Kodak bankruptcy (again)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dale, Apr 26, 2012.

  1. Dale

    Dale Guest

    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
    Dale, Apr 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dale

    PiLS Guest

    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


    >
    PiLS, Apr 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dale

    stu7 Guest

    On Apr 25, 9:34 pm, Dale <> 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 ?
    stu7, Apr 26, 2012
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    stu7 <> wrote:
    >On Apr 25, 9:34 pm, Dale <> 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..
    (Ted Nolan, Apr 26, 2012
    #4
  5. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    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
    Martin Brown, Apr 26, 2012
    #5
  6. Dale

    stu7 Guest

    > 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).

    + +
    stu7, Apr 26, 2012
    #6
  7. Dale

    stu7 Guest

    <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
    stu7, Apr 26, 2012
    #7
  8. Dale

    nospam Guest

    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, Apr 26, 2012
    #8
  9. Dale

    Miles Bader Guest

    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]
    Miles Bader, Apr 27, 2012
    #9
  10. Dale

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Apr 27, 2012
    #10
  11. Dale

    Miles Bader Guest

    nospam <> writes:
    >> 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 mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
    the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

    >> 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.


    Hmm, no it's pretty normal (for Japan), although it has an unusually
    good quality camera.

    What I mean is this: When it's sunny, it's quite common that the LCD
    display on a cellphone is completely obscured by glare _and/or_ the
    sun causes glare/artifacts through the camera lens.

    So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
    trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
    _and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
    glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]

    Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
    involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
    or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
    big pain.

    A camera viewfinder avoids the problems with the display, at least,
    and generally makes everything more manageable. This is why I'd like
    one.

    [and a pad, is _worse_, because you basically need two hands to hold
    it up (the ipad, at least is quite heavy [and the 3rd gen even heavier,
    from all reports]).]

    >> [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.


    .... which doesn't mean they're not a fad of course.

    Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
    aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
    devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
    the latter.

    >> 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?


    That was my point: Tablets are cumbersome enough that people _don't_
    usually bring them along wherever they go. Most probably _do_ always
    carry their cellphone, however, so cellphones are much better bet as
    the future of casual photography than pads are.

    > 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.


    Er, well, except for whole image quality thing which is really the
    only reason people put up with view cameras in the first place...

    >> 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?


    [Some] people put up with the cumbersomeness of SLRs because they want
    the advantages of an SLR: good quality images[*], speed, etc. Tablets
    provide mediocre quality images, no better than a cell phone or P&S.
    People that demand such features can't get them from a tablet, and
    people that don't demand them are likely to prefer to avoid dragging
    anything along (as their phone or P&S can likely provide the same
    quality with greater convenience).

    [*] Many aspects of which are very hard to provide without large
    lenses (high quality zooms, popular effects like shallow DOF and bokeh
    which are impractical to provide with very small sensors and small
    apertures), making it unlikely that the sort of very small embedded
    cameras in phones / pads will ever completely really take over the
    DSLR market.

    > unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.


    That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

    -miles

    --
    Acquaintance, n. A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not
    well enough to lend to.
    Miles Bader, Apr 27, 2012
    #11
  12. Dale

    PiLS Guest

    If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
    Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:

    "We failed where Fuji strive"

    --
    PiLS
    PiLS, Apr 27, 2012
    #12
  13. Dale

    PiLS Guest

    If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
    Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:

    "We failed where Fuji strives"

    --
    PiLS
    PiLS, Apr 27, 2012
    #13
  14. Dale

    Mike Guest

    On 26/04/2012 10:18 PM, PiLS wrote:
    > If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
    > Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:
    >
    > "We failed where Fuji strives"
    >

    Or echoing Eastman's "My work is done, why wait."

    --
    Mike
    Mike, Apr 27, 2012
    #14
  15. Miles Bader <> writes:

    > nospam <> writes:
    >>> 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 mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
    > the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).


    Well -- the movie pros have been moving to video assist for years,
    apparently preferring video monitors placed wherever they're convenient
    to a dim eyepiece where, if you get your eye in exactly the right place,
    you can see what the camera is seeing. (35mm motion picture gear should
    have better optical viewfinders than 16mm did, but I hear even those
    weren't very good.)

    Despite 30 years using viewfinders for still photography before I got to
    digital, I'm quite happy with the external LCD most of the time. Very
    occasionally it's a bit hard to see in the sun -- but, if that were a
    big problem, I could get a hood or something to shade it. Hasn't been
    a big enough problem to consider spending $30 on yet. When I use a view
    camera I have to carry a big black cloth to put over me so I can see the
    image on the ground glass, digital is much better than that!

