Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > better Kodak reorganization

Reply
Thread Tools

better Kodak reorganization

 
 
Anton Shepelev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
[Followup-to: rec.photo.darkroom]

Alfred Molon:

> I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is
> now catching dust on a cupboard. Haven't used it
> for years, because using it is so complicated and
> the quality is poor compared to digital.


What is the exact model of your scanner? Asking in
the hope that, maybe, you could sell it me, if it's
working and little used. Feel free to reply e-mail.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Anton Shepelev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
Alfred Molon:

> > Accept my envy on having a 4000-dpi scanner.

>
> ... they don't sell/make them anymore?


Seems so to me

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jean-David Beyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
On 05/09/2013 12:48 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>>
>> On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
>>> (E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>>
>>>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
>>>>>
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bowser says...
>>>>>>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>>>>>>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>>>>>>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
>>>>>> devise to kill digital photography?
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...k_eulogy.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, what a moron...
>>>>
>>>> There are numerous examples of large companies being wholly and
>>>> illogically resistant to change. Sony, GM, Bell, the list of
>>>> casualties and soon-to-be casualties goes on.
>>>
>>> Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.
>>>
>>>

>> In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the
>> company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in,
>> but were not the primary cause.
>>
>> My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail
>> onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were
>> forced out by their age. They were replaced by business administration
>> types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the
>> football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans
>> (Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter.
>> They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next
>> quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options
>> and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après
>> moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this
>> over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy.

>
> So you're saying that the MCI lawsuit that resulted in the breakup of
> AT&T into 7 different companies and forced the divestiture of Western
> Electric and Bell Labs was not the major factor in the decline of AT&T?
>
>
>
>

I am not saying that. I am saying that mismanagement was the major
factor in the decline of AT&T. The latter-day management had no vision
of what the company could be. They played catch-up with the competition,
so were always behind in product offerings. They bought stuff from China
and wondered why Western Electric (later spun into Lucent) had trouble
selling stuff. Their hardware and software in central office equipment
was sloppy and unmanageable, so operating companies started buying stuff
like that from Siemans and Ericcson instead. When they were finally
allowed to make computers for other purposes than just driving
electronic central offices, they mismanaged that so badly that they
decided to stop that and to buy an existing computer company instead.
They chose National Cash Register, not because they made great
computers, but because they were cheap. After a few years of mismanaging
NCR, they spun it off at half the price they paid for it because they
had messed it up so bad. The Sadim touch (opposite of Midas), where
everything they touched turned to $hit.

I am saying (now; I did not say this in my post) that losing that
lawsuit was a really great opportunity for the AT&T, and they wasted
that opportunity completely.

Getting rid of the 7 operating companies meant getting rid of the high
cost, labor intensive, regulated, low-profit local telephone service
part of the business, and keeping Bell Labs, Western Electric, Long
Lines, the defense business, and so on. These were all capital
intensive, low labor cost, high profit parts of the business. They would
also get rid of a lot of the overhead and excess management of running
the operating companies, so the remaining management could take care of
running the remaining business.

And the Operating Companies also messed up their opportunity. Bell Labs
was split into two parts, one retained by AT&T, and one jointly owned by
the 7 operating companies (BellCore). BellCore could have cut the
thickness of one 6 or 7 inch thick book of rules and regulations to
about 2 inches (The G.E.I.), but they did not. They had all the same bad
management as the AT&T part had. And since the operating companies did
not manufacture anything, they had trouble supporting BellCore
financially since they could not justify it to all the Public Utility
Commissions. So they didn't support it. I do not know if BellCore even
exists anymore. There are descendants of descendants of BellCore but
just as the present AT&T has little in common with the old one, the
present descendant has little to do with communication research.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Anton Shepelev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
Alfred Molon:

> > What is the exact model of your scanner? Asking
> > in the hope that, maybe, you could sell it me,
> > if it's working and little used. Feel free to
> > reply e-mail.

>
> The LS50 ED (also known as V ED). And, holy ****,
> it's amazing what this thing fetches on ebay (just
> had a look).


Oh, and I needed a one that'd accept 120 film. The
prices are indeed insane. The thread talks about
Kodak fighting with digital but isn't Nikon fighting
with film by discountinuing so highly-demanded a
product?

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
 
Reply With Quote
 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Oh, and I needed a one that'd accept 120 film. The
> prices are indeed insane. The thread talks about
> Kodak fighting with digital but isn't Nikon fighting
> with film by discountinuing so highly-demanded a
> product?
>


It's not a high demand product. It's a long dead product that a few people
want to have and are willing to pay a high price for.

Nikon can't make a profit selling 100 scanners. They would have to sell
thousands of them and the demand is not that high.

In 20 years there probably will be a resurgence of film scanning from
people finding old family negatives in the attic when their parents
or grandparents die.

By then I expect that the scanner will take a strip of film, automatically
determine best focus and exposure, split the frames, correct color, remove
dust, and do facial and place recognition to tag it.

