«

I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
couple things real clearly

1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
via sharing mechanisms like facebook

2) smart TVs like iTV from Apple are quick on the way and in some cases
already there

3) these are not the advanced amatuer category, they have already
switched to higher resolution and zoom cameras for both still and motion

4) regardless of Kodak's licensing with IMAX high resolution display and
capture, DIGITAL are already here

5) Apple and the like are Kodak's new competitors and if they don't act
soon their brand will be tarnished beyond repair in ALL markets. If
Apple and Nikon and Canon etc. can turn a profit here Kodak should be
able to.

6) when I was in Kodak R&D about 15 years ago the consumer imaging
department had a three phase plan for consumer digital called Genesis.
Genesis Alpha was a film consortium to present the current advantagge of
film over digital,, Advantix film if you are famialiar with that name.
Genesis beta was an attempt to set a quality standard for scanning film
over digital capture, PhotoCD. The last part of Genesis was a 1
mmegapixel camera with electrophotographic printing. They decided to
not pursue the latter.


--
Dale

dans sci.image.processing, Dale <> nous a dit:
> I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
> couple things real clearly
>
> 1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
> phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
> via sharing mechanisms like facebook

Film still has its uses, in niche but high-value markets. (arts, some
areas of science, consumer discardable cameras, consumer "artsy"
cameras à la Lomo, etc).
Digital sharing has precisely zero intrinsic value (negative value
actually, when you factor in the costs of hosting and bandwidth).
Facebook, Google and the like gobble "digital sharing" ventures
because they have a business model that allows them to spend cash
on otherwise valueless tech to channel users into their (other)
money-making services.

>
> 2) smart TVs like iTV from Apple are quick on the way and in some cases
> already there

iTV is dead in the water, sustained only by Apple's ample reserves of
cash. Although there are other more successful ventures in the same
area, the cost of entry for a newcomer is prohibitive. The cost of
acquiring content in itself is steep; and it takes time, as Apple
discovered with the iTV (which major use until now is to stream iTune
content to your TV)


>
> 3) these are not the advanced amatuer category, they have already
> switched to higher resolution and zoom cameras for both still and motion
>

I don't think you know what photography is about. Then again, so don't
the average consumer so you still have a point. I guess. But drop the
"advanced".


> 4) regardless of Kodak's licensing with IMAX high resolution display and
> capture, DIGITAL are already here
>

True.

> 5) Apple and the like are Kodak's new competitors and if they don't act
> soon their brand will be tarnished beyond repair in ALL markets. If
> Apple and Nikon and Canon etc. can turn a profit here Kodak should be
> able to.
>

The profit Apple make has nothing to do with the profit that Canon and
Nikon (and Pentax and Sony etc) make. They operate in completely
different markets.

> 6) when I was in Kodak R&D about 15 years ago the consumer imaging
> department had a three phase plan for consumer digital called Genesis.
> Genesis Alpha was a film consortium to present the current advantagge of
> film over digital,, Advantix film if you are famialiar with that name.
> Genesis beta was an attempt to set a quality standard for scanning film
> over digital capture, PhotoCD. The last part of Genesis was a 1
> mmegapixel camera with electrophotographic printing. They decided to
> not pursue the latter.
>

That's the crux of the problem. Kodak might have had a chance if they
had developped a quality film for niche markets. Instead of that they
peddled crap film that bleaches within a couple years.
Or they could have turned towards digital, but they were to busy trying
to protect their cheapo film market share to do that. Half-arsed on
every front.
Down they go, and they won't be missed.

--
PiLS


>

On Apr 25, 9:34 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
> couple things real clearly
>
> Dale
-
<major snip>

something Dale emphasizes in his original post was, indeed, the
huge lack of understanding which occurred between consumers and
manufacturers... Im sure everyone experienced the "black hole"
effect, as roll film formats began disappearing during the 1960s...
until today... 35mm film isnt stocked in stores anymore, and
processing has almost totally dried up.

Interesting to see his perspective, as a former Kodak insider

I would say Kodak-s biggest mistake was diversification to all
things graphical and image oriented. In the "old days" you could
get an inexpensive film camera from Kodak, with decent optics, and
prints therefrom... there is always a need for basic picture taking /
picture printing consumer services... if a base company remained,
Id say they could still succeed with this original business plan.

