my take on Kodak downfall

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dale, Feb 10, 2014.

  1. Dale

    Martin Brown Guest

    Have you ever used one? The Kodak DC-120 served me well from the time I
    got it shortly after launch until the second generation digital Ixus
    came out. It had a wide range of shutter settings and a fast f2.5 lens
    of reasonable quality. It was perfectly good enough for website work
    back them and it was about as sensitive as the human eye on its 16s
    button setting. It did have a warm corner but you could fix that with
    darkframe subtraction. It was widely used in early digital scientific
    imaging because you could get it to return the raw Bayer sensor array a
    feature not present on any other camera at the time or since.
    They were not junk. Mine is still going although an only just a
    megapixel camera now is nothing to write home about back in the late
    1990's it was impressive (it also cost about £1000 back then).
    The only problem I ever had with mine was that batteries didn't last
    very long at all in it and it would eat a set a couple of hours use.
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 11, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dale

    Dale Guest

    XYZ is CIE-XYZ

    unless bayer used an used big-CIE-RGB he made an assumption on the RGB
    and the doubling of G cells that is not an assumption of the eyes
    response like CIE-XYZ or CIE-bigRGB
     
    Dale, Feb 11, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dale

    Guest Guest

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

    their later cameras were pretty bad, especially with the easyshare
    nonsense, and at that point, there were a *lot* of competitors and
    kodak had nothing compelling to offer versus the competition.
     
    Guest, Feb 11, 2014
    #23
  4. Dale

    PeterN Guest


    facts?
     
    PeterN, Feb 13, 2014
    #24
  5. Dale

    Guest Guest

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

    not even sigma can break the laws of physics.
    exploring the technology is one thing. there's nothing wrong with that.

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

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

    what sigma is doing is taking half-baked technology that is clearly
    worse than what exists now, lying about what it can and cannot do,
    faking some of it in software and claiming it does stuff that is not
    physically possible.
     
    Guest, Feb 14, 2014
    #25
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.