my take on Kodak downfall

38 views
Skip to first unread message

Dale

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 12:28:28 AM2/10/14
to
having worked there

consumer film was where the big money was

too often consumer systems were developed and then a professional system
was hacked out of it

as opposed to developing professional systems and watering them down for
consumer applications

would have taken some quick work too keep up with the consumer demand,
but Kodak was big enough to keep up with that I think

then there is the general USA/UN/WTO issue of fair trade versus free
trade allowing cheap imports from places with less consideration of
workers and environmentalism, etc.

but Kodak had plants in Mexico after NAFTA, so they should have been
able to invest that consumer film money better I think

--
Dale

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 7:42:33 AM2/10/14
to
In article <796div....@news.alt.net>, Dale
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> having worked there
>
> consumer film was where the big money was

the key is the word *was*.

although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to
manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt.

Dale

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 7:55:59 AM2/10/14
to
it isn't too late for Kodak, it might make the investments in digital
across the imaging board, staarting with their focus on commercial and
prepress labs and going to other focuses

might be some hybrid stuff out their too, they could use/license
intellectual property

maybe even some analog stuff that they could use/license intellectual
property too

they might not be a propreitary closed system dealer in all areas, but
starting with open standards they might be an open systems player, and
eventually perhaps develop themselves into intellectual property for ne
propreitary systems

I think they should start with capture though, professional
cameras/lenses lighting, etc.

--
Dale

Bowser

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 9:04:03 AM2/10/14
to
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:28:28 -0500, Dale
There was a story going around about the Kodak CEO making a statement
about the digital threat: "how can we stop this digital thing?"

Or something like that. If true, well...

Kodak's management screwed the pooch. Some of the earliest digital
SLRs were Kodak conversions. Kodak sold the first full frame DSLR!
Granted, it wasn't great, but they had the tech and just let it die.
No excuses, this is a business school case study now.

Paul Ciszek

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 10:55:28 AM2/10/14
to

In article <100220140742333463%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
The second mouse gets the cheese.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

Jean-David Beyer

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 12:33:56 PM2/10/14
to
On 02/10/2014 10:55 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <100220140742333463%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <796div....@news.alt.net>, Dale
>> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> having worked there
>>>
>>> consumer film was where the big money was
>>
>> the key is the word *was*.
>>
>> although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to
>> manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt.
>
> The second mouse gets the cheese.
>
Reminds me of working for Bell Labs. They invented the transistor, for
goodness sake. Yet they could not manufacture them very well. I got the
ones I needed when working there, from Philco, RCA, and Texas
Instruments. Raytheon made them too. Once I absolutely had to get a
Western Electric point contact transistor. A guy I knew at a nearby
military research and development site stole a bunch for me. Inside the
company, none were available.

Xerox PARC pretty much invented the first Apple computer but management
was afraid it would bring on the paperless society (remember that) and
they were in the paper-copying business, so they refused to go on with it.

Corporations have a lot to answer for.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key:166D840A 0C610C8B Registered Machine 1935521.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://linuxcounter.net
^^-^^ 12:30:01 up 5:25, 2 users, load average: 4.33, 4.48, 4.64

Martin Brown

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 1:13:49 PM2/10/14
to
On 10/02/2014 14:04, Bowser wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:28:28 -0500, Dale
> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> having worked there
>>
>> consumer film was where the big money was

Which was surprising as anyone who tried Fuji film never went back!

>> too often consumer systems were developed and then a professional system
>> was hacked out of it

Kodak astronomical emulsions and plates were specialist products but
largely out evolved by digital imaging and ever more sensitive CCDs.

>> as opposed to developing professional systems and watering them down for
>> consumer applications
>>
>> would have taken some quick work too keep up with the consumer demand,
>> but Kodak was big enough to keep up with that I think
>>
>> then there is the general USA/UN/WTO issue of fair trade versus free
>> trade allowing cheap imports from places with less consideration of
>> workers and environmentalism, etc.
>>
>> but Kodak had plants in Mexico after NAFTA, so they should have been
>> able to invest that consumer film money better I think
>
> There was a story going around about the Kodak CEO making a statement
> about the digital threat: "how can we stop this digital thing?"
>
> Or something like that. If true, well...
>
> Kodak's management screwed the pooch. Some of the earliest digital
> SLRs were Kodak conversions. Kodak sold the first full frame DSLR!