Years ago, I posted about the sudden disappearance of Kodak's
premier film processing/printing services from drug stores /
supermarkets... problem being... ten years into the "digital
revolution" there is still nothing available which approaches
the quality or convenience of that service. This was a one time
use camera... terrific prints in four days... about 15 dollars
total... theres just nothing comprable today.

As regards Kodak again... they had the digital transition covered...
with that forementioned premier quality film camera service, anyone
with a computer and photo software could also get all their pictures
back on an optional photo CD... once more... with all the processors,
so did the CD services go away.

Was the disintegration of photo processing / printing all just a
market ploy ? Put fifty million snapshot hungry consumers out on
the street... absolutely nowhere for them to go when they wanted
snapshots of the kids birthday party. Sure_ for many hundreds of
dollars and a college degree, you could get, and be able to use,
your own printer and a reasonable digital camera_ something more
than a camera-phone.

All this is a long way of saying, I generally agree, whoever takes
over Kodak should also take a long look at what the public wants,
camera / printed photograph wise... or... perhaps some bright
entra-pen-oor will see the void, and "snap up" this market ?

In article <260af328-1c34-4245-bf5c->,
stu7 <> wrote:
>On Apr 25, 9:34 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
>> couple things real clearly
>>
>> Dale
>-
><major snip>
>
>something Dale emphasizes in his original post was, indeed, the
>huge lack of understanding which occurred between consumers and
>manufacturers... Im sure everyone experienced the "black hole"
>effect, as roll film formats began disappearing during the 1960s...
>until today... 35mm film isnt stocked in stores anymore, and
>processing has almost totally dried up.
>
>Interesting to see his perspective, as a former Kodak insider
>
>I would say Kodak-s biggest mistake was diversification to all
>things graphical and image oriented. In the "old days" you could
>get an inexpensive film camera from Kodak, with decent optics, and
>prints therefrom... there is always a need for basic picture taking /
>picture printing consumer services... if a base company remained,
>Id say they could still succeed with this original business plan.
>
>Years ago, I posted about the sudden disappearance of Kodak's
>premier film processing/printing services from drug stores /
>supermarkets... problem being... ten years into the "digital
>revolution" there is still nothing available which approaches
>the quality or convenience of that service. This was a one time
>use camera... terrific prints in four days... about 15 dollars
>total... theres just nothing comprable today.
>
>As regards Kodak again... they had the digital transition covered...
>with that forementioned premier quality film camera service, anyone
>with a computer and photo software could also get all their pictures
>back on an optional photo CD... once more... with all the processors,
>so did the CD services go away.
>
>Was the disintegration of photo processing / printing all just a
>market ploy ? Put fifty million snapshot hungry consumers out on
>the street... absolutely nowhere for them to go when they wanted
>snapshots of the kids birthday party. Sure_ for many hundreds of
>dollars and a college degree, you could get, and be able to use,
>your own printer and a reasonable digital camera_ something more
>than a camera-phone.
>
>All this is a long way of saying, I generally agree, whoever takes
>over Kodak should also take a long look at what the public wants,
>camera / printed photograph wise... or... perhaps some bright
>entra-pen-oor will see the void, and "snap up" this market ?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying..