    >>> 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.

    >
    > Hmm, no it's pretty normal (for Japan), although it has an unusually
    > good quality camera.
    >
    > What I mean is this: When it's sunny, it's quite common that the LCD
    > display on a cellphone is completely obscured by glare _and/or_ the
    > sun causes glare/artifacts through the camera lens.


    Three hands are useful, certainly :).

    > So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
    > trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
    > _and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
    > glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]
    >
    > Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
    > involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
    > or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
    > big pain.


    For an actual camera, you could buy a screen hood, but I don't think
    that's available for the cell phone size screens (and there's no place
    to mount it, anyway).

    > A camera viewfinder avoids the problems with the display, at least,
    > and generally makes everything more manageable. This is why I'd like
    > one.


    Yep, they do that. I shoot outside so little, and can work around the
    sun most of the time anyway, it's a non-issue for me, but I know lots of
    people shoot outside most of the time.

    > [and a pad, is _worse_, because you basically need two hands to hold
    > it up (the ipad, at least is quite heavy [and the 3rd gen even heavier,
    > from all reports]).]
    >
    >>> [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.

    >
    > ... which doesn't mean they're not a fad of course.


    Fad implies popularityh at the time, but also implies it won't last. We
    don't know if it will last; I expect it will, myself.

    > Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
    > aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
    > devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
    > the latter.


    For lots of people they're a better fit than a laptop. Not for me,
    though.

    >>> 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?

    >
    > That was my point: Tablets are cumbersome enough that people _don't_
    > usually bring them along wherever they go. Most probably _do_ always
    > carry their cellphone, however, so cellphones are much better bet as
    > the future of casual photography than pads are.


    More people will carry a tablet than a laptop, though. And I've been in
    rooms at parties with 5 people using their laptops sometimes.

    >> 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.

    >
    > Er, well, except for whole image quality thing which is really the
    > only reason people put up with view cameras in the first place...


    And the movements, and the really really smooth tonality from the big
    negative.

    >>> 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?

    >
    > [Some] people put up with the cumbersomeness of SLRs because they want
    > the advantages of an SLR: good quality images[*], speed, etc. Tablets
    > provide mediocre quality images, no better than a cell phone or P&S.
    > People that demand such features can't get them from a tablet, and
    > people that don't demand them are likely to prefer to avoid dragging
    > anything along (as their phone or P&S can likely provide the same
    > quality with greater convenience).
    >
    > [*] Many aspects of which are very hard to provide without large
    > lenses (high quality zooms, popular effects like shallow DOF and bokeh
    > which are impractical to provide with very small sensors and small
    > apertures), making it unlikely that the sort of very small embedded
    > cameras in phones / pads will ever completely really take over the
    > DSLR market.


    On the other hand, the P&S market is mostly *NOT* interested in anything
    beyond snapshots. That's being decimated by phones already.

    >> unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

    >
    > That's a bit of a stretch .... :]


    And who wears dress jackets these days anyway?
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 27, 2012
    #15
  16. Dale

    aruzinsky Guest

    On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin Brown <|||>
    wrote:
    > 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- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
    the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
    back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
    off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
    Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
    possibilities in the instructions? I don't.
    aruzinsky, Apr 27, 2012
    #16
  17. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    aruzinsky <> wrote:

    > I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
    > the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
    > back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
    > off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
    > Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
    > possibilities in the instructions? I don't.


    why did you remove the label? all cds work that way, not just photo cd,
    and i remember lots of warnings about stick-on cd labels that could jam
    the drives or peel off the data layer.
    nospam, Apr 27, 2012
    #17
  18. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Miles Bader <>
    wrote:

    > >> 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 mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
    > the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).


    to me, that's a built-in lcd. and external lcd is one which is tethered
    to the camera and usually much bigger than what the camera has.

    > >> 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.

    >
    > Hmm, no it's pretty normal (for Japan), although it has an unusually
    > good quality camera.
    >
    > What I mean is this: When it's sunny, it's quite common that the LCD
    > display on a cellphone is completely obscured by glare _and/or_ the
    > sun causes glare/artifacts through the camera lens.
    >
    > So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
    > trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
    > _and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
    > glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]
    >
    > Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
    > involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
    > or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
    > big pain.


    no different than any other camera that has an lcd and a lot of them no
    longer have optical viewfinders at all.

    > A camera viewfinder avoids the problems with the display, at least,
    > and generally makes everything more manageable. This is why I'd like
    > one.


    then buy a camera with one. most people don't find it to be a big deal,
    or they shade the camera with their other hand.