They had too many MBAs.

> Granted, it wasn't great, but they had the tech and just let it die.
> No excuses, this is a business school case study now.

The core patent for consumer single shot colour was by Kodak employee
Bryce Bayer and still bears his name. Obituary shows how far advanced
Kodak was along the digital imaging line. My first very early digital
camera was a Kodak DC-120 which was useful for scientific work as you
could access the raw Bayer array. Note the date of the patent 1976!!!
(They had a phenomenal technical lead at one point)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/11/20/bryce-bayer-who-created-bayer-filter-for-digital-cameras-has-died

Even then they demonstrated a tremendous facility for shooting their
foot by releasing a similarly named DC-210 shortly afterwards.

My dealer was convinced he'd be stuck with the earlier and in some ways
better DC-120 so I got it at a knock down price. It was quite a cool
looking thing rather like a StarTrek tricorder and hammered its
batteries drawing nearly 2A out of a set of 4x AAs worst case.

But it was a damn good camera and served me well as backup and to do
various web photos even with its ~1Mpixel limitations.

A bit like the later Kodak launch confusing professional grade PhotoCD
scanning .PCD with the newer poxy consumer grade PictureCD with the same
acronym. You only got caught out once and went and bought your own
scanner. Shame as PhotoCD was a very good service until they ruined it,
but you could not afford to take the chance of getting a disk with toy
low quality consumer grade scans half the time.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 1:36:46 PM2/10/14
to
In article <7977q2....@news.alt.net>, Dale
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> >> having worked there
> >>
> >> consumer film was where the big money was
> >
> > the key is the word *was*.
> >
> > although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to
> > manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt.
>
> it isn't too late for Kodak, it might make the investments in digital
> across the imaging board, staarting with their focus on commercial and
> prepress labs and going to other focuses

it's too late for kodak.

> might be some hybrid stuff out their too, they could use/license
> intellectual property
>
> maybe even some analog stuff that they could use/license intellectual
> property too

that's about all they have now. they should sell their patents to
someone and call it a day.

> they might not be a propreitary closed system dealer in all areas, but
> starting with open standards they might be an open systems player, and
> eventually perhaps develop themselves into intellectual property for ne
> propreitary systems
>
> I think they should start with capture though, professional
> cameras/lenses lighting, etc.

what could they possibly do in that space that existing players haven't
done? nothing.

kodak never made cameras that were any good, although some were quite
popular such as the instamatic.

the kodak dslr hybrids were retrofitted canon/nikon cameras.

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 1:36:48 PM2/10/14
to
In article <lumhf9hl9e01rfiem...@4ax.com>, Bowser
<id...@think.so> wrote:

> There was a story going around about the Kodak CEO making a statement
> about the digital threat: "how can we stop this digital thing?"
>
> Or something like that. If true, well...
>
> Kodak's management screwed the pooch. Some of the earliest digital
> SLRs were Kodak conversions. Kodak sold the first full frame DSLR!
> Granted, it wasn't great, but they had the tech and just let it die.
> No excuses, this is a business school case study now.

yep. kodak pioneered digital photography and knew it one day would
replace film, but management didn't want to do anything to impact the
revenue from film. very stupid.

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 1:36:50 PM2/10/14
to
In article <yF8Ku.13433$s74....@fx27.am4>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> A bit like the later Kodak launch confusing professional grade PhotoCD
> scanning .PCD with the newer poxy consumer grade PictureCD with the same
> acronym. You only got caught out once and went and bought your own
> scanner. Shame as PhotoCD was a very good service until they ruined it,
> but you could not afford to take the chance of getting a disk with toy
> low quality consumer grade scans half the time.

photocd was doomed from the start. it was proprietary and kodak was
restrictive on licensing it. few companies supported it and never
gained traction. plus, nobody wanted to buy a special player to watch
photos on a tv.

