Konica Minolta calls it a day

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Siddhartha Jain, Jan 19, 2006.

  1. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    Have they commented on their committment to non-B&W film?
     
    ASAAR, Jan 21, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. There exist 3 hour DVCAM tapes and the 30 GB disk is only 2h40.
    (Transferring data at USB2 or firewire speeds may save a lot of time though)
     
    Philip Homburg, Jan 21, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Clyde Guest

    Don't forget that the only processed film that still has any silver in
    it is B&W film. All forms of silver in color slide and negative films
    are removed during processing. In color processing they are replaced
    with dyes.

    Silver halide film will last a very long time, in proper conditions.
    Color film will last a shorter time. Fujifilm has done a lot to make
    those dyes last a long time too, but not forever either.

    Of course, digital is dependent on the media it is stored on too. As
    long as you have a good copy, you can make as many 100% accurate copies
    as you want. That I much harder and almost impossible to do with film.

    I do agree that the rest is ad hype.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Jan 21, 2006
    #43
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Father Kodak Guest

    Well, I was around back then, and I don't recall "laughter" as much as
    "nervous laughter" and "looking over their shoulder a lot." Also, to
    be fair to IBM, their actual sales were many times greater than their
    internal forecasts (which I saw in 1980 because my company was a
    potential vendor to IBM.)

    For a few short years, that was true. But the Davids did success,
    sometimes exceedingly well. Compaq, anyone remember their first
    product was a "luggable" with monocrhome graphics, which IBM did not
    have unless you got their awful CGA card and monitor.

    And when IBM introduced the micro-channel architecture around 1986-87,
    no one was interested in licensing it.

    Sony may or may not have made a good business decision. Who will run
    the new camera business? The same crowd that didn't make KM's
    successful? Or the guys in Sony whose Viao notebook product has lots
    of multimedia options that don't follow industry standards and are
    very confusing to try to understand?

    As a sensor vendor, they may be quite good. As a "sophisticated" D
    SRL vendor, I'm not so sure.

    Pere Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jan 21, 2006
    #44
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    SMS Guest

    I worked for a printer company at the time. We quickly came up with a
    daisy-wheel printer that could print the entire extended ASCII character
    set introduced by IBM.
    Several companies licensed it, including NCR, Apricot, and Tandy. Taiwan
    Inc. wasn't interested in paying the licensing fees, and came up with
    EISA and VL bus, both of which pretty much went nowhere.
     
    SMS, Jan 21, 2006
    #45
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    Scott W Guest

    We were all wondering if their PC was only going to use EBCDIC. At
    the time IBM would not provide any support on their mainframe computer
    for ASCII. Not hard to translate but one would have though IBM would
    have handled it for their customers.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 22, 2006
    #46
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I've often wondered if there was a market for a fully manual
    digital SLR. Something like the K1000 but with a review screen
    for your shots.

    I mean, the technology is right there and there are tons of lenses
    out there being sold for peanuts. And it wouldn't have to be
    very expensive either. I'd think it a great way to learn
    photography, but then, I'm likely alone in thinking this.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 22, 2006
    #47
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Wot? Do something sensible?

    What are you, an alien or sommat?

    They'd rather go out of business.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 22, 2006
    #48
  9. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul J Gans Guest

    What do you use for batteries?

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 22, 2006
    #49
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    techie Guest

    Digital Cam corders with 30 - 80 GB built in hard disk. What a joy not
    there is also the 80 GB option :)
     
    techie, Jan 22, 2006
    #50
  11. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul J Gans Guest

    They had to decide what business they were in.

    That's a problem that kills many companies. Apple tends to
    be limited because they are trying to be both a hardware and
    a software company.

    Anyone remember Digital Equipment, the makers of the PDP-11 and
    other popular minicomputers? They too made a "microcomputer".
    They were good machines. They died because you could NOT format
    your own 5 1/2 inch disks (that was the size then.) You had
    to buy them preformatted from Digital.

    What business were they in? Hardware or floppy disks?

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 22, 2006
    #51
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    Scott W Guest

    I am surprised that DEC was not using 8 inch floppies.
    BTW let us not forget the PDP 8.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 22, 2006
    #52
  13. It's really hard to survive in a changing industry.
    I worked for DEC from something like 1979 to 1985 (but on the other
    end of their business, the 36-bit mainframes).

    The 5-inch floppy disks were 5.25", by the way, not 5.5".

    Which machines are you thinking of, though? The Pro-350, maybe?

    DEC could have owned single-user computing, maybe; they had the
    software background and the set of running applications. The PDP-8
    series was mostly used as a single-user workstation (more in labs,
    where there was more money, than in offices), and things like word
    processing applications started to appear, and later on business
    applications.

    The problem was, to commit heavily to real desktop computing, they'd
    have to sell computers that completely destroyed their main product
    lines. If they're doomed anyway, that's okay, but it's a very hard
    decision to make without hindsight! You can lose the company that
    way, too. And I suspect there was a certain contempt for the
    single-chip computers among engineers used to bigger boxes.

