jpg" style="display:block;float:none;" />No matter what they do, the new Polaroid PoGo Instant digicam will never have the magic nature, heartwarming charm, and craptastic retro quality of their good old Instamatics. But they are kind of cool, anyway.</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: ces 2009, cameras, digital camera, instant digital camera, pogo, polaroid, polaroid pogo --><br />
<span id="more-321912"></span>
<p>Sure, the new Polaroid PoGo Instant Digital Camera can print 2 x 3-inch photos in 60 seconds. That&#8217;s moreless what it took for the Instamatic images to appear. And like the Instamatic, the PoGo doesn&#8217;t use ink for the images, and can print with and without &#8220;fun&#8221; borders in sticky-backed paper. It&#8217;s also smaller than the Instamatic, at 285 grams and 12cm wide by 7.6cm tall. And you can review the images before printing them out.</p>
<p>OK, so it&#8217;s more convenient and probably has better quality. But still, no analogue charm (hopefully, they will add an Instamatic filter mode at one point).</p>
<p><script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"> galleryPost('PolaroidPOGOInstaDigiCam', 12, ' '); </script></p>
<blockquote><p>Polaroid Introduces the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera</p>
<p>Digital version of the company&#8217;s iconic instant camera</p>
<p>LAS VEGAS (January 8, 2009) &#8211; Today Polaroid announces the launch of the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera, the first digital camera and instant printer combination available in the US and Europe that is portable enough to take anywhere. With the push of a button, consumers can select from among the digital photos on the camera, crop or edit them and in less than 60 seconds, print full-colour, 2&#215;3-inch prints &#8211; all with a single device.</p>
<p>&#8220;This is the digital version of our traditional instant camera, which consumers have loved since the 70s,&#8221; says Jon Pollock, vice president and general manager, Digital Imaging. &#8220;With this product, Polaroid will bring the magic of instant photography to a whole new generation. It&#8217;s what consumers have told us they want &#8211; a fun, easy way to use a digital camera to print photos and share their memories instantly.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera is the second product in the Polaroid PoGo™ family of products. Like the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Mobile Printer, which hit store shelves in July 2008, the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera uses the same ZINK Paper™ and ZINK™ Zero Ink™ Printing Technology from ZINK Imaging. ZINK is an ink-free printing technology which replaces ink cartridges or ribbons with ZINK Paper™ &#8211; a composite material that has embedded, heat-activated dye crystals. Before printing, ZINK Paper appears white like regular photo paper. Once the pictures are printed, they are immediately dry to the touch, durable and smudge and water resistant.</p>
<p>The Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera offers a full-feature digital camera with 100 percent inkless printing, 2&#215;3-inch sticky-backed photos with or without fun borders and the advantage of reviewing the captured photos on a three-inch colour LCD screen before printing. The instant digital camera measures 4.7-inches wide by 3-inches tall and weighs only 10 ounces.</p>
<p>&#8220;Unlike traditional instant film, photos from the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera emerge fully developed,&#8221; Pollock says. &#8220;While many of our most passionate customers tell us &#8220;shaking&#8221; a Polaroid photo is part of the fun, with any Polaroid photo, the &#8220;shake&#8221; is totally optional.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera will be available beginning in March 2009 at major retailers for a suggested retail price of $199. Ten-packs of ZINK Photo Paper™, which can be used in both the Instant Digital Camera and the Instant Mobile Printer, retail for $4.99 and 30-packs for $12.99, and widely available at national retailers everywhere.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>[<a href="http://thenewinstant.com/">Polaroid</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/01/new_pogo_instant_digital_camera_still_no_instamatic_but_cool_enough-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tomy Xiao TIP-521 Is Polaroid Wannabe Without All the Charm</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/tomy_xiao_tip521_is_polaroid_wannabe_without_all_the_charm-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/tomy_xiao_tip521_is_polaroid_wannabe_without_all_the_charm-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jesus Diaz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[printers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tomy xiao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zink]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/tomy_xiao_tip521_is_polaroid_wannabe_without_all_the_charm-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Tomy Xiao TIP-521 digital camera uses its built-in Zink printer to print borderless 2 x 3-inch full-colour photographs in less than 60 seconds. In other words, more or less the same as a 30-year-old Polaroid instant camera, but without the completely irresistible charm of seeing a blurry image with crappy colour appear right in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/11/Tomygal2_1.jpg" class="left" style="display:block;float:none;" />The Tomy Xiao TIP-521 digital camera uses its built-in <a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/first-look-zink-camera-has-a-printer-in-its-back-232964.php">Zink printer</a> to print borderless 2 x 3-inch full-colour photographs in less than 60 seconds. In other words, more or less the same as a 30-year-old Polaroid instant camera, but without the completely irresistible charm of seeing a blurry image with crappy colour appear right in front of your very own eyes. You know, like magic!</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: digital cameras, camera, printer, tomy xiao tip-521 --><span id="more-313986"></span>
<p><script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"> galleryPost('tomyxiao', 7, ''); </script></p>
<p>The Tomy Xiao TIP-521 is smaller than the original Zink camera and has a five megapixel CMOS sensor. Unfortunately to whoever wants it, it&#8217;s coming in Japan only for now. I will keep waiting for a real camera that gives me a real Polaroid, or just keep using the old real one. [<a href="http://www.zink.com/tomy-xiao">Zink</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/tomy_xiao_tip521_is_polaroid_wannabe_without_all_the_charm-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