Clearly the guy with snapshots of his kid's party is able to go to
almost any drugstore in the US with his cellphone or camera and have
prints of the event within the hour. It won't be from a Kodak
setup of course, but I doubt any consumer even knows or cares what
brand machine is back there.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 26/04/2012 03:45, PiLS wrote:
> dans sci.image.processing, Dale<> nous a dit:
>> I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
>> couple things real clearly
>>
>> 1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
>> phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
>> via sharing mechanisms like facebook
>
> Film still has its uses, in niche but high-value markets. (arts, some
> areas of science, consumer discardable cameras, consumer "artsy"
> cameras à la Lomo, etc).
> Digital sharing has precisely zero intrinsic value (negative value
> actually, when you factor in the costs of hosting and bandwidth).
> Facebook, Google and the like gobble "digital sharing" ventures
> because they have a business model that allows them to spend cash
> on otherwise valueless tech to channel users into their (other)
> money-making services.
>
>>
>> 2) smart TVs like iTV from Apple are quick on the way and in some cases
>> already there
>
> iTV is dead in the water, sustained only by Apple's ample reserves of
> cash. Although there are other more successful ventures in the same
> area, the cost of entry for a newcomer is prohibitive. The cost of
> acquiring content in itself is steep; and it takes time, as Apple
> discovered with the iTV (which major use until now is to stream iTune
> content to your TV)
>
>
>>
>> 3) these are not the advanced amatuer category, they have already
>> switched to higher resolution and zoom cameras for both still and motion
>>
>
> I don't think you know what photography is about. Then again, so don't
> the average consumer so you still have a point. I guess. But drop the
> "advanced".
>
>
>> 4) regardless of Kodak's licensing with IMAX high resolution display and
>> capture, DIGITAL are already here
>>
>
> True.
>
>> 5) Apple and the like are Kodak's new competitors and if they don't act
>> soon their brand will be tarnished beyond repair in ALL markets. If
>> Apple and Nikon and Canon etc. can turn a profit here Kodak should be
>> able to.
>>
>
> The profit Apple make has nothing to do with the profit that Canon and
> Nikon (and Pentax and Sony etc) make. They operate in completely
> different markets.
>
>> 6) when I was in Kodak R&D about 15 years ago the consumer imaging
>> department had a three phase plan for consumer digital called Genesis.
>> Genesis Alpha was a film consortium to present the current advantagge of
>> film over digital,, Advantix film if you are famialiar with that name.
>> Genesis beta was an attempt to set a quality standard for scanning film
>> over digital capture, PhotoCD. The last part of Genesis was a 1
>> mmegapixel camera with electrophotographic printing. They decided to
>> not pursue the latter.
>>
>
> That's the crux of the problem. Kodak might have had a chance if they
> had developped a quality film for niche markets. Instead of that they
> peddled crap film that bleaches within a couple years.
> Or they could have turned towards digital, but they were to busy trying
> to protect their cheapo film market share to do that. Half-arsed on
> every front.
> Down they go, and they won't be missed.

If Dale's incoherent rants are representative of the calibre of their
R&D it is not surprising that they went down the tubes. Pity really.

True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro,
6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.

They did have reasonable and early digital cameras, but to protect their
film division it wasn't followed up properly. And from the outset they
confused the market by launching products with permuted names that
persuaded dealers that products were obsolete before their time. I got
an "obsolete" Kodak DC-120 just after the DC-210 came out. The former
was actually a fairly popular camera for scientific use because you
could with a bit of fiddling directly access the raw Bayer sensor array.

This was back in the early days when digital cameras looked more like
tricorders than cameras and ate a set of batteries an hour or so...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

> I'm not exactly sure what you're saying..
>
> Clearly the guy with snapshots of his kid's party is able
> to go to almost any drugstore in the US with his cellphone
> or camera and have prints of the event within the hour.
> It won't be from a Kodak setup of course, but I doubt any
> consumer even knows or cares what brand machine is back there.
> --
> ------
> columbiaclosings.com
> What's not in Columbia anymore..

right... or, it used to be that way... most serious photographers
do have their own processing/printing equipment anymore, so this
argument does not really relate.

my comments rehashed that particular *premium* Kodak process /
print service which, to me, was just so incredible... it was
50% more money than standard processing, but the quality was
unmatchable... this again was great prints from one-time-use
cameras /and/ with the original Photo-CD, was as close to the
Eastman dream as it ever got, IMHO.

Secondly, I was coming from a local perspective... this is the
capital city of Ohio, and a busy campus area. Nonetheless, I
have not seen -any- process / print shops worth looking at here,
anymore, and even the lousy ones have mostly gone away (one
exception to this... any campus area people can check out the
automated printer at Kin*os : -)

I shouldnt be whining... I know of, and use, a few internet
accessible services, which offer top of the line prints, and
8x10 enlargments (WINK Fla*h is still going, last I looked).