Michael Black

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 1:53:44 PM2/10/14
to
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Paul Ciszek wrote:

>
> In article <100220140742333463%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <796div....@news.alt.net>, Dale
>> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> having worked there
>>>
>>> consumer film was where the big money was
>>
>> the key is the word *was*.
>>
>> although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to
>> manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt.
>
> The second mouse gets the cheese.
>
Sometimes the third or fourth.

But that's a good analogy, the computer mouse didn't take off till the
Macintosh in 1984, when it had been demonstrated in 1968 (so it had to
exist before that) and work done on it at PARC.

Michael

Dale

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 2:13:40 PM2/10/14
to
On 02/10/2014 01:13 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> the raw Bayer array

should never be used, an XYZ related array should be used


--
Dale

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 2:52:25 PM2/10/14
to
In article <797tu6....@news.alt.net>, Dale
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> > the raw Bayer array
>
> should never be used, an XYZ related array should be used

what is an xyz related array??

bayer is the best solution that exists today and will be for the
foreseeable future.

foveon's layered approach has been a disaster.

Martin Brown

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 3:44:37 PM2/10/14
to
The raw data is what you actually measured at each sensor site - there
is *nothing* more fundamental than that. You are showing your ignorance.

We can conclude that the reason Kodak failed was because they were daft
enough to employ people like you and the other fuckwits in marketing
that managed to launch products almost simultaneously with names that
were anagrams, homophones or synonyms of each other.

Kodak at one time had world leading digital technology but chose to
squander their advantage to milk the analogue film cash cow until dry.
They succeeded but the cash cow died as a direct result.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 3:59:20 PM2/10/14
to
At the time it was very good if you needed existing material digitised.

> plus, nobody wanted to buy a special player to watch
> photos on a tv.

I agree. That TV player part was dead in the water. The PCD file format
and the archive quality of the media was for its time very innovative.

I suspect that without the train wreck that was PictureCD the
professional scanning service would have made it at least in the UK. The
technical quality was excellent and painless until they started randomly
returning crappy PictureCDs when you needed PhotoCDs.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 4:31:50 PM2/10/14
to
In article <J4bKu.5867$D27....@fx26.am4>, Martin Brown
photocd might have been innovative for the time but it was poorly
designed and poorly marketed and quickly obsoleted.

the clueless management had no idea what to do with it.

Alan Browne

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 5:00:24 PM2/10/14
to
On 2014.02.10, 00:28 , Dale wrote:
> having worked there
>
> consumer film was where the big money was

IMO they should have broken up the company into oldco (Kodak) and newco
(DigKo). Use oldco to milk the brand in film, paper, chemicals and
related products and the newco, completely divorced from oldco, to
invest cash (from oldco and IPO) into new digital oriented imaging.
Eventually oldco would quietly wind down while newco developed new
markets without brand confusion.

That later bit could include new sensors, camera systems, printers,
inks, paper, processing, etc.

Instead they took an approach that underserved the milkable market
(FujiFilm have soaked that up by diligently serving it) and failed to
leverage their R&D in digital markets.

--
Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

Dale

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 5:52:04 PM2/10/14
to
On 02/10/2014 01:36 PM, nospam wrote:
> yep. kodak pioneered digital photography and knew it one day would
> replace film, but management didn't want to do anything to impact the
> revenue from film. very stupid.

for the record I worked in R&D as a systems engineer

it really wasn't the money, it was the people

Rochester's nickname is "smug-town"

existing connection circles prevailed over performance and even
organizational responsibility

there were all kinds of groups vying too do the new stuff

film had the money, film people got the careers

remember this is entertainment technology careers for the most part and
entertaining work as opposed to necessity work, fun prevailed too

the last job I had was hybrid systems integration on the film side

we couldn't have the word integration in the name of our group, since
there was an equipment group was responsible for integration,, but we
got the budgets and careers, while the equipment people had "jobs" doing
not much

if it weren't an entertainment business that didn't really matter too
much, in much cases, the money and performance would have prevailed

there is your business case study

this was a publicly held company, public means socialism whether you
think so or not, and the public suffered, there needs to be better law
for socialized business

private companies can set pecking orders however you want

socialized companies have a trust, and pecking orders other than by
performance should be called anti-trust, in fact I can't think of any
other anti-trust that is worse

--
Dale

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 6:20:16 PM2/10/14
to
In article <798ann....@news.alt.net>, Dale
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> film had the money, film people got the careers

which is why they went bankrupt.

they knew digital was going to replace film, but they refused to let go
of the film business.

had they invested in digital, like their competitors did, they'd still
be a player.