    > [and a pad, is _worse_, because you basically need two hands to hold
    > it up (the ipad, at least is quite heavy [and the 3rd gen even heavier,
    > from all reports]).]


    or you don't shoot in bright sunlight with it glaring on the display.

    > >> [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.

    >
    > ... which doesn't mean they're not a fad of course.


    it's not a guarantee but it's very obvious they're not.

    > Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
    > aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
    > devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
    > the latter.


    nothing is perfect and it's not supposed to be a replacement for
    anything.

    > >> 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?

    >
    > That was my point: Tablets are cumbersome enough that people _don't_
    > usually bring them along wherever they go.


    they're starting to bring them instead of laptops

    > Most probably _do_ always
    > carry their cellphone, however, so cellphones are much better bet as
    > the future of casual photography than pads are.


    sure, but that doesn't mean tablets won't be used. not that many people
    use dslrs as compared to p&s and cell cameras.

    > > 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.

    >
    > Er, well, except for whole image quality thing which is really the
    > only reason people put up with view cameras in the first place...


    and now they can get 1080p with a full size 1080p display, not some
    dinky 1" evf or 3" lcd.

    > >> 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?

    >
    > [Some] people put up with the cumbersomeness of SLRs because they want
    > the advantages of an SLR: good quality images[*], speed, etc. Tablets
    > provide mediocre quality images, no better than a cell phone or P&S.
    > People that demand such features can't get them from a tablet, and
    > people that don't demand them are likely to prefer to avoid dragging
    > anything along (as their phone or P&S can likely provide the same
    > quality with greater convenience).


    different tools for different jobs.

    > [*] Many aspects of which are very hard to provide without large
    > lenses (high quality zooms, popular effects like shallow DOF and bokeh
    > which are impractical to provide with very small sensors and small
    > apertures), making it unlikely that the sort of very small embedded
    > cameras in phones / pads will ever completely really take over the
    > DSLR market.


    nobody expects that cellphones will take over the slr market. however,
    they *are* impacting the p&s market.

    > > unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

    >
    > That's a bit of a stretch .... :]


    not really. 7" tablets easily fit in nearly any jacket and 10" tablets
    fit in some.
    nospam, Apr 27, 2012
    #18
  19. Dale

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > > So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
    > > trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
    > > _and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
    > > glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]
    > >
    > > Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
    > > involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
    > > or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
    > > big pain.

    >
    > For an actual camera, you could buy a screen hood, but I don't think
    > that's available for the cell phone size screens (and there's no place
    > to mount it, anyway).


    there are cases that can be used as hoods, including for tablets. i saw
    one that had 3 side coverage for the ipad (top, left & right).

    > > Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
    > > aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
    > > devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
    > > the latter.

    >
    > For lots of people they're a better fit than a laptop. Not for me,
    > though.


    it's not an either or. they serve different, but overlapping needs.
    some people own both.

    > On the other hand, the P&S market is mostly *NOT* interested in anything
    > beyond snapshots. That's being decimated by phones already.


    very decimated.

    > >> unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

    > >
    > > That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

    >
    > And who wears dress jackets these days anyway?


    who said anything about a dress jacket? i'm talking an ordinary jacket
    to keep you warm when it's chilly outside. most people have more than
    one, depending on how cold it is outside.
    nospam, Apr 27, 2012
    #19
  20. Dale

    aruzinsky Guest

    On Apr 27, 10:13 am, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    > aruzinsky <> wrote:
    > > I had a bad experience with PhotoCD.  The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
    > > the back that could easily be peeled off.  I put a gummy label on the
    > > back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
    > > off. That was $30 of my money down the drain.  Maybe, my bad, maybe,
    > > Kodak's bad.  Do you remember seeing a warning about such
    > > possibilities in the instructions?  I don't.

    >
    > why did you remove the label? all cds work that way, not just photo cd,
    > and i remember lots of warnings about stick-on cd labels that could jam
    > the drives or peel off the data layer.


    I don't remember why I did it. It was the first and last time on any
    CD or DVD. I suspect that I accidentally touched the label to the
    back but I can't imagine a likely scenerio for that to happen.
    aruzinsky, Apr 27, 2012
    #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

    Cisco headed for bankruptcy

    Imya Rek, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,943
    Imya Rek
    Feb 14, 2004
  2. Replies:
    54
    Views:
    4,598
  3. Ramon F Herrera
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    348
    blitz
    May 22, 2007
  4. RichA

    Kodak about to file for bankruptcy protection

    RichA, Jan 5, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    375
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 8, 2012
  5. Dale

    Kodak bankruptcy

    Dale, Mar 16, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    331
    aruzinsky
    Mar 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page