However I doubt that there will be much demand for an "artistic" scanner
which just does a straight scan such as the current ones.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379
It's Spring here in Jerusalem!!!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anton Shepelev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
Geoffrey S. Mendelson:

> > Oh, and I needed a one that'd accept 120 film.
> > The prices are indeed insane. The thread talks
> > about Kodak fighting with digital but isn't
> > Nikon fighting with film by discountinuing so
> > highly-demanded a product?

>
> It's not a high demand product. It's a long dead
> product that a few people want to have and are
> willing to pay a high price for.
>
> Nikon can't make a profit selling 100 scanners.
> They would have to sell thousands of them and the
> demand is not that high.


Whence did you take that fact? My reasoning for a
high demand was the following:

1. Nikon ran out of stock of its scanners soon
after it had discontinued them.

2. The prices on them on eBay and elsewhere
started to grow not many years later, as it is
with collectable items, but again, almost im-
mediately.

3. I have seen a lot of people complain about
this on various forums, and considering that
only a small portion of the interested takes
care to express their concerns, there seems to
be a lot of them.

A true example of low demand is our Krasnogorsk film
cameras, and specificlly the Zenit 122:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Zenit_122
http://www.cameramanuals.org/russian_pdf/zenit_122.pdf

I visited KMZ's shop and exhibition center just the
day before yesterday and was quite amazed to find
new 122s sold for just 1650 rubles, or 55 dollars!
And that's for a good mechanical camera with a TTL
light meter and a very good Zenitar 2/50 lens
-- that's low demand, for a camera that has long
been discountinued. With Nikon film scanners the
situation is different.

> By then I expect that the scanner will take a
> strip of film, automatically determine best focus
> and exposure, split the frames, correct color, re-
> move dust, and do facial and place recognition to
> tag it.
>
> However I doubt that there will be much demand for
> an "artistic" scanner which just does a straight
> scan such as the current ones.


I just hate when a device insists on doing more than
I want from it. If those functions will be bypass-
able, that will be all right by me. I care more
about how well a scanner does its main job, and am
unwilling to pay for other loosely related features,
so I find this whole trend a negative one. And col-
or correction may be quite a subjective thing. Cor-
recting colors in Photoshop after the scanner soft-
ware has already corrected them at its will, proba-
bly destroying color integrity:

http://www.c-f-systems.com/ColorIntegrity.html

is at least ugly. I don't want to correct a correc-
tion.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> J. Clarke:
>
> > > Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
> > > http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg

> >
> > I think your scanner is busticated. It looks like
> > the green on the left side of that shot is way,
> > way out of register.

>
> This has nothing to do with the scanner itself. It
> only has a linear CCD array accepting light from
> red, green, and blue LEDs, whose intensity may be
> individually adjusted so that, say, a near-transpar-
> ent region on the film scans as nearly white (245,
> 245, 245). This gives a good starting point for
> white balance and allows for a more effective use of
> the scanner's dynamic range in all channels.
>
> But the device has no knowledge of color spaces and
> converts the result to a user-selectable color space
> using some "film profile". I avoid it and scan into
> linear RGB, without any color-space conversions.
> Vuescan lets me do it. The result is an RGB image
> obtained by downmixing raw data from the CCD.
>
> To open that image properly in Photoshop, a linear
> (gamma=1.0) color space should be defined. Note,
> that inverting a negative is not a linear operation
> and should be done as:
>
> y = 1 / x.


So what? Your discussioin of color spaces has nothing to do with
anything that I said or with the problem I see in that image.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
On 5/8/2013 10:45 PM, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
>> (E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>
>>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
>>>>
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bowser says...
>>>>>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>>>>>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>>>>>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>>>>
>>>>> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
>>>>> devise to kill digital photography?
>>>>
>>>> OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...k_eulogy.shtml
>>>>
>>>> Still, what a moron...
>>>
>>> There are numerous examples of large companies being wholly and
>>> illogically resistant to change. Sony, GM, Bell, the list of
>>> casualties and soon-to-be casualties goes on.

>>
>> Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.
>>
>>

> In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the
> company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in,
> but were not the primary cause.
>
> My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail
> onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were
> forced out by their age. They were replaced by business administration
> types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the
> football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans
> (Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter.
> They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next
> quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options
> and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après
> moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this
> over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy.
>


A prime example of the inherent flaw of the B school game, taught in
every B school.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
On 5/9/2013 12:48 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>>
>> On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
>>> (E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>>
>>>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
>>>>>
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bowser says...
>>>>>>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>>>>>>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>>>>>>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
>>>>>> devise to kill digital photography?
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...k_eulogy.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, what a moron...
>>>>
>>>> There are numerous examples of large companies being wholly and
>>>> illogically resistant to change. Sony, GM, Bell, the list of
>>>> casualties and soon-to-be casualties goes on.
>>>
>>> Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.
>>>
>>>

>> In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the
>> company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in,
>> but were not the primary cause.
>>
>> My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail
>> onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were
>> forced out by their age. They were replaced by business administration
>> types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the
>> football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans
>> (Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter.
>> They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next
>> quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options
>> and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après
>> moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this
>> over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy.