Dale

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 6:20:53 PM2/10/14
to
On 02/10/2014 05:52 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> there is your business case study

want some verification?

they tried George Fisher from Motorola as CEO with a BIG pay to shake
things up, he left

they tried Dan Carp from equipment side to shake up film probably, I
don't know where he went

might want to hear what these two have to say about their experience

--
Dale

Dale

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 6:29:06 PM2/10/14
to
On 02/10/2014 05:52 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> there is your business case study

and cheap overseas products is not an excuse, they had NAFTA and were
making consumer digital cameras in Mexico

--
Dale

Dale

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 6:56:54 PM2/10/14
to
they had NAFTA and a consumer camera plant in Mexico, they were right on
time I tell you, it was not an accounting problem, or a strategic
problem, it was a corporate culture problem

--
Dale

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 8:01:18 PM2/10/14
to
In article <798eh8....@news.alt.net>, Dale
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> >> film had the money, film people got the careers
> >
> > which is why they went bankrupt.
> >
> > they knew digital was going to replace film, but they refused to let go
> > of the film business.
> >
> > had they invested in digital, like their competitors did, they'd still
> > be a player.
> >
> they had NAFTA and a consumer camera plant in Mexico, they were right on
> time I tell you, it was not an accounting problem, or a strategic
> problem, it was a corporate culture problem

none of that matters.

what matters is as you say, corporate culture.

the management were a bunch of clueless fucks, who despite claiming
that digital was going to replace film, did not invest in digital.

nospam

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 8:01:20 PM2/10/14
to
In article <798ct5....@news.alt.net>, Dale
other than the dslr hybrids which cost more than a car and were
basically a technology demo more than a commercially viable product,
kodak's digital cameras were *horrible*.

it doesn't matter where they were made (nobody really cares). they were
basically junk.

i remember trying one of them at a trade show, and to change the
shutter speed or aperture, you had to wade through *four* levels of
menus (no joke). who the hell thought that was a good idea?

J. Clarke

unread,
Feb 10, 2014, 10:01:47 PM2/10/14
to
In article <WSaKu.5866$D27...@fx26.am4>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk says...
An old story. American electronics manufacturers dinked around with
overpriced transistor radios. Then the Japanese introduced transistor
radios for cheap and followed up with transistor TVs and a bunch of
other solid-state consumer electronics products for not cheap and ate
their lunch.




Martin Brown

unread,
Feb 11, 2014, 3:36:16 AM2/11/14
to
On 11/02/2014 01:01, nospam wrote:
> In article <798ct5....@news.alt.net>, Dale
> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2014 05:52 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> there is your business case study
>>
>> and cheap overseas products is not an excuse, they had NAFTA and were
>> making consumer digital cameras in Mexico
>
> other than the dslr hybrids which cost more than a car and were
> basically a technology demo more than a commercially viable product,
> kodak's digital cameras were *horrible*.

Have you ever used one? The Kodak DC-120 served me well from the time I
got it shortly after launch until the second generation digital Ixus
came out. It had a wide range of shutter settings and a fast f2.5 lens
of reasonable quality. It was perfectly good enough for website work
back them and it was about as sensitive as the human eye on its 16s
button setting. It did have a warm corner but you could fix that with
darkframe subtraction. It was widely used in early digital scientific
imaging because you could get it to return the raw Bayer sensor array a
feature not present on any other camera at the time or since.
>
> it doesn't matter where they were made (nobody really cares). they were
> basically junk.

They were not junk. Mine is still going although an only just a
megapixel camera now is nothing to write home about back in the late
1990's it was impressive (it also cost about £1000 back then).
>
> i remember trying one of them at a trade show, and to change the
> shutter speed or aperture, you had to wade through *four* levels of
> menus (no joke). who the hell thought that was a good idea?

