No more film R&D, we're going digital: Kodak

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Bushy, Sep 28, 2003.

  1. Your subject left out "consumer." I doubt if Fuji is putting much
    money into consumer films either, what's the point? Even professional
    film has gone about as far as can be expected.

    OTOH, Kodak's chances of making it big in digital are not very
    good. The two major forces in digital will be Sony and Canon.
    Steven M. Scharf, Sep 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bushy

    edward ohare Guest

    I'm not so certain of Sony's strategy in still cameras. This stuff
    ought to be on chips, yet Sony made a big deal about cameras that used
    floppys. Now, they're pushing cameras with CDs. Makes them
    unnecessarily bulky.
    edward ohare, Sep 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bushy

    Guest Guest

    Sony provides the imaging sensors for Nikon and Pentax to name just 2. Canon
    does seem to be trail-blazing at this point in time. I expect the Minolta A2
    could well be a 4:3 camera, as they follow Olympus' lead, as Kodak and Fuji
    are already doing 4:3 R&D.

    I certainly wouldn't count Kodak out.
    Guest, Sep 28, 2003
  4. Bushy

    Lee K Guest

    It's analogous to the railroad industry when that industry was presented
    with the fact of aircraft and its future in passenger/freight handling.
    They said no, thinking they were in the railroad business, when, in fact,
    they were in the transportation business. Kodak lost sight of the fact
    they are in the photography business, regardless of the mechanics of image
    Lee K, Sep 28, 2003
  5. Bushy

    gr Guest

    The company that is successful will be the company that makes the best
    camera for the consumer. You guys seem to be equating this will
    "professional" cameras (dSLRs). That's a niche market. The real market is
    for mass-produced cheap digicams. The company that can produce decent
    digicams for under $200 will win.

    Canon does seem to be leading the field, since they have a full range of
    consumer digicam products (cameras, printers, paper, etc.). Canon also has
    the professional dSLRs, but those don't bring in a lot of revenue. Olympus
    is probably second in the field of digicams, even though they don't really
    have a professional series yet. Nikon... they're okay for professional, but
    their consumer products aren't as good as Canon and Olympus. Sony... I have
    no idea why anybody buys their ugly, gimmicky crap. Kodak and Fuji...
    they've got a long way to catch up to Canon and Olympus. But I wouldn't
    count them out, since they've got a lot of cash to pump into research.
    gr, Sep 28, 2003
  6. Bushy

    edward ohare Guest

    There you go.

    A difference here is that aircraft are clearly preferable for
    passengers, while not being suitable for lots of types of freight.
    Kodak has the problem that digital imaging is suitable for any type of
    edward ohare, Sep 28, 2003
  7. Bushy

    dvus Guest

    I quite agree. Even a rank amateur like myself can attend an event, take dozens
    of pix with a relatively cheap 64 or 128 Mb memory stick in the camera and edit
    out the real bad ones as you go. I can end up with a few really decent pictures
    from the remaining ones without hardly spending a cent, and then print out what
    I want on good photo paper and still not have spent a fraction of what it would
    have cost with film.

    Add to that the ability to archive one's pix on a CDR with a good chance of
    keeping them in original condition for a long period of time and the need for
    film methods drops to nil for me and, I suspect, the vast majority of others.

    Now, if I could find a good 8 Mpix or so camera for less than a couple of week's
    wages, I'll be all set.

    dvus, Sep 28, 2003
  8. Bushy

    Ron Andrews Guest

    Camcorders certainly killed home movies, but professional motion
    picture film is alive and well. More of the prime time TV shows are shot on
    film than 25 years ago.
    I completely disagree with the comment about processing costs. I can
    remember spending $10 for processing a roll of film in 1973. I can get
    bigger prints today for under $5. If you factor in inflation, the cost of
    processing has dropped by a factor on 10 in this period.
    Ron Andrews, Sep 28, 2003
  9. That's part of what made the maneuver so stupid and expensive for Kodak.

    Daniel J. Stern, Sep 28, 2003
  10. Bushy

    Ron Andrews Guest

    The key to understanding this statement is the definition of
    "significant investment". I will interpret this as new film formats like APS
    are unlikely. New film factories are unlikely. Modest improvements of
    existing products may continue.
    Ron Andrews, Sep 28, 2003
  11. It's been awhile, that's for sure. Everyone's heard of the Retina range,
    but their Retinette line, made in Stuttgart, was a hell of a good quality,
    well-built consumer camera. It was dropped by the end of the 1960s or so.
    ....and then "I'm gonna getchya with the Kodak Disc". Oops.

    Daniel J. Stern, Sep 28, 2003
  12. Sez who? Panatomic-X and Verichrome Pan were really, really excellent
    films that could do stuff not achievable with the T-Max they shoved down
    everyone's throats. I know a lot of serious black-and-whiters who said
    "Nuts to this!" and started shooting Ilford Pan-F and FP4 instead.

    It can only be a matter of time before Kodachrome goes away. It's
    expensive to make, expensive to process and environmentally relatively
    unfriendly. Its archival properties and qualitative excellence will be
    missed when it's gone.

    Daniel J. Stern, Sep 28, 2003
  13. Bushy

    edward ohare Guest

    I always liked Kodachrome. Basically only shot print film for
    business purposes.
    edward ohare, Sep 28, 2003
  14. Bushy

    EskWIRED Guest

    It gives me the nice, bright colors, and the greens of summer. It makes
    all the world a sunny day...
    EskWIRED, Sep 28, 2003
  15. Bushy

    edward ohare Guest

    I clearly remember the Instamatics, but I'm vague on the disc.
    Perfect description of the difference in market, though, is that my
    dad had a Nikon F, my mom an Instamatic in the 126 format. A
    pre-flash cube model... individual bulbs.
    edward ohare, Sep 28, 2003
  16. Bushy

    edward ohare Guest

    The song doesn't do justice to the film.
    edward ohare, Sep 28, 2003
  17. Bushy

    Moshup Trail Guest

    The comment below by DS about Kodachrome is right on. Yet, traditional
    negative-print technology is a sort of "necessary evil". That is, the
    object is to present an interesting image. The fact that you have to use
    film, develop it, print it, etc, is just the process. In the future the
    process will change, but we'll still end up with interesting images. My
    digital camera has settings for B&W and Sepia images. Wouldn't it be cool
    to have a "Kodachrome" setting and capture the same color balancing that
    made Kodachrome such an excellent film for outdoor use?
    Moshup Trail, Sep 28, 2003
  18. Bushy

    edward ohare Guest

    Interesting comment.

    Its been a long time... there's vague memory here that Kodachrome has
    a color balance that isn't "quite on" for reality but is more pleasing
    when viewed.
    edward ohare, Sep 28, 2003
  19. Bushy

    Miro Guest

    There are still 8x10, 4x5, 6x9, 6x6 cameras in use ...... its all the
    low-end happy-snap stuff getting the boot.
    Miro, Sep 28, 2003
  20. Then put it up for sale. I used to be entirely 35mm. But I have lot more fun
    with my Mamiya m645 since the price crash on mediun format.

    I picked up a few bits and pieces cheap and I am having the time of my life.
    If they discontinue 120 then I have screwed!!
    David in Perth, Sep 28, 2003
    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.