better Kodak reorganization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dale, May 6, 2013.

  1. Dale

    Dale Guest

    I read that Kodak is going to focus on printing, packaging and software

    I read they are selling their film business but keeping their motion
    picture business

    what the strategic planners their should do is

    1) map out ALL the imaging workflows
    2) indicate all participations, systems or products
    3) identify customers and partners
    4) build business cases


    and don't forget

    5) ask why there aren't participations
    6) keep up with changes in workflows
    7) central system offerings are best to vie
    8) create better workflows


    --
    Dale
    Dale, May 6, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > 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?


    they invented it and they knew it would replace film, they just didn't
    expect it would be so quick.
    nospam, May 6, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 06/05/2013 18:13, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, 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?


    That is a slightly unkind caricature but unfortunately is also not too
    wide of the mark. I was an early adopter of Kodaks Pro PhotoCD scanning
    service which at the time was incredible. Drum scanning was a real PITA.

    Then they launched Kodak PictureCD which was ISTR a sub 2Mpixel poxily
    compressed JPEG with no redeeming features. Most users of PhotoCD bought
    a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
    confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

    Kodak marketing was brilliant at shooting itself in the foot with both
    barrels. I bought my newly released DC-120 digicam as remaindered stock
    because they launched the numerical permutation DC-210 only weeks later.

    If you wanted to sow confusion it is hard to imagine a better strategy.

    The film guys really were in control and didn't want digital spoiling
    their party. They failed to spot that the winds of change were coming.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, May 6, 2013
    #3
  4. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 06/05/2013 18:13, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, 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?


    That is a slightly unkind caricature but unfortunately is also not too
    wide of the mark. I was an early adopter of Kodaks Pro PhotoCD scanning
    service which at the time was incredible. Drum scanning was a real PITA.

    Then they launched Kodak PictureCD which was ISTR a sub 2Mpixel poxily
    compressed JPEG with no redeeming features. Most users of PhotoCD bought
    a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
    confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

    Kodak marketing was brilliant at shooting itself in the foot with both
    barrels. I bought my newly released DC-120 digicam as remaindered stock
    because they launched the numerical permutation DC-210 only weeks later.

    If you wanted to sow confusion it is hard to imagine a better strategy.

    The film guys really were in control and didn't want digital spoiling
    their party. They failed to spot that the winds of change were coming.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, May 6, 2013
    #4
  5. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 06/05/2013 18:13, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, 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?


    That is a slightly unkind caricature but unfortunately is also not too
    wide of the mark. I was an early adopter of Kodaks Pro PhotoCD scanning
    service which at the time was incredible. Drum scanning was a real PITA.

    Then they launched Kodak PictureCD which was ISTR a sub 2Mpixel poxily
    compressed JPEG with no redeeming features. Most users of PhotoCD bought
    a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless dealer PictureCD
    confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

    Kodak marketing was brilliant at shooting itself in the foot with both
    barrels. I bought my newly released DC-120 digicam as remaindered stock
    because they launched the numerical permutation DC-210 only weeks later.

    If you wanted to sow confusion it is hard to imagine a better strategy.

    The film guys really were in control and didn't want digital spoiling
    their party. They failed to spot that the winds of change were coming.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, May 7, 2013
    #5
  6. Dale

    Steven_Lord Guest

    *snip*

    Ladies and gentlemen, this doesn't have anything to do with MATLAB, so
    please remove comp.soft-sys.matlab from the newsgroups list when you reply
    to this thread. Thanks!

    --
    Steve Lord

    To contact Technical Support use the Contact Us link on
    http://www.mathworks.com
    Steven_Lord, May 7, 2013
    #6
  7. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > 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.


    try different software, such as vuescan. nikon's software was pretty
    bad.
    nospam, May 7, 2013
    #7
  8. Dale

    RichA Guest

    On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >In article <>, 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/essays/kodak_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.
    RichA, May 8, 2013
    #8
  9. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 07/05/2013 21:36, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <%7Uht.18093$>, Martin Brown says...


    >> Most users of PhotoCD bought
    >> a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
    >> confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

    >
    > 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.


    But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
    duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
    grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
    was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.

    But the point I was making here was Kodak pretty much set out to annoy
    and alienate its high value customers by muddying the waters with two
    products of radically different quality both acronymed to PCD!

    Had they called the new consumer grade "PictureCD" say "ImageCD" or
    "SnapshotCD" the confused dealer problem would never have arisen.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, May 8, 2013
    #9
  10. 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.


    Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans, using
    a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey02.jpg
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey26.jpg
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey29.jpg
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey36.jpg

    And no, it is not complicated once you learn to use
    it.

    --
    () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
    /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
    Anton Shepelev, May 8, 2013
    #10
  11. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 08/05/2013 10:20, Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 May 2013 09:02:49 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
    >
    >> But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
    >> duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
    >> grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
    >> was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.

    >
    > You could have a look at the Ohnar side copier. It is available in two
    > versions - full frame and aps-c.


    I still have one of the old 35mm design (hence the 70% crop). It is less
    of a faff than firing up tetchy SCSI peripherals on an old machine.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, May 8, 2013
    #11
  12. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article <KEnit.41344$>, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    > >> Most users of PhotoCD bought
    > >> a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
    > >> confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

    > >
    > > 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.