The only problem I ever had with mine was that batteries didn't last
very long at all in it and it would eat a set a couple of hours use.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Dale

unread,
Feb 11, 2014, 8:53:31 AM2/11/14
to
XYZ is CIE-XYZ

unless bayer used an used big-CIE-RGB he made an assumption on the RGB
and the doubling of G cells that is not an assumption of the eyes
response like CIE-XYZ or CIE-bigRGB

--
Dale

Dale

unread,
Feb 11, 2014, 8:54:54 AM2/11/14
to
USA has NAFTA available, this is not an excuse

Kodak had a plant in Mexico making consumer digital cameras under NAFTA

--
Dale

Dale

unread,
Feb 11, 2014, 8:55:40 AM2/11/14
to
no, I tell you it was people

--
Dale

nospam

unread,
Feb 11, 2014, 11:56:17 AM2/11/14
to
In article <5ilKu.12416$cw4....@fx36.am4>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >
> > other than the dslr hybrids which cost more than a car and were
> > basically a technology demo more than a commercially viable product,
> > kodak's digital cameras were *horrible*.
>
> Have you ever used one? The Kodak DC-120 served me well from the time I
> got it shortly after launch until the second generation digital Ixus
> came out. It had a wide range of shutter settings and a fast f2.5 lens
> of reasonable quality. It was perfectly good enough for website work
> back them and it was about as sensitive as the human eye on its 16s
> button setting. It did have a warm corner but you could fix that with
> darkframe subtraction. It was widely used in early digital scientific
> imaging because you could get it to return the raw Bayer sensor array a
> feature not present on any other camera at the time or since.

the dc120 might have been ok, but it came out very early in the game.

their later cameras were pretty bad, especially with the easyshare
nonsense, and at that point, there were a *lot* of competitors and
kodak had nothing compelling to offer versus the competition.

PeterN

unread,
Feb 13, 2014, 7:21:27 AM2/13/14
to
facts?

--
PeterN

nospam

unread,
Feb 13, 2014, 5:38:51 PM2/13/14
to
In article <ldida...@news1.newsguy.com>, PeterN
<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > bayer is the best solution that exists today and will be for the
> > foreseeable future.
> >
> > foveon's layered approach has been a disaster.
>
> facts?

oh, where to start.

with a market share of under 1% and shrinking, sigma's cameras have
been a complete disaster. not only do they not sell particularly well,
but they are a money loser for the company.

foveon originally was backed by two venture capital firms, who soon
realized they'd been had and what a fuckup it was, so they bailed.

that left foveon, whose only customer was sigma, without any money and
about to file for bankruptcy.

had that happened, sigma would have been completely screwed, so sigma
bought foveon at firesale prices and has been sinking money into it
ever since.

the cameras are utter crap (and yes, i've used them).

they're anything but consistent. two photos in a row might look totally
different, despite the settings being identical. the sd14 was pig slow
(around 6 seconds write time) and you actually had to wait until it
finished, or the camera could lock up and you'd lose photos. the sd14
was *really* buggy and sometimes locked up even if you weren't taking
photos one after another

the sd14 originally was $2000 msrp ($1600 street), which quickly
dropped due to slow sales, and around a year later, it was being sold
off for $300-400, new, and even at that price, people still weren't
buying all that many.

the sd1 originally was pitched at a ridiculous $9700 msrp (~$6000
street) which was complete insanity for a 15 megapixel camera. even the
fanbois were stunned. not surprisingly, sigma did not sell very many
cameras at that price.

as best as i can tell, they sold about 10, total, based on posts in the
sigma forum and serial number analysis (which is encoded in every
photo, btw, so it's easy to track).

after tens of thousands of unsold cameras sat in warehouses, sigma
slashed the price by roughly $4000 in one day, and the price has
dropped even *further* since then.

the dp1/2/3 series have been riddled with lens motor failures, where
the lens just gets stuck extending out or back in, along with all the
usual problems with the sensor.

sigma tries to claim more accurate colour, but the delta-e is much
higher than bayer, which means *less* accurate colour.