    So they ended up getting bypassed, and eventually bought by Compaq
    (which then died and was bought by HP -- giving an example of just how
    fast-moving and confusing the microcomputer world has been!).
    I dunno if that was actually the major cause of those systems not
    becoming popular. They were non-standard in too many ways, in an
    industry that was heavily converging on one standardized design.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 22, 2006
    #53
  14. I think they were still using DEC-tapes in the 8-inch floppy era.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 22, 2006
    #54
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    If the price had been reasonable, many LSI-11 computers would have
    been sold, and not just to engineers. AT&T/Olivetti eventually had
    one, but didn't know what to do with it. As someone once said, if
    they sold tins of tuna, their marketing department would have
    created ads for cans of "cold, dead fish".
     
    ASAAR, Jan 22, 2006
    #55
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Yes. But you do have a few basic choices.
    Nice machines.
    Yup. Brain malfunction.
    I *think* so.
    Yes, we had a couple. They were *very* nice machines. My "other"
    computer was a CDC 6600... Today my PC is faster than that
    machine.

    Yes. And many were too shortsighted to see that the real
    complaints about them could be fixed as soon as sales volume
    made it worthwhile.
    Yeah, but Compaq killed DEC. I liked that company. They put
    out real technical data on their machines and, as you said,
    had good software too.
    Both DEC and IBM had a shot at owning the microcomputer market.
    Neither company seemed to really understand just how big that
    market was going to be -- and how completely the new paradigm
    of a cheap machine was going to take over.

    A similar thing seems to be going on in the camera business.
    Film, like the massive main frame, is on the way out. But
    people want their dSLRs to do what their old film SLRs did,
    just as folks with micros wanted their machines to do what
    mini computers and mainframes did.

    For example, it is much harder to do things with depth of
    field on a 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor camera. And manual focus
    is a laugh with most optical viewscreens these days. So
    there will be a move to bigger sensors, at least in my
    opinion.

    That way we can once again do convenient wide angle.

    With it possible today to do aspherical lenses by casting
    them out of that other material that I won't mention so
    as to not set the loons off again, good and not terribly
    expensive lens design ought to be possible too, especially
    in zooms.

    I can see the semi-pro with a full-frame camera and three
    lenses, 17-40, 40-70, and 70-200 or thereabouts, with other
    specialized lenses (like macros) being used by those that
    need them.

    This means that semi-pros can have good bodies and good
    "glass" for less than a king's ransom. And that ought to
    open the market a *lot*, since I imagine that the profit
    margin that equipment is rather hefty.

    And I see the market devolving to two main suppliers with
    a few lens makers in addition (such as Tamron or Tokina).
    Beyond that there will only be niche players.

    But the point and shoot market is wide open and is a
    different beast altogether.

    For instance, I have a Canon 300D and some glass and I'm
    about to buy more. But I carry a Canon SD450 with me
    every day just in case -- and I've gotten some good shots
    that way.

    I couldn't really do that back in the film days. Any
    decent pocket camera was, in comparison to today, way too
    expensive.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 23, 2006
    #56
  17. And either will last longer than CDs or DVDs stored under the same
    conditions. It only takes one lost bit in the right place to make your
    CD/DVD unreadable. Take a look at some century old negatives and ask
    yourself if your DVD would be readable with the same level of damage
    that the original century old image is still regarded as being in
    "pristine" condition!

    Now, if I worked for Fuji, Kodak or Agfa, I would be looking to a
    product that enables all of today's fugitive digital images to be stored
    in a highly recoverable format on an established highly archival media -
    silver based monochrome film. Something available to the general
    public, not just one or two museums. Not stored as a sequence of
    individually and globally consequential vulnerable bits, but 4 real
    frigging images for each file, red, green, blue and monochrome - in real
    silver oxide! Something your descendants can pick up and see what the
    social conditions that Great-great-great-great-great Uncle Clyde lived
    under when they are cursing the archival qualities of Hyper Holographic
    Multidimensional Media! ;-)

    One thing that p's me off - each generation is more fugitive than the
    last. Compare our greatest works to the pyramids if you need evidence
    of that!
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Jan 23, 2006
    #57
  18. Siddhartha Jain

    Scott W Guest

    This is not true at all, both CD and DVD are very error tolerant and
    can have millions of miss read bits with out loosing a byte of data.

    There is no one bit that you can corrupt that will make a CD or DVD
    unreadable.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 23, 2006
    #58
  19. Siddhartha Jain

    rafe b Guest


    You sure about that, Scott? Even in an LZW (zip) encoded file?


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Jan 23, 2006
    #59
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Scott W Guest

    Yup.
    We are talking about bits on the CD and DVD, not bits in the data.
    There is a lot of error correcting on DVDs and CDs and then there is
    another whole layer of correction on top of that.

    The low level bit error rate can get very high and still not see any
    errors at all in the data.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 23, 2006
    #60
    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.