    >
    > But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
    > duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
    > grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
    > was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.


    what does a full frame sensor have to do with using a scanner?

    if you're thinking of slide duplicators (lens, bellows, slide holder),
    those work on fx or dx, but it's not as good as a scanner.

    > But the point I was making here was Kodak pretty much set out to annoy
    > and alienate its high value customers by muddying the waters with two
    > products of radically different quality both acronymed to PCD!
    >
    > Had they called the new consumer grade "PictureCD" say "ImageCD" or
    > "SnapshotCD" the confused dealer problem would never have arisen.


    having both photocd and picturecd was stupid.
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #12
  13. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
    >, says...
    >
    > On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    > > On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
    > >
    > > <> wrote:
    > > >In article <>, 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/essays/kodak_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.
    J. Clarke, May 8, 2013
    #13
  14. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > In article <>, Anton
    > Shepelev says...
    > >
    > > 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.

    > >
    > > Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans, using
    > > a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
    > >
    > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey02.jpg
    > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey26.jpg
    > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey29.jpg
    > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey36.jpg
    > >
    > > And no, it is not complicated once you learn to use
    > > it.

    >
    > 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.
    J. Clarke, May 8, 2013
    #14
  15. On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
    > >, says...
    >>
    >> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
    >>>
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>> In article <>, 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/essays/kodak_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.
    Jean-David Beyer, May 9, 2013
    #15
  16. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > > In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
    > > >, says...
    > >>
    > >> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    > >>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
    > >>>
    > >>> <> wrote:
    > >>>> In article <>, 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/essays/kodak_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?
    J. Clarke, May 9, 2013
    #16
  17. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 08/05/2013 21:53, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> In article <>, Anton
    >> Shepelev says...
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans, using
    >>> a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
    >>>
    >>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey02.jpg
    >>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey26.jpg
    >>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey29.jpg
    >>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey36.jpg
    >>>
    >>> And no, it is not complicated once you learn to use
    >>> it.

    >>
    >> 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.


    Not sure it is the scanners fault so much as the original source
    material never having been in good focus. Take a look at top right and
    edge where there is scratch damage to the slide - that is tack sharp.

    When I got my Nikon Coolscan I compared it against PCD scans and found
    that it was very slightly better than the 6Mpixel 16 base scans. eg

    http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/pcd/photob.htm

    The auto white balance tended to over correct to "true" white but that
    was easily fixed in a manual adjustment. Scans using default settings.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, May 9, 2013
    #17
  18. Alfred Molon:

    > > Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans,
    > > using a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
    > >
    > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey02.jpg
    > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey26.jpg
    > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey29.jpg
    > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey36.jpg
    > >
    > > And no, it is not complicated once you learn to
    > > use it.

    >
    > Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
    > http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg


    Accept my envy on having a 4000-dpi scanner. Your
    whole scan looks absolutely out-of-focus: for I see
    no sign of grain which must be present at this reso-
    lution in the form of brightness-and-color noise.
    Your scanner seems to have been not focused proper-
    ly. Scanner software (Nikkon's and VueScan) usually
    has a setting to disable autofocus and let the user
    choose the exact point whereupon he wishes to set
    the focus. This may be preferred for two reasons:

    1. To choose a spot on which it is easier to fo-
    cus. It should have some medium contrast,
    rather than being high-contrast or monotone.

    2. To compensate for film curl by focusing at
    different points, noting the suggested set-
    tings and finally setting the focus manually
    to a value somewhere between the extremes.
    With some experience you'll learn how to de-
    termine which deviations of the film from a
    plane are incompatible with sharp scanning.
    In this case a frame or glass holder should be
    used instead of the standard strip holder, or
    you should flatten the film, for which several
    techniques exist. Or focus on the most impor-
    tant object, sacrificing the backgroud and
    what's already out of focus on the shot.

    But even with autofocus the result must be way bet-
    ter.

    I liked the photo, especally after cropping it a bit
    from both top and bottom.

    --
    () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
    /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
    Anton Shepelev, May 9, 2013
    #18
  19. 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.

    --
    () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
    /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
    Anton Shepelev, May 9, 2013
    #19
  20. Martin Brown:

    > Not sure it is the scanners fault so much as the
    > original source material never having been in good
    > focus. Take a look at top right and edge where
    > there is scratch damage to the slide -- that is
    > tack sharp.


    No, what you see there a pixel-sharp artifact of the
    scratch-removal algorithm, digital ICE. That
    scratch/tear was too wide for it. It uses a fourth,
    infrared, channel to detect scrathces and retouch
    them. You can scan in four channels and use IR in-
    formation later in Photoshop to do the job better.

    --
    () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
    /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
    Anton Shepelev, May 9, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Imya Rek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    461
    Imya Rek
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Thad

    4th RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganization

    Thad, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    75
    Views:
    1,306
    Bill Aten
    Oct 22, 2004
  3. Robert McClenon

    Vote *NO* on reorganization

    Robert McClenon, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    913
    Paul J Gans
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. James Silverton

    Reorganization CFV

    James Silverton, Oct 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    306
    Robert McClenon
    Oct 9, 2004
  5. Dale

    Kodak reorganization

    Dale, May 6, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    170
    RichA
    May 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page