sigma claims 'no guessing' of colour data, yet there's more 'guessing'
than bayer because they don't actually capture rgb at every location
(another lie of theirs). the spectra of the layers overlap by quite a
bit and there's a shitload of very complex math to extract rgb from it,
which is one reason why the software is slow and the results are noisy
and with weird colour casts.

the first foveon camera, the 3.4 megapixel sd9, did not sell well, so
they decided to lie about the number of pixels in the sd10 because
'bigger numbers are better', despite the camera having the same sensor.

normally that's called fraud, but somehow, they managed to get away
with it.

sigma's software is slow and buggy and there aren't any viable options
from third parties. even adobe has given up supporting it. part of the
'sigma look' is heavy sharpening. if you set the sigma software to 0
sharpening, you're actually getting a wallop of sharpening. you have to
set it to -1 to -2 to get 'none', depending on version.

foveon sensors are theoretically interesting, but they are riddled with
problems and actually don't offer anything the eye can see anyway. it's
a solution in search of a problem.

foveon sensors have substantially higher noise, lower colour accuracy,
lower resolution, worse high iso performance and higher manufacturing
cost.

that's a huge price to pay for 'full colour', something humans can't
even see anyway.

three layer sensors sound like a good idea on paper, and one day they
might be feasible without significant tradeoffs, but they sure as hell
are not now.

if that day comes, the technology won't need lies to market it. it will
sell itself because it's actually better.

on the other hand, bayer is a very clever design based on how the human
eye works. it's cost-effective to manufacture and works exceptionally
well for creating photos that humans look at.

PeterN

unread,
Feb 13, 2014, 7:44:45 PM2/13/14
to
If you are saying Sigma markets crap, I agree.
If you are saying that Foveon is not ready for prime time, you are
probably right.

What I am saying is that Foveon has potential worth exploring, if only
for scientific purposes.
Not true. think VCR & Betamax.
think WordPerfect & Word
Both are examples of the triumph of marketing over quality.




--
PeterN

nospam

unread,
Feb 13, 2014, 8:31:50 PM2/13/14
to
In article <ldjos...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> If you are saying Sigma markets crap, I agree.

ok

> If you are saying that Foveon is not ready for prime time, you are
> probably right.

not only am i right, but foveon is never going to be ready for prime
time because it's not physically possible.

not even sigma can break the laws of physics.

> What I am saying is that Foveon has potential worth exploring, if only
> for scientific purposes.

exploring the technology is one thing. there's nothing wrong with that.

many companies are looking into multilayer sensors, including nikon,
canon and fuji and i think sony too.

the difference is that those companies are working on perfecting the
technology so that it actually *is* better than what exists now and
*then* turning it into a product.

what sigma is doing is taking half-baked technology that is clearly
worse than what exists now, lying about what it can and cannot do,
faking some of it in software and claiming it does stuff that is not
physically possible.

Michael

unread,
Feb 15, 2014, 12:57:08 AM2/15/14
to
On 2014-02-10 18:36:46 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <7977q2....@news.alt.net>, Dale
> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> having worked there
>>>>
>>>> consumer film was where the big money was
>>>
>>> the key is the word *was*.
>>>
>>> although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to
>>> manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt.
>>
>> it isn't too late for Kodak, it might make the investments in digital
>> across the imaging board, staarting with their focus on commercial and
>> prepress labs and going to other focuses
>
> it's too late for kodak.
>
>> might be some hybrid stuff out their too, they could use/license
>> intellectual property
>>
>> maybe even some analog stuff that they could use/license intellectual
>> property too
>
> that's about all they have now. they should sell their patents to
> someone and call it a day.
>
>> they might not be a propreitary closed system dealer in all areas, but
>> starting with open standards they might be an open systems player, and
>> eventually perhaps develop themselves into intellectual property for ne
>> propreitary systems
>>
>> I think they should start with capture though, professional
>> cameras/lenses lighting, etc.
>
> what could they possibly do in that space that existing players haven't
> done? nothing.
>
> kodak never made cameras that were any good, although some were quite
> popular such as the instamatic.
>
> the kodak dslr hybrids were retrofitted canon/nikon cameras.