+ +

<snip>

>True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
>muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
>their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
>Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels
> pro, 6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
>1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
>scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.

*** nod... I recall when they switched from whatever it was...
*** four different resolution images, to one, and then to one
*** low quality. This is part of what I and many others, I am
*** sure, have commented on... its business first, never mind the
*** consumer / photographer... would this kind of switch-offs
*** mentality work at a mickee-Ds ? 'oh yes sir... you ordered
*** the bigmac and coke... well... we gave you a cheeseburger and
*** capachino instead... now get out before I call security(!)'.

>They did have reasonable and early digital cameras, but to protect
>their film division it wasn't followed up properly. And from the
>outset they confused the market by launching products with permuted
>names that persuaded dealers that products were obsolete before
>their time. I got an "obsolete" Kodak DC-120 just after the DC-210
>came out. The former was actually a fairly popular camera for
>scientific use because you could with a bit of fiddling directly
>access the raw Bayer sensor array.

*** I didnt really follow the Kodak death throes closely... at some
*** point, I will imagine, it became clear that orange and red was
*** not charting a strong course into the future... that they were
*** in the midst of corporate uncertainty and nominal policy
decisions.
*** While its easy to shout suggestions from the sidelines, the issue
*** remains, when quality and consumer satisfaction are no longer
*** the driving force, any business becomes just another profit
*** scheme... everybody loses, or, everybody who isnt cashing in
*** on losses.

<snip>

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> > 1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
> > phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
> > via sharing mechanisms like facebook
>
> We're not there yet, simply because not enough tablet devices have been
> sold so far. By the way, shooting photos with a 10" tablet seems a bit
> funny.

we're definitely there. cellphones have already impacted p&s sales and
tablets are starting to do that. having a full size 1080p viewfinder,
the same as what you will view the video, is compelling.

> Besides I happen to use my smartphone mostly to record video, and little
> for stills. Don't know why, considering that the image quality of the
> stills is surprisingly good. Probably it's because the smartphone has no
> zoom.

further proof.

nospam <> writes:
>> We're not there yet, simply because not enough tablet devices have
>> been sold so far. By the way, shooting photos with a 10" tablet
>> seems a bit funny.
>
> we're definitely there. cellphones have already impacted p&s sales and
> tablets are starting to do that. having a full size 1080p viewfinder,
> the same as what you will view the video, is compelling.

My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations... I often wish I had a real
camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

[And tablets?! A big fad right now, but also a _really_ horrible
form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience ... sure
they're great for browsing on your couch, but they aren't a P&S
replacement by any rational calculation. Most pictures, even by
casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

-miles

--
The car has become... an article of dress without which we feel uncertain,
unclad, and incomplete. [Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media, 1964]

In article <>, Miles Bader <>
wrote:

> >> We're not there yet, simply because not enough tablet devices have
> >> been sold so far. By the way, shooting photos with a 10" tablet
> >> seems a bit funny.
> >
> > we're definitely there. cellphones have already impacted p&s sales and
> > tablets are starting to do that. having a full size 1080p viewfinder,
> > the same as what you will view the video, is compelling.
>
> My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
> fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
> complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

> I often wish I had a real
> camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
> in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

you must have one of the most unusual cellphones ever made.

> [And tablets?! A big fad right now,

tablets are unquestionably *not* a fad. their popularity is growing
like crazy and you're in denial if you think otherwise.

> but also a _really_ horrible
> form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience

tablets may not be the ideal form factor if their sole function was a
camera but if you happen to have a tablet with you, why not its camera?
having a 10" or even 7" viewfinder is extremely nice and with a tripod
mount, you essentially have a view camera, one that is vastly more
portable than a real view camera.

> ... sure
> they're great for browsing on your couch, but they aren't a P&S
> replacement by any rational calculation.

who said tablets were a replacement for a p&s? on the other hand,
cellphone cameras, particularly ones in smartphones, *are* becoming a
replacement for p&s.

> Most pictures, even by
> casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
> where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

yet they drag a bulky slr with a bag full of lenses wherever they go.

also, what makes you think they won't drag a tablet along? unlike an
slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.