>
> So you're saying that the MCI lawsuit that resulted in the breakup of
> AT&T into 7 different companies and forced the divestiture of Western
> Electric and Bell Labs was not the major factor in the decline of AT&T?
>


See my prior post. It was not. The problem is when you put money into
research and development, it adversely impacts the bottom line, for
accounting purposes. Lower bottom line = lower bonuses for management.


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
> On 05/09/2013 12:48 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
> >>> (E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bowser says...
> >>>>>>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
> >>>>>>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
> >>>>>>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
> >>>>>> devise to kill digital photography?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...k_eulogy.shtml
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Still, what a moron...
> >>>>
> >>>> There are numerous examples of large companies being wholly and
> >>>> illogically resistant to change. Sony, GM, Bell, the list of
> >>>> casualties and soon-to-be casualties goes on.
> >>>
> >>> Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the
> >> company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in,
> >> but were not the primary cause.
> >>
> >> My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail
> >> onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were
> >> forced out by their age. They were replaced by business administration
> >> types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the
> >> football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans
> >> (Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter.
> >> They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next
> >> quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options
> >> and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après
> >> moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this
> >> over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy.

> >
> > So you're saying that the MCI lawsuit that resulted in the breakup of
> > AT&T into 7 different companies and forced the divestiture of Western
> > Electric and Bell Labs was not the major factor in the decline of AT&T?
> >
> >
> >
> >

> I am not saying that. I am saying that mismanagement was the major
> factor in the decline of AT&T.


Well then you are saying that that the lawsuit was not the major factor
so why did you say that you were not saying that?

> The latter-day management had no vision
> of what the company could be.


They had no choice. The Justice Department decided what it could be.

> They played catch-up with the competition,
> so were always behind in product offerings.


They had no competition until the lawsuit.

> They bought stuff from China
> and wondered why Western Electric (later spun into Lucent) had trouble
> selling stuff.


"Selling stuff" was a small part of their business.

> Their hardware and software in central office equipment
> was sloppy and unmanageable, so operating companies started buying stuff
> like that from Siemans and Ericcson instead.


There were no "Operating Companies" until after the lawsuit.

> When they were finally
> allowed to make computers for other purposes than just driving
> electronic central offices, they mismanaged that so badly that they
> decided to stop that and to buy an existing computer company instead.


They wouldn't have had to make computers for any other purpose without
the lawsuit.

> They chose National Cash Register, not because they made great
> computers, but because they were cheap. After a few years of mismanaging
> NCR, they spun it off at half the price they paid for it because they
> had messed it up so bad. The Sadim touch (opposite of Midas), where
> everything they touched turned to $hit.
>
> I am saying (now; I did not say this in my post) that losing that
> lawsuit was a really great opportunity for the AT&T, and they wasted
> that opportunity completely.


Only if you want them to be something other than what they were, the
telephone company.

> Getting rid of the 7 operating companies meant getting rid of the high
> cost, labor intensive, regulated, low-profit local telephone service
> part of the business, and keeping Bell Labs, Western Electric, Long
> Lines, the defense business, and so on. These were all capital
> intensive, low labor cost, high profit parts of the business. They would
> also get rid of a lot of the overhead and excess management of running
> the operating companies, so the remaining management could take care of
> running the remaining business.


Except that they were not allowed to keep Western Electric or Bell Labs.
And they lost their monopoly on long-distance as well which meant that
their resources were far less than they had been.

> And the Operating Companies also messed up their opportunity. Bell Labs
> was split into two parts, one retained by AT&T, and one jointly owned by
> the 7 operating companies (BellCore).


How was this an "opportunity"?

> BellCore could have cut the
> thickness of one 6 or 7 inch thick book of rules and regulations to
> about 2 inches (The G.E.I.), but they did not. They had all the same bad
> management as the AT&T part had. And since the operating companies did
> not manufacture anything, they had trouble supporting BellCore
> financially since they could not justify it to all the Public Utility
> Commissions. So they didn't support it. I do not know if BellCore even
> exists anymore. There are descendants of descendants of BellCore but
> just as the present AT&T has little in common with the old one, the
> present descendant has little to do with communication research.


And all due to the lawsuit.

Every single "problem" you list is the result of the actions of MCI's
lawyers.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak reorganization Dale Digital Photography 4 05-06-2013 11:35 AM
4th RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganization Thad Digital Photography 75 10-22-2004 03:31 AM
Reorganization CFV James Silverton Digital Photography 2 10-09-2004 10:12 PM
Vote *NO* on reorganization Robert McClenon Digital Photography 19 09-13-2004 03:55 PM
Re: United Seeks 3rd Extension On Reorganization Plan Imya Rek Cisco 3 02-16-2004 12:26 AM



Advertisments