I disagree with you about Kodak never making cameras that were any
good. In the days before the SLRs captured the attention and money of
every amateur photographer as well as the pros, Kodak made some decent
cameras under their Retina Brand. Most of the good ones were made in
Germany with decent lenses and shutters. They were rangefinder cameras
with (usually) non-interchangeable 50mm lenses, but they were optically
and mechanically good and took good pictures for their day. Their day
ended when every wannabee bought a Nikon F or a Nikkormat. On the
otherhand, all those "wannabees" learned what f stops were and how to
properly expose pictures and focus lenses, something today's DSLR
"wannabees" don't bother to learn because the automation makes it
unnecessary if all they want is an expensive and pompous point and
shoot. Sorry for rambling a little bit OT.
--
Michael

Scott Schuckert

unread,
Feb 15, 2014, 12:27:23 PM2/15/14
to Michael
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <2014021500570875641-adunc79617@mypacksnet>, Michael
<adunc...@mypacks.net> wrote:

> I disagree with you about Kodak never making cameras that were any
> good. In the days before the SLRs captured the attention and money of
> every amateur photographer as well as the pros, Kodak made some decent
> cameras under their Retina Brand. Most of the good ones were made in
> Germany with decent lenses and shutters. They were rangefinder cameras
> with (usually) non-interchangeable 50mm lenses, but they were optically
> and mechanically good and took good pictures for their day. Their day
> ended when every wannabee bought a Nikon F or a Nikkormat. On the
> otherhand, all those "wannabees" learned what f stops were and how to
> properly expose pictures and focus lenses, something today's DSLR
> "wannabees" don't bother to learn because the automation makes it
> unnecessary if all they want is an expensive and pompous point and
> shoot. Sorry for rambling a little bit OT.
> --
> Michael

Indeed. While many of the Retina series were overly complex (they were
German, after all) and mechanically troublesome, you cant say they
didn't take a hell of a picture. Some of the best pictures I've ever
taken were with the utterly manual Retina IIa I used to carry
everywhere.

Granted, that was 40 years ago, and the camera wasn't new even then -
but Kodak had their glory says. At one time, I could open the Kodak
catalog at my camera store, and order every single thing a serious
photographer could need, from film, through cameras, to darkroom and on
to mounting supplies.

Michael

unread,
Feb 15, 2014, 3:58:38 PM2/15/14
to
> but Kodak had their glory says. At one ti haser every
> single thing a serious
> photographer could need, from film, through cameras, to darkroom and on
> to mounting supplies.

Sitting on the desk next to me are a Kodak Retinette 1A that I bought
for $8 last year in an antique store- sadly inoperative and not worth
restoring, but it has a 45mm f/2.8 Schneider Kreutznach lens. And next
to it is a VERY functional Kodak Retina Automatic III. The automatic
part doesn't work but it's a good manual camera with a Retina-Xenar
f/2.8 45mm Schneider Kreutznach. It takes fine pictures, currently has
my very last roll of Ektachrome in it. I got it as part of a 4-camera
lot at auction a few months ago for $22.
--
Michael

Dale

unread,
May 19, 2021, 2:29:49 PM5/19/21
to
On 2/10/2014 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
> having worked there
>
> consumer film was where the big money was
>
> too often consumer systems were developed and then a professional system
> was hacked out of it
>
> as opposed to developing professional systems and watering them down for
> consumer applications
>
> would have taken some quick work too keep up with the consumer demand,
> but Kodak was big enough to keep up with that I think
>
> then there is the general USA/UN/WTO issue of fair trade versus free
> trade allowing cheap imports from places with less consideration of
> workers and environmentalism, etc.
>
> but Kodak had plants in Mexico after NAFTA, so they should have been
> able to invest that consumer film money better I think
>



this thread isn't from me ...

--
Mystery -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

Savageduck

unread,
May 19, 2021, 3:46:17 PM5/19/21
to
On May 19, 2021, Dale wrote
(in article <s83les$2qd$2...@dont-email.me>):

> On 2/10/2014 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
> > having worked there

<anchient
>
> this thread isn't from me ...

Then the mystery, as to why you chose to post this seven year old, obviously dead, cross posted screed to sci.engr.color, sci.image.processing, rec.photo.darkroom, rec.photo.digital, and comp.soft-sys.matlab remains.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages